Interview, Orly Taitz: Chief Justice Roberts Calls Conference on Obama Challenge: Lightfoot v. Bowen

Fort Hard Knox ^ | January 7, 2009 | Arlen Williams

[devere]

Chief Justice John Roberts has sent a full-throated challenge of Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility to conference: Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page). I.O. interviewed Lightfoot lead attorney, Orly Taitz at 2:20pm CT, today, minutes after she learned of this move.

Taitz believes, “This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress… the other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election.”

The Lightfoot case has legal standing, due to litigant, Libertarian Gail Lightfoot’s vice presidential candidacy in California. It also address two major issues of legal merit: 1. Obama’s failure to provide legally evidentiary documentation of citizenship and American birth and, 2. his United Kingdom citizenship at birth, passed to him by his Kenyan father when that nation was a British colony. (Other current challenges also submit that Obama’s apparent status as an Indonesian citizen, as a child, would have caused his American citizenship to be revoked.) This case is therefore considered the strongest yet, to be heard by the Supreme Court. Obama challenger, Philp Berg had previously been granted conference hearings, scheduled this Friday, 1/9 and on 1/16.

Roberts was submitted this case on 12/29, originally a petition for an injunction against the State of California’s Electoral College vote. His action comes one day before the Congress is to certify the Electoral College votes electing Barack Obama, 1/8. The conference called by Roberts is scheduled for 1/23. Orly Taitz is not deterred by the conference coming after the inauguration, which is to be held 1/20, “If they find out that he was not eligible, then they can actually rescind the election; the whole inauguration and certification were not valid.” The strongest time for legal and judicial rulings are generally after the fact.

[hoosiermama]

Please stop using the term TROll . It is not in the interest of open expersion of ideas and Star is really trying to share his thoughts. They may not be the same as yours , but he (as we all do) still have our right to express them.

[Star Traveler]

You’re starting to foam at the mouth..., is all I can say about it... LOL..

—

You’ll basically see what happens on January 20th and after that. I’ve listed what is going to happen, so you can see if it comes true or not...

What will be somewhat entertaining is to see how long people can keep this up with nothing happening that they want to happen. I do remember how long Chief Editor Korir kept his hoax going over at API (African Press International) that sucked in Berg and Ed Hale — thinking that Michelle Obama was on tape saying that Obama was not a natural born citizen. I was actually amazed at how long Korir kept that hoax up and kept Berg and Hale on it, too.

So, as a bit of “anthropology” and the study of hoaxes, it will be interesting all right...

[nominal]

Like I said, how can you refute dollar amounts without the bills...

You have evidence of Obama having the philadelphia law firm on retainer then? Read the work put into the documents?

How much would it cost to verify the authenticity of documents, which, by the way, is a speculative action...

The nonsense is not showing your birth certificate when you’re running for president if there are any doubts.

You still haven’t shown me what statutes covered the 1960’s that would definitively prove what you infer. They might be on that link, I don’t remember at this point. 338-17 or 14 or something. Doesn’t matter, just show me what was in effect at the time, and how that means he could not possibly be born out of state...

No, I’m not blind, but apparently you’re naive and deliberately skipping over the potential revisions I pointed out...

[Kevmo]

When one doesn’t take to “common sense” about something — the best answer is to “wait and see”.
***I look forward to you waiting and seeing. Glad to see you’ll be logging off these threads.

So, it would seem that for you, the best answer is simply going to be — “we’ll see if it works out the way you say — or — it works out the way I say it will...”
***You don’t get it. I’m not saying that. You are. You’re the one who’s saying what will happen. I’m the one saying that this is a legitimate discussion that doesn’t hurt the credibility of FR any more than the 0.2% chance that this thing has beaten by getting this far in the SCOTUS ... are you calling judge Roberts a conspiracy theorist? He sees something to this issue, so why don’t you? Why do you go out of your way to dismay & disrupt these threads when you keep saying you have your own little project in Oklahoma. Go do that and leave us alone.

—

I’ll be talking my common sense and I guess you’ll be talking yours, too, won’t you.
***Oh, so now you WON’T be waiting and seeing. You’ll continue to spread your classic fallacies.

I’m confident that my common sense thinking will actually be the “real life situation” that we see actually transpires...
***I’m confident that you’re trying to set yourself up for gloating. That’s what’s really going on here. But since I never claimed anything about what is going to happen, you’ll be wrong then as well, even if what you say came true. You really should take that critical thinking class.

[curiosity]

Yes, it's irrelevant. The "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth" was a special document only granted to children who had not had their births registered before the age of 1. The purpose was to provide a means to document children born in the rural and remote parts of the Islands where their parents were either ignorant of modern registration practices, or where these practices were too troublesome for them to bother. People forget that most of Hawaii, outside of Honolulu, was still a pretty backward place back then.

Obama had his birth registered within a few days of his birth, in Honolulu, as is cearly seen on his COLB, so it's obvious that he was never given a "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth." There was no need for it or point to it.

[Star Traveler]

You know..., if Obama didn’t have any problem with being a natural born citizen of this country — he would still be just as big a problem with his liberal ideas for all us conservatives.

So, the way I see it, is that he’s a big problem because of what he’ll do in office, more so than being natural born or not natural born. Of course, the hope has been that there is enough evidence to produce for a court that something can be done about Obama being in office. But, I really question whether there is something that can be done on that particular issue.

At this point, I think it’s just going to come down to how do conservatives manage all that is going to happen with this Democrat Congress and this liberal President, who I never thought (originally) would be in office...

I know there are going to be people who hang on to “doing something” about either stopping Obama before January 20th or doing something after he’s in office, but I really don’t think it’s going to come down to that at all. But, I don’t *make reality* happen — I’m only saying this is what I think is going to happen. So, no matter what I say — it’s going to happen regardless of my judgement on the matter. That’s why I don’t know why anyone can get mad at me — because I sure don’t *make things happen*... :-)

Now, I’ll be glad to have someone “review” my statements after January 20th, after one year, after four years — and see whether I make an accurate assessment or not. I think it will turn out to be true — but even if that’s the way it turned out — I sure didn’t make it happen that way.

One would think, by the way some post to me, that I’m making this all happen just because I say so...

—

[besides that, what can I even do to stop anyone from filing court cases or doing whatever it is that they want to do... nothing — nothing more than make my assessments here of what I think is going to happen...]

[Star Traveler]

Ummm. the “wait and see” is to prove who is making the “right” assessment of the situation... The posting is to make the assessments...

I would have thought that was obvious...., apparently not...

—

[ I’m actually “supremely” confident that my assessments will be the ones that actually happen... excuse the pun there... :-) ... ]

[curiosity]

Like I said, how can you refute dollar amounts without the bills...

You produce the bills. The burden of proof is on those who make a claim, not on those who would challange it. You are the one, asserting without proof, that Obama is spending money defending lawsuits.

You have evidence of Obama having the philadelphia law firm on retainer then? Read the work put into the documents?

Not now, but I am certain he did at the time the brief was filed. All political campaigns have lawyers working for them on retainer. Unfortunately, it's a necessity in our litigeous society.

[curiosity]

The nonsense is not showing your birth certificate when you’re running for president if there are any doubts.

He has shown it, and no one important is questioning it.

You still haven’t shown me what statutes covered the 1960’s that would definitively prove what you infer.

I've shown you the only statute on Hawaii's books that allows for registration of foreign births. All statutes have their comprehensive legislative histories indicated. If that statute, or something comparable to it were on the books in 1961, then it would be indicated in the brackets. It is not.

[Kevmo]

Please stop using the term TROll .
***I’d be more than happy to if the recipient does not fit the definition of troll. Where is that definition? I’ve offered to help generate it, no takers. Star fits the definition of an issue-specific troll.

It is not in the interest of open expersion of ideas and Star is really trying to share his thoughts.
***When it’s an open expression of the same debunked troll argument for the 15th time, it’s time to use the word Troll.

They may not be the same as yours , but he (as we all do) still have our right to express them.
***I don’t deny him the right to express them, I just think he fits the definition of troll. He’s here to disrupt. He admits he does it for entertainment. That’s not conducive to open expression of ideas, is it?

[MHGinTN]

The document he ‘made available’ is a forgery. His lawyering against suits trying to access his long form certificate of birth in the Hawaii vaults—if it is there and not now in Indonesia—is aimed at preventing any case from going to discovery because his forgeries used to collect hundreds of millions in campaign funds would be exposed ... and even you know what that would mean in criminal charges. Loosen those kneepads cutting off blood to your brain, your little marxist affirmative action fraud doesn’t need you worshipping him anymore, he’s about to be inaugurated! Rejoice, your messiah cometh.

[nominal]

“The burden of proof is on those who make a claim, not on those who would challange it.”

With that, I’ll say goodnight...

[Star Traveler]

You were saying to Kevmo — “Please stop using the term TROll . It is not in the interest of open expersion of ideas and Star is really trying to share his thoughts. They may not be the same as yours , but he (as we all do) still have our right to express them.”

Thanks for your sentiments. And sure, I know that my ideas are not the same as a certain segment, but I’ve tried to not call names on people — at least. LOL..

But, it doesn’t work the other way around..., what can I say. Some people will continue to be that way I guess...

I’ll leave it up to the “board” as to whether that’s what they want or not...

[Kevmo]

Ummm. the “wait and see” is to prove who is making the “right” assessment of the situation...
***Review our posts. You’ll see that I made no predictions as to any outcome. That’s what you have been doing. If the SCOTUS takes a pass on the eligibility issue, it won’t be for lack of us trying and it will be for a lack of courage on their part. Even Congressman Billybob wrote something to that effect.

The posting is to make the assessments...
***That’s an argument from silence, the silence of the future. That’s fine that it’s what you THINK is going to happen, but you shouldn’t be putting yourself in the dishonorable position of discouraging conservative constitutionalists who think otherwise and are doing something about it.

I would have thought that was obvious...., apparently not...
***I would have thought arguing from silence and the host of other fallacies you’ve proceeded from would make it obvious that you need to take a critical thinking class.
—

[ I’m actually “supremely” confident that my assessments will be the ones that actually happen... excuse the pun there... :-) ... ]
***Of course you are. That’s why you argue from them the way you do. But you don’t know the future and that makes your arguments invalid, regardless of whether or not what you say comes true.

[Kevmo]

You keep your list of things that you think are going to happen
***I have not been saying that, you dolt.

and you know what I say is going to happen — and there we have it...
***See, this is how you’ve been arguing. You’ve been arguing basically, “I know this is going to happen. So, proceeding from that, what would be the most logical thing to do.” But since you don’t KNOW that it is going to happen, your premise is false all along. How many times does it take to show you that you’ve been using the same classic fallacy over and over and over again? TAKE A CRITICAL THINKING CLASS.

[curiosity]

The document he ‘made available’ is a forgery.

Right. According to an anonymous internet blogger with a phony Ph.D.

His lawyering against suits trying to access his long form certificate of birth in the Hawaii vaults—if it is there and not now in Indonesia—is aimed at preventing any case from going to discovery because his forgeries used to collect hundreds of millions in campaign funds would be exposed

How is that tinfoil hat working out for you? Does it fit well?

[curiosity]

I've never seen any documentation that he's spent a dollar, and I seriously doubt he's spent much at all.

I doubt he's spent anything on it. During the campaign he must have had lawyers working on retainer to handle stuff like this. All campaigns have them.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu7m9ym9JtBMBuJhXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzanZ0Z2V1BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0gxODhfMTE2/SIG=11t1851jg/EXP=1232149565/**http%3a//www.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html

“EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.”

Hey,Kev,,,

Maybe the Sheeple don’t know the Truth!

Baaad Dream!!!

[MHGinTN]

"Right. According to an anonymous internet blogger with a phony Ph.D."

You don't appear to be able to keep up, or don't need to since the Axelrod script doesn't allow for deviations from the talking points. A government document expert has gone on court record in California attesting to Polarik's exposure of the forgery aspects, agreeing with his assessment. Besides, the document is unacceptable on the face of it since the thing has the number blacked out and states on the face of the document that such alteration voids the document. But we can understand why you desire to believe lies for your messiah.

Do try to loosen those kneepads, syncho

[Star Traveler]

Well, if you think it’s for lack of courage that the Supreme Court doesn’t act the way you think it should, then you’re missing the bigger picture about how they’re not going to create a law where none exists in the first place, in terms of how one is to specifically vet a candidate (and not merely what the Constitutional qualifications are). That’s at the core of the whole issue. And that’s also a conservative principle in that a conservative doesn’t want the Supreme Court to create some kind of legislative action, by means of a court decision, where that legislation didn’t exist in the first place.

And I can’t discourage anyone from doing what they’re going to do in the first place. You seem to think that by some method or means that I can do that, which is making up situations which don’t exist. Now, if my rational for posting these things makes someone think and realize that what I’m saying is true — then that’s their own decision and thinking at coming to this point. It’s really up to everyone individually, anyway. I’m posting what I think, and what I say is going to happen and, as I’ve said, we’ll see (if it turns out to be true, which I think it will...).

For someone who is in need of a critical thinking class, it would seem that you’ve gone overboard to try and discount these things I’ve said — when it *should be* (according to you) that it’s so obvious that I’m wrong in my thinking. Your protests indicate something different than what you’re saying...

And for sure, I don’t *know* the future, but I can sure make assessments according to how things normally work in the real world. That’s where it seems to “go wrong” with some posters here — in that they think that their *fervent desires* should dictate the “reality” of the situation. On the other hand, I know what I would like — but sometimes reality decides against me. And that’s the way it is here, with Obama and this “qualifications issue”.

But, one thing that I *do know* can very easily happen, politically, is that there can be legislation put through various states to properly vet the candidate. Now, in making an “assessment” of how well what I’m saying will work compared to how well what you’re saying will work — I’ll put my bet and assessment on my methodology. And I’ll stand by it for the future, if someone wants to check on it....