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.

[curiosity]

A government document expert has gone on court record in California attesting to Polarik's exposure of the forgery aspects, agreeing with his assessment.

Wrong. All she did was conclude that it is impossible to determine whether a scanned image on the internet is authentic.

[Star Traveler]

Okay, if you don’t want to keep your list of things... I’ll keep it over on the side... :-)

—

And once again, for someone (like poor ole me...) with such poor critical thinking skills, you would think that no reader on Free Republic would need the benefit of your writings to me to figure that out... LOL..

[MHGinTN]

You’re confused, that was what the questioned Hawaiian official said when asked if the posted Internet document was authentic. Have a nice night, sycophant.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I believe I understand your presupposition of the docket entry "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of [date]." I'll do some reasearch and respond tomorrow with my (non-expert) answers. Same bat time, same bat channel.

[hoosiermama]

Re read Star post...Until the computer went down she would not even entertain the thought that BO was not eligible....Now she recognizes the need for legislation, because she in her mind does not believe the justice system will act or be able to act......

Granted the opinion is not shared by all, but it is her opinion and she has the right to express it here without being called names.....

I would stand up for you, for the same reason. It’s time the name calling stops. It does not add to the discussion or free sharing of ideas. It is keeping people with good ideas from contributing....Not a democracy.

If the moderator are not going to stop it, it is up to us to moditor our own behavior and get a grip.

[little jeremiah]

What about people who post because it gives them amusement (as has been admitted by several) to naysay with no sincere desire to learn or address information that is or has been presented?

[FARS]

Will this video calm the waters here?

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2009/01/strange-couple.html

[Star Traveler]

You said — “What about people who post because it gives them amusement (as has been admitted by several) to naysay with no sincere desire to learn or address information that is or has been presented?”

Now don’t include me in that group where I’m posting expressly for the purpose of amusement. I do have fun on Free Republic, because I like posting here. And..., there are many amusing things here. Some of the “thinking” is amusing. I like to keep a light-hearted view on many things (better for one’s health, doncha know...).

But, that has nothing to do with going “online” for the express purpose of creating amusement, which is what you’re trying to say — and — (in addition) *as if* — I didn’t have those opinions in the first place.

In other words, those are the opinions I have — whether they are accepted by others or not. And being that they are my opinions (and I think they are *right* too...) — it does not keep me from being amused by others’ thinking that I think are humorous.

If that’s too subtle for you, I can’t do any better than that....

[hoosiermama]

I've considered keeping a page on the hard drive on each topic that can easily be cut and pasted. Each time they bring up a subject.....Idiosyncrasy of HI birth certificate. Conferencing at the SCOTUS. Rogered certificate There are freepers that have made themselves experts in many areas....Shall be just share those essays to be posted again and again in response to those who don't get it the first time?

[little jeremiah]

Just letting you lnow I stopped reading your ramblings that are randomly punctuated with Tourettes-like “LOL”’s around a week ago. I’m tired of scraping them off my metal shoes.

[Star Traveler]

Cool story...

[Star Traveler]

You said — “ust letting you lnow I stopped reading your ramblings that are randomly punctuated with Tourettes-like “LOL”’s around a week ago. I’m tired of scraping them off my metal shoes.”

Well, I’m glad I’ve got one less “obsessive/compulsive” reader. That’s a great relief... :-)

[little jeremiah]

How about for those that “don’t” [”won’t”] get it the 50th time?

[thecodont]

I've considered keeping a page on the hard drive on each topic that can easily be cut and pasted.

This sounds like a good idea.

[hoosiermama]

The Bible says 7 X 70....that sounds about right.

[El Gato]

All these things are on the birth certificate in question.

Do you see a raised seal in this image, from factcheck.or, I don't. I left it big for easy examination.

The raised seal "magically" appeared in later, really badly taken, images. It should be in the lower right quadrant somewhere based on those latter fact check photos. Based on what? I must not be, because I got a passport with a birth certificate just like it.

I said a Hawaiian Certification was acceptable, if the birth date and the registration date were less than a year apart, did I not?

California's short form as well as Texas' are according to several passport sites I checked not acceptable, you need the long form.

Here's a statement from the City of Orange CA, which has a passport issuing office.

SPECIAL NOTICE - CALIFORNIA BIRTH ABSTRACTS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE - PASSPORT APPLICANTS BORN IN CALIFORIA MUST SUBMIT LONG FORM PHOTOREPRODUCTION CERTIFIED COPIES OF BIRTH RECORDS - THE SHORT BIRTH ABSTRACT OF RECORDS ISSUED BY MANY COUNTIES AND BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WILL NO LONGER BE ACCEPTABLE FOR PASSPORT PURPOSES. DUE TO COMPUTER PROGRAMMING THE BIRTH ABSTRACTS SHOW THE COUNTY OF ISSUE AS THE PLACE OF BIRTH EVEN IF THE INDIVIDUAL WAS BORN IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND ADOPTED IN CALIFORNIA. A BIRTH RECORD FOR PASSPORT PURPOSES MUST BE THE LONG FORM PHOTOREPRODUCTION CERTIFIED COPIES.

[little jeremiah]

It’s one thing if someone is insulting me personally - I can shrug it off, have fun with, ignore it. But there’s no virtue in tolerating insults to others or their hard work for the truth, or insults to truth.

Heated debate is one thing; a lot of the stuff on these threads isn’t debate or dicussion, it’s a totally different animal. It’s people admittedly getting their jollies from disruption and purposeful antagonism.

[El Gato]

Which is simply untrue. For the purposes of proving birth in Hawaii, the certified copy of the birth record is just as good as the vault copy.

The Certification, which is what the released images purport to be of, is not a "certified copy of the birth record", it's an abstract, generated by a computer at the time the document is requested. A "certified copy of the birth record" would *be* a photo copy (Xerox type most likely) of the "vault copy", aka the Certificate of Live Birth.

[El Gato]

There is no statute, no case law, and no person with standing which requires production of documents of a President-Elect.

That may all be true, but it's also true that no law or regulation prohibits someone from having the state release a certified *paper* copy of either their Certificate of Live Birth or their Certification of Live Birth to interested third parties.

It would shut us all up, for about $12. So why has he chosen not to do so?

Computer images released to friendly media types don't exactly indicate "transparency".

[trumandogz]

That was great

Thanks