Posted on 01/09/2009 8:28:39 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthardknox.com ...
I’ve read the Constitution. Many times. What’s your point?
Here is your deceitful dismissive response: "This is not true. The expert did not endorse any forgery allegations."
Below are the actual words of the document expert. You chide researchers opposing the ascendancy of fraudulent Obama with accusations that they are misstating and repeating falsehoods to make the statements appear accurate. Well, you are doing exactly that. You state flatly that what I asserted is not true, but have you actually read the material or are you just yet another obamanoid agitprop spittling for confusion at every opportunity? I think you're as big a fraud as the man you're working so hard to cover for.
For the benefit of the thousands of readers zipping through Freerepublic, below is an excerpted portion from the experts testimony filed in California court: [found on FR thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2155990/posts ]
[[ However, the bigger story to this lawsuit is the fact that forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines (pictured) has documented in an associated affidavit (PDF) the following:
2. I have reviewed the attached affidavit posted on the internet from “Ron Polarik,” [PDF] who has declined to provide his name because of a number of death threats he has received. After my review and based on my years of experience, I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.
3. Upon a cursory inspection of the internet COLB, one aspect of the image that is clearly questionable is the obliteration of the Certificate No. That number is a tracking number that would allow anyone to ask the question, “Does this number refer to the Certification of Live Birth for the child Barack Hussein Obama II?” It would not reveal any further personal information; therefore, there would be no justifiable reason for oliterating it.
4. In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness. In this case, examination of the vault birth certificate for President-Elect Obama would lay this issue to rest once and for all. ]]
You are an agitprop working FR for amusement and perhaps to ofuscate the actual facts as they arise regarding this affirmative action fraud now president-elect. Your game is disgusting, deceitful, and becoming quite obvious.
So around half the American electorate are seem by B.H.Obama as enemies?
So around half the American electorate are seem by B.H.Obama as enemies?
Don’t waste you time MHGinTN.
This guy would swin through a mile of Obama excrement to kiss its source.
"Here is what I wrote: "A government document expert has gone on court record in California attesting to Polarik's exposure of the forgery aspects, agreeing with his assessment."Let's see who is being deceitful."Here is your deceitful dismissive response: "This is not true. The expert did not endorse any forgery allegations."
"Below are the actual words of the document expert."
She says, "Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm."
Great. What issues doe she mean?
"Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document."
Document Examiner 101. A scanned image can't be authenticated. Usually a document examiner will not authenticate even a paper copy. This doesn't confirm any allegation of forgery.
"Upon a cursory inspection of the internet COLB, one aspect of the image that is clearly questionable is the obliteration of the Certificate No."
Does blacking out the certificate number mean forgery? No. It's a redaction. And the later photographs included it. She's still not supporting any forgery allegations.
"In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness."
Document Examiner 101 again. It's not the original it's a scan.
There is not one word here where she confirms a single allegation of forgery. None.
"You are an agitprop working FR for amusement and perhaps to ofuscate the actual facts..."
Since what I said was true, and what you said was not, you seem to fit the bill better than me.
Spin spin spin, agitprop. Expose yourself some more.
“So around half the American electorate are seem by B.H.Obama as enemies?”
No the entire American population are the enemies of bo, but the 20% who were dumb enough to vote for bo are too dumb to know that bo considers them enemies.
You can't point to anything in that text where I'm wrong. Empty insults just confirm that.
When you mischaracterize, that’s deceit. Buzz off, you’ve been outed.
Yes.
Look at the Court's Order List from last Monday (or any Monday during the Court's term). There are literally dozens of cases in which certiorari was denied. Not all of them could have been discussed at the previous Friday's conference, but each of those cases, if you look up the Court's docket, will show a notation that they were distributed for that conference.
A case is "distributed for conference" under Supreme Court Rules 15 and 16 whenever the cert. petition has been responded to or when the time for response has passed without a response being filed. The individual Justices, or their clerks, review all those Petitions, and then circulate a "discussion list," which is not made public. Any Justice can put a case on the "discuss list"; if no one puts a case on that list, certiorari is automatically denied. (I am discussing the process for granting certiorari here; motions are handled differently.)
To be clear, I do not know if any of the Obama eligibility cases made it to the discuss list or not; we do know that none has had certiorari granted, that all of the motions for a stay or injunction have been denied, and that no Justice has recorded a dissent from the denial of cert. or the denials of the motions.
You mischaracterized it, not me.
The color distortion of the pixels around letters alone is enough evidence that Obama’s COLB is a forgery. When you superimpose writing over a background image it causes discoloration.
I do dispute that, and here's why:
If he had produced his COLB to a court, the plaintiffs would have demanded the original vault birth certificate. If he had produced that, they would have demanded that document examiners examine it. After both sides' examiners made their reports, there would have had to be a trial to decide if it was legitimate. If the court found the certificate legitimate, the plaintiffs would have demanded evidence about his adoption in Indonesia, about whether he ever travelled on a foreign passport, if he had registered in college as a foreign student, and on and on. If Obama had conceded for one minute that any court had any role in this process, he would have been tied up in litigation for 8 years.
When you can't argue the facts attack the poster. Telling.
“Ignoring minor annoyances is an effective but often underutilized weapon in the fine art of political debate.”
447 posted on Sunday, January 11, 2009 4:19:19 PM by Jim Robinson
(The last time I posted this comment by JimRob, one freeper was infuriated, and asked to be removed from the Ping List.)
Hopefully it would have only been for 4 years. :-)
No. The real point is that one of many claims being made is that Obama spent $800,000 - $1,000,000 on legal fees.
If nobody can know that without having the bills in hand, then this would be an unsupported claim wouldn't it? That's the point. It is one of many.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.