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.

[BP2]

Hoosiermama,

Good analysis from you and your dad. Knowing what I know from reading dozen of academic papers and doing my own critical research on NBC, I agree with your assessment on posts 24 and 35.

I'm unsure about post 37... I still question if a sitting Executive Head of State can be arrested in such a manner, without being striped of power first. Otherwise, the “police” control the Executive, which goes against many modern concepts on the subject.

Also, Obama would have to be charged with a crime. If the Constitutional definition of NBC stands with the last definition in the 1790 Naturalization Act, we could conclude that Congress only has the right to define NBC. Since it was revoked in 1795, it might be said that NBC remains undefined. Conversely, one may argue that NBC has always remained undefined and NO Naturalization Act has the power to define it unless it is in the Constitution. There are MANY, MANY ways to argue this...

However, if Obama is guilty of a cover-up, as many expect there, is still a process for that, too. But nobody wants to repeat Nixon, per se, unless it's purely for political goals by those that have the information. If it's “meant” to happen, documents will be leaked, and in such a fashion, next week, that the agencies that “hold” the documents cannot be “punished” if Obama somehow survives the ordeal.

A worse case scenario is if President Bush and/or VP Cheney do not relinquish power, at the guidance from the SCOTUS or because of their own executive decision...

and that's when things get scary.

If Jan. 20 roles around and this happens, in addition to the instability of the monetary system, public discord (which doesn't really bother me), etc., WHO does the Military follow?

That's what I dread the most, and hope the SCOTUS intervenes before Jan. 20.

On a side note, I can barely recall a time that the Republican “loyal opposition” in Congress has been so quiet. Cheney dissolved the EC vote count very quickly on Jan. 8, and IMO, looked like the bird that ate the canary.... very odd...

[trumandogz]

Looks like ignoring wins again. You be sure and tell him better luck on the next one.

You got it all wrong. Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alitio have denied all the previous cases so that they will have the element of surprise.

You see they are going to meet in a Super Secret Supreme Court Conference at 11:59 p.m. on January 19, 2009 where they will rule that neither Obama, Biden or McCain are eligible to be president. But, remember, it will be a Super Secret Supreme Court Conference and they will not tell anyone! Except for one person.

And then at 11:59 a.m. on January 20, 2009 just as everybody thinks that Roberts is going to deliver the Oath of Office to Obama he will instead deliver the Oath of Office of the Presidency of the United States to Sarah Palin.

[trumandogz]

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

At least Taitz can write great comedy.

[LucyT]

Thank you, BP2.

Pinging JimRob, and Everyone to #81.

[NBC = Natural Birth Controversy]

Check out hoosiermama’s comments at # 24, 35 and 37.

[jamese777]

AR-BI-TRAR-Y adj arrived at without allowing argument or objection Webster

Go back to basic English and get a vocabulary.

---

Just because your personal opinion is that the actions of the Supreme Court are arbitrary doesn’t make it so. The Court has operated within its traditionally established procedures on all the cases that have reached it regarding Obama’s eligiblity. Thus far it just hasn’t ruled the way that you might want it to.
Monday will be another decision. Let’s all just wait and see what happens.
And then there will be even another opportunity during the following week for the Court to grant a Petition for a Writ of Certioari (asking the Court to agree to hear oral arguments on a case).
The case that this thread is about, Lightfoot v Bowen is asking the high court to hear oral arguments in a case that is requesting that Debra Bowen, the Secretary of State of California be required via an emergency stay that would be issued by the high court to block the vote of the California electors for Barack Obama until his eligibilty has been established. Since the California electors have already voted and since Vice President Cheney has already certified the vote of the entire Electoral College, this case is seeking to achieve a very difficult retroactive action.

Justice Anthony Kennedy has already denied the Petition for a Writ of Certioari and Justice Roberts’ law clerk has read the legal brief and submitted his opinion to Justice Roberts by last Friday. Justice Roberts has either sought three other Justices to agree to hear oral arguements or he has followed Justice Kennedy’s lead and will deny the petition with or without comment. We should all know on Monday.

[Non-Sequitur]

At least Taitz can write great comedy.

Can you imagine going to her to get a tooth filled?

[Eye of Unk]

For those that are new here or have just realized they need to know more about Obama I strongly suggest you read this, warning it is long and has information that has many groups diligently trying to suppress it from the public.

This timeline speaks volumes of what we are fighting against, an illegal presidency.

http://www.colony14.net/id41.html

[thecodont]

On a side note, I can barely recall a time that the Republican “loyal opposition” in Congress has been so quiet. Cheney dissolved the EC vote count very quickly on Jan. 8, and IMO, looked like the bird that ate the canary.... very odd...

What do you think this means?

[Drew68]

For those that are new here or have just realized they need to know more about Obama I strongly suggest you read this, warning it is long and has information that has many groups diligently trying to suppress it from the public.

From your article:

"Note that a trip to Pakistan in 1981 was not possible for Americans, except for those who were on official government business, because it was on the list of dangerous nations banned by the State Department for U.S. travelers.

This statement about U.S. travelers being banned from Pakistan in 1981 is complete fiction and has been debunked. How much of the rest of this article is complete fiction?

[jacquej]

That link is unreadable, because the text is wider than the screen.

Just letting you know.

[null and void]

Did you mean "Natural Born Controversy"?

(Or are you against C-sections and epidurals?)

[trumandogz]

From your link: Note that a trip to Pakistan in 1981 was not possible for Americans, except for those who were on official government business, because it was on the list of dangerous nations banned by the State Department for U.S. travelers.

IF that is the case, why did the the U.S. Government sell 40 F-16's to Pakistan?

In 1981, about two years after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the United States provided General Zia-ul-Haq, Pakistan's military ruler, with $3.2 billion in loans and grants. The idea was to elicit Pakistan's help in ousting the Soviets from Afghanistan. Included in this package, at Pakistan's insistence, were 40 F-16 aircraft.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/149257

[trumandogz]

See post 92

[little jeremiah]

Your comments about this have made my day.

[Eye of Unk]

Works fine for me, try a different font size?

I’m using a 22’ LCD monitor at 16 font size and Firefox, no problem here.

Check you screen size parameter.

[trumandogz]

You really may want to make sure that the facts that you post cannot be debunked upon a cursory review.

[BonRad]

“For those that are new here or have just realized they need to know more about Obama I strongly suggest you read this, warning it is long and has information that has many groups diligently trying to suppress it from the public.

This timeline speaks volumes of what we are fighting against, an illegal presidency.”

http://www.colony14.net/id41.html

ping to Eye of Unk! Just got this today from sitemail here and it appears to be worth every word. Only drawback is that one has to do the back ‘n forth thing w/ the horiz scroll so paste into Word/whatever- colony14 will email a pdf on email request. Its 91 pps in arial 12 pt in MS Word .5” margins all around, just body. Its got 794 Url footnotes to page 113.

Almost all is knowable Jr., especially through relations.
A truly great, great job by the author. Cautious but open on eligibility that I can see in quick surmise.

[hoosiermama]

While you are checking out the posts, notice that the TRs out number the FRs on this thread.......Do you know an exterminator?

[Drew68]

See post 92

Additionally,

"Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports...

For more information write to Pakistan International Airlines, 551 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017 (212-949-0477) or to the Pakistan Mission to the United Nations, 12 East 65th Street, New York, N.Y. 10021 (212-879-8600).

Lahore, a Survivor with a Bittersweet History

By Barbara Crossett, New York Times (Travel Section) Published June 14, 1981

[trumandogz]

Yeah, I saw and posted that a few days ago.

So, PIA had offices in NYC, the NYT was writing travel stories about Pakistan and the Reagan Administration was selling F-16’s to Pakistan in 1981 but American could not travel there.

Yes, fact are important when trying to making a case.