Posted on 11/20/2008 8:28:49 AM PST by Candor7
On December 5, 2008, only ten days before the electoral college votes, the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in private to review Obama's citizenship status.
Leo Donofrio's case, "Leo C. Donofrio, v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407," regarding Obama's citizenship has reached a new level. The case has been "distributed for conference."
This docketing today by the court should send ripples of fear through the Obama camp. Obama has been proceeding at lightening speed to put together a cabinet and take possession of the White House with the hope that he won't have to answer the question of whether or not he was "at birth" a "natural born citizen."
Every major news network, print and cable news like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, have ignored all the court cases challenging Obama's eligibility as sore losers or conspiracy theories. It might be in their best interest at this point to report this critically important meeting to take place on December 5, 2008, or lose what little credibility they have left.
If four of the nine Justices vote to hear the case in full review, oral argument may be ordered. The conference is scheduled for December 5, 2008, ten days before the meeting of the Electoral College…
The case originally sought, pre-election, to have the names of Barack Obama, John McCain, and Roger Calero removed from New Jersey ballots, and for a stay of the "national election" pending Supreme Court review of whether those candidates were eligible under the Constitution as natural born Citizens, as is required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States.
Leo Donofrio brought his case from a lower New Jersey court to the NJ Supreme Court -- was denied -- and then he filed an emergency stay application in the United States Supreme Court on Nov. 3, 2008, before the Honorable Associate Justice David Souter. Justice Souter denied the emergency stay application on Nov. 6.
Leo Donofrio renewed the application, as per Supreme Court Rule 22.4, to the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas by way of Express mail on Nov. 14. The application arrived at the Supreme Court on Nov. 17 and was submitted directly to Justice Thomas.
On Nov. 19, the case was docketed for full conference of all nine Justices and scheduled for December 5, 2008. It is not known at this time the exact details of how the case came to be "DISTRIBUTED for Conference".
Background on "The Justices Conference" is discussed as follows by the Supreme Court Historical Society:
"No outsider enters the room during conference. The junior Associate Justice acts as "doorkeeper," sending for reference material, for instance, and receiving it at the door...
Five minutes before conference time, 9:30 or 10 a.m., the Justices are summoned. They exchange ritual handshakes and settle down at the long table. The Chief sits at the east end; the other Justices sit at places they have chosen in order of their seniority…
The Chief Justice opens the discussion, summarizing each case. The senior Associate Justice speaks next, and comment passes down the line. To be accepted for review, a case needs only four votes, fewer than the majority required for a decision on the case itself. Counsel for the litigants are directed to submit their printed briefs so that each Justice has a set several weeks before argument.
Chances are that Obama’s dad, whoever he might be, took the referenced nude photos of his mom:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2008/10/naughty-obama-mamma-its-amazing-what.html
http://libertas.bigblog.com.au/data/0/3861/image/luckyagain3706620081022130550.jpg
http://libertas.bigblog.com.au/data/0/3861/image/nudeholidayobama23706720081022130549.jpg
http://libertas.bigblog.com.au/data/0/3861/image/luckyagain24569920081022213401.jpg
You’re welcome, TK!
Warning; don’t click the links at #201 if you are easily offended.
Pinging Ping List newcomers to nude photos of 0bama’s mama, Stanley Ann; they are part of 0bama’s cyber-history and have been discussed previously on other threads.
Could you imagine W’s mom, Barbara Bush’s photos being plastered all over the net......How low does this country go?
Thanks Lucy.
I am now turning in for the night. Its after 12 here in the East and its been a long day.
The Anti-Dem energy is back on FR.
Thanks, LucyT
Ping.
In photo # 1 in the article, notice that the window BEHIND Stanley Ann has the shade only halfway down, so she would have been visible from outside. That is odd! Does anyone see a reflection of the person taking the photo?
In photo #2, there are packages under the tree. Can anyone zoom in to see who the Christmas packages are addressed to??
Thanks for posting the links; I had forgotten about them.
Good night, Candor7.
Those are Obama’s mama? When were they taken? I see a Christmas tree, if it was 1960 it could be about the time he was conceived.
Note Stanley Ann’s shoes.
Shoes?
Shoes: If this were Christmas 1960 she still would have been in Seattle, WA..I don’t suppose one would wear those sandals in Washington in December??
So, would this photo then be Christmas, 1961 in Hawaii?
What do the record albums say that are visible?
Ummmmmmmm, if it’s warm enough for a birthday suit, it’s warm enough for those shoes...
But what is a possible ruling? That he is ineligible? That he must provide evidence? What?
LOL!!
I was trying to fit the shoes in the time and place timeline!!
The shoes in question were the kind of slutty sandals worn by exotic dancers and hookers in that era. They are simply a part of the photo shoot.
Very interestingl
If the shoes did belong to Mrs. Davis #2, what about the fancy ring on Ann’s left hand? Maybe that also belonged to Mrs. Davis #2.
And the shoes..not indigenous to Hawaii,but maybe not unsual for Helen Canfield Chicago socialite and Marshall's second wife. The photos are important in the sense that they explain the going to Chicago and the immediate acceptance by the hard left, if his father is Frank Marshall Davis, not just his mentor.
What does COLB stand for?
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.
