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.
If this Cert. Pet. ever gets out of conference, there will have to be a discovery process of the evidence. If the Obama's "CAIR" lawyers he uses just stand pat and say find the evidence yourselves, then we will have some very disgruntled SCOTUS justices.
We do know that the Hawaii BC published on the web is a forgery, as proven by Dr. Polarik, and Phil Berg has his documentary evidence on that part.
One would think that the facts have been obscured so that the issue of "natural born" cannot be decided.
This case will swing on the facts, not on the law. The law will be very much new, as no cases have been decided under Article II. I do not believe that the genberal laws concerning previous citizenship will govern the courts decision, beyond being merely advizory schemes on how U.S. citizenship is acquired and lost.
The purport and intent of Article II is to assure that a president not have divided loyalty, and that he be dedicated solely to the American People and the US Constitution. Obama fails that test without even broaching the issue of "natural born," by his conduct in Kenya in 2006/2007, when he campaigned for Rial Odinga, taking up policy positions which were directly in opposition to those of the United States, and likely comprised violations of the Logan Act. He did so again later by attempting to negotiate against American interests in Iraq.
So Obama's divided loyalty is actually on display for all to see, for those who wish to look.Perhaps that will figure into this case.
I knew that all along.
I knew that all along.
At this point no one knows where in fact Obama was born and Obama has made sure of it.
That is why we have these suits in progress.
So why not give it up? You have no evidence that he wasn't born in the U.S. Nothing could possibly convince you he was born in the U.S. You're mind is made up.
The Free and Accepted Masons started this country.
Me too, please. Thanks
Okay; you are added to the list.
I cannot understand why you are willing to accept 0bama as POTUS when he flat out refuses to show he meets the most basic requirements of what is the highest law in the land.
Just because it will be difficult? Because there might be some unrest?
That sounds very UN-American to my ears: the Americans thrived on surmounting difficult, if not impossible situations throughout history. Now you want to “give up” because you feel it could be “hard”?
How the mighty have fallen.
Well, not yet, because there are a LOT of folks who are willing to continue to fight FOR their nation and Constitution.
I’d keep out of their way if I were you.
A couple of reasons. One, he won the election. Two, I accepted Bush and Clinton and Reagan as my presidents without ever seeing their birth certificates. And three, I have yet to see a single piece of solid evidence indicating that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii as he claims. No documentation. No affidavits. No solid evidence whatsoever. Nothing but rumor and wild stories.
I’d keep out of their way if I were you.
Oh no worries there.
That is the problem. No one does.
And that problem will be the subject of a Justice Conference at SCOTUS
There is no direct public evidence one way or the other.
And we know why there is none. It has been removed from public scrutiny by Obama.
So which assumption is more logical.
1)That Obama was indeed born in the USA ( if so why obscure it? We live in a democratic Republic which requires that such information be before the public, even if the news media and a few Obama campaign lurkers do not think so.)
2) Or that he was not born in the USA ( logically makes sense , and indeed is more probative.)
If you have a pro Obama axe to grind, I have no problem with that.
But you will not have your way in no reply silence on this list my good man, whatever machinations of logic you might apply.
Have a nice this weekend and may your turkey taste good next weekend. I know mine will for it will be consumed with the gusto of genuine freedom.
Because they know what we know: Obama cannot survive the truth.
Why was his name Barry Soetoro?
Why now is his name Barack Hussein 0bama? Is he an illegal alien?
Original birth certificate ——————————Unavailable
Obama/Dunham marriage license -————Unavailable
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license ———— Unavailable
Soetoro adoption records-————————— Unavailable
Dept.of Education Hawaii Kindergarten Records——Unavailable
Punahou School records-————————Unavailable
Occidental College records ————————Unavailable
Passport (Pakistan) -——————— Unavailable
Columbia College ——————Unavailable
No one remembers him at Columbia.
Columbia thesis ————Unavailable
Harvard College records ———————Unavailable
Harvard Law Review articles —————— Unavailable
(Evidence that one may have been written, yet it is unsigned)
Baptism certificate ————————Unavailable
Medical records ————————Unavailable
Illinois State Senate records ———————None
Illinois State Senate schedule————————Lost
Law practice client list —————— Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles –——— None on file
Indonesian Besuki School Application—————Located
(Enrolled with name Barry Soetoro-faith “Islam”)
Selective Service Registration— Recently Released, but suspected as fraudulent
And I have yet to see a single piece of solid evidence indicating that obama WAS born in Hawaii as he claims. No documentation. No Affidavits. No solid evidence whatsoever.
I have no genuine evidence that Bush, Clinton or Reagan were either.
If you have a pro Obama axe to grind, I have no problem with that.
Not pro-Obama but anti-moonbat. It's kind of a hobby of mine.
Yes Future Snake Eater, I am new to the internet, because when I was young there was no Internet to learn. You see, I am 68 years old and really pissed off as to what the younger generation has brought to my Whitehouse. I am a strong believer in the old adage WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND. It will not be long before we can all say I TOLD YOU SO. Too bad it will be at the cost of our Nation’s survival. Hopefully I will not be around to see it, but my granddaughters will have to live it and that, my friend, is much to my sorrow.
Sure you do, because Bush, Clinton, and Reagan did not obscure their birthplace information,nor did they spend 100s of thousands of dollars doing so as Obama has, it is readily available on White House Gov net:
Bush:( uncontroverted)
President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut,
Clinton:(uncontroverted)
President Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946, in Hope, Arkansas,
Reagan:(uncontroverted)
On February 6, 1911, Ronald Wilson Reagan was born to Nelle and John Reagan in Tampico, Illinois.
*****************
Obama? Birth Place Controverted. Forged Documents published
as cover.
No one seems to know where Obama was born, and its a politically “incorrect” question to ask where Obama was really born.
Maybe you could read this:
Polarik’s final report: Obama’s ‘Born’ Conspiracy Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud
The Greater Evil ^ | 11/22/08 | Polarik
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2136816/posts?page=1
Good luck on your moonbat hunting. Look in the mirror occasionally, as a possible base line check.
Apparently you skipped over the facts in post #312.
Don’t want you to miss them, because a lot of people would like answers to questions you seemingly are ignoring.
Click right here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2135329/posts?page=312#312
And no doubt that whitehouse.gov will say Obama was born in Honolulu. But I cannot say that I've ever seen the birth certificate of Bush or Reagan or Clinton. So how do you really know, hmmmm?
No one seems to know where Obama was born, and its a politically “incorrect” question to ask where Obama was really born.
Well, if you ask him Obama will say he was born in Honolulu. Why not try it and find out?
Good luck on your moonbat hunting. Look in the mirror occasionally, as a possible base line check
Thanks. But when it comes to moonbats, threads like this are what we in the Navy used to call 'target rich environments'.
No, I read it. And?
So long as he limits his non-presidential activities to walking, talking, OR chewing gum and does not attempt any three at one time.
Seriously gang, the supremes will define "natural born" in some manner as to allow the 'Oh' to continue with his coup.
Note, however, if I'm wrong on that one - the DNC and a whole lot of staffers would be complicit in a cover up of monster proportions.
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.