“BTW, the vote by the House and VP does not have to take place on January 6. It can be delayed, as well as the date of the Inauguration, and I predict that it will.”
I have read that the January 6th date had been changed some time ago and it is January 8th for this year only. So I believe the Special Session of Congress IS on the 8th.
I also agree with your statement. I can not imagine that SCOTUS will pass on this issue and believe they are waiting to see if Congress does their job to uphold the Constitution. Here is a posting another Freeper sent me from ObamaCrimes. In the meantime I am writing, emailing and faxing Reps and Senators from now through January 7th. Hoping many others join in! Here is a great link to the list of addresses for all members of Congress:
http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm
Here is the posting mentioned above:
The following is an interesting post from Obamacrimes.com:
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
Ok—Now I see the big picture! Part 1
written by Tom Waite, December 24, 2008
In my previous analysis of the Berg v. Obama Supreme Court case, I said that the Supreme Court Justices were very sly by scheduling a January 9th conference date in order to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari. Because just one day earlier, congress is to open up the Electoral College’s sealed votes from each state, count the votes and declare a presidential winner. But now there is a new development, which seems very perplexing at first but I believe I can shed light on this news and reinterpret it as a sign of political chess.
The new development is that on December 18, 2008 Berg filed an injunction (to stay the congressional electoral vote count on January 8, 2009 until Barack Obama proves his qualifications, i.e. that he was born in U.S.A.) and he submitted it to Justice Antonin Scalia. Now the very perplexing news is that this injunction has been granted a conference date of January 16, 2009! I know—you’re all rubbing your eyes in disbelief and also when you put into context that the inauguration is on the 20th of January, I have no doubt that you’re saying, what the ?
Whenever I try to type a website on my comments, I never get posted on this blog, so I’ll creatively refer you to the following website, type in three ‘W’s’ and then a dot and then type ‘americasright’ then a dot and finally type ‘com’. Read the story ‘Berg’s Application for Injunction Curiously Moves On at Supreme Court’ under Tuesday, December 23, 2008. Jeff Schreiber (the person running this blog), is a law student and he can’t fathom the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision to set a date to discuss Berg’s injunction that is well after the time congress will have counted the Electoral College’s votes. In doing so, Jeff feels this conference on January 16, 2009 to discuss Berg’s injunction will be a moot issue.
However, I see it differently, the Justices of the Supreme Court aren’t sequestered in some castle. The Justices know exactly what the issues are and are constantly being bombarded with similar legal applications to be considered regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility for president. As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, if the Justices wanted to dismiss Berg’s writ of certiorari they could have but they deliberately chose to discuss it 24 hours after congress officially counts the Electoral College’s votes; reason being Berg’s issue of standing will now be valid! Once Obama official wins the national vote (via the counting of Electoral College’s votes), Berg’s issue of harm being done to him by Obama now becomes legally valid it is no longer theoretical; thus Berg does have legal standing!
Now in a political game of chess, the Supreme Court’s manoeuvring of the January 9th date to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari can be seen as a move of check against Obama. Obama is now in a corner but still can move his king chess piece and similarly with the writ of certiorari, Obama still could refuse to deliver evidence proving he was born in United States. I understand why the Justices set a date one week later (January 16) to discuss Berg’s injunction to stop congress from counting the Electoral College’s votes, this move can be seen as check and mate! Meaning Obama’s king can’t move in any direction on the chessboard, thus he’s trapped and has lost the game!
Setting a date to discuss the injunction on preventing congress from counting the Electoral College’s votes isn’t a moot issue; in this context any judgement is retroactive! So that even if congress has counted the Electoral College’s votes and have declared Obama the presidential winner; if the Supreme Court finds Obama ineligible to be a presidential candidate, they can retroactively cancel the results of the January 8th Electoral College’s vote count!
And that’s why the Supreme Court is allowing for a January 16th conference on Berg’s injunction to stop congress from counting the Electoral College’s vote on January 8th. It’s not a moot issue, it’s a very deliberate political game of entrapment or as in chess it can be seen as a move of checkmate. Because the Supreme Court is basically giving Obama no wiggle room to manoeuvre and escape from the January 9th’s conference of Berg’s writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court is ultimately saying to Obama, if you don’t hand over your evidence to us on January 9th, you will be forced to hand over your evidence to us on January 16th, otherwise we’ll retroactively cancel the results from the Electoral College’s votes that were counted back on January 8th!
Ok—Now I see the big picture! Part 2
written by Tom Waite, December 24, 2008
So now I see the big picture and the ultimate endgame that the Supreme Court has in mind for Barack Obama. Just like in chess, the winner is the person who sees many moves in advance; in this case the winner is the Supreme Court! They’ve set a checkmate legal trap for Obama, whereby even if there are no objections by any members of congress, the Electoral College’s votes are counted and Obama is declared the presidential winner on January 8th. The Supreme Court has deliberately chosen to wait until January 9th to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari, whereby Berg’s legal standing (harm that can be done to him by Obama) becomes valid! And finally, the Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear to Obama by its deliberate action of allowing for a January 16th conference regarding Berg’s injunction to stop congress in counting the Electoral College’s votes; that unless he hands over his evidence to them on January 9th—they’ll retroactively cancel the Electoral College’s voting results from January 8th!
I’m smiling so much now because all this time Barack Obama has hired teams of lawyers to go to court and ask to dismiss all these lawsuits that have one similar theme—show proof you were born in the United States. But now because just one of these ‘nuisance’ cases (as Obama sees it) has made it to the Supreme Court, the Justices have already out manoeuvred Obama and his team of high priced attorneys. First, they’ve cornered Obama with a move of check by setting a conference date of January 9th (24 hours after congress counts the Electoral College’s votes) to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari; the case can’t be dismissed—Berg will have legal standing! And finally the Supreme Court has made its devastating move of checkmate by allowing a conference on January 16th to discuss Berg’s injunction to stop congress in counting the Electoral College’s votes! There’s no more wriggle room left for Obama because essentially it’s a fait accompli by January 9th for him to hand over his evidence to the Justices otherwise, if he doesn’t comply by January 16th, the Justices’ will have it within their power to retroactively cancel the results from the January 8th Electoral College’s vote count!
So Obama tried to play a game of legal chess against the Supreme Court—well guess what? Obama—you’ve already lost! Checkmate!
Thanks for the posting. I was trying to make sense of the very strange dates of January 9th and January 16th.
I hadn't considered that they'd try to access and alter or replace the original microfiche film. The microfiche image posted online looked like a clumsy forgery; note the two lines immediately to the right of the Obama announcement and how they are to the left of and out of alignment with all text above and below them. I had thought that someone had taken a real microfiche image and altered only the print or digital image of it, not the microfiche itself.
You describe a very interesting scenario with SCOTUS, and I hope it is proven true.
One of two things will happen: (1) the House will either stay the count or conduct the count but delay declaring Obama the winner, pending proof of Obama's qualifications, and the conference on the 9th will become moot and likely cancelled; or, (2) the House will conduct the count and declare Obama the winner, and the conference becomes a mere formality, paving the way for the conference on the injunction which will absolutely take place if the House declares Obama the winner.