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.

[mlo]

"Just as proof of identity, or even citizenship is not enough for eligibility to the office of President."

How so? Proof of location and date of birth is all that's needed.

[Kevmo]

So the burden of proof is on the person challenging that certification.
***That’s once a person has the job, using your analogy. The person doesn’t GET the job until they’ve submitted proof that they qualify for it, including often a birth certificate. Like VA says, “I do believe he has the burden of proof at this point. It seems to me that the legal process should be able to place burden on Obama retroactively since the governing bodies that oversee his candidacy appear not to have acted within the law.” And since this is a constitutional issue, the bailiwick is squarely with the SCOTUS.

Yet it is still unclear to me in the electoral process who specifically is the responsible party to authenticate the candidate’s qualifications.
***It may be unclear, but that doesn’t remove the constitutional requirement.

There seem to be many various theories flying about on FR concerning who is liable.
***But the constitutional is steadfast in terms of the requirement. The constitution is the highest law in the land.

[curiosity]

Not all scanners are equal. Some are better at picking up subtle changes than others. Some have higher resolution. Some have higher contrast ratios.

Then there is the issue of how forcefully the seal is indented into the document. In some documents it is punched more strongly than in others, so that in some documents a scanner will be able to pick it up, and in others it won't.

The above is obvious from the two images you posted. In the first one, the seal comes through very clear. In the second one, it comes through just barely. If the scanner used had been set to only a slightly lower resolution, or if its seal were punched with just a little less force, you would not be able to see its mark.

At any rate, in the photos of Obama's certificate, the seal came through just fine, so this is a moot point.

[El Gato]

But the fraction of the American electorate in favor of compulsory process to obtain Obama's birth certificate isn't "around half". It's closer to half a dozen.

And you know this how?

According to an admittedly unscientific AOL poll, 56% of those responding, representing majorities in 44 states, think the issue "has merit". On last check there were 109,000 respondents. Meaning over 60,000 people think the issue needs looking into.

Now, there are probably are duplicate votes on both sides, but still that's probable over 30,000.

So what is your evidence that correct number is on the order of 12?

[lucysmom]

***The required action is to qualify for the elibility of the office in this case, as set forth in the constitution. Of course, a constitutionalist would know that, and defend it as proper.

The Constitution doesn't require a presidential candidate produce a birth certificate for public approval - read it, the requirement just isn't there. Further, I don't recall any presidential candidate ever being required to prove his citizenship (McCain volunteered his and Obama did too, just not the long version), and I'm OLD.

The Constitution does require the president to be a natural born citizen, however it doesn't not suggest nor require any action on the part of the candidate to prove his or her status.

[Star Traveler]

You asked — “Turn that around. What do you think *should* happen should a person be found not eligible to the Office after having taken it.”

I did state that already. I said Impeachment (which I said I had always considered the proper procedure). I was rooting for the conviction of Clinton during his impeachment... :-)

It shoulda been a slam-dunk...

[El Gato]

So people can file all the suits they want, but they will all be dismissed unless one appellate court reverses one of the standing rulings.

Not necessarily true at all. District courts are not bound by each other's decisions. Neighter are the Circuit Court's of appeals. When they disagree on some application of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is more likely to grant cert for an appeal.

[El Gato]

It is good enough.

Good enough to establish the facts that it contains, nothing more. Not necessarily good enough to determine natural born citizenship.

Also when a forgery is suspected or alleged, the "source document" is a good place to look to corroborate the facts on the derived document.

But you were insisting that it was a "source document", that is copy of an "original birth record". It's not. I'm glad to see you finally understand that point.

[El Gato]

Without reading the whole thing in detail, it seems to be saying that various agencies, for example DoD, NSA, CIA, FBI, Energy Department (nuclear weapons!) etc should recognize each other’s security clearance investigations.

Although some of the terminology is unfamiliar, not surprising since I’ve been out those nether regions for over 10 years.

The terminology thing may be an attempt to address the differing terminologies used by the various agencies.

[El Gato]

Yet it is still unclear to me in the electoral process who specifically is the responsible party to authenticate the candidate’s qualifications.

Apparently no one.

[FTJM]

You're missing the point. I'm saying the document in question is a birth certificate, in its general popularly understood meaning. A document issued by a government agency that certifies the facts of birth. That it meets the legal requirements of a birth certificate and is legal proof. Arguing about different forms and titles doesn't change that. Whatever other forms there are than that one, whatever their precise titles, *that one* is a legal birth certificate.

You're missing the point. They are two completely different documents, one is the actual birth certificate, the other is a short form abstract not necessarily based on the original source document, considering amendments that could be made to the original. The short form does NOT verify the authenticity of the original birth certificate and does not contain the exact details of the birth which can be corroborated. They do not carry the same legal weight and the short form IS NOT a birth certificate. It is an ABSTRACT in lieu of the ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE, per the law.

For example, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands requires the original long form birth certificate to prove Hawaiian status:

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

The US Passport Office does not accept some short form abstracts, to prove citizenship:

http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

*A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.

Further, the State of Hawaii allows/allowed for out of state births to be registered in Hawaii up to one year after the birth, which would call into question the credibility of the original birth certificate. Obama's sister was born in Indonesia but has a Hawaiian birth certificate.

You mean "generally popular liberal opinion"..funny how liberals care about the law when it comes to interrogation but want to use "generally popular opinion" to solve a constitutional issue.

[El Gato]

As far as "any other federal job", no one else (except Biden) is hired by 67 million citizens.

Actually by 538 electors according to the Constitution. But apparently many here don't believe in that old rag anymore. Including the President elect, who described it as "fundamentally flawed", apparently because it wasn't socialist enough to suit him.

[El Gato]

The GOP SHOULD have nominated a real conservative for president.

Aaha! Something we can agree on!.

[El Gato]

He may have had the burden of proof before January 8, but once Cheney signed the certification of electoral votes, Obama is presumed to have met that burden, becuase the people constitutionally charged with vetting him said that they were satisfied.

What Cheney signed was just what you called it, a "Certification of the electoral votes" not a certification of eligibility of the person who got the majority of the votes.

[El Gato]

How so? Proof of location and date of birth is all that's needed.

Actually it's not.. maybe. There are varying definitions of Natural born citizen. Some require knowledge of the citizenship of the parent(s). That's not on the Certification, nor on the Certificate, although the place of birth of the Parents is.

The Certification is enough to prove citizenship, but not necessarily natural born citizenship.

Oh and there is another requirement which no birth document can prove, the requirement to have been 14 years a resident in the United States.

[mlo]

"Good enough to establish the facts that it contains, nothing more."

That's exactly what I've said. Good. So we agree about that. A birth certificate, like the one there are photos of for Obama, is good enough to establish the facts it contains.

"Not necessarily good enough to determine natural born citizenship."

Being born in Honolulu would make him a natural born citizen. The birth certificate says he was born in Honolulu.

"Also when a forgery is suspected or alleged, the "source document" is a good place to look to corroborate the facts on the derived document. "

But it creates no obligation on someone to produce it. "Suspected or alleged" is pretty loose criteria. It is "suspected and alleged" that JFK is still alive somewhere.

"But you were insisting that it was a "source document", that is copy of an "original birth record". It's not. I'm glad to see you finally understand that point. "

Quote me. I haven't changed my opinion. I've been saying that the document (ignoring forgery allegations) is sufficient legal proof to establish his eligibility. That no other form must be produced.

[mojitojoe]

o: mlo Spin spin spin, agitprop. Expose yourself some more. he or she moves from thread to thread trying desperately to debate anyone that doesn't ignore his or her fantasies regarding the big eared, tic ridden, blue lipped messiah figure. Best to ignore, no fun to talk to yourself unless he's reciting the evening prayers in perfect Arabic and pretending to be zer0.

[mlo]

"How so? Proof of location and date of birth is all that's needed."

"Actually it's not.. maybe. There are varying definitions of Natural born citizen. Some require knowledge of the citizenship of the parent(s). That's not on the Certification, nor on the Certificate, although the place of birth of the Parents is."

There are not varying degrees. All natural born citizen means is that you are a citizen by birth, instead of by naturalization.

"Oh and there is another requirement which no birth document can prove, the requirement to have been 14 years a resident in the United States."

True. I've wondered why nobody has tried to make a claim about that one. I assumed it's because it's not in question, but maybe people just forgot about it.

[mojitojoe]

he would have been tied up in litigation for 8 years

Where does the 8 year number come from? Wishful thinking or from ACORN? Soros?

[mojitojoe]

Post #929, if you think that by taking up half the page it makes your argument more credible, you are sorely mistaken. Nobody reads it. Now go bow to your idol.