Posted on 01/09/2009 8:28:39 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthardknox.com ...
I'll bet they do.
Care to bet?
OK, great. Thanks for confirming that much at least. It's enough for people to start attacking me when I say it.
"The problem is all of these certificates are probably different things. The suspicion of fraud hangs heavy in the air."
The only suspicion of fraud I see in the air is here. Nobody else is taking this seriously. And here, there is a relatively small group of people that keep posting things and making the same false or unsupported claims.
A lot of the other people are just reading these threads and assuming those people know what they are talking about, or that since they've read an assertion so many times it must be true.
Out in the real world this is not an issue.
There's no real mystery about the differnt forms. It works pretty much like it works in most jurisdictions. When you are born someone fills out a form and it is filed away. When you request a copy of your birth certificate they don't just photo copy that form. They create a new certificate containing the data from the original.
That's how I got my birth certificate, that's probably how it works for most people. That requested certified copy is a legal proof of time and place of birth. The state will not create one unless they have the original record that backs it up.
No, it is an "actual" birth certificate. It looks very much like my birth certificate from California. It is legal proof of time and place of birth. It is derived from the original records.
I have two copies of my (long form) birth certificate, both requested about ten years apart. Both are photographic images of the original form transferred to official paper, signed, and stamped with a raised seal. They are the entire original form, not extracted data.
Thanks, Polarik.
Ping to #377
(That’s the actual title of the article. Not a FR spelling mistake.)
Also, unspun asks for comments about post #223.
Thanks, unspun.
">>>and the state of Hawaii confirms that they have the original records ***the certificate is based on***?"
"That is a lie. Provide quote and source."
If you read what I wrote you'll see I wasn't making a statement. I was asking someone why it shouldn't be sufficient if that happened.
However, it's true I didn't just pull it out of a hat.
http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news
"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record," DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said.Fukino said she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.
"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," Fukino said.
Please note that I didn't say how it worked in every place. But what I described is how it works in a lot of places. Including Hawaii, and my county in California.
No, you are wrong. There has been much discussion of that here on this forum and pictures of the actual original birth certificates as they are issued by Hawaii have been posted by a number of people who have them. What a California certificate looks like is not necessarily relevant. Hawaii, we should add, was in a unique situation at the time in question not comparable to long-established states and had the COLB for those who were not actually born there.
No responsible official has stated that what has been shown is an actual long-form birth certificate. All that has been confirmed is that the information that is on the COLB is drawn from the actual long-form certificate and that the original long-form certificate exists. A number of posters have explained that under Hawaii law only the object of the birth certificate may authorize revealing the actual long-from certificate. For example, the long-form actual certificate indicates the hospital where the person was born. The document that has been inaccurately identified and claimed as the birth certificate but is actually the COLB does not have that information or even a place for it.
hmmmm
About what?
"No responsible official has stated that what has been shown is an actual long-form birth certificate."
It doesn't have to be a "long-form" birth certificate.
"All that has been confirmed is that the information that is on the COLB is drawn from the actual long-form certificate and that the original long-form certificate exists."
And those facts would be sufficient.
"For example, the long-form actual certificate indicates the hospital where the person was born."
The hospital has no bearing. The birth certifcate says he was born in Honolulu. That's all that matters.
Jim, if these blatant liars are allowed to continue infecting threads at FR, the credulity of our net home you've built will be dramatically effected. This particular poster is very similar to the liars who work FR for Rudytootie. How much longer will these current liars be tolerated?
The only document that has been shown does not say that. Why don’t you go back on a number of the old threads on this and look at the long-form certificates that have been posted. You will see that they have far more information than a COLB.
And, as quite a number from Hawaii have explained here, COLB’s were issued to those who had had a child outside of Hawaii in the preceding year. One is not proof of being born in Hawaii according to those who live there and are familiar with its laws and procedures. Are you familiar with them?
It is "a verification in lieu of a birth certificate". It is not a certified copy of the actual birth certificate, which is available by law.
Yelp! The Cheat-ah has not changed her spots.
FReeper mlo:
Signup 1998-09-18
Messages 9 articles, 3779 replies
Looks like mlo was in on the ground floor of building FR’s credulity. Suggest FReepers lighten up a bit on attacking other FReepers who don’t agree with them.
Do you mean the short form BC Zer0 put on line that not even the State of Hawaii accepts as proof of identification?
Simply go the Hawaii's State Licensing web page and they explain "Don't bring us the short form for ID...we want the Long Form".
Interesting. I read through the first 30 comments on that Horowitz article saying that it doesn’t matter if Obama is a Natural Born Citizen or not, and EVERY ONE OF THEM cheered the editorial.
What that says to me is that someone on LGF must be editing these comments and trashing any that are critical. I can’t believe that ALL the responses would be positive.
Doesn’t it matter that Obama is a liar, who is about to take a false oath of allegiance to the Contitution?
Read Later
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.