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 ...
What if a significant portion of that 64 million would never have voted for Obama in the first place if they knew what we now know about him?
Just like a spouse can have a marriage annulled if the other spouse is unable or unwilling to consummate the marriage, so too can we have this election annulled because Obama is clearly unable (and unwilling) to consummate this union.
I don't care how many people came to the wedding or how much the parents paid for the wedding ... if I'm not getting any ... um, documentation ... the marriage never happened. It is that simple.
Well said. They seem to be simply not doing their friggin job very well.
great post.
Hey, jamese, the SCOTUS shouldn’t be deified either with respect its practices or its results. Any Court that can rule that McCain-Feingold doesn’t trample on the First Amendment right to free political speech, or can rule that local government isn’t blocked by the Constitution from coercively transferring one private party’s property to another private party as that government sees fit, is outrageous in calling itself the ultimate protector of the Constitution.
It’s obvious the SCOTUS in recent years, rather than protecting the Constitution and its guarantees of civil liberties of American citizens against statist repression, often does the opposite. So let’s not get into a knee-jerk defense of everything the SCOTUS may do.
And, BTW, there is something arbitrary about the SCOTUS deniying Certiorari on 99% of petitions without a word of public comment on why such petitions are denied.
None of the Attorneys General of any of the 50 states were Obama was on the ballot have convened a Grand Jury to look into the validity of Obama’s short form Certification of Live Birth, particularly not the Republican Attorney General of Hawaii, Mark J. Bennett, where that document was issued. If there had been an indictment for fraud, that might have even forced a legal release of the vault copy long form of the document.
I completely agree that there is no need to deify the Supreme Court. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don’t but when they overstep or rule against popular will, the other two co-equal branches can legislate their decisions into irrelvance. A famous example of that is the 14th Amendment rendering the Dred Scot v Sanford decision as moot.
Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court is obligated to explain why they have denied or granted Cert? When they deny cert, they are in effect upholding the lower courts’ rulings in the case.
The Senate could also fail to confirm any nominee to the high court who states in confirmation hearings that they will participate in the Cert Pool or who doesn’t state publically that they will publically state their reasons for denials of Writ of Certiorari.
If the people want such an explanation, we can pressure our elected represenatives or hold a new constitutional convention to amend the Constitution to mandate explanations.
When the Supreme Court rules in what a majority of citizens think is an arbitrary fashion, the Supremes themselves are shouting in legalese: “pass a law and get the President to sign it.”
“I want them to confirm the information on the BC, not just the fact of it’s existence. It’s completely possible to have a BC on file with the state of Hawaii, and not be a natural born citizen, so merely confirming that the state has one on file is not sufficient. If the state sent a copy of the BC to interested/concerned parties, then that would at least be sufficient to prove where he was born, who his father was (and was he a citizen or not). Those are enough to determine natural born citizenship, under any of the alternate definitions.”
The only pertinent information concerning Obama’s Natural Born Status is that Obama’s short form, issued by the state Health Department with its official seal and the signature stamp of the Registrar of Vital Statistics, one Alvin T. Onaka, says that he was born at 7:24 P.M. on Friday, August 4, 1961 in the City of Honolulu,in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu and that his birth was registered with the state on the following Monday, August 7, 1961.
Unless someone comes up with an alternative birth certificate from Kenya or Indonesia or proves that his short form COLB is a forgery or fraudulent, he’s pretty well convered.
After January 20th, the only legal action that Obama might be subject to is impeachment by a Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid led Congress. Not likely to happen.
I mean this in the most respectful way ... are you high? Are you aware of the Polarik Principle?
I mean this in the most respectful way ... are you high? Are you aware of the Polarik Principle?
No, I’m not high.
Are you aware that you need a nap and a cookie? You’ll feel better then, I promise, and I mean that in the most respectful way. ;-)
Yes, a nap and a cookie would be good right about now. Maybe I’ll have some chocolate milk too. ;-p
I was serious in asking you about Polarik’s analysis. Have you not read it or do you not find it credible?
The 20th Amendment clearly anticipated the possibility that millions of people would have voted for someone not Constitutionally eligible to be President.
. . . if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.No birth certificate, no White House; or no Constitution.
ML/NJ
PLEASE GO TO PAGE 19 FOR BERG CASE AND READ. THEN EXPLAIN IT TO ME PLEASE! WRIT DENIED BUT NOT THE REST??
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/08ordersofthecourt.html
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS UNDER THE BERG CASE ORDER:
THE MOTION OF BILL ANDERSON FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF A AMICUS CURIAE IS GRANTED. THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CENTIORARI BEFORE JUDGEMENT IS DENIED.
Yes, a nap and a cookie would be good right about now. Maybe I’ll have some chocolate milk too. ;-p
I was serious in asking you about Polarik’s analysis. Have you not read it or do you not find it credible?
Yes, I have read the critique of Polarik’s analysis. I am not a document imaging expert either but I am somewhat of a printed forms expert.
I have 15 years’ experience in designing, programming, and testing proprietary software (specifically the printer drivers) that produce finely controlled positioning of text on the printed page to within a hundredth of an inch. Based on my experience with printed forms, I reached my own conclusion that the digital image of the COLB (whether it was scanned, photocopied, photographed, etc.) could not have been taken from a document that was printed by a real (physically existing) printer, laser or otherwise.
Without going into the technical particulars, although I would be happy to do so, there are certain characteristics that printed text produces on the physical paper. Those characteristics can be seen clearly by the human eye and in photographic/digital images of such documents. There are some characteristics that should be present which are not and some that should not be present but are.
That said, your point about being fair and balanced in reviewing analysis is taken and I have reviewed discussions about the document from many perspectives. It is easy to see that some have reviewed only what suits them and believe only what they want, but in my case, that isn’t so.
I haven’t reached a conclusion about the NBC issue or the legal particulars of it. I’m still reviewing the analysis. I do know one thing with certainty: the COLB image is not an image of a real document. I will leave it to others to point out the particulars of digital image manipulation. All I can do is point out that the document in the image was not produced by a physical printer. That fact leaves me with questions about why it was proffered. There is cause for further discussion/research.
As I said, I’ll wait for expert testimony with cross-examination in a court of law, if any case is ever filed that actually addresses the issue of fraud or forgery of the Hawaii short form Certificiation of Live Birth.
pinging you to BT’s comment about the COLB.
Because if someone dissents, the Court notes that in its order.
FReeper mlo:------------------------------Signup 1998-09-18
Messages 9 articles, 3779 repliesLooks 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.
Thank you for that Jim. I hope we can have more civilized debates here.
As Jim points out, I've been here a long time. I was here even before registering for the account, reading and searching for information on Clinton's crimes. I was telling my friends he would be impeached before anyone heard of Monica Lewinsky.
In 2000 I spent a fascinating month reading and arguing the Florida election laws, and protesting on the street, even with Jim.
I was following along on the Rather-gate scandal that started here, and cheered his demise over it.
I have never knowingly voted for a Democrat for anything, but not always for the Republican. In the recent election I voted for Palin.
For people to call me an Obot, troll, Obamanoid, etc., because I dispute these eligibility claims is absurd. That's no way to win an argument.
Credibility is exactly the point. If nobody disputed these claims then casual readers would all believe these claims were known facts, as many already do. Outsiders would think FR was filled with wackos, which is how most of them see proponents of this issue.
It has the potential to distract everyone from real issues that are bound to come up in the Obama presidency, and to poison the mind against our system of government.
The world should see FR as an original, wide-ranging, intelligent, creative, and conservative forum. Which it mostly is. I'm a huge fan of FreeRepublic. When people read these posts I want them to know that we don't all buy into the nonsense.
If you disagree with me, fine. That's your right. You should express your disagreement and argue your points. Don't engage in personal attacks because someone doesn't agree with you. It only poisons the atmosphere and makes the attacker look ignorant.
I assume you are talking about it saying he was born in Honolulu here. It does say that.
"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?"
The birth certificates are legal proof of the facts of birth contained on them. It says so right on the certificate. Yes, I am aware of the claims that a foreign born child can get a birth certificate from Hawaii, but those claims have referred to laws allowing adopting parents to get certificates. And nobody has produced anything that says Hawaii will lie on those certificates and say the child was born in Honolulu. So in the end these claims are suspect and unproven. The idea on its face should cause skepticism.
No, it is an actual birth certificate. It contains the statement right on the bottom that the certificate is prima facie proof of birth.
"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"."
This is one of the several often repeated false claims. I have detailed why on other threads. The site being quoted isn't a state licensing agency, it is a program for Native Hawaiians (use in the same sense as Native Americans) for which applicants need not only prove Hawaiian birth, but a degree of Native Hawaiian ancestry. That's why additional information is required *for that program*, but even that program accepts birth certifcates as proof of Hawaiian birth.
People have been misrepresenting this, like some of the other big elements in the eligibility story.
Nope. I used mine to get a passport.
"Similarly, Hawaii itself will not take a Certification of Live Birth for purposes of eligibility for their Hawaiian lands program, but they will take the long form "Certificate of Live Birth"."
No, they will take it, but the Hawaiian lands programs requires applicants to prove native Hawaiian ancestry, not just birth. So additional information is required. Hawaii does accept its own birth certificates as proof.
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.