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]

"***And yet, none of our claims to credibility are disputed. They’re usually met with an argument from silence — the SCOTUS will rule this way or they’ll throw it out or some other argument from the silence of the future. That is not a credible argument, it is a logical fallacy and yet the trolls continue to use it."

Simply not true. I, and others, have made specific and substantive arguments about various elements of the eligibility question. They are usually shouted down with insults, but they are still there.

[IrishPennant]

I plead you tell this gent to have a good day and let him post his rants all he wants to...he just keeps repeating the same garbage...my 11 year old quits when I ignore him and I assume the attention span is the same here.

[mlo]

"When you continue to assert one clear falsehood after another, does that make FR look good?"

I have not done so. You are trying to claim the position of infallibility. If anyone disagrees with you they are just lying and a (insert insult of the day). Your actually being wrong is just not a possibility, so you don't need to respond to the substance.

[little jeremiah]

You’ve repeated that lie several times even though the facts have been posted to you. I’m not going to bother doing it yet again.

[Kevmo]

No. Because they are denying them as fast as they can.
***Not true, answer has already been posted to you and yet the dog returns to its vomit. Like I said, Take that up with Billybob, who called my approach “a good analysis”. Or will you be stacking up your credentials against Billybob’s?

Being sent to conference doesn’t mean anything about merits or the chances of success. It’s just the procedure.
***I note that you simply overlook the argument that there are 17 cases in the pipeline. That means this is not a basic conspiracy issue, it’s a legitimate constitutional issue. No other conspiracy issue has ever gotten that much into court, especially in so short a time. That’s a sign of legitimacy. But you conveniently overlook that. Is that more reflective of the approach of the average troll or the honorable FReeper? Note also that your argument is completely invalid because Berg hasn’t been denied yet. Only his injunction was denied, not his case.

So... what is it going to take to get you to acknowledge that this is a valid constitutional issue, if not 17 cases, 6 concurrent SCOTUS cases, 5 forwards and the resident constitutional scholar from FR saying that it’s a “good analysis”? And why is the threshod so high on this issue? Did you log onto the chemtrail threads and berate those guys? Did any of them ever have cases before the SCOTUS? If your intentions are honorable you will honorably answer my questions; if your intentions are not honorable, then we all can see why you have been called, out of frustration, an issue-specific troll.

[Kevmo]

JimRob came to the defense of this gent because he’s a long term FReeper like myself. I am attempting to establish credibility for this issue moving forward with JimRob and other FReepers. I agree with mlo not being an obamanoid, but he is a specific-issue troll and he moves forward on the basis that this issue supposedly hurts FR’s credibility. Having a Congressman constitutional scholar on board for credibility adds to our case and this is as good a place as any to air out my frustration about CoLB trolls.

[mlo]

"I said “Good Day”, sir. You rate no more of my energy."

Works for me.

[mlo]

"You’ve repeated that lie several times even though the facts have been posted to you. I’m not going to bother doing it yet again."

I'm at a loss. You are maintaining that it is a lie to say this document says Obama was born in Honolulu.

[IrishPennant]

...but he is a specific-issue troll and he moves forward on the basis that this issue supposedly hurts FR’s credibility.

He and NeoNazi-Sweater are just a couple of old fella's that get there jollies off of disagreeing with everyone on multiple threads...

I just found this pic yesterday and it seems to sum them up pretty well: (I know I posted it earlier, but what the hey...)

[MHGinTN]

That document, aside from being a likely fraud generated fromt he same source as the forgery posted at factcheck and stopthesmears, is not a BIRTH CERTIFICATE, and you know it. It is alleged to be a certification of live birth supposedly like the ones Hawaii issues for short form when they hold a BIRTH CERTIFICATE in their document vaults. You persist in lying and layering your lies just the way Axelrod does with his techniques. Now you're trying to play misdirection, as if someone has said the questionable document does not state Honolulu on it, which exactly what ALL short forms will state whether the vault BIRTH CERTIFICATE says China, Kenya, or some other county in Hawaii. You are a troll playing word games and lying through your teeth.

[mlo]

"So... what is it going to take to get you to acknowledge that this is a valid constitutional issue, if not 17 cases, 6 concurrent SCOTUS cases, 5 forwards and the resident constitutional scholar from FR saying that it’s a “good analysis”?"

As they say, anyone can sue for anything. That's not quite true in this case, but still. What's happening is that these cases are getting denied all the way up the chain. They are just following the procedure. Nothing about that instills any confidence.

"And why is the threshod so high on this issue? Did you log onto the chemtrail threads and berate those guys?"

Chemtrails? I don't think so. But I have on lots of other subjects, yes. But why should I have to justify my participation on these threads? Why is it any more necessary than you justifying yours? This is silly.

"Did any of them ever have cases before the SCOTUS?"

This one doesn't either. These cases have been submitted. So far they've done nothing but get denied.

[mlo]

"That document, aside from being a likely fraud generated fromt he same source as the forgery posted at factcheck and stopthesmears, is not a BIRTH CERTIFICATE, and you know it."

That document is the one I was told I was lying about. Because I said that document read that Obama was born in Honolulu. Which it does. Which I posted to defend myself against a false accusation of lying.

"You persist in lying and layering your lies just the way Axelrod does with his techniques. Now you're trying to play misdirection, as if someone has said the questionable document does not state Honolulu on it, which exactly what ALL short forms will state whether the vault BIRTH CERTIFICATE says China, Kenya, or some other county in Hawaii. You are a troll playing word games and lying through your teeth."

I answered the direct accusation that I was lying about THAT document, whereever it came from. I'm getting pretty sick of your constant personal attacks. If you can't answer the substance without attacking people why don't you just stay out of it?

[MHGinTN]

You don’t have any substance, troll. You just twist the words of others and lie repeatedly. Folks show you where you are in error and you try to change the subject then go right back to the same repeated lies like a dog returning to its vomit. But apparently Jim values your presence so we will just put you on ignore, address your lies when they become too outlandish and without addressing you directly. have a nice evening

[IrishPennant]

God, that sounds just like his handlers M.O.

Misdirection when confronted...

[hoosiermama]

If there is proof that BHO was not born in HI, in the next forty eight hours, how much will you donate to Free Republic?

[nominal]

I like that pic, it's a good one. I got a chuckle out of this one too:

Apparently, there's been a blank one online for a while now, since september at least: blank hawaii certificaTION

[IrishPennant]

He’ll just say that irrefutable proof is not proof because the word irrefutable has not origin in Latin, and therefore irrefutably not irrefutable truth.

[Jim Noble]

As I recall, many of the Rudybots had early sign-up dates, too.

Yes, you're right. Mine is May 17, 1998. It's not that I HAD that signup date - I still HAVE it.

And, by the way, didn't you love the way Rudy bit**-slapped Obama at the convention? Imagine if the people had heard THAT every night for 70 days!

Did Mr. Robinson put you in charge of FReeper ideological purity while I wasn't looking?

[Freedom56v2]

This is interesting. Perhaps should be a fundraiser if Supreme Court hears the case, then donate so much....

[mlo]

"You just twist the words of others and lie repeatedly. Folks show you where you are in error and you try to change the subject then go right back to the same repeated lies like a dog returning to its vomit."

These are absurdly false accusations. Normally I would demand that someone back up such statements, or retract them. In this case I know that it would only prompt more personal attacks, so I won't bother.

Just note, this is how MHGinTN consistently responds to my reasoned arguments. Nice isn't it?