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 ...
Kevmo: “So... what is it going to take
mlo: As they say, anyone can sue for anything.
***That does not address the question. That’s what trolls do.
Chemtrails? I don’t think so.
***So you managed to ignore chemtrails, which was typical conspiracy theory with little evidence, but you log onto this constitutionalist issue and go against the resident constitutional expert and berate us conservatives who are still in the fight. You’re a hypocrite.
kevmo: “And why is the threshod so high on this issue?
mlo: But I have on lots of other subjects, yes.
***So your standard for berating those involved is capricious, to say the least, and trollish, to be more accurate.
But why should I have to justify my participation on these threads?
***Because you are acting like a troll on certifiGate threads, the only “conspiracy” issue that has made it this far. Note that you didn’t answer the question...again... like what trolls do.
Why is it any more necessary than you justifying yours? This is silly.
***Didn’t answer the question, like a troll. You won’t get down to your threshold, your standard for determining what is a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory worthy of scorn compared to a legitimate issue. The reason is because you’re capricious about it and you know that your standard will fall apart under scrutiny, revealing you to be a troll.
This one doesn’t either. These cases have been submitted. So far they’ve done nothing but get denied.
***Obfuscation, typical troll behavior. Note that it does not answer the question, tries for a deflect. No other issue has made it this far with 5 concurrent cases before SCOTUS and you know it. That legitimizes the issue.
This is an incredible forum...ignoring J-Lo and NeoNazi-Sweater would be an incredible boost to progress.
***I’ll bet JimRob would make more money for his FReepathon if he installed an ignore button than over the certifiGate issue...
Just bet each troll, If something happens before the 20th they have to contribute extra to the Freepathon.....and then post their commitment to Jim Rob.
Considered posting every hundrud posts or so. That anyone who had not contributed was a troll....Then remembered I hadn’t yet.
Kevmo: And yet, none of our claims to credibility are disputed. They’re usually met with an argument from silence
mlo: Simply not true. I, and others, have made specific and substantive arguments about various elements of the eligibility question.
***Then I challenge you to a debating duel. We open a thread on the credibility of the certifiGate issue. The winner gets to keep posting on these threads, the loser must stay off until January 21. The loser posts a keyword of “kevmohasTinfoilHat” or “mloIsATroll” , respectively, on every CertifiGate thread from tomorrow onward. Certifigate threads are those with the keyword Certifigate. I’ve been maintaining that keyword for the most part.
How do we determine a winner? JimRob says either this is a valid constitutional issue or it’s a tinfoil hat conspiracy issue. If he says nothing, we both continue on as we have been, Status Quo Ante Bellum. If Jimrob says something up the middle, splitting the baby, then it looks again like Status Quo. So far, as far as I can tell, JimRob has just said the issue is “interesting”.
Anyone else who logs onto such a thread will be absolutely polite or the comment will be asked to be removed.
If you want to explore having a different arbiter than JimRob, let’s look around. I would trust someone like Alamo Girl.
What do you say?
Just bet each troll, If something happens before the 20th they have to contribute extra to the Freepathon.....and then post their commitment to Jim Rob.
***Excellent move. Pinging my usual suspects.
for your various CertifiGate ping lists
MHGinTN; little jeremiah; LucyT; pissant; Calpernia; Polarik; phil dragoo; ernest_at_the_beach; starwise; FARS; sunken civ
___________________________________________________________________
You’ve been all over them Obots today, an Energizer Bunny. ;-)
just chiming in - can’t use R arm so typing is hard, pardon typos - what MHG is saying is correct. I accused you of repeating this lie:
That the birth place listed on the COLB posted on websites reflects the info that is on the original BC.
You stated that several times; not using these precise string of words, but this IS what you have repeatedly asserted.
Your intended meaning was crystal clear.
Had all the excitement I can stand for one day. Headin’ for the hay guys. See ya manana.
thank you and have a well-deserved good night’s rest.
get some rest, if you read this in the morning then we all just start another day.
Yes, it’s only a small part of what Polarik has been saying. The guy that I was tallking to basically thinks that I read Polarik’s analysis and nothing else before making a determination. I tried to explain that I had come to that decision myself outside of Polarik’s analysis. He didn’t really care. He wants to hear testimony under oath. Hopefully we all will hear testimony under oath at some point. (Whether that testimony comes from Polarik or other expert witnesses, that image isn’t from a real document - period.)
Just FYI - before I came to FR I was following and commenting on Polarik’s analysis through TexasDarlin’s blog and the Atlas Shrugs blog. IIRC there was another imaging specialist named “techdude” that Polarik blew out of the water. The details are a bit fuzzy at this point - there has been so much discussion since then.
In the end, Polarik will be proved right.
Gee, you edit my responses just to attack them. How brilliant.
Can you produce a copy of the document that proves the point that you are making?
Yup, that Techdude blowout happened when I was on vacation. I tried to reconstruct the story... it was actually Dr. Krawetz who figured out that Techdude was impersonating a guy named Fink... and then posted it, figuring I was the one behind the curve. It turns out this escaped the notice of a lot of FReepers and even today, folks will say, “Techdude was a fraud”? I was disappointed because Techdude was the one who supposedly found Maya’s information on the electronic CoLB posted by fightthesmears.
Feel free to point out where any supposed edits of your responses do not capture what you actually wrote. And I challenged you to a debate duel, so feel free to respond to that as well.
Testimony under oath will mean nothing to Barack Hussein Obama. He is the epitome of amoral relativism, demanding to be allowed to ascend to the office of president without proving he is Constitutionally eligible, and his sycophants working FR will immediately spew the 'why should he be made to do that which other presidents have not been made to do' crap which is nothing more spohisticated than stealth racism. This man is disgusting.
Not testimony from Obama - he has already lied under oath. I was speaking of testimony from document analysts about the COLB.
As I have said several times now. I look forward to expert testimony under cross examination on the issue after some prosecutor, any prosecutor convenes a Grand Jury and gets an indictment for forgery and/or fraud.
That just means that absent any challenge, it is acceptable as proof of birth. It shifts the burden of proof that the information on it isn't valid to the other party, but it is not conclusive proof.
No, it is a short form abstract called a Certification of Live Birth or "verification in lieu of a birth certificate", not a Certificate of Live Birth (certified copy of the birth certificate). Read the Hawaiian law.
Obamabots seem to have a simple problem with the law.
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.