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 said that if this subject went unchallenged on FR that it would harm credibility to outside observers because of the way they perceive this issue. That is true.
***If that were true, you’d jump at the opportunity to debate me as I offered. The opposite is true. This is a legitimate issue and there are obamanoid trolls operating out in the open. Alongside them are some issue-specific trolls. Keywords are being abused. Any lurker looking to get to the bottom of this legitimate issue will see the signs of troll graffiti all over this issue and THAT harms its credibility. I challenged you to a debate on the credibility of this issue and you declined. It is ostensibly because you cannot win such a debate. So in the absence of a civilized debate between you and me, we are stuck with more of your nonsense alongside of a bunch of other trolls and their nonsense, all of which detracts from the credibility of this issue.
It’s obvious you will just continue twisting anything I say so further responses on this subject will be useless.
***It is obvious that you are a CoLB troll. Trolls, like cockroaches, run away from sunlight. And that is what you are doing here.
I skipped it because it’s not an argument. 17 cases in the pipeline just means that someone has filed 17 cases. How many have had any positive action?
***Yes it is an argument. The SCOTUS can just deny the cases outright, but that has not happened on some of them. That is positive action. How many other issues that ARE conspiracy tinfoil hat cases have had 17 cases winding their way through the courts? NONE. How many have had 6 concurrent cases before SCOTUS, forwarded for conference 5 times? NONE. This is a legitimate constitutional issue.
Facts. Show me a correct, legal basis for a case against Obama’s eligibility. Suspicion is not a case.
***An issue is a legitimate constitutional issue well before any facts are established. Otherwise, there would be no discussion of an issue until a court decided upon it. Your threshold is so high that it’s absurd. Why is it that you have such a high threshold on this particular issue? When we look through your posting history, will we find such a high threshold for other issues?
Misunderstanding the law, or birth records, is not a case.
***This sentence is a non sequitur.
Show me a real case and I’ll say it’s a real issue.
***There are real cases in real courtrooms right now. Those 17 items are REAL CASES. That makes this a legitimate issue. There’s a 160 page report by Polarik + his other report + Israel Insider’s report, all bearing hard on the CoLB provided by fightthesmears and factcheck.org are forgeries. Those are FACTS that need to be considered in the CASES before the courts. John McCain just produced his birth certificate and all the noise went away for him; Obama hasn’t produced his and now the level of noise reaches to the SCOTUS. If this is political gamesmanship, then his judgement is properly called into question.
With the use of only one arm and pain I just can’t type fast enough to say what I want to say. The short version is that mlo is being worse than disingenuous by playing the honest victim. And Kevmo and others have presented reasonable comments over and over again, with axelrod tactics given in exchange.
They are denying them outright. Conference is where they do that. You seem to be under the impression that there is some earlier stage where they could be denied and they aren't. What stage is that? When do you think they could be denied "outright", prior to conference?
Utterly false.
"And Kevmo and others have presented reasonable comments over and over again, with axelrod tactics given in exchange."
Instead of just saying over and over that it's been done, just do it. Make some reasonable comments instead of cheerleading.
No, I didn't say a court had to decide any facts. I said show ME a legal basis. Give me a correct set of facts and the applicable law that leads to the conclusion that Obama is ineligible.
No those aren't. Those are cases getting kicked out of court as soon as they come up, because they aren't giving the court anything useful and correct.
The only way a case can be denied is via a conference. (I have previously cited Supreme Court Rules 15 and 16 which show this.)
How many other issues that ARE conspiracy tinfoil hat cases have had 17 cases winding their way through the courts? NONE. How many have had 6 concurrent cases before SCOTUS, forwarded for conference 5 times? NONE. This is a legitimate constitutional issue.
Tax protestors keep filing cases saying the Internal Revenue Code is unconstitutional. Dozens of those cases have reached the Supreme Court. In every one, the Supreme Court has denied certiorari without comment and without dissent-- the same as in the Obama qualification cases.
Those are allegations by some guy on the internet. Not FACTS. Excuse me if I don't take Polarik's word for it.
BTW, in all these threads I had mostly been skipping the whole BC forgery question *because I gave those allegations the benefit of the doubt*. For all I know Obama really may not have wanted to produce his BC.
But I did recently look at Polarik's second report on the photographed BC (not the JPG scan), and let's just say, I was underwhelmed.
Why do you trust that Polarik is correct?
The only way a case can be denied is via a conference. (I have previously cited Supreme Court Rules 15 and 16 which show this.)
***And FreemanN seems to have refuted your remarks. And we’re still waiting on Congressman Billybob to weigh in. In the meantime, I don’t trust a lawyer who I caught arguing from silence. Like FreemanN said, I undressed you in public... ugh, I didn’t like what I saw.
Tax protestors keep filing cases saying the Internal Revenue Code is unconstitutional. Dozens of those cases have reached the Supreme Court. In every one, the Supreme Court has denied certiorari without comment and without dissent— the same as in the Obama qualification cases.
***Good answer. How many of those have been forwarded for conference? Would the discussion of such cases on this forum “make FR look bad”? Probably not, so why is that said about certifiGate? Do those cases attract their own version of partisan obot trolls, as well as issue specific trolls? Probably not, so why is that happening on CertifiGate?
Refuted how? Show me one case in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court where certiorari was denied and the case was not previously listed for a conference. Just one.
In the meantime, I don’t trust a lawyer who I caught arguing from silence.
I said that no dissents were listed in any of the orders denying motions or cert. petitions in any of these cases, even though it is routine for Justices who dissent from such orders to say so in the orders. That is not an "argument from silence."
Like FreemanN said, I undressed you in public... ugh, I didn’t like what I saw.
Nice personal attacks there. I have been a lawyer for 30 years, and a FReeper for more than 10. Your comments do you no credit.
Those are allegations by some guy on the internet. Not FACTS.
***They are entered as factual information to be considered in some of these court cases, as affidavits.
Excuse me if I don’t take Polarik’s word for it.
***Why should I? It’s legitimate info that is legitimately being discussed, has not been thrown out of court yet, so it is legitimate and credible for us to discuss it here on this forum. Trolls like you enjoy trying to move the goalposts on such information.
BTW, in all these threads I had mostly been skipping the whole BC forgery question *because I gave those allegations the benefit of the doubt*.
***I would enjoy it immensely if you would give it further benefit of doubt until January 21.
For all I know Obama really may not have wanted to produce his BC.
***An argument that does not hold water. He produced an electronic copy of his CoLB on his website. He can’t hide behind privacy after divulging that information. It turned out to be a forgery. For all I know the guy is an illegal alien.
But I did recently look at Polarik’s second report on the photographed BC (not the JPG scan), and let’s just say, I was underwhelmed.
***Feel free to take him to task. I have way more confidence in Polarik after seeing him in action than I do in you.
Why do you trust that Polarik is correct?
***Long story. One that I don’t care to discuss with a troll right now.
You also said exactly what I claimed you did. I can cite it if you like. So back off those accusations about lying. Try to be civil.
As for your point above, yes I did say that. Because that's the whole premise of getting a birth certificate. The certifcate contains the information from the birth records. Of what use would a certificate be if it didn't? Every time anyone requests a birth certificate the whole point is to document the birth records. Nobody has demonstrated anything contrary.
All of them. A case cannot be denied certiorari without being listed for a conference.
Go to the Supreme Court's website, and try to find me one case in which cert. was denied but which was never listed for a conference. You won't find one.
The wording or variation on the word "certificate" is not the point. It is a legal birth certificate. It is prima facie proof of the facts of birth that are contained on it.
If you believe Hawaiian law says something else, please cite the law here.
Refuted how? Show me one case in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court where certiorari was denied and the case was not previously listed for a conference. Just one.
***Feel free to ask FreemanN, the other lawyer dude.
I said that no dissents were listed in any of the orders denying motions or cert. petitions in any of these cases, even though it is routine for Justices who dissent from such orders to say so in the orders. That is not an “argument from silence.”
***Wow, dude, look below at what you said. It was nothing like that. That’s like, 3 times you’ve been caught in very simple blunders that a first year lawyer wouldn’t make.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2163123/posts?page=293#293
LL: There is no evidence that they actually spent any time discussing it.
Kevmo: ***There is no evidence to the contrary, either. An argument from silence. Hmmm, you’re a lawyer and I catch you in a fundamental classic fallacy? That seems to make you one crappy lawyer.
Nice personal attacks there. I have been a lawyer for 30 years, and a FReeper for more than 10. Your comments do you no credit.
***Actually, it was FreemanN who said it. I just added that I didn’t like what I saw, a bit of levity for the occasion, all at your expense of course. You’re kinda thin-skinned for a lawyer. Does that help you in the courtroom?
I'll interject on this. Those do get discussed on FR, I have been involved in those discussions. They are not one-sided discussions. If only the tax protesters were allowed to post on FR and their critics were exiled as "trolls", then yes, it would make FR look bad. But that doesn't happen. Most reasonable people wouldn't expect it to.
How many of those have been forwarded for conference?
All of them. A case cannot be denied certiorari without being listed for a conference.
***I hope you don’t mind that I don’t just take your word for it... seein’ as how you’ve made such obvious blunders just in your interactions with me & all that...
Go to the Supreme Court’s website,
***I’m not gonna fetch anything. You’re the lawyer, I’m not. I don’t go down rabbit holes just because some blundering lawyer gets a bee in his bonnet.
and try to find me one case in which cert. was denied but which was never listed for a conference. You won’t find one.
***You’re right. I won’t find one, because I won’t look for one. I wouldn’t know what I was looking at and you know it, which is probably why you’d want to send me on such an errand. Looks like we all need to rely upon our resident constitutional scholar and former Congressman Billybob to weigh in. FreemanN is also a lawyer and IIRC, so is BP2. However, I do look forward to debating with you on the layman’s level, it’s actually a lot of fun and so far, you’ve swung at & missed 3 softball pitches. And like I said before, please let us all know what law firm you work for so those of us who are... uh... less than impressed... can avoid it if we have legal troubles; of course, the converse is true as well — think of all the business you could attract.
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.