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 ...
Nope. But Polarik himself acknowledges that it is detectable. More importantly, it is clearly visible on the photographs of the paper document.
California's short form as well as Texas' are according to several passport sites I checked not acceptable, you need the long form.Here's a statement from the City of Orange CA, which has a passport issuing office.
SPECIAL NOTICE - CALIFORNIA BIRTH ABSTRACTS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE - PASSPORT APPLICANTS BORN IN CALIFORIA MUST SUBMIT LONG FORM PHOTOREPRODUCTION CERTIFIED COPIES OF BIRTH RECORDS - THE SHORT BIRTH ABSTRACT OF RECORDS ISSUED BY MANY COUNTIES AND BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WILL NO LONGER BE ACCEPTABLE FOR PASSPORT PURPOSES. DUE TO COMPUTER PROGRAMMING THE BIRTH ABSTRACTS SHOW THE COUNTY OF ISSUE AS THE PLACE OF BIRTH EVEN IF THE INDIVIDUAL WAS BORN IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND ADOPTED IN CALIFORNIA. A BIRTH RECORD FOR PASSPORT PURPOSES MUST BE THE LONG FORM PHOTOREPRODUCTION CERTIFIED COPIES.
I will check on this and follow up as soon as I have time. Thanks for posting it.
That is why the MSM isn't giving the attention to the issue you feel it deserves.
What you are doing is assuming the truth, then attacking anyone that challenges your assumptions. That's not the way to approach an issue.
There is a difference between "required" and voluntary action. Voluntarily producing one's birth certificate may begin a tradition, but it does not make for a requirement.
Why would the grandparents want to "cover up"? That question has to be answered in a way that makes sense to the "reasonable man".
lucy:”Why would the grandparents want to “cover up”? That question has to be answered in a way that makes sense to the “reasonable man”.”
As I understand (and have read), there is a question about the address that was given in the newspaper announcements that does not appear to match up to any valid address for the Obama’s or the Stanley’s. This does seem to call into question the validity of the newspaper account.
I think FreeManN is making an assumption that this was not a clerical error but instead was malfeasance on the part of the Stanley family.
The question would be, why is the “incorrect” address given for the birth announcement? Was it an error on the part of the newspaper, the hospital, or was it actually submitted by the family? If it was submitted by the family, why??
Ditto!
"The odds that the fake CoLB posted by the nom de plume “hayIBaPhorgerie” has the same time of birth as zer0bama (7:24pm) would reflect 24 hours/day * 60 minutes/hour = 1440 minutes/day. = 1/1440"
Misuse of statistics. It would only apply if the two things were independent events. If some uses the Obama document to create the Phorgerie document, they aren't independent.
Jumping to conclusions.
I haven't seen any evidence that he's doing that.
The short form version is legal proof in itself. When it says it is prima facie proof of birth, it means that it should be taken at face value unless someone can prove otherwise.
Many things have been "stated". Saying them doesn't make them true. Most of these things do not check out.
mlo:”The short form version is legal proof in itself. When it says it is prima facie proof of birth, it means that it should be taken at face value unless someone can prove otherwise.”
Then explain why Hawaii maintains the vault copy of the birth certificate. It obviously requires a considerable amount of expense to keep everyone’s vault copy along with the short form. Why do they continue to maintain that record if it is superfluous??
Exactly! Why? It isn't enough to assume malfeasance.
“As I understand (and have read), there is a question about the address that was given in the newspaper announcements that does not appear to match up to any valid address for the Obama’s or the Stanley’s. This does seem to call into question the validity of the newspaper account.
I think FreeManN is making an assumption that this was not a clerical error but instead was malfeasance on the part of the Stanley family.
The question would be, why is the “incorrect” address given for the birth announcement? Was it an error on the part of the newspaper, the hospital, or was it actually submitted by the family? If it was submitted by the family, why??”
Well stated, augmented!
And to take the argument just a bit further. Assuming it was NOT a mistake, who would have motive to present an incorrect address to the newspaper re: a fraudulent place and time of birth.
You're correct. What I should have asked El Gato was:
"Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes."
How do you know this one is one of those not acceptable?
Poor response. The way to make the point is to cite the evidence. When you rely on name calling instead we can all just assume that you can't do that.
I don't need to explain why people do the things they do. I'm not a state archivist. It's enough to show that this is how it works.
READ THE CONSTITUTION! If you have half a brain your questions will be answered. If not you are either a MORON and/or an obot.
I just pulled my copy from my law school Constitutional Law Text Book. Therein, the Constitution is ONLY 15 pages long. If you can not read a whole 15 pages then just read Art. II (5), it is only 1 paragraph.
Now I am going to the gym to work off my frustration with the MORONS who elected this FRAUD, bo. When I return the MORONIC OBOTS will be ignored by me. However, I will continue to enjoy discussion with those reasonable men and women who have actually read the Constitution.
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.