Free Republic

A case going to conference is automatic if a justice denies the original application and the applicant reapplies to a second justice.

From the supreme court website>>>>>>
•
If a Justice acts alone to deny an application, a petitioner may reapply to any other Justice of his or her choice, and theoretically can continue until
a majority of the Court has denied the application.
In practice, applications usually are referred
to the full Court by the second Justice to avoid such a prolonged procedure

A case being referred to conference does not indicat a case either does or does not have merit, it simply means a case has been submitted to two different justices

Link:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf

I never said anyone was paranoid, nor did I “Gratuitously insult anyone. I simply stated my belief that to this point no one has been able to uncover any evidence that would be admissible in a court of law....and until someone does... the courts are not going to take any suit seriously..... I have never claimed to be a lawyer, and am perfectly willing to state I could be wrong about this.

Intereresting...exactly what does one have to do to be designated a troll?..

Apparently all anyone has to do is post the reasons, as he sees it, that the courts wont compel him to show proof....not based on their personal feelings about Obama, (Have voted republican each election since 1980 by the way) but based on their understanding of law and how the court system works.

As to why I show up on these threads...It’s because I find the subject interesting.

I apparently made the wrong assumption when I stumbled onto this site, I assumed that it was a place where people came and debated constitutional issues, turns out that some on this site want no debate whatsoever, they only want to read posts that reinforce their own oppinions.

Many posters though, do appear to give thoughful insights to their views and are able to argue their points without resorting to name calling.

Gotta admit though.....being put on your list really terrifies me......

Dont get your hopes up...per the Supreme court website
•
If a Justice acts alone to deny an application, a petitioner may reapply to any other Justice of his or her choice, and theoretically can continue until
a majority of the Court has denied the application.
In practice, applications usually are referred
to the full Court by the second Justice to avoid such a prolonged procedure

Link:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf

Whenever an applcation is resubmitted to a second justice it is scheduled for conference. It does not mean the case does or does not have merit...only that it has been submitted twice.... Sending it to conference prevents a persistant applicant from submiting to 5 different justices.

I was able to read your response but it was removed befor I even got a chance to respond to it.....my response to you wasnt posted either... as far as being thin skinned?.... dude an internet poster isnt gonna get under mine

***Yes, there is 160 pages of evidence in Polarik’s latest report, plus the original publication of details by Israel Insider and Polarik’s first report. That’s a lot of evidence. It’s probably why the court hasn’t yet thrown out Berg v. Obama but tossed the 2 cases that are independent of forged BC evidence.

So in your mind the writings of anonymous internet poster who may...or may not have any of the credentials they claim to have are evidence? Evidence????? When Dan Rather did the report on Pres. Bush’ military records document experts were coming out of the woodwork, they were laying it out, in person, with their REAL names, having their names allowed everyone to verify they had the credentials they claimed to have. The result was that when these experts claimed that the documents were forged, they had some credibility. If Polarik is who he says he is... He can simply come out in public. Until he does so NO ONE except the peole on this site will give his report a bit of credence.......

By this reasoning if an anonymous internet poster who claims to be a computer expert.... claims any one of us were downloading child porn.... a judge should order a search of our computers?????..... on the other hand if a person, with documneted computer expertise comes to the police, with logs that show this to have happened.....you can bet the judge would order it.....why...because there is evidence not speculation

These “Experts” then claim they are hiding their identity to protect themselves from crazed Obama supporters..... That could be the case...of course it could also be the case that they wont devulge their identities because they have something to hide (Something like they have none of the qualifications they claim to have).

To this point there has been absolutely ZERO evidence produced that show he was born anywhere besides where he claims to have been born. NO judge will compel Obama to produce the “Vault” copy of his certificate based solely on some guys anonymous Youtube video, or Bergs speculation that his mother flew back to Hawaii, unless Berg can produce travel records. Speculation, Blogs, Youtube videos, peoples opinions, or number of other lawsuits that cite internet reports etc are not enough for a judge to compel him....

Even if a judge were to order any state SOS to examine documents. Obama will simply forward another short form COLB, that includes a seal and a signature..along with an affidavit from the State of Hawaii that attests that it is an official document. The SOS will then have satisfied the judges order and the judge will agree. The short form states he was born in Hawaii.... nothing in the constitution nor U.S. Code ever mentions anything about hospital or doctor.

I am no Obama fan, but, I have been amazed at what people on these sites consider to be “Evidence”.... Like him or not he will shortly become POTUS... surely you would never expect the POTUS to answer to every internet rumor or speculation that comes down the pike.

If your “Evidence” is....he wont show me so he must be hiding something, then President Bush must have been hiding something everytime his administration claimed executive priveledge. People will hold onto the privacy for the simple fact that it is their right as US citizens. If you asked me for mine I’d tell you cram it too.

- They state $800,000 spent to fight it...but not a single source for that information is ever cited. (oh I’m sorry someone did link to a youtube video of someone saying that they know someone that heard somebody say he did)

-They state his sister has a COLB from Hawaii but never show where this is true, no link to an image, no corroboration, no anything.....”I read it online, it supports my case, so I’ll believe its true”....

-Berg claims he was born in Kenya, not a single travel document is produced, In 1961 his mother would have had to change planes in what? 7 or 8 different countries for refueling and changing planes. But not a single document can be found of the trip.....not one....”but it must have happened because Berg said it did, it supports what I want to believe, so it must be true”

- The has only been one piece of actual evidence, that could be admitted to court produced by anyone in this... That is the COLB online scanned to a website...... That physical document (Not the web image) is evidence that can admitted into court....whether that COLB is legit?....who knows..... but no one...can attest to that without having the proper qualifications and actually physically examining the document. Everything else is hearsay and speculation...and in the US where citizens have individual rights (Yes even Obama)...... specualtion and hearsay arent enough

Honestly....what judge in america would look at these statements and consider them as evidence?

It is standard proceedure whenever a application is resubmitted to a second justice, that application is scheduled for conference. Otherwise the applicant can submit the application individually to all nine justices.

The fact that the application was referred to conference does not imply the case does or does not have merit. It is simply a precedural thing.

This case had no chance..... basically Donofrio is claiming that the laws of a foreign nation (Britain considered him a citizen at birth) precludes an American citizen from becoming president. U.S. law puts no weight whatsoever on foreign country’s laws. If that were the case, Iran could pass a law tomorrow that all U.S. citizens of Iran, disqualifying anyone..so unless you are of the opinion that foreign laws apply to U.S. citizens this case is folly.....maybe the Iranians will also require each of us to pay income taxes

This case had no chance..... basically Donofrio is claiming that the laws of a foreign nation (Britain considered him a citizen at birth) precludes an American citizen from becoming president. U.S. law puts no weight whatsoever on foreign country's laws. If that were the case, Iran could pass a law tomorrow that all U.S. citizens of Iran, disqualifying anyone..so unless you are of the opinion that foreign laws apply to U.S. citizens this case is folly.....maybe the Iranians will also require each of us to pay income taxes

The whoile premise of this case is rediculous on its face. Donofrio contends that a law in a foreign nation (British law considered him a citizen at birth) precludes an American citizen from becoming president. Niether the U.S. nor it’s citizens are subject to British law. If this were the case then Iran could simply pass a law that made all U.S. citizens automatic citizens of Iran and make ALL U.S. citizens ineligible.....fortunately their law would hold no weight in U.S. law

The immigration and naturalization laws of Great britain have absolutely no bearing when it comes to US law.... to make the jump that a foreign country determining an american a citizen to also have citizenship in their country precludes that person from becoming president is rediculous on its face.... to follow that logic, an enemy country (Such as Iran) could simply pass a law that all US citizens are also Iranian citizens, and that the Iranian citizenship cannot be revoked....this would prevent ANY U.S. citizen from becoming president..... fortunately, the United states would not be subject to Iranian law just as we are not subject to British law