Posted on 12/21/2008 8:18:02 AM PST by Calpernia
Cover Letter
Request to refile Petition Lightfoot v Bowen with chief Justice John Roberts
Dear Justice Roberts,
This is an open cover letter and it is being posted on the Internet, you-tube and will be read on a number of radio stations, particularly radio stations around military bases, forwarded to Congress, Senate, Governors of the States and mass media. This legal action, as 20 other actions filed in the past few months is seeking Judicial intervention due to the fact that Mr. Barack Obama, whose father was a Kenyan- British citizen, is not a Natural Born Citizen and is not eligible to be the President of this country. It also states, that Mr. Obama did not prove his citizenship at all, since the state of Hawaii allows issuance of Hawaiian Birth certificates to foreign born children of Hawaiian residents and there is mounting evidence that Mr. Obama was not born in Hawaii, whereby he will not be a citizen at all. The Plaintiffs in this action are a vice-presidential candidate on the ballot, electors and voters. Majority of the plaintiffs have served years of their lives in the US military and risked their lives, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution of this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The plaintiffs and other members of the US military are deeply concerned about the fact that none of the cases related to Mr. Obama’s lack of eligibility was heard on the merits.
The plaintiffs are also concerned about the following: You have recorded a program “Conversations with Chief Justice Roberts”. Numerous high schools students were flown in to DC and participated in discussion about the Constitution, law and the Supreme Court with you. This program was fully funded by the Annenberg foundation, is it clearly states on the video released, and it appears that as a Chief Justice of the Supreme court you consider Annenberg to be a reputable organization, supporting the Constitution and you support their efforts. The problem with it, is that Annenberg has been employing on their Annenberg Challenge board William Ayers, a non-repentant terrorist that participated in bombing of police headquarters in 1970, Capitol building in 1971 and Pentagon in 1972. As late as 2001, Mr. Ayers stated in NY times interview: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel I didn’t do enough”. From 1995 the chairman of Annenberg Challenge was none else, but Mr. Barack Obama. Annenberg has created an offshoot, called Factcheck.org, Annenberg political Fact check, that was supposed to provide unbiased fact check. In reality Annenberg fact check has actively and intentionally defrauded American public in letting them to believe that Mr. Obama is a Natural born citizen and eligible for US presidency. Annenberg fact check intentionally omitted
Definition of Law of Nations (Emmerich De Vettel), stating that natural born citizen is one that is born in the country to parents, that are citizens. They omitted statement by John A Bingham, framer of the 14th amendment, stating that a natural born citizen is one that was born in the US territory to parents that don’t owe alliance to any other sovereignty. Due to the fact that Mr. Obama’s father was not a US citizen and owed allegiance to Kenya and Great Britain, Mr. Obama did not qualify as a natural born citizen and does not qualify for presidency. Fact check intentionally omitted Hawaii statue 338, that allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residence to obtain a Hawaiian certification of live birth It omitted the fact that such certification can be obtained based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence. It omitted the fact that there was no corroborating evidence of Mr. Obama’s birth from any hospital, nurse or hospital administrator from Hawaii, while there were numerous statements from Mr. Obama’s Kenyan grandmother, Baptist Bishop and ambassador of Kenya about Mr. Obama being born there. If that is the case, Mr. Obama is not a US citizen and will need to go back to Kenya to wait for his Green Card.
As of now American public has only information from Annenberg, a political organization, some of whose members have very questionable moral qualities (to say the least).
My clients, as well as 300 million American, including thousands of members of the military, that are asked to give their lives to defend the Constitution of this country, would like to know, if the Supreme Court Justices, particularly chief Justice Roberts, (that needs to swear the President on the bible), are willing to give a few hours of their time to hear the Oral Argument in defense of this Constitution. They want to know if the justices believe in the Constitution on which this country was built, whether they are prepared to tear it apart in favor of some new world order, conceived by a few billionaires, Trilateral commission and the Bielderberg Group.
Sincerely,
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Council for the Petitioners
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
YouTube Channel, DrOrlyTV
The Supremes are hiding from something that has fallen into their laps. This is a simple matter. Take care of it.The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they designed the electoral college. They knew that above all the election must produce a president in a timely fashion even if an imperfect one. That's why they gave the job to the most political branch of the government. The Supreme Court could take years to parse out the meaning of "natural born" and whether someone qualifies. Congress will take at most a few days. The founders weren't thinking of Obama, they were thinking of the importance of having a president to national security.
If the electors had been concerned they could have voted for another candidate. If Congress is concerned they can refuse to certify the electoral college vote. If Congress becomes concerned after he is inaugurated they can impeach him. The Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court a role here and they know it.
It's not fair to the Court to say they are shirking a duty the Constitution gives to Congress. It only takes four justices to decide to hear this case. Which on of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, or Thomas are unwilling to take this on. My bet is it is all of them.
I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from pursuing this but I don't think the Supreme Court could resolve it constitutionally even if they wanted to.
The old 17th Amendment would have prevented this from happening.I don't understand. How would the 17th amendment resolve this problem?
So who do we look to as an example of how the rule of law should be followed?I think the Supreme Court is following the letter of the Constitution. It would be judicial activism for them to take a role that isn't given to them.
I wasn't even aware that the old 17th Amendment had been replaced by a new 17th Amendment.
“The Supreme Court could take years to parse out the meaning of “natural born” and whether someone qualifies. Congress will take at most a few days. The founders weren’t thinking of Obama, they were thinking of (the importance of having a president to national security).”
I’m not going to waste time arguing with you, but you make the point here. We don’t know where Obama was born, but you can certainly bet the Chicoms do and the Russians do, and most of our enemies do. Obama’s legitimacy as president depends on his legitimacy under the Constitution.
Your argument about the time it would take for the Supreme Court to parse the meaning of natural born, especially in Obama’s case, is bogus. The wording is very clear, and if Obama was born in Kenya, he doesn’t qualify. The fact that it is a question of whether or not Obama qualifies under the Constitution or whether or not he has perpetrated a fraud upon the American people is precisely the kind of question the Supreme Court should respond to. If no one else steps up to the plate, and no one has, it is their duty to respond. They are presently derelict in their duty. This matter has nothing to do with the electorate at this point. It isn’t a question of Democracy or the will of the people, it is a question of the law.
But all of this is foolishness on the part of Obama. He could clear this up tomorrow.
I was referring to the ELIGIBLE BIRTH ISSUE with Obama.I was as well. The Constitution gives the job of certifying qualifications to Congress. If the founders had wanted a narrow and precise legal judgment they wouldn't have given the job to the most political branch of government.
Just to be clear, it is well settled law that the Court cannot remove a sitting president because the Constitution gives that job specifically to Congress. The same reasoning goes for the President elect.
As far as the Constitution is concerned there is no such thing as a candidate for the presidency. The election is about electing members of the electoral college. No one has questioned any of the electors eligibility for that office. The "candidates" are just private individuals exercising their first amendment rights to campaign for a slate of electors that may or may not vote for them in the electoral college. There is not much a federal court can do before the November election. After that the Constitution gives the job to Congress.
The bottom line is this system is well crafted to prevent the election from getting into Federal Court. If someone were to get past the first standing hurdle there are a dozen more roadblocks to come.
It's possible something could have been done in State Court but there is no Constitutional provision for recalling electoral votes. Maybe the court could sanction the electors for violating some state law but the electoral votes have been cast and the electoral college has been disbanded.
The bottom line is that these lawsuits are not going anywhere.
I mistated that. I meant to so if the 17th Amendment were non-existent the senators would have been on a shorter leash.
... if Obama was born in Kenya, he doesn’t qualify.You are absolutely right that if he was born in Kenya that he is not eligible. Whether his dual citizenship disqualifies him isn't so clear .
But the Constitutions gives the job of interpreting qualifications and eligibility to Congress. The founders intended for this process to be political and that is why the Courts don't have a role.
LOL! Yes, I mis-stated that.
Assuming the courts will not be involved in this, who has the authority to challenge the unauguration, other than Judge Roberts? Or is it a done deal already?
The “candidates” are just private individuals exercising their first amendment rights to campaign for a slate of electors that may or may not vote for them in the electoral college. There is not much a federal court can do before the November election. After that the Constitution gives the job to Congress.
::::::::::
Agreed, but FRAUD is still a crime, and the Constitutional law that governs the REQUIREMENTS to hold the office of president are very clear. This does represent a Constitutional crisis, since at some point, those that pursue this “position” should be made to prove their ELIGIBILITY per the Constitutional requirements. Those requirements were put into the Constitution for specific reasons by the founders and are not to be ignored.
If a “candidate” for those electoral votes has fraudulently espoused his eligibility, either by omission or false statement, he is in violation of Constitutional law. He should be held accountable. As you note, the Court that determines the matter of fraud, should direct the Congress to act appropriately.
And in the spirit of the law, if any hack can pretend to be ELIGIBLE to be president, without accountability, we could have anyone from anywhere in the world simply take the job, eligibility requirements unchallenged. That would be a catastrophe and I think we are looking at one now.
Assuming the courts will not be involved in this, who has the authority to challenge the unauguration, other than Judge Roberts? Or is it a done deal already?The job of swearing in the president is an honary one. If the Chief Justice isn't available then pretty much anyone else can administer the oath. The Constitution says the President has to take it. It doesn't say who should administer it. After John Kennedy was killed in Dallas they dug up a local federal judge (Sarah T. Hughes) to administer the oath to Lyndon Johnson. Mostly for political reasons. They wanted a strong public showing that the government was functioning.
IMHO Congress is the only avenue left.
Donofrio’s suit against the CT Sec/State seemed viable, but was tossed by SC; Congress has to be well aware by now of the number of suits and their nature. For any protest, then, it would take one Congressman plus l Senator , and they would have to present the case against Zero and/or ask or demand that he prove eligibility by producing the exact copy of BC?
the Court that determines the matter of fraud, should direct the Congress to act appropriately.The problem is the checks and balances built into the Constitution don't allow the courts to direct Congress to do this. Courts don't even consider cases they cannot provide remedies for. That's why all of the federal courts have declined to even hear these cases.
The system of checks and balances is well thought out. The founding fathers didn't want the courts to have this kind of power over the presidency.
Congress has to be well aware by now of the number of suits and their nature. For any protest, then, it would take one Congressman plus l Senator , and they would have to present the case against Zero and/or ask or demand that he prove eligibility by producing the exact copy of BC?Well said. This is how the Constitution is designed to handle this problem.
Note that Federal law (as opposed to the Constitution) provides a two hour limit on the time allowed for debate in Congress of an objection to the qualifications of the President Elect. See this section of the US code for more info. Here is a pointer to the whole chapter of the US code.
This whole process is designed for speed and certainty. Legal parsing is intended to take a back seat.
Without a doubt, this is a bad day for me. Tongue in gear before engaging brain; trying to type with cold fingers; etc..
unauguration=inauguration.Maybe you have a new word to describe what is going to happen.
Haha. Let’s hope that it’s prophetic.
Two hours limit to make this convoluted case...but then, I wouldn't bet on any rep. taking this on.
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.