Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court to hear case on Obama's alleged forged documents (Photos) ^ | Jan 10, 2012 | Marc Dumon

Posted on 01/11/2013 4:44:07 AM PST by voicereason

On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court scheduled a birther case brought on by Orly Taitz which calls into question Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to be president of the United States. Dr. Taitz, a lawyer from Santa Margarita, Calif., also made the announcement on her website on Jan. 9. As of this writing, major news networks such as ABC, Fox News, CBS, and NBC have yet to report on the high court's decision to review Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to hold political office in the United States or any of its territories. The case is identified as Edward Noonan, et al., v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State. On Feb. 15, all nine justices will hear arguments on whether Obama used forged government documents and fake identification in order to get elected as commander-in-chief. Edward Noonan, et al., contend that if Obama had been ineligible to run in 2008, other Democratic candidates should have replaced him on the presidential ballot. Additionally, electoral votes from states such as California that went towards Obama should have been deemed null and void. Continued at source....

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; obama; orly; orlytaitz; taitz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-182 next last
To: butterdezillion

US District Court Judge Henry Wingate has two copies of Obama’s long form COLB at this very moment. Orly Taitz submitted one copy and Obama’s attorneys submitted the other with their pleadings in Taitz v Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee, Obama, et. al.
Obama’s attorneys also submitted a Letter of Verification from Alvin Onaka in Hawaii and they asked Judge Wingate to take Judicial Notice of the Letter from Dr. Onaka.
Judge Wingate has not yet acted on any of the exhibits submitted with the pleadings or motions.

81 posted on 01/11/2013 1:48:46 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: visually_augmented

“Based on the info below, it appears that it was out-right refused by Kennedy and accepted for conference by Roberts. So if nothing else, there is a minor victory here:

Dec 11 2012 Application (12A606) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 13 2012 Application (12A606) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 26 2012 Application (12A606) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 9 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.
Jan 9 2013 Application (12A606) referred to the Court.

So of the 10,000 petitions for certiorori, how many are refused out-of-hand and how many are referred to conference. I would suppose the number that reach conference are significantly below the 10K number you suggest...”

I believe you are misinterpreting the Court’s docket sheet. IIRC, the “application” refers to a motion to the SCOTUS for a stay pending the Court’s determination of the underlying petition for a writ of certiorari (permission to appeal). On January 9, 2013, the writ of certiorari was referred to the conference; that is, to the justices to decide whether they should grant the writ and accept the appeal. On the same date, CJ Roberts referred the motion for a stay to the court for consideration.

With respect to the underlying petition for a writ of certiorari, nearly all of petitions that are properly filed in strict conformance with the rules of the Court go to conference. The primary exception (which really isn’t an exception) are writs of habeas corpus, which are usually screened for merit by a special pool of staff law clerks. The other big exception are prisoner civil rights cases, which are also screened for merit by staff law clerks.

CJ Robert’s referral of the motion for a stay to the entire court for consideration is also insignificant. Under the rules of the court, a motion for a stay must first be made to the justice for the circuit from which the case originates and if that justice denies the motion, then the motion can be renewed to any justice. In this particular case, the motion for a stay was initially submitted to Kennedy who denied the motion for unspecified reasons — most likely due to a failure to comply with the procedural rules. The motion for a stay was then refiled with Roberts who referred the motion to the entire court (SOP once the motion is properly filed), where it along with thousands of other motions will be summarily denied in due course.

82 posted on 01/11/2013 2:22:03 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

Please, no copies of a pdf.

83 posted on 01/11/2013 2:26:32 PM PST by JohnnyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: voicereason
This really isn't big news, just routine business. In fact, this is at least the third time that I know of that the SCOTUS has submitted a birther case for a conference, and every time, birthers pretend it's a great victory:

84 posted on 01/11/2013 2:28:56 PM PST by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

False hope springs eternal.

85 posted on 01/11/2013 2:36:00 PM PST by Tex-Con-Man (<-------currently working through post-election anger issues.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Thank you for your service and dedication to the rule of law.

86 posted on 01/11/2013 2:41:29 PM PST by wxgesr (I want to be the first person to surf on another planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyP

Under Hawaii law, Judge Wingate can issue a court order for an original copy if he finds what has been submitted to be insufficient. Federal Rules of Evidence 902 and 1005 allow for PDFs to be entered into evidence. Ultimately, the judge will decide the probative value or lack thereof of the exhibits.

87 posted on 01/11/2013 3:46:32 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
“”””And while the Constitution sets certain eligibility requirements for POTUS, I can make an argument for the SCOTUS to avoid the controversy under the political question doctrine on the grounds that the political process should determine whether the eligibility requirements have been met.””””” In other words, let the voters, Electoral College, and elected representatives at the state and federal level set the standards and procedures for determining whether a candidate has met the constitutional eligibility requirements for POTUS.

Sometimes we make things too complicated... Let us go back to basics and consider a simple question..... Can a doctrine (the political question doctrine) trump a sworn oath? I don't so, A Supreme court ruling on The constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land is a necessary result of the sworn duty of each justice to uphold the Constitution. If they do not accept this case, why are they there? Thew need to do their duty and not be cowards.

88 posted on 01/11/2013 4:30:21 PM PST by Constitution 123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Everything about Obama is screwed up.

I’m sure he found that he was FMD’s kid at some point.

I think America is going down the tubes, and I just want to enjoy the ride now. It’s liberating to be able to laugh in a liberals face, and to not really care anymore. To tell them their kids will curse them at their grave for dumping all this debt on them and destroying the most incredible country that ever existed, and then laugh. The truth really upsets them, and it no longer bothers me. I have accepted that America will disintegrate. Maybe at 30 trillion debt. Maybe 60 trillion. But collapse is coming.

89 posted on 01/11/2013 4:37:52 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

The Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee’s verification request is what convinced me that my understanding of the law was legally sound. The MDEC attorneys said they needed a verification because the legitimacy of the White House BC image and the truth of the claims on it were at stake in the case - but then they made their request to specifically NOT ask for verification of either of those things. They knew Onaka couldn’t verify either of those things, because he wouldn’t for Bennett. So they fashioned their request to take advantage of the fig leaf Onaka had used in the verification for Bennett: that the information “matches”. Like I said elsewhere, the information contained on my $2 will match the information contained on anybody else’s $2 bill, but none of them will legally be worth a thing. It doesn’t matter what is contained on a legally non-valid BC, because it has no legal value anyway.

I haven’t read the whole MDEC case, but I suspect that their inclusion of the White House image is as part of the exhibit showing the communications between them and the HDOH, where they asked if the claims on the White House image “match” the claims on the HDOH record. If so, they were not submitting the White House image itself as evidence, but were submitting the VERIFICATION as evidence.

What Orly should do is submit the verification to Bennett, where Onaka indirectly confirmed that the record at the HDOH is legally non-valid and Onaka could not verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. That way, the judge would know that the claims “matching” means nothing, since the claims are made on a non-valid record.

Orly’s been so busy, I didn’t want to bother her with more stuff, but it would really help her if she understood what the letter of verification for Bennett really means.

90 posted on 01/11/2013 4:41:46 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

A PDF of a vital record (which is supposed to have a physically-raised seal and the certifying statements in order to be certified) would not be sufficient, and especially since Onaka has refused to verify what Bennett requested to be verified: that the PDF is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. Onaka has, through silence, confirmed that the PDF is NOT “a true and accurate representation of the original record on file”.

91 posted on 01/11/2013 4:49:03 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

You did a wonderful job exposing Obama.

Some day, it may be recognized when the truth comes out.

Until then, you deserve a happy life.

Pursuing Obama any further is pointless to me, as the people who voted for him do not care if he is Satan himself. They are hell bent on destroying the united states and they now outnumber us.

1000 years from now, when America is long gone, men and women will read about the American revolution of 1776 like chinese slaves reading from the bible, hiding in a dark room to avoid being arrested.

92 posted on 01/11/2013 4:50:36 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]


I’m trying hard to get to that point. It’s tough though, because I really loved America while she was alive, and watching her being killed slowly while her “defenders” get paid to sit by and make fun of her is still hard for me to swallow.

I always thought that I would have wanted to be one of the people at Jesus’ cross, like the Mary’s and John. But watching this happen makes me think I wouldn’t have been able to stomach it.

What’s coming soon, I suspect, is EVERYTHING I love being destroyed amidst sneering depravity: my family, my fellow Christians, my Lord, my country, justice, truth, and life.

I have to look beyond what I see here. I have to keep my eyes fixed on the eternal, because that is where the good guys win, and the sneering depravity gets what it deserves. I long for the Day of Justice. It will come, and when it does I will welcome it with all my heart.

93 posted on 01/11/2013 4:59:54 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

The sec of state already have that power. Cal declared Eldridge cleaver not qualified after asking for his birth certificate and seeing he wasn’t old enough.

The sec of state are charged with qualifying candidates to be on the ballot. That gives them the authority and responsibility to ask for evidence and verification.

94 posted on 01/11/2013 5:06:11 PM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: GBA least an eligibility case finally made it to the SC.

Many eligibility cases have been filed with the Supreme Court, but the Court has not agreed to hear any of them. The Court has not agreed to hear this one, either; it is merely listed for a conference (as any case filed with the Court is). Only if the Court votes at the conference to hear the case will it be heard.

95 posted on 01/11/2013 5:13:27 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LachlanMinnesota
The only thing interesting is that Kennedy at first through it out, and then on second go round, it was accepted for conference. I think we know how Kennedy will vote on the case if it ever is heard before the court.

This is not a petition for certiorari, it is a motion for a stay (specifically, to stay the counting of the electoral votes by Congress until Orly files a cert. petition). Any motion for a stay goes to one Justice, who can grant it, deny it, or refer it to the full Court for a conference. If the first Justice denies it, the movant can make the same motion again to another Justice (and theoretically can make it over and over to all 9 Justices). So, in practice, if a motion is denied by one Justice and the movant makes it again to a second Justice, that Justice will always refer it to the full Court so it can be denied once and for all.

Here, Orly made her motion to Kennedy, who denied it. She made it again to Roberts, who referred it to a conference. The facts that (1) Congress has already counted the electoral votes (the thing Orly is asking to enjoin) and (2) the conference is scheduled for after the inauguration are pretty good indicators of what the result will be.

96 posted on 01/11/2013 5:29:22 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Thanks for the clarification.

97 posted on 01/11/2013 5:32:39 PM PST by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

That will all be up to Judge Wingate to rule on.

Dr. Onaka is a named co-defendant in Taitz v Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committeee, et. al., as is Loretta Fuddy and Nancy Pelosi.

If Judge Wingate denies the defense’s Motion For Judgement on the Pleadings, I assume that Dr. Onaka and Ms. Fuddy will be deposed.

98 posted on 01/11/2013 5:40:53 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

“”””Pursuing Obama any further is pointless to me””””

So sorry but I disagree with you..... In the face of these substantial attacks from enemies within, we should NEVER give up. Our voices should never be silenced. Go Butter.... Go Orly.... Go Klayman!!! Our cause is righteous... even if we lose, future generations will see what happened here. Keeping the pressure on is our patriotic duty.

99 posted on 01/11/2013 5:41:02 PM PST by Constitution 123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

I’m pretty sure those are NOT Obama’s lawyers and the LFBCs are only photocopies (or printouts) of the layered PDF posted at Obama’s website. Obama supposedly has two hard copies he obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health, but NEITHER has seen the light of day in any court of law.

100 posted on 01/11/2013 5:48:45 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-182 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson