Posted on 12/20/2010 8:39:35 AM PST by Robert Drobot
"....According to the Supreme Court's own website, there is scheduled to be a conference Jan. 7, 2011, on a case submitted by Orly Taitz.
"....one judge has ruled that the military should resolve the question over Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief while the result from the recent Lakin court martial was that Judge Denise Lind refused even to allow his defense arguments, evidence and witnesses in her courtroom, essentially withholding related due process and discovery procedures.
Conflict of interest
"In my opinion they [Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor, both appointed to the bench by Obama] should recuse themselves," she said. "However until now they have refused to recuse themselves in such cases."
Taitz said the conflict is clear: they were appointed by a president who may not have had the authority to appoint them, therefore their own positions would be in jeopardy.
Kerchner brought forward the same concerns.
"The two justices appointed by Obama who in my opinion had a direct financial conflict of interest (their very jobs and appointments to the court) in the outcome of this petition and they did not recuse themselves even though they should have!" he wrote.
But Taitz vs. MacDonald goes beyond Obama's legitimacy to raise the possibility of Social Security fraud.
"Legitimacy is a theoretical question," Taitz told WND earlier. "This case also presents evidence of criminal actions by Obama, showing he needs to be both removed from office and prosecuted."
Taitz said the case provides evidence generated by professional investigators showing that the Social Security number currently used by Obama is fraudulent.
"It cannot have been legally obtained," said Taitz.
Her brief asserts that Obama's Social Security number was first issued to a Connecticut resident born in 1890.
"This is evidence of fraud," Taitz said.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I’ve already pointed this out on a thread posted over the weekend, but this has nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility.
This is over the $20K that the nutcase Orly Taitz was fined by the judge in one of her previous filings.
14 posted on Monday, December 20, 2010 12:14:48 PM by JustaDumbBlonde
What’s more troubling is that the Supremes might try and read the 14th Amendment to say that it somehow modifies Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution so that any citizen (natural born or naturalized) is qualified to run for POTUS. I have seen this argument being made already.
Okay punk, here we go again. Seems to me that some guys never learn.”
Roberts’ job doesn’t depend on Obama. There is a clear financial interest for Kagan and Sotomayor. Roberts actually sold some of his shares in a company so he would not have a financial conflict of interest in a case. Maybe Kagan and Sotomayor could just quit or not accept a paycheck so they won’t have a financial conflict of interest.
This is sort of like Al Capone being able to decide whether the court would hear his tax evasion case. If these gals don’t recuse themselves it only shows what a bad idea it was to put them in a position where honor rather than threats is supposed to motivate them. It makes absolutely no sense ethically for Kagan to recuse herself on cases where she was minimally involved in preparing a government response earlier but to NOT recuse herself when her own job is on the line.
But then, this is the gal who interfered with the court testimony of two different medical groups about partial-birth abortion, in order to get Clinton’s wishes to come true - the science be damned, the people who would be hurt be damned, and ethics be damned.
What ever made anybody think she would all of a sudden get some ethics, as opposed to doing CYA for her boss, as she’s done before?
BTW, if absolute power corrupts absolutely, then do you think it is a good thing if SCOTUS justices are beyond the influence of anybody and beyond the constraints of the law? Would you say that the very real threat of impeachment is a critical part of the checks and balances of our system, given the corrupting nature of absolute power?
Roberts’ job doesn’t depend on Obama. There is a clear financial interest for Kagan and Sotomayor. Roberts actually sold some of his shares in a company so he would not have a financial conflict of interest in a case. Maybe Kagan and Sotomayor could just quit or not accept a paycheck so they won’t have a financial conflict of interest.
This is sort of like Al Capone being able to decide whether the court would hear his tax evasion case. If these gals don’t recuse themselves it only shows what a bad idea it was to put them in a position where honor rather than threats is supposed to motivate them. It makes absolutely no sense ethically for Kagan to recuse herself on cases where she was minimally involved in preparing a government response earlier but to NOT recuse herself when her own job is on the line.
But then, this is the gal who interfered with the court testimony of two different medical groups about partial-birth abortion, in order to get Clinton’s wishes to come true - the science be damned, the people who would be hurt be damned, and ethics be damned.
What ever made anybody think she would all of a sudden get some ethics, as opposed to doing CYA for her boss, as she’s done before?
BTW, if absolute power corrupts absolutely, then do you think it is a good thing if SCOTUS justices are beyond the influence of anybody and beyond the constraints of the law? Would you say that the very real threat of impeachment is a critical part of the checks and balances of our system, given the corrupting nature of absolute power?
Yes, I agree that the threat of impeachment hanging over the head of any federal elected or appointed official is a good check on the exercise of power but it is practically impossible to get 67 votes in the US Senate to remove an official.
For example, at the current moment, all of the RINOs and moderates plus 20 Democrats would be needed to remove Obama via impeachment.
i.e. was her vote even relevant?
impeachment impossible? maybe! If it ever proven that obama was born in Kenya and got into the White House by fraud and deception,the politicians in Washington will desert his ship like the rats they are. They will fall over each other in the process of voting him out of office.
impeachment impossible? maybe! If it ever proven that obama was born in Kenya and got into the White House by fraud and deception,the politicians in Washington will desert his ship like the rats they are. They will fall over each other in the process of voting him out of office.
The way to gather that evidence from Kenya or anywhere else is just like they did in Watergate, Whitewater, Iran-Contra, CIA Leaks, and the Savings and Loan Scandal, a Grand Jury investigation. These endless civil lawsuits that go nowhere are not the way to gather evidence to remove a president from office via impeachment or resignation.
That’s because it’s a made up issue by a kooky dentist.
That is pleasantly surprising. My next question, was the outcome in doubt where her few would have lost?
i.e. was her vote even relevant?
The Constitution being held in contempt, injures and imparts standing to every citizen of this nation.
Considering the above, Can one of you with a law degree, tell me why or why not, and please elucidate clearly.
That's silly. How could they recuse themselves from a case that hasn't been heard?
Your source please?
"....it's a made up issue..."
Your source please?
You ain’t no lawyer are ya.
Well, welcome to last year.
Taitz took liberties with a cursory search made by to some private investigators named Mr. Neil Sankey and Ms. Susan Daniels. (ref: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28417862/Orly-Taitz-Reply-to-Social-Security-Administration)
You can see the list here: http://irregulartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/20976501-Neil-Sankey-Barack-Obama-Addresses-SS-Numbers.pdf
You can read one take on the issue here: http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2010/05/17/fact-check-neil-sankey-barack-obama-27-numbers/
I know nothing about that website. I’m just using them because I found the list there. They may be a bunch of commies for all I know. But they seem to have this basic story correct.
Anyways... In that pile o’ data there was this:
Name – OBAMA, BARACK HUSSEIN
Gender – Male
Street Address – 365 BROADWAY APT B1
City, State, Zip – SOMERVILLE MA 02145-2440
Probable Current Address – No
Telephone –
Telephone Accountholder –
Social Security – 042-68-xxxx
Age – 119
Date of Birth – 1890
Deceased – No
Date Record Verified –
Taitz made no attempt to investigate this stuff or verify any of it. She just took their bulk search results as gospel and ran with it.
This issue went into the dust bin over a year ago.
Here’s one thread we had on it: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2365222/posts
Mnehring probably had the best explanations on that thread.
It’s a fair rule of thumb by now that if Taitz’s name is attached to it, it’s crap.
We know no more now than we knew then!
(1) Barack Hussein Obama cannot be a Natural Born Citizen, as required of Presidential candidates by the COTUS, because his father was a foreigner.
(2) The standard answer to this proposition, given by everyone from the postman to your elected Republican Congressional Representatives, is,
Problem:
Proposition (1) and answer (2) have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
(2-a) There really isn't any proof one way or the other that substantiates his birth in Hawaii, beyond a weird document posted on the internet and the say-so of some Hawaiian officials who refuse to release the documentation upon which they based their statements, which happens to be required by Hawaiian law.
(3) A major difference between now and 2006:
Barack Hussein Obama has left the Senate, and is now the de facto, sitting, President of the United States.
(4)There is no clear mechanism in American Law, Custom, or Tradition for dealing with this situation. At least there is no means of dealing with it that those who might wish to use. In the meantime, teams of well-meaning (one hopes) but rather inept lawyers have not succeeded in getting their cases heard, suffering one dismissal after another on jurisdictional grounds and ironically, the eligibility of their clients to bring suit.
(5)Soon it will be 2012, and if rumors have it, Obama will run again. One governor and one state's attorney general are needed to keep Obama off one state's ballot. Seems simple enough.
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.