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 ...
If you have read the Berg case you will see that part of that case is charging BO and the DNC with fraud.....If Berg wins Obama is quilty.
“However, since none of the other 42 men who have been president have been required to present such documentation, I do not think the Court will require it of Obama.”
Do you believe that Obama’s situation differs from all previous presidents in that he had an international upbringing, a Kenyan father and an adoptive step-father with whom he lived in a foreign country as a child? His situation is more like that of McCain, who was born outside the United States and who submitted documents immediately when questions were raised about this.
All of Obama’s sealed documents, coupled with his maneuvers to block these suits rather than just submit documentation, surely raise questions. Another very odd aspect of this is that Obama e-mailed a digital image of his CoLB to a web site and at least one newspaper but won’t submit it to a court in response to the suits.
I’ve been wondering whether there is a legal principle that pertains to Obama’s unwillingness to submit his birth document(s) to the courts while at the same time e-mailing these digital images around. Could this fact allow SCOTUS to request documentation? (Sort of like the principle that if the defense opens the door to something in court the prosecution can explore an issue that otherwise would not be allowed.)
Judge Napolitano of Fox was quoted on another web site a few weeks ago as saying that Obama will submit his passport as proof of citizenship at the swearing-in, as W did. I wonder whether there could be something about the passport that would raise questions in the Chief Justice’s mind.
Our society is so easily swayed by propaganda these days that many seem to have become infantilized. American citizens should be discussing this issue as the serious issue that it surely is. There is one standard for all politicians, and this has nothing to do with Obama personally.
No one is looking at what is already known and are running off in a thousand different directions. We know Jr graduated from Punahou in 1979 and had a full scholarship to attend Oxy! He may have lost that scholarship with the grades he obtained his first year (1979-80) because he was partying but the student attending HIGH SCHOOL in CA in 1981 WAS NOT JR! The student with the name Soetoro attending a high school in CA was an Indonesian exchange student.
The last thing I want is the Constitution spat on.
Bottom line is all 42 were men of honor....and now....
Tnx, CE - and hoosiermama, here’s clarification.
Big mistake IMHO.
Screw all the rinos! Now is the time to take back the party for conservatives!!
Every time Reaganism is tried, every time conservatism is tried, it works!!
Now is the time for conservatives to speak up!!
I don’t consider Clinton a man of honor. Further, although I voted for W twice, I am outraged at his attacks on our sovreignty through illegal immigration and trade policy that is bad for our country long-term, not to mention the spending. I do appreciate his tough stance against the terrorists, for which he took plenty of heat.
It is troubling that Obama does not feel duty-bound to resolve this issue. I and many others would be OUTRAGED if this issue were being pressed just to harass Obama, but I just don’t see it that way. People get more upset if their favorite T.V. program is pre-empted and start calling T.V. stations en masse, but they laugh at people who believe this is a serious issue. I would be just as outraged if someone I had voted for were acting this way. People need to see beyond the propaganda.
Touched a nerve, did I? Maybe I should just join you in the magical land of make believe where we can all sit around and post replies validating each other's beliefs about how Justice Roberts is going to have Obama arrested for fraud and deported to Kenya and call people "assholes" if they don't believe us! Sounds like fun?
Ooh! Ooh! It's gonna happen on January 20th! I heard it on plainsradio.com! Ed and Dr. Orly are gonna make a special announcement!
Here is a link to an article by Dr. Edwin Vieira, who has four degrees from Harvard.....(Not from BS-U. like some folks here seem to have.)
In it he explains the consequences of not having a qualified person in office. How it will deminish our country.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
“According to comments on a number of earlier threads, it only takes 4 votes in conference to put it on the court’s schedule. So they don’t need Stevens at this stage.
And if they DO vote to move forward, then it will be simply impossible for the news media to ignore it.
But I’m not sure why they would wait until now to take action.”
Some folks have commented that perhaps SCOTUS had to wait until a crime had been committed. Now that Congress has not verified the President-elect, perhaps now SCOTUS will step in to uphold the Constitution.
And now what? black perhaps?
“Great stuff, and excellent questions!!,p>
My question is why the hell isn’t talk radio on this stuff!”
I sure do not understand why all the conservative talk radio hosts are silent. My only conclusion is that they really don’t care about the Constitution being upheld and are in favor of the One World Order.
That's not any proof of being a natural born citizen. You can obtain an US passport in numerous ways without a birth certificate.
Unless you are African American I probably have had as many is not more friends of color in my home than you have....Your racist comment is not appropriate.
See :
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2162033/posts?page=147
And Obama can show his Indonesian passport to Justice Roberts while he’s at it.
Laughing as I point out your post to my spouse.
LOL !
ML/NJ
Who knows? I’ve read that Obama didn’t get an American passport until he became a senator. If that is true and if it is widely known that he traveled outside the United States, how could the Chief Justice swear him in if all he was presented was that recent passport? Wouldn’t that raise serious questions? Or am I wrong about something here?
I feel guilty about posting about this, as we must respect the results of elections and I would never want to support “Sore Loserman”-type activity. However, I can’t see this as harassment or tinfoil hat stuff.
It IS Constitutional/legal stuff. The other terms are used often by trolls.
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.