Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama has struck all pending eligibility cases OFF SCOTUS docket
plains radio ^

Posted on 01/22/2009 7:01:08 AM PST by dascallie

How is this possible? Orly Taitz has a scheduled conference hearing for Jan23, by Justice Roberts...it has disappeared from the docket.

posted by Shestheone

IP: 72.224.141.133

Jan 22nd, 2009 - 7:38 AM Re: America's finest ! Dr Orly Taitz- Just sent lots of subpeona 's out _ I hope she sees my future

Ah, but her cases are no longer on the docket - bo has struck. All elgibility cases have disappeared. Please call and write to our Supreme Court and demand that they put the elgibility cases back on the docket. Visit scotusblog.feedback@gmail.com too and leave feedback.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 911truthers; birthcertifigate; birthers; blackhelicopters; certifigate; constitution; coverup; dictatorship; eligibility; fear; fearthis; judicialtyranny; scotus; tinfoilhats; tyrants
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 next last

1 posted on 01/22/2009 7:01:08 AM PST by dascallie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dascallie
I would think that the separation of powers clauses in the Constitution would prevent any President from having any power to do something like this.

I am dubious of the claim that it was Obama's doing.

Now....does anyone know the whereabouts of Sandy Burger?

2 posted on 01/22/2009 7:04:32 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (All the oil's in Texas...but all the dipsticks are in Washington, DC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

How can he do that? I thought SCOTUS was part of a check and balance system. I am going to have to stop coming to FreeRepublic...my blood pressure is going through the roof with what is being uncovered already about this administration.


3 posted on 01/22/2009 7:04:55 AM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

I don’t believe the President has the power to do that. Separation of powers...

I think it’s more likely the Supreme Court decided the point was now moot, since Obama has been sworn in. Twice.


4 posted on 01/22/2009 7:05:53 AM PST by SandyInSeattle (Go, Sonics! And take the Seahawks with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

“Pssst, Roberts? You can have a do-over if you wipe that docket for me. Deal?”


5 posted on 01/22/2009 7:05:56 AM PST by RushIsMyTeddyBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

Ah, but it is not moot. Does not matter if he is sworn in, this question is still viable.


6 posted on 01/22/2009 7:07:55 AM PST by waxer1 ( Live Free or Die; Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Well, perhaps not him directly, but rather someone acting on his behalf. Doesn’t the Clerk take care of that sorta thing?

I knew about Orly’s case being scrubbed, but ALL of them?!
How many were in the bullpen?


7 posted on 01/22/2009 7:08:19 AM PST by ozark hilljilly (Ignorant, pushy noob since 4/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

Is this still Silly Season? Because, this is silly.


8 posted on 01/22/2009 7:08:27 AM PST by savedbygrace (You are only leading if someone follows. Otherwise, you just wandered off... [Smokin' Joe])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

maybe the person(s) handling the website made them disappear? ...accidently....


9 posted on 01/22/2009 7:08:27 AM PST by novemberslady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

Does Bambi have the authority to do this or was this done by someone on the USSC?


10 posted on 01/22/2009 7:09:27 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

Did you bring your flame suit? Because you are really asking for it. You’d better off bringing a pig to Mecca than doubting the birth certificate conspiracy on the FR.


11 posted on 01/22/2009 7:11:16 AM PST by Seruzawa (Obamalama lied, the republic died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

Don’t know if this is factual stuff or not, but if so it just goes to show how far a thug can go with a conspiratorial media and a fat, dumb, lazy public.


12 posted on 01/22/2009 7:12:17 AM PST by Oldpuppymax (AGENDA OF THE LEFT EXPOSED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie
Thats simply not possible.

Don't buy into the hype, the guy can't walk on water, nor can he do something like this..

13 posted on 01/22/2009 7:12:47 AM PST by Paradox (When the left have no one to villainize, they'll turn on each other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

Berg’s case is still listed but it was updated yesterday:

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

Jan 21 2009 Application (08A505) denied by the Court.


14 posted on 01/22/2009 7:12:54 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie
They don't want to "thwart the will of the people" by applying unreasonable eligibility requirements from some old, out of fashion document written by long dead racist white guys.

/sarcasm off/


15 posted on 01/22/2009 7:12:56 AM PST by Iron Munro (Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

What was Taitz’s original docket number? I can’t even find where anything was filed with her name in it.


16 posted on 01/22/2009 7:14:14 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: waxer1

If the court decided it’s moot, then it’s moot. They decide which cases they’re going to take, not us.


17 posted on 01/22/2009 7:14:16 AM PST by SandyInSeattle (Go, Sonics! And take the Seahawks with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

That is a denied case. This refers to cases pending or scheduled for conference


18 posted on 01/22/2009 7:14:53 AM PST by dascallie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dascallie
Obama's eligibility question has been rendered moot by the fact that he has been sworn into the office. The only way to remove him now is by the process of impeachment.

Even if the courts decided today he was not legally eligible, they do not have the power to remove him from office. Only the Senate has that power and they only have that power if presented with a bill of impeachment from the house.

It is out of the hands of any court at this point.

19 posted on 01/22/2009 7:14:53 AM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

I do wish you wouldn’t state in the title that Zobama had the cases dropped.

I odn’t know any more than you why the cases were dropped.
I assume that there is no judicial relief now.

A suit challenging a law signed by him is in order now.


20 posted on 01/22/2009 7:15:21 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
my blood pressure is going through the roof

Philippians 4:6
Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God;

God is in control.

21 posted on 01/22/2009 7:16:27 AM PST by MrB (The 0bamanation: Marxism, Infanticide, Appeasement, Depression, Thuggery, and Censorship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/nais-bad-for-america-opt-out-by-devvy-2/


22 posted on 01/22/2009 7:16:45 AM PST by gunnyg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

Does Alan Keyes have any means of judicial relief at this point?


23 posted on 01/22/2009 7:17:51 AM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

It was filed under Lightfoot vs Bowen I think

see below:

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2009

Obama has been in power only one day and they are already playing games with the Supreme Court
Obama has been in power only one day. Suddenly today my case has disappeared from the docket. The case was not dismissed. It is supposed to be heard on the 23rd of January. Each and every American Citizen needs to call the Supreme court and demand decency from these Justices. They have violated all principles of judicial integrity and ethics by inviting Obama and Biden to the closed door meeting only a few days before the hearing. They have inaugurated him in from of millions of people, when 3 days after the inauguration they are supposed to hear my case, where I state that Obama is not eligible for presidency and never was eligible. They were supposed to recuse themselves from the inauguration. What is going on? Is Chicago mafia influencing the Supreme Court? If we don’t have integrity with our elected officials and the whole system is corrupt, then it is time to revolt and change the system.
POSTED BY ORLY TAITZ, DDS ESQ. AT 3:09 PM

http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-has-been-in-power-only-one-day.html


24 posted on 01/22/2009 7:18:08 AM PST by dascallie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

It is factual in that the cases aren’t listed anymore. It is still speculation as to what exactly happened.

Copy:

http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2009/01/lightfoot-v-bowen-set-for-123.html

Update, 1/21, 6:52pm: Just received this via email form a trusted source.
All the cases on Obama’s eligibility, even the pending ones, have been removed from the SCOTUS website.

One remains only to say that Berg v. Obama was dismissed today.
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

Donofrio, Wrotnowski, Schneller, Berg applications and Lightfoot all removed. I checked the other 2008 cases having nothing to do with Obama and those are still there.


25 posted on 01/22/2009 7:18:21 AM PST by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
Is this still Silly Season? Because, this is silly.

Have you seen Obamah's certified birth certificate? Do you think that thing we've seen is actually a birth certificate?

26 posted on 01/22/2009 7:18:28 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

The bar association that keeps all these filing records separate from SCOTUS also doesn’t have anything for Taitz (record from results isn’t related).

http://search.abanet.org/search?sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&access=a&output=xml_no_dtd&sort2=score&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&q=Taitz&btnG=Go

Is this her real name or is this like Polarik using a ‘pen’ name?


27 posted on 01/22/2009 7:20:16 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
>>>... the guy can't walk on water...

Don't bet on it.


28 posted on 01/22/2009 7:20:35 AM PST by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

The president can’t take cases off the USSC docket, but if he had a mole serving as a clerk with the Court it is possible.


29 posted on 01/22/2009 7:21:36 AM PST by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gunnyg
WOW

“…while watching ABC News coverage of the inauguration with my wife over lunch, hosts Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer were joined by Donna Brazile, a Democratic African-American author, educator and political activist, who gave a humorous account of her snatching the complementary fleece blanket she found abandoned in Barack Obama’s chair after the swearing-in ceremony. Apparently she wanted a souvenir of the momentous occasion and when the opportunity arose, she took it. “As they all laughed about it, Gibson responded playfully to her candid admission by saying: “We’re going to check with the legal staff and find out if that’s a felony or a misdemeanor.” Brazile then gave a stern look into the camera and said: “We have a black president – it’s neither.”

30 posted on 01/22/2009 7:22:41 AM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

well, yes, you are right. If you read my post I did not challenge the court on this. I just stated MY opinion. If this is indeed what the court has decided, so be it, but they are wrong here.


31 posted on 01/22/2009 7:23:14 AM PST by waxer1 ( Live Free or Die; Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

Interesting, they don’t even have January 23rd scheduled as a briefing day.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/casedistribution/casedistributionschedule2008.pdf


32 posted on 01/22/2009 7:23:58 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

Orly Taitz - #223433
Current Status: Active

This member is active and may practice law in California.

See below for more details.

Profile Information

Bar Number 223433
Address 26302 La Paz #211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Phone Number (949) 683-5411
Fax Number (949) 586-2082
e-mail Not Available
District District 8 Undergraduate School Hebrew Univ; Jerusalem Israel
County Orange Law School William Howard Taft Univ; Santa Ana CA
Sections None
Status History

Effective Date Status Change
Present Active
12/3/2002 Admitted to The State Bar of California
Explanation of member status


33 posted on 01/22/2009 7:23:58 AM PST by dascallie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

oops, never mind, ignore that, I was looking at distribution date, not conference date.


34 posted on 01/22/2009 7:24:34 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

Google’s cache of http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jan 17, 2009 23:15:20 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more

Full version

These search terms are highlighted: lightfoot bowen These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: docket

No. 08A524
Title:
Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.: (S168690)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
Jan 7 2009 Application (08A524) referred to the Court.
Jan 13 2009 Suggestion for recusal received from applicant.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Orly Taitz 26302 La Paz (949) 683-5411
Counsel of Record Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.


35 posted on 01/22/2009 7:25:28 AM PST by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

Who did she request be recused from the case on the 13th?


36 posted on 01/22/2009 7:28:08 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

Orly Taitz is her real name.


37 posted on 01/22/2009 7:28:17 AM PST by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Seruzawa; TexasCajun

You both missed the salient point. It’s silly for the blog poster to have suggested Obama deleted the cases from the docket. And silly for anyone on FR to support some a silly suggestion.

I am all for the NBC cases going forward, and the Court requiring the evidence be presented by Obama to settle the matter one way or the other.

But suggesting Obama or any President could have cases removed from the USSC Docket is silly.


38 posted on 01/22/2009 7:28:42 AM PST by savedbygrace (You are only leading if someone follows. Otherwise, you just wandered off... [Smokin' Joe])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

It was a cut and paste post from plains radio, pay attention.


39 posted on 01/22/2009 7:29:51 AM PST by dascallie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

Here is a better link for 35:
http://74.125.47.132/search?hl=en&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourtus.gov%2Fdocket%2F08a524.htm&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Interesting.. even closed cases are kept on record..


40 posted on 01/22/2009 7:30:17 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

She asked Roberts to recuse himself of swearing in Obama arguing that is was a conflict of interest due to the reviewings of this and Berg’s cases.


41 posted on 01/22/2009 7:30:44 AM PST by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace

FR has rules of keeping the titles when posting.


42 posted on 01/22/2009 7:31:54 AM PST by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

I don’t think Obama could do this. As far as I know, at least for now, we still have separation of power in the US.


43 posted on 01/22/2009 7:32:16 AM PST by TruthWillWin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
My bad. ...but I still don't trust this guy's Chicago style politics one bit.

/flame-thrower :)

44 posted on 01/22/2009 7:33:56 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: waxer1

Regardless of if Obama has been sworn in, the Constitution is the Constitution. But since the US Constitution will soon be disposed of completely in the waste bin of history, I don’t guess it really matters.


45 posted on 01/22/2009 7:35:05 AM PST by TheBattman (Pray for our country....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dascallie
This makes me suspicious of what went on between zer0 and Roberts during the second swearing in last night.

The issue won't go away until 0bama comes clean.

46 posted on 01/22/2009 7:35:39 AM PST by The Sons of Liberty (Reporting from socialist occupied Amerika: Day 3 of the Usurper 0bama's [failed] regime .....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dascallie
It's now easier for judges to determine immunity for public officials

Decision written by Alito.

At issue was a judicial test designed to determine when or if public officials are to be protected by qualified immunity from private lawsuits.

47 posted on 01/22/2009 7:35:46 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
This will REALLY make your day......

Obama has just issued an executive order which eliminates the Judicial and Congressional branches of government. The Administrative branch will be the only branch needed to carry out the Supreme Order of Power. Obama's statement as he signed the EO was "it is for the good of this country that I do this".

48 posted on 01/22/2009 7:37:18 AM PST by Evil Slayer (Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

I trust Roberts.. just a wild devil’s advocate guess here, maybe Bambi showed him the long form thus Robert’s made an executive decision to drop it? Just a wild guess... that way the case is closed, but the issue of privacy is kept in regards to third party lawsuits accessing information (remember, these cases aren’t against Obama directly but other parties like secretary of states, the FEC, or electors).. ie, there isn’t precedent for, example, I sue you to get my neighbor’s private data..


49 posted on 01/22/2009 7:39:32 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

Are you sure about that?


50 posted on 01/22/2009 7:40:13 AM PST by Eye of Unk (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! SA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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