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

Skip to comments.

What did president tell Supreme Court?
wnd ^

Posted on 01/28/2009 6:17:15 AM PST by dascallie

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL What did president tell Supreme Court?

Lawyer in eligibility case seeks records of secret discussions

Posted: January 27, 2009 9:47 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily

A lawyer whose case challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office was denied a hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court says she will demand records of a meeting between the justices and the president.

California lawyer Orly Taitz, who has several cases pending over the issue of Obama's status as a "natural born" citizen, told WND she will take action soon.

Her case was the most recent on which the Supreme Court held a "conference," an off-the-record discussion at which justices discuss whether to take a case. Taitz told WND the justices decided Jan. 23 to deny her case a hearing on its merits.

The result was the same for previous cases brought by Philip Berg, whose information is on his ObamaCrimes.com website, as well as Cort Wrotnowski.

Like Berg's cases, Taitz said hers now reverts to the lower court, where it was pending when her emergency appeals were submitted to the Supreme Court.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: berg; bhoscotus; birthcertificate; birthers; eligibility; ineligible; obama; supremecourt; supremeinjustice; taitz; tyrants
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-144 next last
To: mlo
No, it wasn't discredited. That video is nonsense.

Says the Obama booster.

61 posted on 01/28/2009 9:55:56 AM PST by Nephi (Like the failed promise of Fascism, masquerading as Capitalism? You're gonna love Marxism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: dmz

give it up, already.
you are wrong.

they only met on the implicit presumption that
the case against the defendant (obama) would be thrown.
they laughed joked. probably raises were promised
indirectly. then the defendant won.


62 posted on 01/28/2009 9:56:40 AM PST by Diogenesis (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: mlo

thanks for posting that. what is its provenance?


63 posted on 01/28/2009 9:59:29 AM PST by Diogenesis (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: dmz
My view is based on the law and legal definition of ex parte:

Ex parte contact occurs when an attorney communicates with another party outside the presence of that party's attorney. Ex parte contact also describes a judge who communicates with one party to a lawsuit to the exclusion of the other party or parties, or a judge who initiates discussions about a case with disinterested third parties. Canon 3(A)(4) of the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Code of Judicial Conduct discourages judges from such ex parte communications. Under rule 4.2 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer should refrain from contacting a party who the lawyer knows is represented by another attorney, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other attorney or is authorized by law to do so.

64 posted on 01/28/2009 10:00:02 AM PST by Nephi (Like the failed promise of Fascism, masquerading as Capitalism? You're gonna love Marxism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: mlo

That photo,, came from daily KOS,, right?? And now it’s obvious you aren’t serious. You are claiming it hasnt been released because no news orginization ASKED for it? Is that really your position?

You must have some other, some emotional, reason for defending Obama at this point. And you still evade the question,, even if you were correct that he spent no money, still, why go to the slightest effort to file motions to keep all his records sealed?

Can u address that?

He’s clearly hiding something. I dont think its his location of birth,, i think its an extra name “mohammed” or something that in his mind was too scary for us. But whether im right or wrong, he is certainly not being very “transparent”, is he?


65 posted on 01/28/2009 10:01:15 AM PST by DesertRhino (Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: dmz
If the notion of a conspiracy involves Thomas or Scalia, it very much strains credibility.

Agreed. But remember it only takes four of the nine justices to advance a filing from conference to a hearing ... so let's do the math.

Four of the nine -- Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens and Breyer wouldn't vote for a hearing if they had a CIA-validated video of B-O being born in Kenya. Of the other five (I know including Kennedy is a stretch but he relishes his position as being the "decider" for the Court), two would have to vote "no" for the filing to die in conference.

I think it unlikely that Scalia and Thomas -- both adherents to "original intent" -- would vote "no" on all the filings thusfar presented; so, two of the remaining three -- Alito, Roberts and Kennedy -- would have to vote "no" on every filing. Question is: Which two (if not all three)?

66 posted on 01/28/2009 10:01:41 AM PST by glennaro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

Ohh,, it’s provenance? Well,, it came from Daily KOS and was confirmed by Factcheck.org! Yes,,the one that is funded by the Annenburg foundation. (sp?)You remember them,, that Chicago group,,Obama served on their board,,?


67 posted on 01/28/2009 10:05:08 AM PST by DesertRhino (Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
American military men, tortured at the hands of Iran during the Gulf war cannot sue Iran,

Iran tortured Americans during Gulf War I???

68 posted on 01/28/2009 10:09:51 AM PST by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mlo

That’s a nice image of a crisp COLB. Poor photoshop job with the number 151 1961-010641, though. That must be one of the 9 photos of the COLB released by Team Obama, excuse me, Team Soetoro that includes an ‘08 seal, ‘08 stamp and an ‘07 border. A certificate issued in ‘08 used as a stand in for the original vault copy does not answer questions - it creates more. Which is why this matter should be resolved in court where witnesses testify under penalty of perjury.


69 posted on 01/28/2009 10:19:36 AM PST by Nephi (Like the failed promise of Fascism, masquerading as Capitalism? You're gonna love Marxism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: MilspecRob

Typo,,Iraq. As far as i know Irans only involvment in Gulf war I was those iraqi jets that fled to iran and were impounded. Might be one or two other small squabbles,, but they were mostly freaked that maybe they were next. I think they even kept the planes to this day.

But anyway, Our men and women POWs were trying to sue Iraq based on extreme torture, He found no such right existed. (unless you are al queda and want to sue the USA,,he found that right easily)

Interesting concept, “you can’t sue Iraq, because that was a different regime”.But all those financial contracts of Saddams government??? Buying things from all over the world,,why, those can be enforced just fine! Its still the same country then!

Roberts is a Harvard guy,, dont expect too much except some pro-life votes. (which is still nice,, but he’s certain to disappoint the America first types in many other areas)


70 posted on 01/28/2009 10:21:39 AM PST by DesertRhino (Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: oblomov; dascallie; Don Corleone

If I were of a “follow the money” turn of mind, Beijing is indeed the first place I would look for conspirators and puppet masters as well.


71 posted on 01/28/2009 10:29:15 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

they only met on the implicit presumption that
the case against the defendant (obama) would be thrown.
they laughed joked. probably raises were promised
indirectly. then the defendant won.
_________

LOL. So for a few pfennigs, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, as well as its 2 most conservative members, discarded all of their principles.

OK.

Under those circumstances, when conservative stalwarts Thomas and Scalia sell their souls for a couple of dollars, we have much bigger issues than Obama.

Everything we have ever believed in is wrong. We are safe nowhere. Nothing is as it seems. The sky really is falling.


72 posted on 01/28/2009 10:40:46 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: dascallie

I do wonder...same as I wonder how we as a nation fell for the ridiculous September bailout plan, which accomplished nothing, and we are now about to (BOHICA!)get stuck with another pork-laden, socialistic, trillion dollar piece of crap “stimulus package” that will do nothing except further socialize the country and weaken the dollar by spending money that we don’t have. Barry strikes me as a puppet being used by international interests who want to bankrupt the US and, in so doing, make the country receptive to One Worlder solutions. The voters were manipulated by the fall financial panic into voting for B.O. Now we are being setup and conditioned to accept even more socialism by the Usurper and his media allies.

Proof? No courtroom-quality evidence yet, unless some of y’all have some. Just a matter of something “walking like a duck and quacking like a duck.”


73 posted on 01/28/2009 10:42:23 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mlo

So when is Barry going to present that “Hawaiian” document in court to prove that he was born in Hawaii? Come on Barry, you showed “factcheck”.org and the DailyKooks the COLB now show a court of law. What’s the problem Barry?


74 posted on 01/28/2009 10:43:03 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

You are so right. I thought that little “getting acquainted” clambake stunk out loud when it happened. I also took it as a “screw you” to eligibility litigants.


75 posted on 01/28/2009 10:44:32 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis; Amityschild; BIGLOOK; yefragetuwrabrumuy; Spunky; An American In Dairyland; ...
Dont want to rain on your argument, but there was
a conspiracy. When two or more people meet legally
for illegal purposes, or meet illegally for legal purpose,
it is a conspiracy (for the 'little people').

It's only a conspiracy if one or more of them takes any action to forward the plans.

Otherwise it's words, just words...

76 posted on 01/28/2009 10:46:04 AM PST by null and void (We are now in day 9 of our national holiday from reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
PS,, when we want to build a shrine to the Birthplace of Obama, like other presidents have, where do we build it?


77 posted on 01/28/2009 10:49:35 AM PST by null and void (We are now in day 9 of our national holiday from reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: rangeryder; dascallie

I still believe that Barry’s support, despite attempts at deification by the media, is a mile wide and an inch deep. Despite the hype, his inauguration drew a smaller audience than did Reagan’s. Let him screw up a few times and keep pushing socialistic bilge like the trillion dollar “stimulus” bill and people will start dumping him like a bad habit. He really isn’t all that personally attractive, you know? No matter how many magazine covers they put him and Butch on, he still seems like Steve Urkle with a commie agenda and a lying mouth to a lot of us.


78 posted on 01/28/2009 10:55:13 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal
In my estimation, the SCOTUS should never have met with Obama especially when there's so many cases involving The Usurper pending.

But it was not a problem when Scalia went hunting with Cheney when Cheney had a case pending before the Supreme Court?

79 posted on 01/28/2009 10:55:36 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
"No,,,Roberts is no hero,, just another DC, Harvard insider who never served his country."

Now we are getting to the juicy middle...

No US President in ...how many years? ... from anything but Harvard or Yale.

Hmmmmmmm.

Wow.

Amazing coincidence. Must be something in the water.

80 posted on 01/28/2009 10:57:50 AM PST by Earthdweller (Socialism makes you feel better about oppressing people.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-144 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