Posted on 01/09/2009 8:28:39 PM PST by devere
You said — “Out of all the fellas at work........I’m the only guy that calls, emails and sends letters to various officials.”
Ahhh.., but one consolation... you do represent 1,000 others who dont — according to what the politicians say...
Keep up the good work.
Lol, that’s funny.
[We just moved back to Central Florida-— I didn’t know it was gonna be so damned cold!]
Lol, and I thought you had moved to Alaska by the sound of your first post!!
It’s cold everywhere now, Gorbal warming!!
Hi John:
I’d like to hear your take on this. It counters what BuckeyeTexan says earlier, here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2162033/posts?page=675#675
and also what you say.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2162033/posts?page=510#510
Interview, Orly Taitz: Chief Justice Roberts Calls Conference on Obama Challenge: Lightfoot v. Bowen
Monday, January 12, 2009 6:51:42 PM · 510 of 1,165
Congressman Billybob to Kevmo
Good analysis. The issue is beating all kinds of odds against it. That means a better chance of victory, but it doesn’t create or guarantee victory.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, “The Silence of Snow”
The Declaration, the Constitution, parts of the Federalist, and America’s Owner’s Manual, here.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2162033/posts?page=862#862
To: BuckeyeTexan; Congressman Billybob; FreeManN; Lurking Libertarian; mlo; Jim Robinson; Alamo-Girl; ..
Math Error Alert.
The odds that the fake CoLB posted by the nom de plume “hayIBaPhorgerie” has the same time of birth as zer0bama (7:24pm) would reflect 24 hours/day * 60 minutes/hour = 1440 minutes/day. = 1/1440
Now let’s process that where 1/N = 0.3. in the previous calculations. (1/N)^5 that all of these cases were forwarded for conference. 0.3^5 * 1/1440 = .00243 * 0.000694 = 0.0000016875 which is ~1 in 1.6875Million. These are not astronomical numbers, they’re actually pretty believable.
862 posted on Friday, January 16, 2009 1:19:47 AM by Kevmo ( It’s all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2162033/posts?page=687#687
To: BuckeyeTexan; Congressman Billybob; FreeManN; Lurking Libertarian; mlo; Jim Robinson; Alamo-Girl; ..
It would seem that cert is denied in 70% of all cases without being discussed at conference. It would also seem that if a case is put on the “discuss list” for conference, then one of the justices thought the case worthy of discussion.
Thanks BT. That’s the first time I’ve seen this addressed. I gather that Congressman Billybob’s assessment of 1/200 is a bit too low, and the average troll who says that all cases get forwarded for this informal conference (making the odds 1:1) are too high. Having the odds at 0.3 seems about right.
Now let’s process that where 1/N = 0.3. in the previous calculations.
Using that chance, N, then it’s (1/N)^5 that all of these cases were forwarded for conference. When N was 200, look where we ended up... 0.3^5 * 1/34560 = 0.00000000703125 which is ~1 in 70Billion.
You said — “I addressed separate envelopes for every Justice. Then put all in a manila envelope, mailed to the Supreme Court.”
Sounds like a good way to do it.
—
And then you said — “I was told that they do read their mail. Maybe you are right.”
Well, you’re right about sending the mail the way you sent it. It’s all those others (by e-mail and fax) who are going to have the problem.
However, I do have to question how much of their mail they actually read. Maybe they don’t get that much mail and so they can read it. But, can you imagine getting a “mailbag” of mail at your desk (containing several hundred pieces of mail) and you’re going to read it all?
There’s only one way I could see that they read their own mail — they simply don’t get that much mail. But, even so, I would guess the same thing applies to legislators — but what they do is try to tally it so that they can see what the voters are griping about or are interested in. At the same time, they do read some of it.
What I’m saying is just coming from common sense and the fact that these guys are busy and they can *hardly read their own bills* — much less mail... LOL..
That was Donofrio who forwarded the naturalization record. Here it is if you want to look at it.
You might get a chuckle at what transpired. Again and again I have tried to access certain links and failed because of an "adobe player" not being installed. I was too wary of doing this. Well, I finally installed it. Could not get this copy about naturalization, even using Google previously.
What an interesting document. No matter what one's view is on the eligibility of Chester Arthur, and the status of his father, this is a must to view. How nicely written. Succinct and with an economy of words, yet the history behind this document turns back the years.
The quest continues.
Kevmo - I still stand behind my original comments/posts. I am not retracting them. 70% of all certs are denied without discussion at conference.
What I intended to clarify with my last post was the significance of the docket entries “Distributed for conference” and “Application referred to the court.”
I think your math/odds are still correct. What I can’t confirm based on the docket entries themselves is why the cases were referred to the court. It could be signficant. It could be insignificant.
I’m not sure it matters much any more, does it? The reason why I brought up all the statistics & such was because of the constant drumroll from disruptors who said this was tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff, rather than a legitimate constitutional issue.
If SCOTUS didn’t have the balls to delay the seating of an unqualified president elect, they won’t have the balls to remove a sitting president. Especially after he has the authority to park tanks in their parking lot.
Your ignorance of the basic facts was suspect to begin with. I’ve shown you the law so you are educated on the issue now. What you choose to do with the information is up to you.
The document provided by Obama is a NOT A BIRTH CERTIFIFCATE. It is only a certification, or verification in lieu of a birth certificate, which is a short form computer generated print-out which lacks detailed information that can be cross checked and does not detail any prior amendments that were made to the actual long form birth certificate. It does not verify the authenticity of the original birth certificate or the detailed information contained in it. Hawaiian law clearly distinguishes between a certification and a certified copy of a certificate.
Who says that? You're just pulling that out of thin air. Prima facie evidence is enough to settle the matter unless someone can prove otherwise.
Prima facie evidence is not sufficient to settle cases rising from either of the two instances that I pointed out; the DHHL and the US Passport office. Both require the original long form certificate. It is the source document that would be the deciding document in a court case.
No, that's not what it show at all. You need to read and understand the cites, not just use them as ammunition. What I'm telling you is what that web page says itself.
They will accept a birth certificate, but it's not enough to qualify for the program. You also have to prove ancestry. They need *additional* data. It's not that there's something wrong with a birth certificate.
You need to comprehend the cited sources provided and my comments regarding them. The point of the DHHL’s requirement is that the short form is not sufficient for their process, regardless of whether more documentation is needed. It would not be sufficient in a court case arising from a dispute with the DHHL. The bigger point is that the two documents do not carry the same weight, this was merely one example.
You're right, I could have phrased it better.
What I was saying is, you haven't shown that any of these out of state birth certificates apply to Obama, in either time frame or circumstances. But even if they did apply, you are just assuming that the certificate would lie.
This is a typical Bot dodge. Their whole argument is based on a flawed premise. The source document is the ultimate proof and will clear up the issue. Obama refuses to release it, knowing that privacy laws protect him, and his surrogates claim that no proof has been given. He controls the source document/evidence and prevents its release yet claims there is not sufficient evidence. There are conflicting accounts of his birth location. A $10 certified copy of his original birth certificate would resolve the issue. Obama refuses to release it, instead he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent its release.
Suggestion: Take the red pill.
Sadly, no, it probably doesn’t matter.
It is/was a legitimate constitutional issue. They can and will spin in into conspiracy history, but that doesn’t change the truth of the matter. We don’t know if Obama is eligible or not because we haven’t see an original document.
The right case will come along. The one that fits all the rules of law and cannot be ignored. Obama will be exposed for the fraud he is. It just won’t happen before he’s inaugurated.
That part wasn't in dispute.
"What I can’t confirm based on the docket entries themselves is why the cases were referred to the court. It could be signficant. It could be insignificant."
Isn't this the point? That "Distributed for conference" doesn't mean anything in itself?
"Suggestion: Take the red pill."
There's the dodge. That's not what we were discussing. Maybe you need that pill yourself.
I've got the basic facts just fine. You seem to be having a little trouble though.
""The document provided by Obama is a NOT A BIRTH CERTIFIFCATE. It is only a certification, or verification in lieu of a birth certificate, which is a short form computer generated print-out which lacks detailed information that can be cross checked and does not detail any prior amendments that were made to the actual long form birth certificate. It does not verify the authenticity of the original birth certificate or the detailed information contained in it. Hawaiian law clearly distinguishes between a certification and a certified copy of a certificate."
It is a birth certificate. It is one possible form that a birth certificate can take. Nobody is claiming that it is identical to some other form.
All I'm saying is that it is in itself, regardless of what other forms and what other documents exist, prima facie proof of the data it contains. The document itself states that. Arguing against it is really silly.
"You need to comprehend the cited sources provided and my comments regarding them. The point of the DHHL’s requirement is that the short form is not sufficient for their process, regardless of whether more documentation is needed."
WHY is it not sufficient? That's what you aren't getting. It's not because of some problem with the certificate. It's not because it isn't proof. It's only because *with this particular program* it takes more than Hawaiian birth to qualify. It takes proof of ancestry.
It would be like applying for food stamps and having to prove income in addition to identity. It doesn't mean your identity document isn't trusted. It just means income also matters.
Yes. That was part of the point. However “Application referred to the court” does mean something.
argh. It was right there in the middle of one of the tabs I have open: “The fact that he was a British subject at birth was first reported on Friday Dec. 5.” Link to the source doesn’t work though (figures), I’m assuming the year was 1880.
FYI Peter: http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php is a great program to read pdfs with, much smaller and faster than adobe
I managed to get Bill Cunningham, who has a radio show starting 10pm Est, he has examined the issues of eligibility just on now. Of course he says, as he has all along, that it is the judges who will simply not recognize standing. He states cases where the judiciary just will not hear these applications for - such a simple matter for simple questions and simple answers.
Someone called "John" just phoned in to say there was a chance that Justice Scalia and Justice Roberts would step in- yet. Perhaps he was a radio troll.
Bill laughed the caller off. "No way on God's green earth" is anything going to happen - other than the swearing in of the President-elect. I know he has also said only one percent of him, believes Barack Obama was born other than Hawaii. Still, the occasional caller weighs in on this subject. Happily Bill hears them out.
Excuse this digression, but someone out there on the ether, is still with the troops (us) chuckle.
Someone on another thread asked me my opinion, about whether SCOTUS would punt. Just figured I’d copy it out here, FWIW:
Well, any opinion I might hold is only because of reading up for quite a while, and not on any legal knowledge at all, as I am a total ignoramous about all things legalese. But mother wit and reading tell me:
1. That SCOTUS is taking this seriously.
2. That they will find a case that they decide to hear, and they will do their best to hear it properly.
3. They will decide that 0bama is not qualified. (of course this may be seriously colored by hope!)
4. That others in DC and Fedgov including Bush are following this closely. In fact, I would not doubt that several alphabets are following this very closely and maybe know the truth already.
5. Others as in #4 are not saying anything in order to avoid tainting whatever decision SCOTUS comes up with. By leaving everything to SCOTUS without any publicity, this renders the decision much more neutral without any politicizing.
6. If SCOTUS is to make decisions influenced by public popularity or lack of same, they are worse than a useless bunch of fools.
7. Any rioting will in the end make the rioters and their inciters look very, very bad. And if the final decision is done with great propriety, nicety, attention to detail, with lots of pages of legalese, then it will hard to impossible for any racist idiots or leftist ideologues to pin it on the GOP or Bush, especially if there is a large majority opinion.
8. The SCOTUS will hear it because if they don’t, JIndal, Schwarzenneger and any anchor baby will run for Pres. ANd, of course, 0bama will destroy the country but that’s not a reason to hear the case.
The right case will come along.
***It’s at the point of a Deus Ex Machina ending to the story. That’s a lot of fun to speculate and all, but sometimes God just lets people experience the consequence of their sin.
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.