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 ...
You said — “It means that piece of crap bo posted on the internet and called a real bc is GARBAGE”
So..., when is the Supreme Court going to do something, then, if it’s that obvious?
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.
TANKS Moj,,,
Great catch,,,
Seems like CYA mode to me,,,
Maybe they read FR...;0)
The problem with your argument about Obama not being qualified is that no one has shown that to be the case,
***Yet.
and as I’ve said before — with a court, with any documents — and the Supreme Court isn’t going to act on something like that and be “cowboys” based on hunches and speculation from various people.
***Straw argument. No one expects SCOTUS to be cowboys.
And additionally, until someone produces documentation with lower courts, which will rule on it, the Supreme Court is not going to “cowboy” the process.
***I wouldn’t expect SCOTUS to be cowboys, I’d expect them to do their job.
From what I’ve seen, the Supreme Court is inclined to kick cases back down if they haven’t gone through the proper stages in the process of getting up to them in the first place.
***Yup, when there’s time. But Bush v Gore in 2000 showed that they needed to speed up the process.
It hasn’t happen yet, in the past,
***It happened in 2000.
it’s not happening at the present,
***Argument from silence. Gosh, how many times can you do that?
and I don’t see it happening in the future
***But we will all keep in mind how you think aliens will abduct some citizens in the future as well...
(and that future is not too much longer with January 20th just around the corner).
***POTO.
And in terms of the Constitution being the framework, I’ve said all along that there is nothing that is being disputed with what the Constitution requires for the qualification for President of the United States.
***Bull shiite.
The problem is — rather — that Obama has qualified, per the vetting process that has always been done.
***NOPE. 20th amendment says the PRES ELECT can fail to qualify. That means the party could fail to vet him, the voters could fail, even congress. I agree that it’s a problem that he made it this far, but he has not yet qualified.
So, there isn’t a “problem” in meeting those qualifications per the Constitution
***Yes there is, and this is the umpteenth time I’ve told you to read the 20th amendment.
(again, according to how it’s always been vetted in the past).
***And, all along, we’ve had the 20th amendment ready to go if they screwed it up... which they have this time.
Obama has gone through the very same process that candidates have in the past — and has been determined to be qualified per the Constitution.
***Boy, did you get that one wrong. Again, you just blithely overlook what I’ve been pointing you to, the 20th amendment, but like the troll you are you return to the vomit of your argument.
Well, it still seems like you’re beating the same dead horse, no matter how many times you come back to it. We’re approaching January 20th and I remember a few weeks ago that some people said something would be done before now (like in the certification process in Congress with Cheney there — and nothing happened.
I remember that some people said that the Supreme Court would be acting on some of these cases that were going to be reviewed by the court to see what they were going to do and nothing happened. I remember when people said that the Electoral College voters were going to put a stop to this and many of them wouldn’t cast their votes for Obama, and nothing happened.
Well, just to make this shorter — just about every single last thing that has been said that would “do something” — has *done nothing*...
Oh, I will mention one or two more things that come to mind... like the Chief Justice was supposed to be asking for Obama’s birth certificate when Obama visited the Supreme Court. Any guesses as to what happened?
And..., one more thing... the Chief Justice — just before he swears in Obama — he’s going to ask for his birth certificate, when he steps up there. Or maybe..., that was something else — yeah..., I think it was said that the Chief Justice was going to refuse to swear him in... that was it.
I get so many of these crazy ideas mixed up that I can’t keep up with them... :-)
Oh..., oh..., I remember another one... after Obama is in office, some sheriff or marshall is going to walk into the White House and escort Obama out of there, and that will be it... (they won’t let him back in again...).
Yeah..., that’s it...
—
Isn’t this sounding a bit nutty about now...?
Now, if someone was able to produce some evidence in a court of law
***In process, 17 cases worth, 5 before SCOTUS.
and have that case with that evidence, having been verified by a court already,
***And if we could just get trolls to listen to arguments...
be taken up to the Supreme Court,
***Yeah, maybe you’ll go somewhere with this, maybe you won’t. But you’ve proven so disingenuous so far that I’ll bet you prove yourself to be completely full of bovine scatology. Note that your requirement for having had the SCOTUS do something by now is completely absurd, typical of how trolls move the goal posts.
maybe at that point in time, the Court would *have something* they could act upon.
***and maybe they do. You don’t know any more than I do what is gonna happen, so you can’t argue from silence, the silence of the future.
Right now the Court has nothing in the way of verified court evidence that they can act on.
***Sorta POTO. Sorta moving the goal posts. Sorta hyperbolic straw argument. Sorta combination of all of them mixed with suppositions of the law that are unverifiable.
And since Obama has been vetted and determined to be qualified per the Constitution
***More troll bull shiite, and at this point no one thinks you’ll look up the 20th amendment.
(again, the same way everyone else has always been) —
***Logical fallacy — same way we’ve always done it...
they’re just not going to do anything more.
***Logical fallacy, argument from silence.
**
For those who say that Obama has not been vetted as qualified under the Constitution, then I would say, why doesn’t the Supreme Court see it your way — thus far?
***For various reasons. They need to make sure they have done all they can to get the legal stuff right, they need to give zer0bama all the chances they can to produce the document honorably and proactively, they need to make sure there’s standing, they need to make sure they can trigger the 20th amendment which only takes place when he’s PE, plus other reasons... all of which I would expect that you’ll blithely go past and return to your vomit.
That’s a strong indication that they don’t see it that way at all.
***No it isn’t. I answered the question, and your “strong indication” is nothing more than another argument from silence... ho hum.
In addition, neither does President George Bush see it that way, as he had Secretary of State Rice report to him the situation with Obama’s passport and Bush knows the details there.
***Plenty of reasons why, all discussed with you and you ignore them... like the troll troll troll you are.
If there was any fraud going on there, it’s an easy matter for him to direct prosecution by the Justice Department and put a quick end to that one.
***Bull shiite.
He had that information as far back as last March.
***Presumption. Provably false one at that. The guvner of Hawaii said that no one had been given the BC information, which means he didn’t have it in March.
Since President George Bush has done nothing in the way of prosecuting Obama,
***I wouldn’t expect him to, but we can let FReeper lawyers weigh in on that ... best of luck getting them to follow your meandering posts.
we’ve also got the Executive Branch of the government agreeing that Obama is properly vetted,
***Bull shiite. They just haven’t moved, that doesn’t mean they agree. Gee, you seem to go out of your way to find invalid arguments.
in addition to the Judicial Branch also saying so (by their actions).
***Again more bull stuff.
You mentioned the 3rd Amendment — and one can say that this is one that gets no attention at all, if it ever did. I think it may have gotten attention in exactly two instances, in its history (I think one case got thrown out).
***Exactly the point. The reason why there isn’t much case law is because the constitutional requirement has been there all along and no one has pushed the boundaries of this law. Same could be said about eligibility of the pres, and the case law & procedures surrounding it.
On the other hand, the candidates for President of the United States have been vetted to be qualified (or not) under the Constitution every Presidential election and it hasn’t been a problem in the past, at least not recently.
***This does not follow, a non sequitur. There is no “other hand”. Your argument is meaningless because, first of all, eligibility has not been a problem just like you say, so there wouldn’t be the case law as I say,thereby nullifying your point. And there isn’t going to be a single freeper that cares enough to comment at this far into the conversation, with all your troll twists in logic. This particular paragraph was a reasonably good example of obfuscation.
Obama has done the same thing as prior candidates and he’s gone through that very same vetting process which determined him to be qualified.
***Not even close to true. The other candidate in the race produced his birth certificate. None of the other presidents have been sued for eligibility as far as I can tell.
It’s only a very small segment of people who think that Obama has to do more than other candidates have had to in the past to “prove” that he qualifies,
***Even if it’s only one person, if that person is right it doesn’t matter how many there are. And this is a straw argument, because we’re not asking him to do more, we’re asking him to do as much as McCain. And yes, he does have to prove he qualifies, the 20th amendment doesn’t say the People have to qualify him, it says if the pres elect fails to qualify. Burden of proof is on him to qualify.
when it has not been required of anyone to do any more than he has done presently.
***Already dealt with this bull scatology line of argument above.
It would be a different story *if* anyone, someone, anywhere, anytime — had an ounce of proof
***There you go again.
that went through a court of law
***In process.
that could be verified
***Moving the goal posts.
and then carried up in a case to the Supreme Court.
***Moving the goal posts again.
But, sorry — nothing there...
***Hyperbolic straw argument. There’s plenty there.
And that’s what you’ve got — *absolutely nothing*
***Back to your vomit of the NOTHING focus.
— that any court can act upon,
***IN process.
to prevent Obama from taking office.
***In process. 17 cases, 5 before the court. One tomorrow.
And soon, after January 20th, it’s only going to be Congress who can remove the President — unless someone comes up with that idea that I saw posted elsewhere — where a sheriff (or some law enforcement) walks into the White House and escorts Obama out of the White House, because he’s not qualified to be President... (now..., that’s a funny one... LOL...).
***It’s nice to be able to get through more than one sentence of yours without finding a classic fallacy. Take that writing class. Maybe you’ll be able to put a couple more of these together.
It’s amazing what kinds of ideas pop into people’s heads when they really really want something to happen their way....
***Back to your denigrating bullstuff, hinting at how we don’t line up with “reality” as you’ve said in the past... all this coming from a guy who believes in alien abduction....yeah that’s a strong grip on reality ya got there, sparky.
Well, it still seems like you’re beating the same dead horse,
***Pot... kettle... black.
no matter how many times you come back to it.
***You’re the troll here.
We’re approaching January 20th
***POTO
and I remember a few weeks ago that some people said something would be done before now (like in the certification process in Congress with Cheney there — and nothing happened.
***Hah hah, it looks like maybe something got drilled through that thick skull of yours that I didn’t say what was gonna happen, so now you find yourself arguing against what someone else said... feel free to argue with them now that you’ve discovered what the real disagreement is here on this exchange, troll.
I remember that some people said
***Then go argue with those people who said it.
that the Supreme Court would be acting on some of these cases that were going to be reviewed by the court to see what they were going to do and nothing happened.
***Well, yiptedee... as I said, go argue this stuff with them. I would agree with them that this stuff SHOULD have happened but saying it WILL happen is a logical fallacy.
I remember when people said
***Then argue with those people.
that the Electoral College voters were going to put a stop to this and many of them wouldn’t cast their votes for Obama, and nothing happened.
***Well, yiptedee... as I said, go argue this stuff with them. I would agree with them that this stuff SHOULD have happened but saying it WILL happen is a logical fallacy.
Well, just to make this shorter — just about every single last thing that has been said that would “do something” — has *done nothing*...
***Keep trying to argue with those other people... troll.
Oh, I will mention one or two more things that come to mind... like the Chief Justice was supposed to be asking for Obama’s birth certificate when Obama visited the Supreme Court. Any guesses as to what happened?
***My guess is that you’re still trolling on these threads, spreading disinformation and dismay, using logical fallacies and generally just being a jerk.
And..., one more thing... the Chief Justice — just before he swears in Obama — he’s going to ask for his birth certificate, when he steps up there. Or maybe..., that was something else — yeah..., I think it was said that the Chief Justice was going to refuse to swear him in... that was it.
***Keep on arguing with those other people...troll. See where that’s gettin’ ya? Now do you realize that I haven’t been saying such things all along and won’t be drawn into it by a 2 bit troll like yourself, someone who thinks alien abduction is valid but this issue isn’t. What a jerk.
I get so many of these crazy ideas mixed up that I can’t keep up with them... :-)
***No surprise there.
Oh..., oh..., I remember another one... after Obama is in office, some sheriff or marshall is going to walk into the White House and escort Obama out of there, and that will be it... (they won’t let him back in again...).
***Oh... oh.... keep arguing with those other phantoms, troll.
—
Isn’t this sounding a bit nutty about now...?
***Yes you are. How’s that alien abduction thing working out for you right about now?
Never do what your enemy desires, for this reason alone, that he desires it - Napoleon.
Are you still here?
You stand out like a vagrant at a cotillion.
“I wondered why Roberts gave up his millions a year law practice just to be Chief Justice of a failing republic.”
Your point may be off-handed but it is a great one, nonetheless. Roberts would not have given up a multi-million dollar practice to become a lap-dog for bo. The only reason for a man to do what Roberts did is that man (Roberts) has a profound love for his Country and the Laws of his Country and the Constitution of our Country which he is sworn to uphold.
My criticism of Orly is that she should stop insulting the Supremes in her blog and stop filing ridiculous motions like the Motion to Recuse Roberts from delivering the Oath.
curiosity:”It doesn’t matter, however, since the short form version Obama released has all the information necessary to prove he was born in the USA.”
The primary difference between the long form and the short form birth certificate of course is verifiability. The long form has much more information allowing greater scrutiny of the evidence (attending physician, exact location of birth, time of birth). There has been no hard evidence of Obama’s birth in HI except for this short form birth certificate (announcements in local newspapers would not be admissable in a court). Almost all leagal cases would require at least a few pieces of corroborating evidence to confirm a fact.
All documents - to have any value whatsoever - must somehow be identified as authentic. By the way, why do you think that Hawaii requires the vault copy to be kept as “confirmation” of the short form? Why would they not just throw away the vault copy and keep the short form on record. Obviously even the state of Hawaii understands the distinction between these two documents and the importance of maintaining the “paper trail”.
To request the vault copy as evidence so that Obama’s claims can be corroborated seems to be a very common and reasonable request - one that most all US citizens would (and normally do) provide when asked. Why not Obama?
Many people have stated that using an exact type of certificate that Obama claims is sufficient is totally inadequate for almost any security clearance or means of root identification such as for passports and insufficient in most states to get a drivers license.
It is sufficient for an usurper obviously and will be prime evidence for such.
It is a fine point but before the obots raise it as mis-information let me hasten to say that the newspaper reports of bo’s birth would be admissible.
If I were arguing the case, I would admit them because they show nothing but intent on the grandparents to cover up.
The newspaper announcement does not help bo’s case, it hurts it.
It would have been even better if had been a donkey and an elephant....
1. Is there any point to this?
2. The odds would be 47.25 * 365.25/1440, if month and year of birth unknown.
Buckhead turned out to be right (like a stopped clock) however his analysis was flawed.
The "long form" isn't required.
"I think even you have your doubts about his eligibility and that’s why you’re here. ;-)"
Not really. At the begining, when I saw some of the accusations but hadn't read them and checked them, I certainly had suspicions. But suspicions have to be checked, they can't be assumed. When I checked the claims none of them held up, and some were wrong on their face.
So now I have nothing to base a doubt on. I'm not going to assume he's not eligible because I don't like his politics. That wouldn't make any sense.
This is not true. The expert did not endorse any forgery allegations. She only repeated basic document examiner requirements, like having to work with the original document instead of scan. What she said could have been said about any legitimate scan of a document.
Having something asserted fifty times doesn’t make it true.
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.