by Arlen Williams, 1/7/2009
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 addresses 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.
Taitz reacts to this new event as a project manager, "We'll continue working, one step at a time. Now we need to get the word out to all the media, congressmen, senators." It remains to be seen whether the "major media" will deign to cover this story, or continue to mainly report news that is negative as it pertains to natural born Citizen actions addressing Obama."They will hear the case, then, if they find out... Obama was elected fraudulently, they will find out the whole process was not valid." Taits calls this conference itself an important hearing and then, "I think that we'll have four Justices, then it will go to oral arguments and all American Citizens will be able to hear the case." In such a conference, four Supreme Court Justices of the nine must vote for certiorari -- to have a full review generally including a public hearing. However, the Lightfoot filing is not at this point a petition for a writ of certiorari. In theory, the court may issue an order of the court regarding the process, or pertaining to a then, apparent President Obama's standing.
Taitz stressed that the public must know immediately about matters that may have been hidden in Barack Obama's candidacy, citing one example, that, "Most of the country has no clue that one relative can go to the state of Hawaii and sign an affidavit that 'my relative was born a citizen'" and thus gain an Hawaiian birth certificate for that person, even if he were born abroad. That is the same kind of birth certificate that Barack Obama has not allowed to be seen, but which Hawaiian state officials have reported exists in privately held state records.
The earlier Lightfoot petition to the California State Supreme Court for a stay of that state's Electoral College election had been denied at that level.
One of many potentially odd twists to monitor in this electoral process is that as of Friday, 1/2, the National Archives had received Electoral College votes from only twenty-four of fifty states, not nearly enough votes for Congress to count, tomorrow for an election.
Investigating Obama will continue to monitor this and related cases, and link to news and examinations of them, from other newsworthy sites. The Web site of Orly Taitz relates her perspective, further. Readers are free to repost or excerpt this article.
Arlen, I.O., Awakening in Twitter
Arlen, I.O., Awakening: Facebook
32 comments:
Technically, Orly is incorrect:
- The fact that the Chief Justice submitted this to Conference means absolutely nothing about the case except that he's having the full Conference review it (with the possible exception that he thinks it's "good enough" to go to Conference);
- The Chief Justice has not agreed to hear anything; he's agreed to submit it to Conference;
- If the Conference grants a writ of certiorari, then they'll be hearing the case.
Hopefully, in the future, Dr. Taitz will be a bit more careful in how she explains things.
I've similarly documented this at the following posting:
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2614
Thanks and great work, Arlen.
-Phil
Dr. taitz is using deductive reasoning.
1. Justice Thomas submitted Donofrio's NJ case to conference.
2. Justice Scalia submitted Wrotowoski's and Berg's case to conference.
Other justices denied, so deductive reasoning shows there might be at least 3 people who will vote to hear the legal argument.
The magic # is 4 ladies and gentleman. But, what the hell is puzzling is the date it is distributed for conference. January 23, 2008, exactly 3 days after the fictitious inauguration.
I guess Chief Justice knows that he can be impeached and the PEOPLE voiced there opinion that after we remove the shady bunch in Congress, we are after any person who does not respect our constitution NEXT. Chief Justice did a CYA for his financial respect to the Annenberg Foundation & for his integrity as a Justice who took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Either way, talk about putting pressure. Keep it up PATRIOTS of every color, creed, and gender. It is time to get this rift raft out of the federal government and have it be a constitutional republic once and for all.
This is from the Natl. Archives was wondering if anybody knows if all fifty states mailed them in yet. Look at what it says
The statutory deadline for the designated Federal and State officials to receive the electoral votes is December 24, 2008. Because of the very short time between the meetings of the electors in the States on December 15 and the December 24 statutory deadline, followed closely by the counting of electoral votes in Congress on January 6, 2009, it is imperative that the Certificates be mailed as soon as possible.
We strongly recommend that the sealed pairs of Certificates be taken to the Post Office on December 15, or no later than the morning of December 16, to minimize delays that could occur during the holiday mail season. Some States may find it useful to alert their local Postmaster to the extraordinarily important nature of the mailing. When the paired Certificates of Vote and Certificates of Ascertainment have been delivered to the designated Federal and State officials, the States' Electoral College duties are complete.
Prior to the election this year, the Legal Staff of the Office of the Federal Register will telephone Secretaries of State and other election officials to establish contact with the States and assure the smooth operation of the Electoral College process.
I hope that finally the SCOTUS will grant the cert.
New mounting evidence that Foreign-born could obtain the COLB like that of Barack.
What do Barack Obama, the first African-American President,
and
Sun Yat-Sen, the first President of the Republic of China
have in common?
Yes, they were both born in Hawaii.
http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/
Click on this link to see Sun Yat-sen’s “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” despite having been born in Guandong, China.
What a coincidence!
Can someone please educate me here on the SC process......Orly Taitz got her suit to conference by Justice Roberts, but it is set for Jan 23rd, AFTER the swearing in.
YET....... the person doing the swearing in on Jan 20th....... IS JUSTICE ROBERTS!! And for him to legally do that, he would have to have no doubt that UEBO is eligible. Yet, how can he do that, when he has allowed a case to go to conference that questions UEBO's elibility????
Wouldn't then Justice Roberts doing the swearing in be illegal?
This sounds really ridiculous. Are we really arguing over what type of dirt the building he was born in was built on?
He has papers saying he was born a citizen; a birth anouncement in hawaii; and is a fine example of a great American. What the hell's the deal?
"Well yes, he's a natural born citizen by document, but the dirt! The dirt he was born on!" oh no! the dirt!
What document, Anon?
Plenty of signs of dirt, though.
You people are disturbed. Take off the tin foil hats, come out of your mother's basement, and take your meds.
Everything will be fine.
Do you realize you only encourage right wing supremacist lunatics like McVeigh et al? Like we need home grown people thinking we need to over throw the government because it's all a conspiracy.
Freaks.
You should do an updated fact check. The National Archive shows that ALL the Electoral votes have been accounted for all fifty states. Congress can vote today as planned.
I'm very disappointed that Arlen has so badly misrepresented the actions of the Chief Justice. As several other responses have pointed out, the "full-throated challenge" turns out to be nothing more than a referral of the case to conference, something that occurred with the Donofrio and Wrotnowski cases but quickly came to naught.
As of a short time ago, both houses of congress have confirmed without objection the election of Barack Obama. Any claim that opposition to his election is somehow gaining momentum is based on nothing but conspiratorial fantasy.
One example: '“We’re very nicely saying that we looked into it and the evidence isn’t there,” explained one member of [Ron] Paul’s staff.' (http://washingtonindependent.com/24362/gop-senators-letters-give-anti-obama-activists-hope)
I found this Supreme Court blog for the week of Dr. Taitz's conference that I thought was interesting. You can check the week of the 9th and 16th too (Philip Berg's case).
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
Wow, Victor, those were a lot of questions and I just don't want to spend the time answering them all, for you. For one thing, I'd be tending to lend control of this site to you. Because of that, I've taken your post off. If you want to troll here, I'll let you come back and ask just one of your questions.
Re: Anonymous said...
You should do an updated fact check. The National Archive shows that ALL the Electoral votes have been accounted for all fifty states. Congress can vote today as planned. January 8, 2009 9:57 AM
Thanks for your update, Anon. Someone will very likely verify; maybe even me.
Re: Anonymous said... I'm very disappointed that Arlen has so badly misrepresented the actions of the Chief Justice. As several other responses have pointed out, the "full-throated challenge" turns out to be nothing more than a referral of the case to conference, something that occurred with the Donofrio and Wrotnowski cases but quickly came to naught.
"Full-throated" was clearly a adjective to "challenge."
As of a short time ago, both houses of congress have confirmed without objection the election of Barack Obama. Any claim that opposition to his election is somehow gaining momentum is based on nothing but conspiratorial fantasy.
This is about validity and integrity in process and order of law. The lack thereof by the Congress hardly excuses the Judicial from action. Just the opposite is true.
One example: '“We’re very nicely saying that we looked into it and the evidence isn’t there,” explained one member of [Ron] Paul’s staff.' (http://washingtonindependent.com/24362/gop-senators-letters-give-anti-obama-activists-hope)
Ironically enough, that seems to be the truth; no one responsible for the certification of Barack Obama as a presidential candidate has seen the evidence of his eligibility.
But, as to the evidence he is not a natural born Citizen, that has been provided by the divorce record establishing that his father is who BHO says he is.
an adjective, that is :-)
Arlen, if there were less things that needed commenting on, I would have submitted a shorter post.
That being said, it's your blog, and your rules. I'll abide by your decision, and reply with one question, and one question only:
Having read Lightfoot v. Bowen, I see that the same arguments that have been denied cert previously are still used here. Again, how does this "full-throated" challenge differ from the several cases that have been dismissed?
By the way: please consider this reply a full-throated disagreement of your characterization of my actions as "trolling."
And did you read her cover letter to Chief Justice Roberts? http://www.scribd.com/doc/9693866/Orlys-Letter-to-Chief-Justice-Roberts
Puh-LEEZE, this woman shouldn't be representing anybody! What a joke!
Victor said...
Arlen, if there were less things that needed commenting on, I would have submitted a shorter post.
That being said, it's your blog, and your rules. I'll abide by your decision, and reply with one question, and one question only:
Having read Lightfoot v. Bowen, I see that the same arguments that have been denied cert previously are still used here. Again, how does this "full-throated" challenge differ from the several cases that have been dismissed?
By the way: please consider this reply a full-throated disagreement of your characterization of my actions as "trolling."
Perhaps you a liberal poster, Victor, who wishes to find matters of truth and fact through dialogue. That is not mine to inherently know. The volume and qualities of some of those seven questions were not appealing to me, for lending you the time to answer them en masse, one by one.
I call this challenge full-throated in the first paragraph for its having a strong and less assailable case, of both standing and merit related in the third paragraph.
Arlen, the question was how Lightfoot differed from the other challenges that have been brought to the Supreme Court and dismissed, not why it merits being described as "full-throated."
And paragraph 3 answers your question, Victor. No other case brought the standing with the weight of Gail Lighfoot (no pun intended), while dealing with both the U.K. citizenship by BHO I disqualifier, and the failure of BHO II to present an evidentiary birth certificate.
Evidence of a troll is repeatedly picking and ankle biting, when answers have already been given.
Arlen, I take you reply to mean that the same, dismissed arguments against Barack Obama's status as a natural born citizen (in accordance with the Constitution) will somehow gain further weight because Gail Lightfoot was a candidate for political office.
That's a novel theory, but novelty does not guarantee success.
If the heart of the several cases' assertions is that Obama is not a natural born citizen, the overwhelming majority of case law and Supreme Court opinion disagrees.
Creating novel legal theory based on supposition, and not fact, cannot overturn established law.
As for "trolling," I would ask you a simple question: how do my actions, in expressing a dissenting voice, differ from these several cases brought against Obama and the Secretaries of State? The same theories, the same "facts" and the same assertions are brought up, time and time again. The courts have given their answers, yet the cases persist. Is that, too, evidence of trolling?
Victor,
Then only pertinent case law findable is Perkins v. ELG. It is corroborative of the real meaning of natural born Citizen.
Also, you are now ignoring the matters of jurisdiction and standing written of, in this blog.
The Supreme Court has not given answers, nor said that it disagrees (with John Jay, the framers, Vatel, Tucker, Bingham, etc.).
You appear to be dancing in the dishonest agitprop and tossing it into the air. How many sites are you doing this in?
It should be noted that today's SCOTUS conference has resulted in the publication of some Miscellaneous Orders (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/010909zr.pdf) but there is no mention of 08-4340 (Berg v. Obama et al.)
Thank you Anon. Currently item #3 in the I.O. "above the bottom bar" post.
i have posted my first article on newsvine, PLEASE go to the link and comment as many times as you can to try and push it to the front page http://bdimainman.newsvine.com/_news/2009/01/10/2295937-us-supreme-court-fires-warning-shot
ConstitutionWatch.org has been on the sidelines during the discussion of Barack Obama's status as a natural born citizen. Just before his inauguration-they have jumped into the battle with both feet.
ConstitutionWatch.org jumps into the Obama birth certificate fray
MUCH MORE important than all these issues!!! PLEASE look here- PLEASE:
http://www.spiritlessons.com/Mary_K_Baxter_A_Divine_Revelation_of_Hell.htm
WWW.SPIRITLESSONS.COM
Berg case is toast as of 1/21/2009
Orly's case is currently in the toaster
Birthers have space reverved in dust bin of history, please go quitely!
Though it would obviously be denied, Orly's case has been removed from the scotus docket, Orly's mad.
case was denied by Kennedy and resubmitted to Roberts who scheduled it for conference (a neat way for all to deny at once)
it has now been removed!
scheduled for conference does not mean they will cover the case!
all you people need a new hobby, this one is over. the time for hate is over!
Obama.s BC plus 3 affadavits from Hawaii were sent to Supreme Court, shortly after receipt of these, all cases concerning Obama's BC were removed from docket.
Berg's case didn't depend on BC so is still on docket but is shown as "denied"
Post a Comment