Interview, Orly Taitz: Chief Justice Roberts Calls Conference on Obama Challenge: Lightfoot v. Bowen

Breaking...

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.

A Guide to the Legal Challenges of Barack Obama’s Candidacy - Continually Updated - See Below & Sidebar

Update, 1/9/2009: This post is now slipping down the I.O. blog files.

Please contact your senators and representative in Congress (and others you believe may care about the Consititution) by phone call, fax, and/or telegraph. Let them know they have an overriding duty to perform, of being faithful to and defending the Constitution. And the Constitution requires that both parents of a president must be American citizens at that person's birth. They have no place to hide. Congress is due to vote on certifying the Electoral College vote, this coming Thursday, 1/8. And Justices on the Supreme Court are waiting for their application/petition against a malfeasant Obama certification.

Meanwhile, only half the states have submitted their votes? Demand that a count of submitted votes be done (so they know what they must refuse by constitutional law).

Senators' and representatives' addressses, telephone and fax numbers, and email addresses
Additional contact information, including staff of Senate & House leaders' staff
Protocol for a letter to United States senator

Congressional Oath of Office

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Question:

Please make a list of what the SCOTUS Justice, Scalia, would need to show to his colleagues in order to get three more to agree to cert or to remand back to lower court with stipulation that Berg now has standing. Telegrams [I.O.: and faxes and calls -- also, call senators and representatives before or even through Thursday, 1/8] to the judges can still get to them before the 1/9/09 conference meeting. What are the 'bullet points' to raise?

I.O's Answer:

1. Barack Obama is manifestly not a natural born Citizen as required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, due to his citizenship in the United Kingdom at birth, by hereditary right from his father, as conferred by British law and recognized by American law (and international law). The purpose of this clause is clearly to preclude from the Presidency as Commander in Chief, any person with, from birth, any competing national allegiance -- an intention of national security as outlined to George Washington by letter of John Jay. (And an allegiance to the U.K. was their chief concern, as it was clearly the nation which posed America's greatest threat.)

Further, the meaning of natural born Citizen at the time of the framing is clear, from Vatel and Tucker, whose writings were held at the highest educational authority by the framers and were uncontradicted at the framing of the Constitution; also subsequently, by Bingham and the case, Perkins v. ELG. The criteria: both, a. born in U.S. territory and, b. each parent being U.S. citizens, hence no other national jurisdiction.

Further, if Barack Obama's father was not married to his mother at the time of his birth, his mother was not old enough to bestow natural born Citizenship upon her son.

2. Barack Obama became an Indonesian citizen as a child, while the United States had no arrangement for dual-citizenship with Indonesia. Thereby, if he was before that time a United States Citizen, that Citizenship was revoked.

3. Barack Obama has shown no valid, legal proof of United States Citizenship, nor United States birth, to any agency of government whatsoever that is or must be charged with the supervision of any process of the election of a president, or the certification of its candidates.

See this article regarding issue number 1. // ht: MHGinTN

Update 12/30, PM - Obama's online "Birth Certificate" is not evidentiary, according to a professional document examiner. See the report, along with an riff about how "evidence" may or may not be evidence -- plus one idea of why Barack Obama might not want his actual Hawaiian Birth Certificate revealed, even if it does show he was born in America.

Update 12/24, AM - See today's posting, "Oklahoma St. Rep. Mike Ritze Requesting Congress to Challenge Obama's Eligibility" for some of the latest news in the efforts to get U.S. senators and representatives to challenge the Congressional certification of Obama's election, January 8 -- and to prepare to take it to court.

Get a snapshot of each natural born Citizen case on the "Eligibility Lawsuits" page at The Right Side of Life -- like checking the "Standings, Scores, and Schedule" page of the sports section, if you will. The Right Side and others are countering the media black-out and spin by chronicling developments in these cases. See their section on the I.O. Sidebar.

You may also wish to check out: "Save our Rights" -- a wiki, documenting all the attempts to avoid America's fictitious presidency.

Please, let us demand that a few honest patriots in Congress, on behalf of our constitutional cohesiveness as a nation, move to avert the national disaster of an unchecked and illegitimate, "Citizen of the World," presidency.

This can be an update-intensive entry. You can use ChangeDetection.com to be emailed with updates, or use the newsfeed of your choice.

<<<<<<<<<<<<> I.O.<>>>>>>>>>>>>

Does America have one honest, courageous senator?
If God gives us one senator to take this to the Supreme Court, representatives will also be found.

This remains a critical time at the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and courts below. One lower court ruled in September that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear challenges to presidential candidates' eligibility until after Congress certifies Monday's Electoral College vote (mandated for January 8). This is now being tested by petitions to the SCOTUS seeking injunctions against that very certification.

Is the SCOTUS holding review of any of its earlier natural born Citizen cases as "pending," though the Donofrio and Wrotnowski petitions for injunction against the popular and Electoral College votes have been denied? Are they keeping them on file as it were, for potential reference or formal review, when further challenges to Obama's candidacy (in addition to the Berg case) occur, immediately after January 8?

On January 8, if at least one U.S. senator and at least one representative object to the certification of the Electoral College vote, they must confer and caucus. Then, if the Congress still certifies the vote for Obama, these objecting congressmen would theoretically have the greatest standing before the Supreme Court. Are there such members of Congress who will take this before the Court?

If not, who will the SCOTUS deem worthy of being granted a writ of certiorari -- to have their case given a formal review and decision? Upon what grounds? Who will come forward and whose case(s) will be allowed into the chamber?

These are questions I.O. is attempting to answer where possible, or at least provide a reasonable "weather report."

Some of these cases are based in large part, upon Barack Obama's foreign citizenship at birth, by inheritance from his father; others, chiefly about his withholding of his actual and presumed original, Hawaiian Birth Certificate.

Since Barack Obama's father (BHO I) was apparently an U.K. citizen when BHO II was born, by the original intent and understanding of the Constitution, he was never a natural born Citizen as that term was meant and therefore unable to serve as United States President. That, by the careful interpretation of the Constitution's framers, based upon authoritative sources, corroborated by pertinent contemporaneous commentary, and unhindered by case law. See I.O's "Daddy Says No! - Articles Assessing the Constitution's "Natural Born Citizen" Clause, Barack Hussien Obama I, and BHO II" among the articles below.

Then, there is the original, authoritative birth certificate. Why has Obama spent nearly $1M to keep it unseen? If it disqualifies him, Obama may be guilty of criminal fraud -- major criminal fraud.

Numerous of the civil cases also point out that due to his apparent Indonesian citizenship as a child, Obama has since become a naturalized citizen, or else he is an illegal alien.

Whatever Obama's particulars are (and America does deserve to see his actual birth certificate) there is no apparent "out" here -- no sound explanation in sight but that Barack Obama is constitutionally disqualified from being sworn in, on January 20. That being the case, his candidacy has been legally fictitious from the Iowa Caucuses, onward and each presidential ballot including his name was an injury and insult to the Sovereign American Voter.

<<<<<<<<<<<<> I.O.<>>>>>>>>>>>>

.EQUAL . JUSTICE . UNDER . LAW...

From December 4 onward, Investigating Obama will publish a guide to on-line information about the legal challenges of the status of Barack Obama as a candidate for United States president. Links will be provided to pertinent information. Analysis will be included, for the sake of cutting through clutter and to provide rationale.

Purpose: to clarify what has been underreported and obfuscated in the media, and to allow U.S Citizens to spread the news on their own, taking comfort in documented verifiability where that is found.

Why should the Supreme Court decide upon these matters before the voting taken by the Electoral College, scheduled for December 15, the subsequent congressional recognition, and the Oath of Office on January 20?

1. Because our nation's integrity and social order are based upon the firm and definite meaning of the Constitution, or we become a nation of increasing tyrannies, where breakdown and elitist domination, or outright authoritarianism historically ensue.

2. Because we risk having a fictitious, usurping presidency, which would mean, sooner or later, any of our false president's decisions, including executive orders and signed legislation, would be subject to court challenge, or international challenge, to be considered null and void. This could well bring both national and international chaos.

3. Because the People of the United States of America are simply owed a legitimate president and to be presented with constitutional candidates only.

See below, see the I.O. sidebar:

<<<<<<<<<<<<> I.O.<>>>>>>>>>>>>

I.O. will also continue to refer to top links covering the Fitzgerald investigations, branching out from the prosecution of Obama's financier middle-man and slumlord, the Arab oil-moneyed Tony Rezko (his sentencing delayed again as he sings) and now extending to the charges against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, and beyond.

For instance, have you heard from the "mainstream" media that Fitzgerald "interviewed" (interrogated?) Obama, on December 18?

Ed Hale, the Obama Sr. Divorce Decree, the Boy who Cried Wolf, & Me

As of this post, PlainsRadio.com (http://www.plainsradio.com) is to have gained a copy of the divorce decree between Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. and Stanley Ann, parents of the man who would be president. The stated intention of Plains Radio is to Web-post what is relevant in them, later this afternoon or evening (Friday, 1/2). They will also discuss it in a special call-in program devoted to the subject, via streaming audio, some time after 6pm, CT. Those are their plans, "Lord permitting," and we will discover whether or not it refers to Barack Junior's citizenship.

Some have recently complained about Plains Radio's Ed Hale, here and elsewhere. In my "Final Update" to the initial posting of the divorce decree story, I complained a bit too, but no one needs to cast a stone at Mr. Hale. He can become exhuberant. My advise: figure that in; he does, so should we. As I mentioned, he has never expressed full confidence that the divorce decree indicated a Kenyan birth for BHO II. I.O. noted one element of discrepancy between 1/30 and 1/31, as to how Mr. Hale may have heard about "Kenyan," or not. Let's call it an example of what can happen in the "telephone game" and move on.

Alarmism is a negatively regarded trait. But, when something is both alarming and critically important, what better -ism to practice? Maybe we should call Ed Hale's pitching of his eventually gaining copies of the Barack I / Stanley Ann divorce decree alertism. He sounded the alert and I, Arlen Williams, gladly confess to alertism, in shouting the news onward.

In doing so, I also pointed out that Obama is not a natural born Citizen in the first place, by means of inheritance of his father's Kenyan/U.K. citizenship, wherever he was born. Constitutionally disqualified to ever become U.S. President is literally, legally, and "naturally" how BHO II was "born." Specifically for a president, no non-U.S. jurisdictions are allowed, or U.S. citizenship would not be natural from birth (i.e., originally and purely self-evident) and instead, would require the further action of eliminating one citizenship or the other. Furthermore, competing allegiance is specifcally what the Constitution intended to prevent, for a Commander in Chief, in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. As has been mentioned in the comments attached to I.O's initial post of the story, this document might just refer to BHO II's citizenship, even if it does not name his nation of birth. We will see.

In the fable, "The Boy who Cried Wolf," who was eventually to blame, for the havoc wrought by the wolf? The boy? He actually did his duty, albeit imperfectly. The farmer was the one who should have continued to pay attention. So, let us do a yeoman's job of paying attention to any and all significant aspects of Barack Obama's ineligibility for the presidency and his potential fraud -- and spread the news -- now!

The following explains further, how Plains Radio is gaining these papers. It was written last night by a forum poster whom I have read previously. I have no reason to doubt he is who he says he is. It adds details confirming why we should pay serious attention to this revelation.

Thursday, January 01, 2009 9:22:35 PM

If you were listening on the Plains Radio around 7:45 Wed evening (last night), I was the guy who called in from Texas. Let me assure you that the 1964 divorce decree from Hawaii is NOT a hoax — it does exist.

With info that Ed gave me on Tuesday night off the air, I coordinated to have the package pulled at the ramp in Honolulu, placed into a Fed-Ex Next-Day envelope by a person at the terminal to get Ed the next day for last night's show. It was originally scheduled for Two-Day Delivery for some reason — I think either by the PI or as as standard procedure of the Hawaii Courts. However, we WERE able to change the package to Next Day (afternoon) Delivery.

It arrived at LAX on time, shortly after midnight. HOWEVER, we hit a snag — the aircraft broke for approx 4 hours, apparently awaiting a part. The 747 finally took off at 6:47 am Wednesday, bound for Memphis, FedEx’s main hub.

As the morning passed, we began to realize that the package would not get to Ed's local FedEx hub, and then out on a delivery truck to get to him. We tried to transfer it to another location to be picked up at that FedEx depot, to scan it for Wed's show. However, we couldn't pull it off in time to make a departure on Wed afternoon.

Ed will have it Friday at a changed location. Arrangements have been made — it's very safe.

Additionally, I personally spoke with the PI in Hawaii myself Wednesday morning. Let me pass on what I can relay at this time:

• as I understand, because the decree was Certified, it came straight from the Court House to Ed; the PI did not have the opportunity to copy or fax it. (If you've ever ordered an old deed or lien that has to be copied from archived records or microfiche, it's much the same — it's mailed directly to the requester ...)
• The PI did seem to have looked at the Digest version of the Divorce Decree, not the full version Ed is getting. His words to me, was “it's very interesting”
• The PI did not know if the document indicated Obama Jr's place of birth. However, in the early 60s in Hawaii, the place of birth oftentimes does appear in the notes.
• He told me also that the divorce decree was VERY hard to find and not readily searchable — not just a $30 fee at the counter. Significant research had to be conducted. It seems to have been hidden, possibly by Ann Dunham in her youth. (IMO, if it HAD been found already, Berg would have put it on his site along with other docs he's posted: http://www.obamacrimes.info/justthefacts.html. This is NEW documentation)
• The PI indicated that there's evidence that Ann used at least one alias tied to this. It's common knowledge that she used many names (Dunham, Soetoro, Sutoro, and variations thereof).
• There are other copies of the Divorce Decree going other places — the one going to Ed is NOT the only copy! There are back-ups going to other parties.

Ed Hale has more information tht he will relay on the Lion's Den on Friday night on Plains Radio.

Alan Keyes is slated to be on with Ed.

I.O. expects the papers to be revealed as Hale describes, to be dealt with fairly, with freestyle communication, and perhaps with further speculations, tonight. I strongly appreciate what Ed Hale is doing. As posted prior, this is poetic justice for Barack Obama, whatever it does or does not show about his childhood citizenship. The road to his own U.S. Springboard-Senate career was paved with the divorce paper scandals of a Democratic primary frontrunner and a strong GOP opponent. This forthcoming divorce decree is highly newsworthy, about our affirmative media action beneficiary, despite the marxstream media not being the ones to show it to us.

Some, in one forum or another, have mentioned problems that Hale had been involved with, in a previous and annoying set of events and non-events about an alleged Kenyan birth certificate, Philip Berg, and African Press International. There are numerous sides to that story. I may or may not deal with that in the comments for this post. From what I gain, Ed may also deal with that, in this evening's broadcast.

I.O. intends to post about this matter again, today or tonight, after the divorce decree is revealed. Meanwhile, many of us will be checking in to PlainsRadio.com and rightly so.

Is the Judicial Review Allowed Only After the Electoral College Vote and Congressional Certification?

Is this why the Donofrio v. Wells (NJ) case is still "pending?" Is it only after the Electoral College votes and Congress certifies the election, that the Supreme Court believes it may take action regarding the eligibility of presidential candidates? The cases currently before the court, except for the Berg (PA) case, are versus state secretaries of state, not against Barack Obama, but perhaps that does not make a difference.

Is it similar to a prosecutor only allowed to prosecute after the crime and not before?

You may see this blog post, from Leo Donofrio's new hit thread, "Mother of all Conspiracy Theories, Obama has a Twin" (catchy tune, BTW).

Everyman Says:
December 14, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Yes, we have been betrayed by men… church-wise in the 60’s and maybe tomorrow, civil-wise by the SCOTUS;
Hell man, do you think you are any more protected from betrayal than our Saviour… take a long look at a crucifix… and remember his best friend Peter?

The only thing within your power is you… don’t betray yourself… know you are fighting the good fight and will continue to fight until you have satisfied yourself that you have done all that you can do to right the wrong… understand this…
if the case fails tomorrow that is not because you didn’t fight … if it dies tomorrow and you fail to continue to fight … you must answer to yourself and all those who have given their life to protect the constitution.

Oh you of little faith; so gifted in knowledge and talent to express your thoughts.
You have but to ask yourself have I done the best I could have done? … is there anything more I can do?
Perhaps the electoral must vote as directed in the following:
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/100108.html#5
Judge Alsup wrote, “Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review � if any � should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.” Timing is everything… you maybe the only one able to raise an “objection”

Pity-party is over.
Regardless of what they say… you and I will Know the truth …and that makes all the difference.
You will call upon your Ancestors, for at this moment, YOU are the sole reason for Their existence.

And here, from the blog, Ballot Access News, Oct. 1, 2008, is the post about the McCain court case and the ruling of Judge Alsip.

McCAIN WINS BALLOT ACCESS LAWSUIT

On September 16, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that John McCain should be on the California ballot. Robinson v Bowen, C08-3836, n.d. The plaintiff, a presidential elector candidate for Alan Keyes, had argued that McCain is not "natural-born". Judge Alsup said that McCain is "natural-born." He also said that even if a candidate does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be president, he or she should still be on the ballot.

Every time a minor party presidential candidate who does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be president tries to get on the ballot, and the matter goes to court, courts rule that the candidate should not be on the ballot. The two leading cases are Cleaver v Jordan, in which the California Supreme Court said that Eldridge Cleaver should not be on the 1968 California ballot, and Jenness v Brown, in which a U.S. District Court in Ohio said that Linda Jenness (Socialist Workers Party presidential candidate in 1972) should not be on the ballot. Both Cleaver and Jenness were under age 35. Unfortunately, neither decision is reported, although the briefs in Robinson v Bowen cited the Cleaver case.

Judge Alsup wrote, "Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review � if any � should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course."

The party that most often nominates a presidential candidate, or a vice-presidential candidate, who does not meet the Constitutional qualifications, is the Socialist Workers Party, which has done this in 1972, 1980, 2004, and 2008. Each time the party used a stand-in who did meet the Constitutional qualifications (but only in those states which refuse to print an unqualified presidential candidate on the ballot). Each time except 1972, the party did not fight in court to place its actual nominee on the ballot. Perhaps, if the SWP or any other party nominates someone in 2012 who doesn't meet the Constitutional qualifications, the party can raise the issue in court again, this time depending on the Robinson v McCain precedent.

What exactly do you think is going on? The "comments" link works just fine. Was Justice Alsip (no disrespect intended, Judge) just conning here, finding an excuse to allow McCain on the ballot, while passing the buck?

Is this the view of proper procedure that the SCOTUS maintains?

I'm going to comments now. You are invited to join me.

Video: Natural Born Citizen Press Conference, National Press Club, Monday 12/8/2008: Bob Shultz, Philip Berg, Orly Taitz, James Manning; Must See TV

As you may switch it on to see, Monday's NPC conference describes well, the constitutional crisis which America has been suffering since the Iowa Caucuses at least. It proceeds as follows:

0.00:00 - Bob Schulz, We the People Foundation, frames the reasons for calling for the presser.

0.15:50 - Philip Berg, obamacrimes.com, who does a very good job of summarizing the numerous problems which the Constitution's "natural born Citizen" clause has, with Barack Obama, to date. Berg also reprimands the Obamedia quite nicely.

0.36:00 - Bob Schultz, discussing the Donofrio suit -- thus, also the Wrotnowski petition, pending SCOTUS conference Friday, 12/12, presenting essentially an expanded version of Donofrio v. Wells, chiefly based upon Obama's foreign patrilineal descent. Also, the separate matter of the Chicago Tribune ad, which pleads for access to Obama's actual, original birth certificate.

0.44:50 - Orly Taitz (introduced by Bob Schultz) who, among numerous actions and along with Gary Kreep, is bringing "the Alan Keyes suit" in California, destined for the SCOTUS, blog: A Natural Born Citizen...Orly?.

1:09:15 - Pastor James David Manning, PhD., atlah.org, who leads the press conference in prayer, explains his use of inflammatory 1960's-ebonic terminology, and does not let up on Barack Hussein Obama II.

1:35:55 - Questions from reporters, answers from the panel, and more...

Update: more to come on the mystery woman who takes the microphone to speak of the influence of foreign oil money...

2:28:00 - You may especially wish to hear Orly Taitz at this point.
She gets to the point with the news media. A very refreshing point in a very informative and challenging segment.

Just one potential admonition if you will allow. I did not hear the term "fictitious presidency" used; maybe I just missed it. I did hear "usurper," though. Both apply. Come to think of it, I.O. should have been using these terms more its prior articles, too...

Note: We the People Foundation and google.com allow this entire press conference to be downloaded from its Google residence.

Hey, be sure to let me know when this shows up on C-Span...
Is there anyone to whom you wish to email the link, instead of waiting?

Obama's Published Birth Certificate: "Forged, Phoney, Felony Fraud"

"Expert, Ron Polarik, PhD" has just concluded a study of the document presented by Barack Obama as his Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth. Conclusion: "Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud."

Circumstances cause Americans to wonder who will become United States President on January 20 and what routes this person and Chief Justice Roberts will each take, to their intersection at the Oath of Office. Polarik's contribution presents itself an exquisitely researched, documented, and illustrative set of findings which may be seen at these locations on the Web:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2136816/posts
http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/11/22/obamas_born_conspiracy_forged_images,_phony_photos,_and_felony_fraud.thtml

Excerpt:

With my experience and specialization in document imaging, my findings are conclusive and irrefutable that the COLB images posted by Obama to his campaign website, fightthesmears.com, to the dailykos.com, a pro-Obama blog, to FactCheck.org, a pro-Obama political research group, and to Politifact.org, are, in fact, image forgeries with the intent to defraud the American People into believing that these images were digitally scanned from Obama’s genuine, “original” birth certificate.

With my experience and specialization in photography and digital imaging, my findings are conclusive and irrefutable that the COLB photographs posted by FactCheck.org, a pro-Obama political research group, and to Politifact.org, are, in fact, photographic forgeries with the intent to defraud the American People into believing that these digital photographs were taken of Obama’s genuine, “original” birth certificate.

[Edit 11/23: Is this the last word on the subject? Not necessarily. Works of science are always subject to further testing -- and Polarik seems to be an anonymous source.]

I encourage you to go and read it directly. You deserve the privilege to begin to discover whether the presumptive president-elect is headed to the White House and whether, to a much less auspicious federal house.

Also: in the next day or so, I hope to produce a one-page, hypertext-linked guide in the hydra-headed battle to discover the historical Barack Obama vs. the United States Constitution's requirement of only a "natural born citizen" allowed as America's president (Article II, 20th Amendment, COLB, derived/forged COLB, Donofrio, Keyes, Berg, Supreme Court, etc.). Keeping it updated in ensuing days presents another challenge. [Edit 11/23: Even if the document examined by "Polarik" is not a forgery per se, that does not mean it honestly reflects an original COLB. Even if the COLB is accurate, it does not address the essense of the Donofrio lawsuit.]

This is coming to a climax with due process momentum that has begun to appear unstoppable.