Lightfoot v. Bowen: Distributed for January 23 Conference
The Supreme Court docket (see also “Supreme Court Info” on the sidebar) for Dr. Orly Taitz’ (counsel representing) case of Lightfoot v. Bowen now shows the following:
Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
This now puts an eligibility case in front of the Supreme Court Justices for 3 weeks in a row:
- This week (Berg v. Obama)
- January 16 (Berg v. Obama)
- January 23 (Lightfoot v. Bowen)
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
Update: See InvestigatingObama’s Orly interview.
Update: Unfortunately, Dr. Taitz’ presser isn’t completely true. In the release (in fact, the very title), she says:
Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to hear my case Lightfoot v Bowen, challenging eligibility for presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.
That is incorrect. I hope what Dr. Taitz meant to say, instead, was the very next sentence…
He distributed the case to the full conference of the Supreme Court.
…thereby meaning that a Conference will decide whether or not the case will be heard.
-Phil
bob acosta,
The SCOTUS docketing system always takes a certain amount of time before it’s formally updated.
Thanks for the question,
-Phil
I just checked the docket and no results appear, is this case still open? the last entry shows “Supplemental brief of applicant Gail Lightfoot, et al. filed. (Distributed)”, what does that mean?
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm
Obama Certification:
look at a few examples of Obama certifications at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9344926/Hawaii-Dems-and-Repubs-Say-Constitutionally-Eligible
These certification forms are notarized and clearly signed, if false you have a case. A Notary notarizing a false statement is a huge fine, report it.
There are similar forms in all the states election commissions. Most of the suits against Obama are really against these states officials (in your cases, you can include the notary if you wish)
Ex: Lightfoot vs Bowen California Secretary of State
Ex: Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
Ex: Donofrio vs Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State
I think only the Berg case names Obama (and that one is over, as is Donofrio and Wtotnowski)
I don’t believe this statement was given by someone authorized to do so.If it were true documentation would have been provided Proudly by now. The Certification of Live birth that was presented to the public is evidence of a live birth and that the event occurred as described. Certification of Live Birth is also the title for an “out of State” birth. All others are given a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070924135018/http://www.hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html
vma224,
In reality, no Orders at all were released today.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
conerences to watch on SCOTUS blog (no Orly)
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-12309/
No. 08A524
Title: Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.: (S168690)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
Jan 7 2009 Application (08A524) referred to the Court.
Jan 13 2009 Suggestion for recusal received from applicant.
Jan 22 2009 Supplemental brief of applicant Gail Lightfoot, et al. filed. (Distributed)
bob acosta,
You must be special, because my understanding is that, per HIPAA regulations, they may not be obligated to release such information to the public.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
vma224,
The Supreme Court Orders page has no such showing for Friday, January 23.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
richCares,
I do believe my currently-headlined posting has a linked column that you might find particularly interesting — that is, if you have a “classically liberal open mind.”
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
I saw that note on Kapiolani hosptital, so I called them, yes they are very proud Obama was born there. He’s a favorite son in Hawaii, they are worried that the hospital will become a tourist attraction and interfere with health care.
cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference on January 23 does not list the Orly case, not good news for Orly, check again on Monday as to disposition. (DENIED?)
“The discussion above was civilized, interesting, even-handed, educational and reasonable until richCares intruded. What gives with kids like that? Upbringing issues not yet overcome? So sad.”
so sad you fall for the internet rumors, I’ll let you know on Monday the Orly “denied” status which is a guarantee. You have been notified to report to the dust bin of history, please go quitely!
The discussion above was civilized, interesting, even-handed, educational and reasonable until richCares intruded. What gives with kids like that? Upbringing issues not yet overcome? So sad.
on Monday, after 10:30am EST, go to http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/
click on “Orders and Journals” and select “Orders of the Court” to see results of Friday’s conference
(note the “denied” you will certainly find there)
then you can go to The Birthers convention, all 60 will be there!
the Berg case is toast, it’s over, 1/21/2009 “denied”
the Orly case in the Toaster to be “denied” tomorrow 1/23/2009, result to be released on 01/26/2009
get it here:http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm
(after 10:30 am on Monday )
Kapi’olaani Hospital was originally opened by Queen Kapi’olani as the Kapi’olani Maternity Home in 1890.
The hospital is the birthplace of Barack Obama, President of the United States. A plauqe is being made as “Birthplace of President Obama” to place at front of hospital.
call them at (808) 983-6000, I did, my daughter was born there in 1965, she recently got her BC (needed a passport) looks the same format as Obama’s
you Birthers probably think Elvis is alive and lives on Kawaii! Hawai officials covering it up!
I wholeheartedly agree with you about the righeousness
of God exalting a nation. And only righteousness will
bring peace to The Middle East.
Executive Order — Presidential Records
A “substantial question of executive privilege” exists if NARA’s disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch.
(h) A “final court order” is a court order from which no appeal may be taken.
Executive order sign by BO 1/21/09
Perry,
I hadn’t initially covered it, but Dr. Taitz has formally sent to the Supreme Court a request that the Chief Justice ought to recuse himself from swearing in the President-Elect on the grounds that she believes the President-Elect is ineligible for the presidency.
Nevertheless, I would not read into the docket any more than what the words actually say. They’re essentially confirming receipt of the “suggestion for recusal,” and I’d be very surprised — it would reveal much — if the Chief Justice were to actually follow through on the suggestion.
I’ll be including such updates in an upcoming posting concerning next week’s legal events.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Phil,
I was ‘over’ at the SCOTUS website, checking on the miscellaneous orders for 16 Jan., 2009, when I took a look at Dr. Orly Taitz’s docket information, re: Lightfoot v Bowen.
Here’s what I found interesting and new:
Jan 13 2009 Suggestion for recusal received from applicant.
Now then… I wonder who is targeted for recusal? The Chief Justice, since she submitted her petition to him? What’s she got up her sleeve?
Thanks,
Perry.
Sue,
That was a derived thought from Mr. Stephen Pidgeon, attorney for James Broe in Broe v. Reed, the link to which can be found on the “Eligibility Lawsuits” page for that case.
You may be asking what the phrase, “procedural phase” means, and that’s something I don’t know. I’m reporting the facts as I see them.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Phil,
Your comment:
“Cort Wrotnowski’s case, for example, is still in the procedural phase and has not been completely denied.”
I kept hearing the above information so I called the U.S. Supreme Court and ask if there was anything pending regarding the Wrotnowski’s application and was told No. Asked the same thing about the Donofrio petition/application and was told No.
If Obama was not a natural born citizen, I will bet any amount of money you can check the Hawaii documents now and find a new crisp vault copy of his birth certificate. No one in the government wants to see a race riot much like the blacks had when the cops were aquitted in the Rodney King case in Los Angeles. Instead of a few hundred thousand you would have millions. You can take this to the bank when the security of the country is at stake the laws of United States Constitution will take a back seat.
They will make a big deal out of trying to placate the ones who are filing but in the end the Supreme Court Justices will do exactly NOTHING.
The supreme court is just another extension of the corporations that have paid over 650 million dollars to get this man elected an to make the American people look more stupid than they did in 2004.
Well, I honestly don’t see that we have much of a choice but to wait and see what happens.
Noah and his sons didn’t seem to wait around though. Abraham didn’t tarry. Neither did Moses for that matter. I guess the question would be then, has God spoken?
AmericaMustKnow,
Don’t forget to “be still and know that [God] is God.” That’s what needs to happen with this issue.
Remember that the Judicial branch isn’t going to make a move on any of this until the entire process of the Legislative branch is exhausted. So, it looks as if the Justices aren’t going to do a thing (and they may still not), but they constitutionally cannot do anything until after the Legislative side has run its course. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the Supreme Court should legislate from the bench, and I don’t think anyone wants to go down that road.
We simply must wait and see what happens.
Thanks for the commentary,
-Phil
Uh.. I’d like to try to answer the question.
Why would he distribute the case to Jan 23 conference after the Jan 20 inauguration?
Because he does give a bleepity bleep bleep bleep. That’s like my little boy asking me, “Can I have a snack before I go to bed?” And I say, “I’ll think about it in the morning.” In other words, “Not on your life kid.”
I don’t mean to be pessimistic, but everybody keeps predicting with wishful thinking and so far NOTHING has transpired in these past 4 months or so. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. We’re almost to the absolute point of no return, and the closer we come to it, the more difficult it will be to do something about it.
The easiest time was before the the November 5th election. They ignored us, and NOTHING happened. Then December 15th came around and they ignored us, and NOTHING happened. Now January 8th is here and they’ve ignored this, and my bet is that NOTHING is going to happen in that pack of politicians. It will be another party to go to with all their stupid smiling faces. (I hope I’m wrong) Then, January 20th is on the horizon and what are they going to do? Ignore us. And what’s going to happen? You guessed it: NOTHING.
There’s been a trend here, and no sign of it getting any better. This has gone way beyond the limits of reasonableness. To expect our judges and legislators to do something right is completely absurd. They’ve proven time and time again that they are not interested in that.
By the way, praise God today is my 4th birthday! 4 years ago today, a lost church member on my way to hell, fell down on my face on my pastors bathroom floor and with all that was within me, plead, “Lord have mercy on me a sinner!” I had made a profession before, got baptized, served, preached, passed out tracks, witnessed the best I knew how. But all that will never work the righteousness of God. Ye must be born again.
You see, “Righteousness exalteth a nation.” Pro 14:34 It’s not judges. It’s not legislators. It’s definitely not Presidents. It’s not democracy or constitutional republicism. It’s not letters. It’s not lawsuits. There’s only one thing that will exalt this nation again: the righteousness of God.
Dan,
Assuming, of course, that the Supremes issue any kind of opinion for the rationale of such a denial, something they are in no way obligated to do.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
All it takes for Evil to Triumph is for Good Men to do NOTHING! Burke
Could be SCOTUS will end denying the various writs for cert and applications, on various grounds. First they could say they raise a POLITICAL QUESTION, check that term in Wikipedia if you want, but basically means they punt to another branch of government other than JUDICIARY. In this case, they say the FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE BRANCH has the decision making process and power, the Congress, the same Congress that can remove the head of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH by Impeachment, is the same branch that declares the head of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH under the Constitutional process of Counting Electoral votes today, hearing and deciding any Complaints raised about the Electoral Process by a Congressman AND a Senator, as was done in the 2004 Election, and this would include any Complaint raised,if any, about ELIGIBILITY. So I hope you raised the issues with your Congressman and Senator, and I hope Senator McCain will put AMERICA FIRST, and be one of the Senators who raises this issue along with a Representative from the House. Of course, I do not expect a Democratic-controlled House and Senate to rule in favor of the Complaint, but the Complaint should be made just the same so the VOTERS KNOW who to throw out the next time! I also support each STATE and DC passing laws as their part of ELECTORAL PROCESS so this issue never gets on a Presidental Ballot for the 2012 Election. Then if Congress acts and declares Barry Soetro as President Elect (the media as usual is WRONG, up until now he has just been PRESIDENT DESIGNATE, he is only President Elect AFTER the Electoral Vote count), the SCOTUS could also deny the Petitions for Cert as MOOT, since the issues raised were already decided in accordance with the Constitutional process set up by the found fathers, just like before when a President with a foreign born father took the oath of office. This would still leave open suits if, post swearing in, SMOKING GUN proof was discovered that PROVES he is ineligble to BE PRESIDENT, since the language in the Constitution can be read to not only cover Candidacy for POTUS, but also BEING POTUS in some experts opinion. But then again, to REMOVE the sworn in POTUS on that basis, the process end up the same, you would have to launch a REMOVAL process, called IMPEACHMENT and you know who the decision makers are in that process, the same folks who looked at IMPEACHING our last Democratic President, Bill Clinton, and I think you can predict those results too. So I think if the Ballots get counted and a President Elect declared, the SCOTUS will end up doing nothing, on either the grounds of POLITICAL QUESTION or MOOTNESS or BOTH. I would just hope they also write a decision to at least clarify some things, like the meaning of NATURAL BORN as a legal term and WHO has the responsibility in the process to apply the ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA (I think the STATES under STATE LAW for BALLOTS and then CONGRESS in the ELECTORAL VOTE COUNT PROCESS) but it would be nice if they wrote a decision about that to use for the 2012 Election. This is just ONE MAN’s OPINION. A concerned Natural-Born Citizen of the USA. I did write to SCOTUS and my Senator and my Congresswoman about my concerns too. Dan
Justice Roberts swearing in of Barry?/Obama will NOT change anything, because at this stage the eligibility for President issues have NOT been ruled upon as to the merits etc. Let us pray that the SC does what it should do, and hear these cases, and rule as to the merits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYdk26ezVio&eurl=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85587&feature=player_embedded
I cannot but think that with having “Supreme Court cases occurring every Friday between now and immediately after the Inauguration,” that is, after Congres meets to certify the results, before the Inauguration, and after the Inauguration that the Court is sending a message to someone.
The problem will not be going away until it is resolved to the satisfaction of everyone in the broad light of day. And if someone else doesn’t step up to the plate and do the right thing, or many someone elses don’t come up with an acceptable alternate solution before three strikes are called, the USSC will have no choice but to step in, do its job, and call the batter out. There isn’t going to be any free pass for a lie.
The Chief Justice can administer an oath if he has not heard any evidence of malfeasance, even if he strongly suspects it, I merely surmise. But if after taking such an oath it is later found to have been perjury, the consequences will be that much more severe and the repercussions that much more permanent.
I would think that this is the message that is being signaled here.
–John
P.S. This whole thing smells badly of being a case of the DNC throwing this in the face of the USSC as a sour grapes “payback” for the decision of 2000 (which would be entirely in character for them) and the USSC is responding very carefully and walking through this minefield as deftly as it can under the circumstances. I mean, come on! The elephant in the room is the gun at our heads that is in very plain sight of all of the people of this country except for those who are so blinded by partisanship or identity politics that they don’t even care. But there will be no riots. Despite the fact that everyone seems to be trembling to the point that their knees are knocking together, the “gun” is actually just a paper tiger. Community organizers do not make loyal friends, they only gain a following from people who think the carrot at the end of the stick is edible. Nobody wants to be homeless in the wintertime, not even the disgruntled.
With the media blackout to the facts that Obama is ineligible to take the office of President of The United States of America is clear evidence the Americas mass media is anti-American and not informing nor looking out for “We the People” no matter what Bill O’Reilly may tell his brainwashed audiance.
decentAmerican,
You ask a great question. While I am not a lawyer, I have been observing these many cases going to the Supreme Court.
What I see is that the Legislative branch will have certified the Electoral College vote by Inauguration Day. Therefore, since Congress has certified BHOII as being President-elect, it is then up to the Chief Justice to swear in the President (I’m not sure that this is an entirely Judicial branch thing; I think would legally be construed as yet another part of the Legislative branch — federal law).
A Justice submitting a case to Conference can mean that said Justice believes there’s enough merit to some portion of the case that it deserves some sort of hearing. In the extreme on the other hand, it’s also possible that these cases are getting thrown to Conference solely for the purpose of being rejected.
Nevertheless, as attorney Stephen Pidgeon has previously remarked (see my Eligibility Lawsuits page), Cort Wrotnowski’s case, for example, is still in the procedural phase and has not been completely denied.
So. I’m not sure about the legal ramifications of having the Chief Justice swearing in an allegedly ineligible candidate, but we can say, without a doubt, that we now have Supreme Court cases occurring every Friday between now and immediately after the Inauguration; I see that as the best shot we have to deal with this issue once and for all.
Thanks for the commentary,
-Phil
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???? By sending it to conference, that would mean he would have thought it had some inkling of merit?
Wouldn’t then Justice Roberts doing the swearing in be illegal?
Joe Six-Pack,
Excellent question, and no. The only thing it might signify is that all 9 Justices agreed to send it to Conference; however, if Leo Donofrio’s history is any indication, he originally thought the same thing when his was handled similarly, only to backtrack and apologize that he wasn’t completely sure.
The important thing is that it’s going to Conference. That means it will be viewed by all 9 Justices, 4 of which must agree to grant a writ of Certiorari for the case to be heard.
See my “This Week in the Courts” posting (Headline) for further info/links.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Is a “full conference” different than the 4 person conferences that reviewed Donofrio and Wrotnowski?
P. Barnett,
That’s precisely the point I’ve been making — both in my updated posting and over at Dr. Taitz’ blog.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
It’s officially just an application and NOT a case until they agree to hear it as a case.
That’s great news..but I wonder if they will punt these cases,one-by-one.I had somehow read about the Pidgeon case earlier today not reading the date,thinking the “granted” status was new.now I’m a little confused.It’s old news but they will allow the subpoeanas to go forward…? Are they activated already?
I need a little clearing up help. Thanks.