SCOTUS Docketing System Acting Strangely; Dr. Taitz Issues Subpoenas; Obama Re-Sworn In; Update: Dockets Up!
Update: The docketing system now correctly shows dockets of eligibility cases (see my “Supreme Court Info” widget on the sidebar for links). Hopefully this was an honest mistake by some IT person somewhere.
Let’s hit the hot issue first (as is being covered by FReepers, Investigating Obama, and, of course, Dr. Taitz).
As of this posting, it would appear that all eligibility-related dockets (see my “Supreme Court Info” widget on the sidebar for links) except for Berg’s original docket are pointing to missing pages. Further, a search on the docketing system for cases related to “Lightfoot” show fine.
For the record, I officially do not subscribe to conspiracy theories unless and until an intent to conspire can be evidenced. Nevertheless, the following points are factual:
- Bandwidth (the ability to serve pages) has never been an issue for SCOTUS, as while there have been times that a given docket has been flooded with page requests, they have always come up
- The vast majority of SCOTUS cases dealing with eligibility have been denied a hearing
- This could still have been the result of an innocent operator error in SCOTUS’ IT (information technology) office (the intentions thereof are a different issue)
In either case, this situation needs to be watched and perhaps the IT folks at SCOTUS ought to be alerted over the simple fact that the docketing system at the very least is most certainly behaving strangely. Hopefully this situation has been nothing more than an operator error.
On another note, Dr. Taitz has formally issued a plethora of subpoenas per former President Bush’s final executive order:, presumably for her newest case, Keyes v. Obama…
As per Executive Order: Granting Reciprocity on Excepted Service and Federal Contractor Employee Fitness and Reinvestigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust, see attached, please provide copies of any and all records in regards to level of character and conduct necessary pertaining to Barack H. Obama, a/k/a Barack H. Obama, II a/k/a Barry Obama, a/k/a Barry Soetoro. These documents have direct relation to holding a Position of Public Trust.
Documents to include:
Certified copy of original long vault birth certificate
Certified copies of any and all passports and passport applications held in the U.S., Indonesia, Great Britain and Kenya.
Certified copies of any and all school applications, school registrations, grant or student loan applications or funding received for Occidental College, Columbia University, Columbia College, Harvard University
Certified copies of any U.S. Port of Entry Records
Certified copies of any documentation pertaining to Social Security. Documentation showing multiple social security numbers being held
Certified copies of documentation showing a social security number being applied for in the state of Connecticut
Certified copies of immigration and naturalization records
Certified copies of any records showing legal name and name changeOrly also sent subpoenas to the Social Security Administration, Department of Education, Department of State, Department of Defense, CIA, Office of Personnel Management, Department of the Interior, IRS, Department of Health and Human Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Secret Service.
Update: PDFs of the above subpoenas can be found here and here.
And, if you can believe it, President Obama was re-sworn in (per Drudge newsflash):
OBAMA RE-SWORN IN
At 735 pm, Roberts administred the oath of office again to obama in the map room. Robert gibbs said the wh counsel, greg craig, believes the oath was fine Tuesday, but one word was out of sequence so they did this out of a “an abundance of caution.” “We decided it was so much fun…” Obama joked while sitting on a couch. Obama stood and walked over to make small talk with pool as roberts donned his black robe. “Are you ready to take the oath?” Roberts asked. “I am, and we’re going to do it very slowly,” obama replied. Oath took 25 seconds. After a flawless recitation, roberts smiled and said, “congratulations, again.” Obama said, “thank you, sir.” Smattering of applause. “All right.” Obama said. “The bad news for the pool is there’s 12 more balls.”
-Phil
sus,
I represent that remark!
Thanks for the kind words,
-Phil
Thanks Phil. You and Jeff at America’s Right seem to be the only folks who allow dissent. We might not agree, but I appreciate the opportunity to disagree.
sus,
You’ve brought up many interesting issues, and perhaps other commentators here will take you up on those. However, my original point remains the same: a “conspiracy theory,” being used in the pejorative (and usually as a euphemism for, “you’re nuts”), cannot be proven, as I’ve already explained.
Yet, in the case of a particular politician — in this case, the President — those of us who question his bona fides are considered “conspiracy theorists.” I suppose I’m somewhat confused: is it an issue that one should not question the President, or is it simply that the “wrong” questions are being asked? Either way, that’s a terrible rhetorical blight on debate that ought not be there.
Further, have I not made it painfully obvious that I call Mr. Obama the President? While I readily admit there are very few things with which we will agree, I would fight to the death for the right to disagree. Based on your tone and writing, it would appear that you’re not in synch with such a sentiment. Obviously that’s your prerogative, but it’s also sad as well.
Nevertheless, I do believe you have a good point. If what attorneys such as Dr. Taitz are doing would be declared a waste of time, then you’re exactly right — we should see such penalties/fines/disbarment imposed.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Regarding your comment on the “shotgun” approach… If the approaches are consistently invalid and wasteful of the Courts time, I believe it’s only a matter of time before penalties and fines are imposed, and, if continued, disbarrment.
Regarding your comment about this not being a conspiracy theory, there are many who would disagree. You choose to believe some guy named Polarik or whatever, who signs his (unwitnessed) affavadit with “x”’s due to supposed death threats? From whom? And a guy named “techdude”? Others who have stated their identities and credendials have disagreed with their findings. In other words, Obama put his BC out there. You believe a guy who says it’s phony. What to do? Nothing. There’s nothing to do.
Regarding his qualifications for the job, that has already been determined by the election. As well as the inauguration.
As for the rest of the items regarding travel to pakistan (which was not banned), etc, etc. It’s all been debunked on other sites. Every piece of it.
As I recall, a conspiracy theory existed about Palin’s child. Yet she did not release the records? She released a note from her doctor, who is now on staff at some Alaskan govt. job. Palin did not release her educational records. Palin didn’t release the 2nd troopergate findings, as she previously promised she would.
McCain did not release all of his records. Not the educational records. Not all of the medical records, though he did allow reporters to view a huge amount of them, but did not allow note-taking or photocopies of any kind.
Did we know about W’s cocaine and alcohol issues? Or how Laura killed someone in an automobile accident?
I think Obama has been far more open than most.
Bottom line is, you folks just don’t like that he won. And, you’re gonna spend a lot of time on this.
But, when Orly is fined and perhaps disbarred, don’t think it’s part of the conspiracy. It’s because she’s incompetent.
sus,
Dr. Taitz has raised awareness; that is one part of the entire ordeal. It would also be nice to see the Judiciary agree to hear the merits of one of the many cases that have been brought before it, but, legally speaking, all cases thus far have not met the technical standards of jurisprudence.
Also, part of the issue is a “shotgun” approach, whereby concerned citizens (lawyers or not) have attempted and will continue to attempt a number of different angles and avenues to see what sticks.
The good news is we’re not dealing with a conspiracy theory here. Conspiracy theories are virtually impossible to solve; the President’s citizenship is breathlessly easy to resolve, except for the fact that this particular politician has decided, for some reason, to seal his background documentation so that nobody knows anything of substance about this man.
If you can answer the following questions, perhaps you should get on TV or radio somewhere and let the rest of us know:
1. What, specifically, has the President accomplished of significant importance prior to becoming the President? (This particular question has, in the past, been asked by the mainstream media in an effort to determine qualifications for the presidency)
2. As the President claimed to be a community organizer, why weren’t there throngs of those whom he helped in Chicago gathered at the DNC? Surely more people could have vouched for his good deeds.
3. Is there a reason why, if a certain segment of the population wishes for the President to disclose his vital records, that he would not do so? And no, privacy is irrelevant for the person seeking the highest office in the land.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Please read Section 8 of the Executive Order, text from your own site: http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2985
“Sec. 8. Effective Date and Applicability. This order is effective upon issuance and is applicable to individuals newly appointed to excepted service positions or hired as contractor employees beginning 90 days from the effective date of this order”
The order does not cover Obama. He was “hired” before the date covered by this order.
also… see section 7d which basically says you can’t use this order for a lawsuit or such:
“(d) This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees or agents, or any other person.”
============
Orly just throws a bunch of stuff out so people will stay mad, and send her money. Seriously, what has she done that was effective?
States cannot compel the federal government to comply. Thus, state court subpoenas cannot be enforced against a federal agency. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 170 F.3d 431 (4th Cir.1999) (a state court lacks jurisdiction to compel the FBI to produce documents subpoenaed). Orly should have researched this — there is a recent California case right on point. See FBI v. Superior Court of the State of California, 507 F.Supp.2d 1082 (N.D.Cal. 2007).
So many strange happenings have taken place with the receiving and/or docketing of obama eligibility cases at SCOTUS. A person has the right to be seriously questioning what is going on…….
Hmm, well, tomorrow we’ll see if another nail is added to the coffin of our Constitution. If it is and there are no dissenter opinions on the denial, then for me, it’ll be a dead issue. But only so far as the bogus SCOTUS is concerned–-the Constitution needs us like-minded folks to step in where the bogus potus/SCOTUS/Congress utterly and terminally failed in the defense of the supreme law of our land.
There are some movements afoot to get concerned Americans united in helping get our country back on track. There are the Committees of Safety, Orly’s upcoming convention, and the WeThePeople organization at http://www.givemeliberty.org)which is establishing the Continental Congress 2009 in Philadelphia sometime in March. There will be three delegates from each of the 50 states represented there and they will meet to decide a course of action to take back our country. From a WTP meeting in Colorado that I attended yesterday, the time to do something more than to submit petitions of redress (which have been totally ignored) is past. Now is the time to take peaceful, but definitive action. With the various groups popping up, there should be one for just about anybody who wants to take our country back peacefully and within the law. (Even if those in power refuse to follow the law, we still must–what’s with that??)
As for me I have decided a few things– first is to never again use the term “politically correct”. We just give it dignity that it does not deserve. From henceforth, I will use the more appropriate term of “politcally deranged”. Second, I have vented my grief, anger, and angst over the loss of my country. I don’t know if we’ll ever be able to recapture the spirit of America. Whether we do or not, it is now my intended purpose to be a thorn in the side of evil wherever I find it. I will NOT make it easy for evil men to prevail. And third, I will support all honest and upstanding efforts to set up a new voice for concerned Americans, like the WTP movement or others mentioned above. Now is not the time to criticize legitimate efforts to regain the full force and effect of our Constitution. “United we stand, divided we fall” was never truer than now.
RESULTS OF NBC, ARE DEPENDANT UPON (ACTIVIST-CONSERVATIVE) JUDGE:,
It is my view that petitioners will begin coming up with different strategies with which they’ll go about attempting to legally ascertain whether or not the President is truly eligible.
Thanks for the question,
-Phil
Phil,
Do you think if BO CLAIMS IMUNITY AS PRES. THAT CAN BE A “WONDERFUL” THING , BE CAUSE “OUR” LAWYER CAN SIMPLY MAKE THE MOTION THAT HE IS NOT AN USURPER!!!!!! AND HE WOULD HAVE TO DISCLOSE ALL OF HIS DOCUMENTS NONETHELESS!!!!?
Maureen,
I won’t argue about not trusting the government. However, Mr. Obama was already President as of noon on November 20, so there are no issues there (I’m still not completely sure why he was re-sworn; he actually said all of the required words the first time around).
Secondly, I’m pretty sure that the legality of the oath is not directly dependent upon a “prop,” such as the Bible, being included in the ceremony (as far as I know, the Constitution doesn’t require it to be present). Rather, it’s an historical convention that’s been used from the beginning.
Thanks for the questions,
-Phil
Yeah my question didn’t have to do with Orly’s case because she had already gotten her’s in before it was pulled so her case is grandfathered.
I was wondering about all the orders he gave from the time he was sworn in wrong the first time to the time he was sworn in right the second time.
Those orders — do they carry weight? I am sure he can go back, later and re-order things, but if someone files something in between the time, wouldn’t they be applicable.
Also, say he makes all these orders, while he is not legal and doesn’t correct it by re-ordering them…are they legal? Can’t they be challenged at a later time because he made them when he was not ‘officially’ the President?
I thought it was Roberts who messed up not Obama and Obama followed his lead. And if he retook the oath the second time without the bible, is the second time legal? Doesn’t he have to swear onto the bible or another book of religion? Maybe he took the ‘official’ oath on the Koran, (not sure if I spelled that correctly) Maybe that was his intent all along but knew the American people would be outraged so they planned to mess it up the first time and do it correctly in private for a reason. I just don’t trust the government anymore and I have great doubts about Roberts now after reading that open letter from Orly and finding out his ties with Annaberg(sp).
Ted, by George, I think you got it.
Lol!
And the sad thing is at Harvard, I know there are biracial and black Americans who just happen to be “natural born citizens” of the U.S. and Ted Kennedy and these other Harvardites had to pick one who is not?
This is bizarre!
But, the problem is with the Coup and fraud to do it. They run the risk of the country tired of every last single one of these folks and wanting to get all of them out.
Take the test.
FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?
ANSWER: Joe Biden
Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution’s Article 2 or the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his ‘oath’ at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath “before he enter on the execution of his office,” then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in ‘commencing’ an ‘Obama Presidency’ — rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time — is confirmed by the re-take of the ‘oath’ by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first ‘oath’ was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.)
This is significant because at such time that the Supreme Court finally rules on the merits on Obama’s disqualification as not being an Article 2 “natural born citizen” (clearly he is NOT), Biden’s automatic status (without needing to take a separate Presidential Oath) of being President would be predicated upon four different bases: First, having been Vice President under Article 2; second, having been Vice President-elect under the 20th Amendment; third, having been actual President in the hiatus before Obama took the ‘oath(s)’; and fourth, retroactively deemed President during the full period of the Obama usurpation so that the acts of the Federal Government under the usurpation can be deemed authorized and/or ratified by Biden’s legitimacy.
SECOND QUESTION: Who will be the 45th President?
ANSWER: Hillary Clinton
One must assume that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been aware of all of the above. Biden’s wife recently “let the cat out of the bag” on the Oprah Show that both Biden and Hillary had considered alternatively Veep or Secretary of State, in either case, setting up Hillary to be President on a vote of the Democratic Congress if need be.
THIRD QUESTION: Is Obama an unwitting victim of this troika or a knowing participant?
ANSWER: Yet undetermined.
The answer to the missing information on the SCOTUS web-site is simple.
First of all, the guy who owns Google publicly endorsed Obama. You can be sure Obama is being kept up to date on google traffic with the finest software in the land.
If you think this is far-fetched, the UK government hires thousands of internet monitors who keep Gordon Brown up to date on issues affecting his popularity ratings.
Yesterday, the talk on the street was all about the bumbled oath between the Supreme Court Justice and Obama. No doubt millions of internet searches were for “Supreme Court Obama.” No doubt Obama’s PR people were going crazy.
Maybe they learned a thing or two. LOL.
Phil,
Me again. I meant to add this. A comment from Orly’s site:
Yesterday, 6:27:18 PM
“Orly; Phil’s case was deleted as well for several hours today. I went back and checked a few moments ago and his case is back but states “1/21/2009 Petition Denied”.
If true, that seems a little strange.
This is wonderful news, because The Consitution does matter & Obama is not above Our Consitution! & The Consitution will matter when it comes to his eligibility! He is not a natural born citizen & it will matter when it’s all said and done. This was so perfect! He had to be again because of OUR CONSITUTION! HA! HA! HA! Get the popcorn out folks and watch OUR CONSITUTION rise to the top!
Phil,
I think you need to read Maureen’s comment again. She was wondering if Obama’s actions were valid between the time of the two “oafs” (Feinstein).
Maureen,
The thought is that since Dr. Taitz’ latest case was filed under the auspices of former President Bush’s order being enacted, there is not a problem.
Thanks for the question,
-Phil
Obama was resworn in WITHOUT a Bible…funny, the first one with the Bible was botched and the second without the Bible was done right. Private meetings–makes you wonder. Chalk the botch up to nerves–no way–Obama’s been preparing for this for a very long time. These are very smart people who think “we the people” are stupid. Funny, though, to watch him blame-shift everything on to everyone else. Maybe thats why he has no one from his past to vouch for him–he seems to have burned many bridges with that technique.
Well, if the first oath he took was not legal, then any decision he made between the first one and the second one, that was legal is null and void correct?
So his order to revoke all PO orders from Bush are void correct, which would mean that they are still valid?
I can’t help but wonder if they had him take another oath to see if he still thinks he is qualified. Only other reason is so the ego on his daughters can get as big as his.
It is funny and trivial I suppose, but the first time he said the oath, the Honorable Judge Roberts called President Obama “Senator Obama” and asked he were ready to take the oath. Judge Roberts in rare form that day???
AOL had a story concerning Chris Wallace remark’s.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/01/21/is-obama-really-president-after-oath-flub/?icid=200100397×1216982721x1201175363
Exactly! Amazing! This is no accident. In God We Trust.
Re: OBAMA RE-SWORN IN
Didn’t the other usurper “Chester A. Arthur” have to redo the oath?
Funny how history repeats itself…!!!
Phil,
The Executive Order Bush signed would have been so much more helpful before November 4. Wouldn’t a Constitutional mess be best avoided? The Dems would have been vilified by the public for this hoax and the outcome of the election may have been different.
Than again, maybe it was in December the discussion about such an order came up. Who knows.
I’m pulling for Orly!
Thank you for the excellent updates.
Gina