Dr. Taitz Speaks with Justice Scalia at Book Signing
Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney for Plaintiffs in Keyes v. Obama as well as the now-defunct case Lightfoot v. Bowen, had a chance to speak briefly with Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia while he had been in California for a book signing event:
At any rate I got to this meeting with Scalia. I stood there the whole time right by the mic, just to make sure I have an opportunity to ask a question. Only four lawyers out of about 300 in the audience got to ask their questions and I was lucky to be one of them. I told Scalia, that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan 23 and now i represent 9 State reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on Original Jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama’s legitimacy for presidency.
I have to say that I prepared myself to a lot of boo-ing, knowing that Los Angeles trial lawyers and entertainment elite are Obama’s stronghold, however there was no boo-ing, no negative remarks, I actually could see a lot of approving nods, smiles, many gasped and listened intensely. I could tell, that even Obama’s strongest supporters wanted to know the answer.
Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get 4 people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these 4 that call themselves Constitutionalists, went to the other side. He did not say that it is a political question, he did not say that it is for the legislature to decide. For example, right after me another attorney has asked him about his case of taxing some Internet commerce and right away Scalia told him that he should address it with the legislature. He did not say it to me. He did not say that quo warranto is antiquated or not appropriate, no, just get 4. Right after that he went into the issue of the 17th amendment. He stated that today the Congress and the Senate are not accountable to the states and can do whatever they please. He stated, that when the rules of the game were changed in 1913, when the senators were no longer chosen by the state legislature, but rather elected, therefor they are not accountable to the states, cannot be recalled by the state and that is why there is such an overreaching power by the federal government. The way I understood it, is that maybe the 17th amendment needs to be repealed or maybe we should check our voting machines, since the Sequoia software in our voting machines is owned by the communist Hugo Chavez. of Venezuela.
Right after the presentation there was a book signing. I bought two books-regular and limited edition of his “Making the Case, the Art of Persuading Judges” (the limited edition alone was $150) . I stood at the end of the line and let everyone else go ahead of me. I figured while he is signing two books, me being the last and he is not rushed, he might have a minute to ask another question. So, after another hour on my feet (after I stood for a couple of hours at the presentation), I gave him the books to sign and asked “Tell me what to do, what can I do, those soldiers can be court martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate”. He said, bring the case, I’ll hear it, I don’t know about others. I asked, tell me what happened before, why Lightfoot v Bowen was not heard, what about Berg, Wrotnownski, Donofrio- he had a bewildered look on his face, he kept saying- I don’t know, I don’t remember, I don’t know, I don’t remember. Scalia seems to be one of the most decent judges on this court. I think he was telling the truth. Could it be that the cases, were handled by those nefarious clerks, those “mahers”, that work for who knows who and the judges are clueless? I don’t know. At the end I gave him my 164 page dossier, that I’ve sent to Holder about all the suspected criminal activity, intimidation harrassment, cyber crime surrounding me and officer Easterling. Scalia seemed to be interested and started reading the first page, he put it next to him, but then the secret service agent grabbed it. What could I do at theis point? Wrestle with the secret service? Clearly that wasn’t the time and the place to show of my black belt Tae kwon Do skills. I just shut up and left. There was nothing else I could do at that meeting
Unfortunately, Dr. Taitz doesn’t mention any further details about the venue (hence why I cross-checked this with any other coverage of the Associate Justice being in California over the past few days, such as this link to other coverage concerning TownHall). Nevertheless, I appreciate Justice Scalia going a bit into the importance of the 17th Amendment regarding States’ rights in the Constitution; one can truly only imagine what would happen if the so-called “stimulus” bill — or other such legislation — were to have to be OK’d by the States besides just the People.
It’s also interesting to note the following about Justice Scalia’s book:
Justice Scalia’s newly released book, co-authored with Bryan A. Garner, editor-in-chief of Black’s Law Dictionary, is a guide for novice and experienced litigators, presenting important ideas about judicial persuasion. The book covers the essentials of sound legal reasoning, including how to develop the syllogism that underlies any argument.
Update: WorldNetDaily is similarly covering this story.
-Phil
brygenon,
You must be kidding?? You point to a couple of websites as a proof? I’m going to need a little more than that. Factcheck.org is not an official source of anything other than hearsay.
I have seen a more in depth treaty of this conversation on another thread on this site. And the arguments just don’t hold water. Posters have presented many questionable details of his background that no one has any direct answer. They say that he is legitimate because he was elected, among other equally absurd statements that don’t amount to anything more than redirection.
In the end, I hold this belief. That the truth of the matter will eventually be exposed. There are too many people, who are interested in upholding our constitution and the rule of law in our country.
The American people have been asleep at the wheel for far too long. And I believe we are about to see an awakening. Due in no small part because big media has lost it’s strangle hold of the flow of information. That is one reason why many of the old standard media outlets are about to go out of business. They are becoming irrelevant.
brygenon,
At least you are admitting that, essentially, Mr. Obama did precisely and exactly what he needed to do to win the presidency. I cannot disagree with that sentiment, and, of course, that is the premise for my questions. It is quite the study in absolute amoral utilitarianism.
-Phil
That’s because you snipped where I told AnotherReader he could find the proof he had requested:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
That proof is conclusive, but we all hold sole domain over our own heads, so people are still free not to accept it. Obama’s campaign convinced everyone they needed to convince to at least the extent they needed to convince them. One’s personal refusal to face reality places no obligation upon anyone else.
brygenon,
That is completely inconclusive, unless you can show where certifying Electoral votes somehow equates to verifying presidential eligibility. Furthermore, filing an objection during the Joint Session isn’t a legal obligation on the part of anyone; therefore, such an opportunity does not necessitate eligibility enforcement.
So, as I’ve said before, certifying Electoral votes simply does that — it certifies the votes of the Electors and nothing more, at least not legally speaking.
Bottom line: To say that “the US Congress was convinced enough to certify the election” is very much of a propter hoc fallacy: certifying votes does not equate to validating eligibility. Furthermore, as I’ve mentioned to someone else here, the Chief Justice swearing in Mr. Obama has absolutely no bearing on Mr. Obama’s eligibility to be President, unless, again, you can show, constitutionally, where said swearing-in is legally meant to enforce eligibility.
Incidentally, I do not buy rationales such as, “Well, surely they wouldn’t have certified the vote if he wasn’t eligible,” or, even richer, “Well, surely the Chief Justice would have never sworn the man in if he wasn’t eligible.” There is no basis for these assertions except one’s own subjective viewpoint.
-Phil
AnotherReader requested:
It’s all ready for you at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/.
Oh yes, it’s way more. Annenberg Political Fact-Check inspected the actual document, and took their own photos.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
We’ll see if it’s true or not, but understand, whether you are convinced is just something going on in your head. The U.S. Congress was convinced enough to certify the election and the Chief Justice of the United States was convinced enough to swear Barack Obama in as President.
To Sue and others who are so adamant that “proof” has already been given. Let’s see it. Lay out the proof here in a logical and coherent manner. Site all of your references. I am certainly open to seeing it, but it is going to have to be a lot more than just a reference to the image presented on Obama’s web site.
Several things are interesting to me about this case. One, you make claims that no “shred of evidence” has been shown. Yet, you also claim we can not ask for the very documents that would go a long way towards proving it one way or another. A very convenient argument. Secondly, if as has been stated so many times in past that anyone pursuing this notion is just part of a fringe element. Why do you and others expend so much energy countering almost every post on this site and others like it? If all of this means nothing, why bother? Don’t you have anything better to do?
In any case, I am ready to see or hear something meaningful. And please do not cop out by saying that there is nothing that could be said to convince me. Speaking for myself, it simply is not true.
It’s positively surreal that folks still point to the COLB as being unassailable proof of Obama’s eligibility. Urban legends die hard. (On second thought, perhaps obfuscatory or dishonest are better characterizations than surreal.)
SoCalJay,
I think some scholars have argued that congress has the power to define natural born citizen. Not sure today’s court would buy it.
In my opinion, “allegiance” is a red herring. It was a concept that at common law and in early republic was confused and seemingly contradictory. You’ll give yourself headaches trying to get a handle on it. However, it did seem that the founding generation generally defined natural allegiance by birth. For example, according to James Madison:
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.” The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6
I think people are making it more difficult than it is. If the court follows their typical approach, the questions should simply be (i) what was the term “natural born citizen” understood to mean in that era and (ii) did the 14th amendment change it? The authorities the court usually look to (particularly the early commentaries and case law) make clear that the phrase was understood in the early republic to mean native-birth. I have seen no significant authority to the contrary.
The Obama skeptics should rather focus on the second question, as there is at least some authority that the 14th amendment was not intended to codify common law rules and I think a non-frivolous argument could be made along these lines. However, I think it is still likely a loser as supreme court precedent is against such position, the plain language of the amendment is against such position, the legislative history is a best ambiguous and neither the text nor the legislative history support the idea that anyone intended to amend the Article II definition with the 14th amendment.
“ZAPEM says:
March 13, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Oh God! Not you people here, too? Dr. Conspiracy is a known person never to check facts and has done absolutely no research whatsoever.
Phil, these people tried to discredit Mario Apuzzo and made several defamation attacks against him, too.
Doesn’t that tell you something about their agenda? They’re not after the truth. They’re out to discredit people for asking simple questions.”
Dr. C. and his website is very factual and he has done extensive research on this subject. Dr. C. takes great pride in being accurate and concise on his website. Anyone and everyone is welcome so long as you remain civil. I have never seen Dr. C. defame anyone. Please provide evidence that Dr. C. has “defamed”
Mario Apuzzo.
” ZAPEM says:
March 13, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Sue,
Why don’t you provide us with proof that he’s eligible instead of asking people questions that have no answer because the answers never came. GEEZ!”
The proof has been provided. Tons of it. You instead provide us with any actual credible, reliable evidence with the source provided that proves Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii.
In regard to Zapem’s comment:
“Dr. Conspiracy is a known person never to check facts and has done absolutely no research whatsoever.
Phil, these people tried to discredit Mario Apuzzo and made several defamation attacks against him, too…”
I would invite anyone interested to drop by http://www.obamaconspiracy.org and browse more than 200 articles on Obama eligibility issues, packed with unchecked facts and links to where they weren’t checked. You may also see first hand the comments left by Mr. Apuzzo and the courteous defamatory responses I made. And you can see my defamatory comments left on and censored by many blogs such as BraveNet, Apuzzo, Alan Keyes, Citizen Wells and The Betrayal.
After you’ve finished, feel free to heap ridicule everywhere you find something objectionable — because we accept any and all comments from all points of view without censorship, even a few from ZAPEM.
Zapem, can I say anything I want over at your place?
Thanks,
Dr. Conspiracy
Phil,
“Also, shall someone at the State or federal level with authority over records plainly state that Mr. Obama’s UK citizenship, at birth, does not expressly disqualify him from the presidency?”
“Enough of the armchair attorneys! Let’s get some real officials on record specifically and directly answering these two questions!”
It has been answered. Quite well in fact.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/citizenship/
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
The question is one of a State or federal official explicitly stating without doubt that, yes, the certification of live birth is sufficient evidence (as in, to hold up in cross-examination in Court)
There’s no competent evidence to doubt the legitimacy of the COLB. Certainly good enough for the court of public opinion (and, inferentially, Congress).
If you desire some sort of official pronouncement, be the change and get a law passed to require that in the future.
Again, they never answered the question of eligibility; they only ever answered the question of a piece of paper not having been tampered.
Eligibility is, as they say, “above their pay grade.”
But if the basis of ineligibility is solely place of birth, then, yes, they’ve answered that question.
Obviously, at the rate that the Judiciary moves, even if Mr. Berg were to have been heard within a month of filing (thereby getting past standing and other technical issues), it would have easily taken at least 6 months just to get through the discovery phase, much less any later phase.
There are methods to expedite things. And there’s no reason Berg why couldn’t have filed earlier, as the operative facts are all long in the past. (And, strategically, Berg should have filed sooner — a well-timed lawsuit during the primaries might have caused the same result.)
Properly done, this issue should have been questioned and answered by the time that Mr. Obama was being considered for the ballot, not being nominated at the Democratic Convention.
And the fact that it wasn’t is a clue. Did Clinton not pull the trigger on this because she was ignorant, or could forsee it was a losing proposition?
Shall someone at the State or federal level with authority over records plainly state that the online COLB to which everyone seems to refer is sufficient to prove that the President has zero eligibility issues?
The Hawaiian officials have plainly stated that Obama was born in Hawaii.
For most, that ends the whole “eligibility” discussion.
A good question to ask is why did nobody consider the question until such a late stage? Obviously, at the rate that the Judiciary moves, even if Mr. Berg were to have been heard within a month of filing (thereby getting past standing and other technical issues), it would have easily taken at least 6 months just to get through the discovery phase, much less any later phase.
That simply is not true. If there was a legitimate issue urged by competent attorneys representing a litigant with standing — then the attorneys would have moved for expedited hearings and expedited appeals, if necessary – as was done in Bush v. Gore. (Really — the pace at which that case was presented to, briefed, argued and determined by the US Supreme Court is probably unprecedented — but it is an example of what capable attorneys can do).
But the plaintiff always bears the burden of proof, so even with standing, it would require the moving party to make a strong factual showing to get a TRO. Berg’s pleadings wouldn’t have met that test, and none of the litigants questioning the Hawaiian birth have yet come forth with the sort of factual allegations that would have gotten them anywhere in court.
I think that an opposing candidate could have forced a hearing on McCain’s eligibility, because there really does seem to be some question about whether he was born on or off base in Panama. Hollander lacked standing — but perhaps Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee would have been wise to pursue that early in the primary season.
I do think that Donofrio’s argument (the “dual allegiance” claim) could have been litigated by a person with standing (again: opposing candidate) early in the process, in an expedited fashion. I also think its a dead loser of an argument – but I don’t see any impediment to a pre-election ruling on the issue. (I just think that the lower court would have ruled that citizen at birth = natural born, regardless of parentage, and the appellate courts would have sustained it).
GeorgetownJD,
Unfortunately, my “Search Comments” function isn’t pulling up those comments where I’ve specifically taken Dr. Taitz to task in commentary on my site. I do believe that you had a bet of sorts going on over whether or not I would support Dr. Taitz having posted personal information on her site.
Regardless, I am not going to be doing a full posting on my site regarding such things because, technically, whois information on web sites is already publicly available for anyone who wishes to peruse it. This is why I’ve cloaked my therightsideoflife.com domain, as it would reveal exactly who I am and my whereabouts.
Furthermore, I am not going to be doing a full posting on my site regarding such things because I don’t want to draw any more attention to it than has already been drawn to it. I also, as a personal policy, do not get into back-and-forths with other sites because I don’t see that as constructive in getting to the real end point, which is the following:
If you have personally identifiable information that could be found on the Internet, then it is your responsibility to go about hiding said information as much as possible; if you require assistance in learning how to cloak domain contact info, I am more than happy to help.
-Phil
GeorgetownJD,
Regardless of whether or not this is directed to me, I obviously stand corrected.
-Phil
Practical Kat,
My point is that your comment is completely unsubstantiated by any official officeholder. They have only ever declared that the online COLB properly represents what the COLB represents. However, the question of whether it is sufficient for eligibility requirements is an entirely different matter.
Two things:
1. I don’t think anyone knows what would happen if President Obama were found to be ineligible;
2. I am “so upset” because we have nothing legally that says anyone has to substantiate their eligibility. I think that’s a potentially fatal flaw in our Constitution that should be rectified forthwith.
-Phil
Sorry, Phil. That was my post. I hit the Submit Comment button before realizing that my name was not entered.
Here, I will spell it out for you. It is no “subjective opinion” (as you call it) what Orly does. It is FACT. Orly posted MY personal info on her site and called me an Obama thug. She knows very well what she is doing, because she regularly redacts the contact information of “friendly” posts and displays the personal info of anyone she deems critical. Orly actually hired a private investigator to hunt down my contact info.
So I will reiterate. I could post the names, email addresses and IPs of the harassers, but I will not stoop to Orly’s level. Instead, those contacts and screen shots of their threatening messages are in the safe hands of law enforcement officials and the AG of my state, and the police are investigating the vandalism to my car which, not coincidentally, occurred right after Orly posted the info on her site.
You are aware of this through private communications. That you do not publicly condemn such conduct speaks volumes.
“This” was an order holding Berg’s motion in abeyance until Berg came into open court and presented his credentials. IOW, the Court placed conditions on its consideration of the motion. Berg did not comply with those conditions. Instead, Berg filed a motion requesting the Court to vacate its order.
So my question to you is, what is it about “this” that you believe constitutes compliance with the February 5 Order? Because to a practitioner, “this” looks like outright defiance of the court.
Phil, I have a really hard time understanding where you are coming from. What is “online” is merely a picture of a document, and that is all it could ever be.
But behind the picture, there is a real document. We know what the real document looks like because we have a picture of it — as opposed to, say, McCain’s birth certificate — and eligibility would clearly be substantiated by that real document because it meets all legal requirements to substantiate Obama’s birth in August 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii.
I understand why you would like there to be some sort of official government procedure for all this. I agree with you that in the future it would be good to have some requirement that candidates submit the paper, certified copies of their birth certificates to an official government agencies.
But I don’t get what difference you think it would make in Obama’s case… and why you are so upset about it now even though we have had 43 other men serve in office without producing copies of their birth certificates for some sort of official determination.
Ballantine,
You are correct, and I should restate what I said. This is the second time I confused two separate issues on two different websites. My apologies.
You are also correct in that it was an oversimplification of a complicated issue. Not only did I misspell Jure Sanguinis, I combined it’s definition to include statutory authority. Though related in legal decisions, they are separate issues. As you stated, under common law, for both England and the U.S., Jure Sanguinis means By Right of Blood. Jure or Jus Sanguinis basically means that citizenship is automatically conferred by right of blood through the father. Alternately, Jure or Jus Soli means that citizenship is conferred based on where someone is born.
The statutory argument was based on the belief that Congress can change the use of those definitions when applying citizenship and immigration laws. My argument still stands that SCOTUS has not addressed this when discussing “natural born” allegiance to the U.S. in Art II, 1, Cl. 5, since it was removed from the language in 1795.
What I really meant to say, and did a poor job of doing it, is that I believe, as others have written elsewhere, that allegiance is at the heart of the issue. And for that I have found very few discussions besides Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815 (1971), where the decisions set down by the justices have commented on the fact that it hasn’t been addressed since 1790.
Bob,
I must admit — you’re slicker than snot — and I mean that in a very good way, the same way that I think that President Clinton is a very intelligent, though very amoral, man (and, no, I’m not suggesting that you are amoral; I don’t know you well enough to be able to make that kind of observation).
Again, the efficacy of the document is not in question. The question is one of a State or federal official explicitly stating without doubt that, yes, the certification of live birth is sufficient evidence (as in, to hold up in cross-examination in Court) to substantiate that Mr. Obama is, indeed, eligible to hold the office of the presidency. I’d like to see such a conclusion by said official in an official press release somewhere (so that the verbiage is on paper and that anyone can analyze the conclusion).
-Phil
Bob,
Again, they never answered the question of eligibility; they only ever answered the question of a piece of paper not having been tampered.
-Phil
Bob,
In any other situation I’d be totally on board with you. The doctrine of laches is paramount within our system of law.
However, it is also interesting to note that Mr. Berg — often credited with starting the whole eligibility suit saga — did not file anything against Mr. Obama until maybe June, July or August, 2008 (I believe), because I guess that nobody even though to question the President’s eligibility until that late stage.
A good question to ask is why did nobody consider the question until such a late stage? Obviously, at the rate that the Judiciary moves, even if Mr. Berg were to have been heard within a month of filing (thereby getting past standing and other technical issues), it would have easily taken at least 6 months just to get through the discovery phase, much less any later phase.
Properly done, this issue should have been questioned and answered by the time that Mr. Obama was being considered for the ballot, not being nominated at the Democratic Convention.
-Phil
Bob,
Even though I was already aware of this, I’m glad that we’re once again stating what is truly obvious: the online certificate of live birth is a real image of a piece of paper. Excellent.
Now if we could move on to the real question at hand, thusly: Shall someone at the State or federal level with authority over records plainly state that the online COLB to which everyone seems to refer is sufficient to prove that the President has zero eligibility issues?
Also, shall someone at the State or federal level with authority over records plainly state that Mr. Obama’s UK citizenship, at birth, does not expressly disqualify him from the presidency?
Enough of the armchair attorneys! Let’s get some real officials on record specifically and directly answering these two questions!
-Phil
Oh God! Not you people here, too? Dr. Conspiracy is a known person never to check facts and has done absolutely no research whatsoever.
Phil, these people tried to discredit Mario Apuzzo and made several defamation attacks against him, too.
Doesn’t that tell you something about their agenda? They’re not after the truth. They’re out to discredit people for asking simple questions.
Sue,
Why don’t you provide us with proof that he’s eligible instead of asking people questions that have no answer because the answers never came. GEEZ!
nobody in authority has yet to officially declare that the online COLB is sufficient evidence to substantiate eligibility.
False premise. No one has ever said the online COLB is sufficient evidence.
The actual COLB, however, is self-authenicating as to birth, there’s no competent evidence to suggest the online COLB is different from the actual COLB, and the very governmental officials in charge of such matters have corroborated as much.