Chief Justice Agrees to Read Dr. Taitz’ Documentation; Update: Follow Up Posted
Dr. Orly Taitz has just filed the following report regarding her recent trip to Idaho. In it, she states that Chief Justice John Roberts told her the following:
Roberts stated ”I will read your documents, I will review them. Give them to my Secret Service Agent and I will review them”. His Secret Service Agent approached me and stated ” Give me all the documents, I promise you Justice Roberts will get them”.
Update: Ballot-Access.org reports:
In somewhat related news, Orly Taitz, attorney for many of the individuals challenging President Obama’s qualifications, has been able to ask two U.S. Supreme Court Justices about her issue in the last week. On March 9 she was in the audience when Justice Antonin Scalia was speaking, and she asked him about it. He replied simply that it takes 4 justices for the Court to accept a case. On March 13 she was in the audience in Washington state when Chief Justice John Roberts was speaking, and she was able to ask him a question as well. See this story. She asserted that she has proof that Obama is not eligible. The Chief Justice replied that if she has such documents with her, she should hand them to a security officer, who presumably would then have later given them to the Chief Justice. The article does not say if Taitz had any papers with her at the time. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.
The posting, in full…
Yesterday I traveled to Idaho. I was able to address Chief Justice Roberts during the question answer session after his lecture. There were numerous cameras recording this event and simultaneous feed broadcast to all the campuses of the University of Idaho. Roughly 5,000 people in all the campuses had an opportunity to hear what I had to say, it is in video archives and now everybody knows the truth and knows that leftist media thugs such as Seattle Washington Observer shamelessly twist the truth to fit their Pro Obama blind idiot agenda.
It was a grueling day, I left home at 3 in the morning after sleeping only 3 hours and drove to San Diego, from there flew to Salt Lake City, from there to Tacoma, Washington, from there I drove for a couple of hours to be in Moscow Idaho, to address Chief Justice Roberts. After the lecture the audience was told, that they can ask questions, give their name and present a shot question. I was the first to run to the microphone and told Roberts. ” My name is Orly Taitz, I am an attorney from Southern California. I left home at three o’clock in the morning and flew and drove thousands of miles to talk to you and ask you a question”. Roberts seemed to be impressed by that and I continued. “Are you aware that there is criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States. I have submitted my case Lightfoot v Bowen to you. You agreed to hear it in the conference of all 9 Justices on January 23. Your clerk, Danny Bickle, on his own accord refused to forward to you an important supplemental brief, he has hidden it from you and refused to post it on the docket. Additionally, my case was erased from the docket, completely erased one day after the inauguration, only two days before it was supposed to be heard in the conference. Outraged citizens had to call and demand for it to be posted. On Monday I saw Justice Scalia and he had absolutely no knowledge of my case, that was supposedly heard in conference on January 23rd. It is inexplicable, particularly knowing that roughly half a million American citizens have written to him and to you Justice Roberts demanding that you hear this issue of eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro to be the President of the United States.” At that point I have shown to Roberts a stack of papers, that I held. Those were my pleadings and printouts that I got from WorldNetDaily. It contained your names, names of about 350,000 that signed the petition. (there were others that have written individual letters,) . Roberts stated ”I will read your documents, I will review them. Give them to my Secret Service Agent and I will review them”. His Secret Service Agent approached me and stated ” Give me all the documents, I promise you Justice Roberts will get them”. I had a full suitcase of documents. The agent went to look for a box, he found a large box to fit all the documents, he showed me his badge, and introduced himself as Gilbert Shaw, secret Service Agent assigned fto the security of Chief Justice Roberts.
I gave him
1.Motion fo reconsideration of Lightfoot v Bowen with all the supplemental briefs.
2. Quo Warranto Easterling et al v Obama et al
3. 3300 pages of your names, people that signed WorldNetDaily petition, demanding that the Supreme Court hear Obama elligibility case.
4. Copy of a 164 page dossier and all the other documents sent to Eric Holder, Attorney General, describing suspected criminal activity, associated with Obama and his supporters. It described a whole campaign of cyber crimes, intimidation, harassment, defamation and assassination of character, impersonation of US army officer Scott Easterling and impersonation of me, it showed screen shots of information being erased from the docket of the Supreme Court, it contained information of court cases being created, fabricated in order to commit voter fraud and sway public opinion, it contained a list of a 100 addresses for Barack Obama with numerous different social security numbers, issued all over the country and attached to those addresses. It showed the address Obama used in Somerville Massachusetts, attached to the social security of a man who is 118 years old. It showed evidence of Obama committing perjury, lying under oath. It had his school registration from Indonesia under the name Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia, religion Muslim. Right after this page there was a page of Obama’s registration to become an attorney and officer of the court in Illinois, where he stated under oath that his name is Barack Hussein Obama and he had no other prior names. It contained a report from a federal agent Steven Coffman, stating that there are numerous signs of forgery in his Selective Service Certificate. It contained a letter from a renown expert Sandra Line, stating that there are signs of forgery in Obama’s short version Certification of Live Birth, and original birth certificate needs to be reviewed in order to ascertain his status. It contained 130 current job positions for Barry Obama, Barack H. Obama and Michelle Obama, that were obtained from Intellius Jobs.com. None of them were reported on Obamas’ tax returns. All of these documents suggest possible massive tax fraud, corruption of a public official, bribery and massive campaign contributions fraud, whereby large campaign contributions, over allowed limits were reported as fictitious positions with different companies, not surprisingly involving most mainstream media outlets. These need to be reviewed in light of a pattern, I’ve seen previously. For example, as a State Senator Obama arranged for his friend Robert Blackwell from killerspin to get a grant of $320,000 of our taxpayers money for his ping-pong tournaments. In exchange Blackwell gave Obama back roughly a third, $100,000 in the form of a salary. Similarly Obama arranged for Chicago university hospital to get 1 million grant of our taxpayer money and they gave him back roughly a third $357,000 in the form of a board salary for his wife Michelle for working 20 hours a week, even though Michelle was totally worthless as a board member since she had zero medical education and her law licence is on a mandatory inactive status (I wonder why).I am writing this in a hurry, ready to leave my hotel room, finishing yesterday’s dinner leftovers and ready to board a plane for a grueling flight back home. I’ll add one more detail. As one of the announcers introduced Roberts, he stated that Roberts has his priorities straight. He described an event when Roberts missed most of a reception because he wanted to be there for his young son, at the sports tournament where his son was participating. He described Roberts as a caring and loving father. At that point I was just about ready to cry. I have 3 sons, I love them too and I would love to be there, attending their events. I am a proud parent. My oldest son scored in top one percent in the Nation in PSATs and he is in an IVY league school studying to be a doctor. He is also a gifted comedian, who formed a stand up comedy improve group and I would love to see him perform. My wo younger sons are great students. My middle son has a beautiful low bass Elvis Presley voice, he sings opera and I would love to hear him perform. My youngest son is a top student taking 5AP classes in tenth grade, gifted mathematician and basketball player, I would love to see him get academic awards and play basketball. I missed time with my children, time that will never come back because a am criss crossing this country talking to Justices of the Supreme court, Representatives, Senators, FBI agents, Attorney Generals, US attorneys, telling all of them, what is wrong with you? Did some evil magician put a spell on the men in this country and they stopped being men? Why are you afraid to speak up, to stand up for you constitution? Why are you afraid to tell this arrogant jerk from Africa and Indonesia- You need to go home, you cannot be a president and commander in chief because you are not a Natural born Citizen. To be a Natural born Citizen you have to have both parents as citizens. Your father was never a US citizen and you don’t qualify and you also spit us in the face by refusing to unseal your vital records. There is no proof that you are even a citizen. For all we know, you need to go back to Kenya and wait for your green card, and that after we try you for all the crimes perpetrated upon American citizens. I hope Justice Roberts teaches his son that he is a descendant of people that were real men and fought in Alamo and at Valley Forge. Chief Justice Roberts has a right to issue a stay and appoint Joe Biden a president pro-tempore until Obama proves his qualifications or until a new president is chosen. I hope Roberts teaches his son by example and not by empty words.
Update: WorldNetDaily is reporting:
According to Orly Taitz, the attorney who confronted Chief Justice John Roberts at a lecture at the University of Idaho, the judge promised before the gathered crowd that he would, indeed, read and review the briefs and petition.
“I addressed him in front of 800 people in the audience,” Taitz told WND, “including university officials, the president of the Idaho State Bar and the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Idaho, and in front of all them, [Roberts] promised to read my papers.”
Roberts was lecturing on Abraham Lincoln to approximately 1,200 attendees of the annual Bellwood MemorialLecture Series at the Moscow, Idaho, university. Roberts has been chief justice of the Supreme Court since his nomination by President George W. Bush and subsequent confirmation in 2005.
Earlier in the week, Taitz confronted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who told her the issue of Obama’s eligibility, which has been raised before the Supreme Court at least four times but has yet to be given a single hearing, still lacked the votes of the required four justices in conference before it would be officially heard.
Taitz said, “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 nine 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.”
The legal phrase Quo Warranto essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto “affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.”
“Tell me what to do, what can I do?” Taitz reports asking Scalia. “Those soldiers [her plaintiffs] can be court-martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate?”
She says Scalia responded, “Bring the case, I’ll hear it, I don’t know about others.”
In Idaho, Taitz obtained the promise of one of the others, the chief justice, that he would read through the eligibility challenge, including the petition brought by WND readers.
As WND reported, Taitz is submitting a motion to the Supreme Court for re-hearing of Lightfoot v. Bowen, a case she is working on through her foundation Defend Our Freedoms, alleging some of her documentation may have been withheld from the justices by a court clerk.
She asserts docketing information about her case “was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on January 21st, one day after the inauguration and two days before [the case was to be heard].”
At the lecture in Idaho, Taitz grabbed the attention of Justice Roberts by boldly addressing her allegation that a clerk had buried the case.
Taitz told WND that the forum rules required that those questioning Roberts announce their relationship to the University of Idaho and refrain from talking about cases currently before or likely to appear before the court.
“I said, ‘Justice Roberts, my name is Orly Taitz. I’m an attorney from California, and I got up at 3 o’clock in the middle of the night, flew and drove thousands of miles just to ask you a question. So please give me some leeway,’” Taitz told WND. “My question is, do you know there is illegal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States?”
According to Taitz, the room was stunned silent as she continued, “I have presented my case to you, and you personally agreed to hear this case in conference. But your clerk refused to forward a supplemental brief to you. He has hidden this brief from you. He refused to put it on the docket. Additionally, my case was erased from the docket one day after the Inauguration, two days before my case was to be heard.
“Outraged citizens and members of the media and state representatives are calling the Supreme Court, demanding to have the case reentered on the docket,” Taitz told Roberts.
Then she held up the WND petition and continued, “Moreover, here are the names of U.S. citizens who signed this petition and who sent individual letters to individual justices, including you, Justice Roberts, all of them demanding the same thing – that you hear my case in regards to Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility for presidency.”
According to Taitz, Roberts approached the microphone and said, “I see you have papers. I promise you I will read all your papers, I will review them. Please give them to my Secret Service and I will review all of them.”
Shortly thereafter, Taitz told WND, a Secret Service agent identified by his badge as Gilbert Shaw accepted two suitcases of documents and pledged to deliver them to Roberts.
Taitz reports the documents included four major sections:
- A motion for reconsideration of Lightfoot v. Bowen with all its supplemental briefs.
- The Quo Warranto Easterling et al v. Obama et al case.
- The WND petition, consisting of 3,300 pages of names – over 325,000 in all – of people demanding the Supreme Court hear the Obama eligibility case.
- A copy of a 164-page dossier sent to Attorney General Eric Holder detailing suspected criminal activity surrounding Obama and his supporters, also available on the Defend Our Freedoms website.
Update: Commenter “BIz” noted the following report from an individual who was at the lecture:
After many trying Friday the 13th obstacles today, I finally made the trek of 160 some odd miles to Moscow, Idaho and back to hear him speak and I must say it was well worth the trip!!. I am a bit weary but I wanted to get it all out for you guys while it is fresh in my memory.
I had higher hopes that I would actually BE in the same room, but according to my friend — who got there before me — there had been a big long line of people waiting to get in at least 40 minutes or more beforehand! As many of you know I had intended to be able to record the event on video to try and put on youtube, but my friend couldn’t find his and I was lacking one myself…so no video guys sorry!But there was plenty of media there it seemed so maybe something will turn up.
Anyhow, I also thought I might be able to do a live feed with my laptop for you guys but that didn’t work out either since I could not tap into the campus wireless network for some reason — another bummer of the day…
Even though I couldn’t really see much from where I sat on the floor in a separate room where they had a large screen to watch on, I found Justice Roberts to be a very eloquent speaker and rather enjoyed listening to him talk — even if I DID disagree with him!
The event was meant to be part of the school’s 100 year anniversary, so he centered it around Lincoln and William Wallace (for Wallace, Idaho) and actually had some fun stories to share (with his own little spin of course). The repeated theme for him was — and I made sure to take good note of it — that he views his job, not based on what is morally or ethically correct, BUT….by what the Constitution says and his personal interpretation of Congress’ laws! CONGRESS!!!! He also believes in being impartial and said that lobbyists were people to be avoided (couldn’t help but wonder about Obama there and who might be pulling strings).
After speaking for about 40 or 50 minutes, Roberts fielded several questions. Unfortunately I had too much stuff with me and it was difficult to get out of the room once you got in, so I was unable to get to a microphone (not that the microphones were working too well anyway lol) The first woman who got up — and whom I just learned was indeed Orly Taitz See her story here – actually asked my #1 question (as far as I could tell from when they finally fixed the mike) about why the Supreme Court had not held a hearing over Obama’s birth certificate and I believe she had documents of some sort to bring before him (was very hard to hear what she was saying and then people started groaning when she said the name ‘Hussein’) Anyhow, he could not answer the question for her since it may be an upcoming case and she was requested to leave the documents with some of the staff outside. Sound like a possible hearing ANYONE???
I’d say he probably took 5 or 6 questions altogether, but I got the gist of where he stands and I actually lingered long enough — achy from sitting on the floor and trying to get UP off the floor while everyone else was climbing over me — that he came into the room and surprised me and the few other people still there and he was very pleasant to everyone (just missed shaking his hand myself
Anyhow, I had a good time in spite of all the troubles I had today and knew I had to share the experience with you all here! Thinking of just going to bed and collapsing right now! lolHere is a local news report on his visithttp://www.krem.com/video…
Nothing about Orly Taitz unfortunately
Update: Commenter “sus” has provided a link to the audio portion of Dr. Taitz’ remarks: http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/spincontrol/2009/mar/15/about-birth-certificate-mr-chief-justice/#more
While I realize that there are those who comment on this site and other sites who have used various pejoratives against Dr. Taitz with respect to her being an activist on the eligibility issue, she appears to be getting things accomplished. Obviously, this is not to say that the Supreme Court is automatically going to consider her paperwork, but it is to say that if she were truly “stalking” the Supreme Court Justices, somehow I don’t think she’d be getting within earshot of the Justices.
Good on her for taking one more step forwards in bringing accountability to eligibility.
Update: Dr. Taitz has posted a follow up to all the above:
I have called to follow up with the Supreme Court and the office of the Attorney General
At the Supreme Court i talked to the officer Presiozi and officer Cessna ( I don’t know the exact spelling). I stated that I have given to Mr. Mr. Gilbert Shaw Secret Service agent for Chief Justice Roberts two pleadings Lightfoot v Bowen, motion for reconsideration and Easterling at al v Obama et al and I needed to know why the cases were not posted on the docket yet. Officer Cessna stated that Chief Justice Roberts hasn’t been in the building yet this whole week. He stated that Chief Justice Roberts traveled to a couple of other locations after Moscow Idaho and hasn’t been back yet. Officer Cessna took my information and stated that officer in charge Ms. Giaccio will call me back on Monday, she will be available from 7 am ET. If i don’t hear from her Monday morning, she can be reached at 202-479-2369. When Chief Justice Roberts and Agent Shaw arrive, they will fforward the paperwork to her and she will forward it to the clerks for posting.I called the office of the Attorney General Holder at 202-514-2001. Attorney General was not available. I left a message with his secretary and a recorded message. I stated that I represent Ambassador Keyes, 130 members of the military, including one Major General and 10 State Representatives. I stated that I have submitted Quo Warranto petition on the 3rd of March and three Dossiers regarding matters of National Security and I have to talk to Attorney General in regarding to those matters as soon as possible. I stated that I will be in Washington DC on Monday and together with Mr. Joseph Farah, Editor of World Net Daily, I would like to visit Mr. Holder and discuss the above Quo Warranto petition and Dossiers. I hope Mr. Holder will be able to find a few minutes to discuss these matters of National Security. and National Importance.
-Phil
Orly’s tweets:
See: http://twitter.com/DrOrlyTaitzEsq
(So much for the Chief Justice “agreeing” to review her stuff…..)
Phil, I was responding to your comment:
I pointed out that the forensic expert (Lines), looked at only one image of the COLB, when in fact there are at least 10 images of the same document that are publicly available (the one disseminated by the Obama campaign and 9 separate images posted at Factcheck from their own photos). I don’t know if it would be possible to come to stronger position one way or another about authenticity based on looking at multiple images (as opposed to the document itself) — but I’d think good science certainly would dictate that any expert would at least try — and that certainly any lawyer who hired Lines would have asked her to look at all 10 photos.
For one thing, if there was an alteration or falsification of some sort, it would be more likely to be show up when looking at multiple documents — it would be much harder to pass off a forgery in that setting. On the other hand, if close scrutiny of all 10 documents showed no discrepancies, that would provide much stronger evidence of authenticity. Maybe not 100% certainty either way — but a forensic expert who has looked at 10 pictures is on firmer ground than one who looked at only 1 — especially when the opinion expressed seems to be that looking at only one photo isn’t good enough.
The bottom line is that the burden was on those challenging Obama’s status to come forward with the evidence. They didn’t do that.
I said “was” because it really is too late, legally. There simply is no way to turn this into a justiciable issue; so there never will be any “discovery”. At best you have a political issue that Obama may or may not feel a need to address in some way in 2012 — I have a feeling that he won’t, simply by that time there certainly will be issues of greater political significance to focus on.
Practical Kat,
I think you need to re-read my entire previous comment again.
What I was, in fact, stating was simply that no eligibility case has gotten to the discovery phase, therefore it would be nearly impossible in a courtroom to cross-examine what a forensic examiner had previously claimed regarding the online certification of live birth.
I think it’s pretty common knowledge, Practical Kat, that one cannot move a case forward in the Judiciary without first having established certain technicalities such as standing and jurisdiction, among other things.
-Phil
Phil, under our system of laws and under the Constitution, it doesn’t work that way. You seem to be under the misapprehension that any person can make up any allegation they want against anyone else, then go to court and start “discovery’ to force the accused person to produce all manner of documentation. But when people do that, the court calls it a “fishing expedition” – and those sort of cases get thrown out of court and the lawyers get sanctioned.
Under our system, the plaintiff always bears the burden of proof. “Discovery” is a process that is primarily geared to assist the defendant in finding out what the plaintiff’s case is about. So lets say that Company A sends you a bill for $10,000 for web hosting — only you have never heard of Company A. You refused to pay, and Company A sues you. YOU, as the defendant, would have the right to demand that Company A produce all the documents support their claim in discovery, including copies of any contracts they claimed you had signed, invoices and payments they had sent you, records of services they claim to have provided. But Company A would NOT be able to force you to disclose all your bank records, or your records of payment to your other hosting company — all of that would be irrelevant to their case.
Yes, the plaintiff can get discovery from the defendant, but only if the plaintiff can meet a certain threshold to prove that they have a real case, and only in limited areas that are directly relevant to the claims that the plaintiff raises
If any of these cases proceeded to the discovery phase, it would mean that Obama’s lawyers would have the right to demand that they produce all the records that they claim support THEIR case — it does NOT mean that Obama could be compelled to produce school records or a “vault” copy of a birth certificate or anything like that. The COLB he has is legally sufficient; Obama would be under no obligation to produce a “vault” copy or to allow Hawaii to release those records, or to release his school records, because they have nothing to do with the case.
It seems to me that when you talk about “discovery” it is an admission that there really is no evidence to support any claim that Obama was born anywhere other than in Hawaii. No evidence means no case to bring.
Practical Kat,
While these are excellent questions, let’s not put the proverbial cart before the horse. After all, in order to actually get this evidence admitted into Court, a specific case would have to get to a discovery phase, which none of the eligibility lawsuits have ever entered.
Notwithstanding the Certificate Number now being visible, what I’ve explained is the likely reason why there has been no further follow ups to the evidence at hand.
-Phil
To add to brygenon’s observations, I’d point out that Sandra Lines wrote in her affidavit,
That indicates that Lines never reviewed the 3 separate photographic images posted at factcheck.org — http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg & http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg & http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg where the tracking number is clearly visible. It has already been explained that the number was blocked out in the original internet posting because the Obama staffers who put it up did not know whether release of the number raised a security issue or not, so they erred on the side of caution.
But the Lines affidavit is completely undermined by the fact that the only specific problem with the image she reported pertains to that flat-image that was initially circulated. See: http://www.therightsideoflife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/executedsandralinesdeclaration_1.pdf
She cited NO reasons to doubt the authenticity of the Factcheck images, which were of higher photographic quality and taken from multiple angles under varied lighting conditions, and which (as noted) had the tracking number which has since also been verified as being consistent with an August 1961 birth in Honolulu.
The Lines affidavit was dated December 4, 2008 — almost 4 months after the photographic images and report of an inspection was reported at Factcheck.org — see http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Why didn’t Lines look at or comment on the Factcheck.org images?
Why would a forensic “expert” deliberately choose not to view additional photographic evidence of what is purportedly the same document? Wouldn’t it be more effective to look at, and compare all the images together? After all, if the first image had been altered using photoshop, then the subsequent images of the same document taken from different angles would also have to be altered to match. There are at least 5 separate images at factcheck.org, taken from different angles, including 3 where the text on the face of the document is clearly visible.
What’s your evidence to support the “birth in Kenya” story?
Phil listed,
If you think it interesting, by all means go ahead. For now, I prefer actual law to what you imagine you would or would not find.
Obama’s birth certificate is stamped with an attestation by the record keeper and embossed with the great seal of the state. So is my birth certificate. That’s because an act of Congress of 25 June 1948 specifies those features to prove nonjudicial state records. See 28 USC Section 1739. Records so proven enjoy the same faith and credit anywhere in the country as they do in the state of issue, and Hawaii says the COLB has the same legal weight as what people call the “vault copy”.
Practical Kat,
The bottom line to this thread is that when you go about using pejoratives such as “preposterous” in relation to an idea, regardless of what that idea is, it shows that you are simply being close-minded to moving any further ahead.
It is rather fortunate, is it not, that our dear founding fathers decided to proceed forward on an equally “preposterous” experiment (at the time) regarding self government and actually rebelling against the-then current government?
-Phil
Agreed.
Practical Kat,
That’s a major stretch on two counts:
1. It would be interesting to cite case law that specifically targets certifications of live birth as being legally controlling instruments from State to State (I’d bet there is no such thing);
2. There has already been at least one forensic expert who has officially (via signed affidavit) claimed that the online certification of live birth is inconclusive with respect to determining eligibility (that means it can’t be known either way).
So, unless you can demonstrate evidence to surmount these two points, it appears to be quite obvious that there is no legally-controlling standard of determining legal enforcement of eligibility.
-Phil
Who has made the legal determination of what is needed to substantiate eligibility Hawaii Revised Statutes & the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the US Constitution. The COLB stands as prima facie evidence and must be accepted as proof of place of birth by any court of law in the absence of evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption that it creates.
Phil,
Exactly. I suspect you won’t get an answer from “Practical Kat” and if you do, if won’t be anything but a reply.
PK said, “We have (a) a legal, certification of birth; (b) statements from appropriate state authorities confirming that his original birth certificate is on file; and (c) copies of contemporaneous birth announcements in 2 papers of record. Additionally there is a sitting Congressman (from the first district of Hawaii) who was a contemporary of Obama’s parents and who could attest to the fact that they both were living in Hawaii at the time.”
As Phil said, PK, “WE”? have a legal certification of birth. We the people do??? Who does? Assuredly no governmental agency. No one that we have a reasonable ground on which to believe is in any way objective or honest. It’s like this Sue character grabbing quotes from one random weblog and telling us to believe them because they typed it up and said someone went “on record” to say such things!
If “WE” have one, why wouldn’t they let me see it in their offices when I was in Chicago? I was there for 2 weeks.
Both (b) and (c) prove nothing, in fact, they do nothing for the possibility except for giving us reason to believe that it is possible for 338-17.8 to be the guise under which it is filed. Which begs more questions, since this so called servant of the people will not be transparent on anything. Now you tell me, is that reasonable? It’s far less reasonable than 3 random web shot photographs from factcheck.org
You’ve really got to be kidding me if you are looking at this from any sort of objective perspective. Come up with 1 good point, at least, my man, please.
Practical Kat,
Just a moment:
1. Who has made the legal determination of what is needed to substantiate eligibility? I thought it was common knowledge that there is no such law in place, presently? Would you care to share the premise of this need, please?
2. The Federal Election Commission currently spells out no legal requirement for vital documents to substantiate a candidate’s eligibility for President. This is why the certification of live birth has been posted on private web sites and no government web sites.
Please do answer my questions for number 1, as number 1 trumps number 2.
-Phil
Practical Kat,
Unfortunately, I think you’re reading way more into the text of the Constitution than what is there. While I have no problems ceding the point that there is an opportunity for Congress to “jump in,” as it were, in the electoral process and move to object, that, in my view, cannot be construed as anything more than a potential opportunity — as opposed to an enforcement mechanism — to question the nominee’s eligibility.
Again, you won’t find an argument from me on the face of this sentence. This is why I have always been — and will always be — so keen on making sure that an enforcement mechanism does get set up whereby the candidate for President must — not just an opportunity to — be held to the eligibility standards of the office.
It is my view that you are one of those people who have become so comfortable with either the press or the political parties taking care of the vetting process for you that you may, in fact, be blinded by the inertia of the process. And while these entities do play a part, as both you and I know, there is no legally enforceable means by which a candidate for President must substantiate their eligibility.
-Phil
all documentation to substantiate anything has been sealed. This simply is not true. The ONLY legal documentation that Obama needs is the COLB that was photographed by factcheck and obviously if he was ever asked to produce that document in Congress or anywhere else, the document would be given to whoever wanted it. We have seen photos of the front and the back of the document, of the raised seal and the signature.
Here’s what my legal experience tells me: the evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii is overwhelming. We have (a) a legal, certification of birth; (b) statements from appropriate state authorities confirming that his original birth certificate is on file; and (c) copies of contemporaneous birth announcements in 2 papers of record. Additionally there is a sitting Congressman (from the first district of Hawaii) who was a contemporary of Obama’s parents and who could attest to the fact that they both were living in Hawaii at the time.
Against that you do not have a single shred of evidence to contest the birth. Bloggers fantasies are not “evidence”. You do not have a birth certificate or hospital records from some other place, or witnesses who claim to have witnessed a birth in some other place, or any plausible reason to believe anything otherwise. All you have are some people who have already been shown to be lying –some internet blogger named “Techdude” who used phony credentials stolen from somewhere else and was shown by World Net Daily’s investigation to have faked the images that he claimed were evidence of forgery; and some guy who lied and falsely stated that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother claimed to have witnessed his birth in Africa when the audiotape of the interview clearly showed that she said nothing of the sort, and in fact insisted that he had been born in Hawaii.
You can’t have an “issue” without evidence to back it up. All you have is groundless accusations and a set of fantasies which get more far-fetched every step of the way. [flame bait]
It means at the last possible opportunity for an objection to be raised under the terms of our Constitution, none was raised. About 1/3 of Senators & Reps in Congress have law degrees, so they know very well that if there was any valid basis for an objection, that was the time to raise it. As far as a legal determination goes — that was it.
The Constitution is very explicit about how things are to be handled — but the decision to designate the President & Vice-President necessarily entails a determination by Congress that each is eligible. It doesn’t matter if there has been an actual hearing or an explicit finding – the Constitution establishes that January joint session of Congress as the last possible point in the process for resolution. So as a matter of law – Obama is eligible — that is a legal determination that has already been made, through the process that has been set forth. It is deemed made because it is a necessary prerequisite to the naming of the President and Vice President.
We are a nation of laws which means that determinations of status are made through the process that our Constitution requires.
Practical Kat,
The key phrase of yours being, “I am assuming.”
I would have thought that after I asked you whether or not you are a lawyer and you responded in the affirmative, you’d be able to see that the lack of an objection being raised in Congress during the Joint Session over Electoral votes does not constitute there being no issue. It simply means that nobody objected. As far as I know, and unless you can start citing specific cases, not raising an objection doesn’t necessarily mean that the nominee is specifically qualified to hold the office. It simply means that nobody objected.
I’m really not sure about that psychological claptrap, but I do know that no real determination has been made, to date, precisely because all documentation to substantiate anything has been sealed.
Again, if you are a lawyer, you would therefore have every reason to believe that all the evidence has yet to be forthcoming.
-Phil
I am assuming that if there was ever a President elected in a situation where there was a legitimate question as to whether the President was eligible, then an objection would be raised in Congress as the Constitution specifically allows.
I gave the name of a Senator and a Congressman in my post who have both seemed to question the facts of Obama’s birth post-inauguration. My question is why didn’t they object on January 8th. Why were the “birthers” wasting time with fruitless court cases — where they clearly had no chance of being heard — rather than aggressively lobbying Republicans in Congress to get an objection raised at the time and place the Constitution specifies for those objections?
I think the answer is that the “birthers” don’t really want an answer — they’d rather raise a fuss based on unsubstantiated speculation than face a real determination, where their claims are absolutely certain to be rejected.