The Obama eligibility issue is gaining new traction

MonsterMark

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
9,225
Reaction score
3
Location
United States
A Quo Warranto legal brief has been mailed to the Attorney General of the District of Columbia.

In addition, a motion to reconsider was sent to Chief Justice Roberts after Attorney Orly Taitz states this conversation took place:


Further, on March 9, 2009 at a book signing ceremony in Los Angeles, California the undersigned counsel had an opportunity to talk to Associate Justice Scalia and had an opportunity to ask about this case and inquired , as to why the case was not forwarded from the conference to the oral argument. Justice Scalia had no knowledge about my case. Similarly he had no knowledge about any cases brought in front of the Supreme Court, that challenged Obama’s eligibility for presidency. The only reasonable explanation is that the clerks of the court did not provide the case to the Justices at all or summarized them in a light, that is unfavorable to the petitioners, which is prejudicial to the plaintiffs.


Seems the Justice Department lackies have been doing their best to see that justice is not considered in the Obama eligibility issue.

The Quo Warranto brief has real teeth. I expect it to start some fireworks soon.
 
Yeah, I'd heard about the Scalia thing from the book signing from here.
 
Some choice excerpts on Orly Taiz's motion....from your link

No explanations on the court's response to the Obama citizenship issue have been offered until now.

Taitz reported she attended a reception for Scalia and stood "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."

She 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."

Taitz said she had some worries asking the question.

"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," she said. "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 four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side," Taitz said.

"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 four," she said.
 
Chief justice publicly accepts WND's eligibility petition
By Drew Zahn

A California attorney lobbying the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president confronted the chief justice yesterday with legal briefs and a WND petition bearing names of over 325,000 people asking the court to rule on whether or not the sitting president fulfills the Constitution's "natural-born citizen" clause.

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 Memorial Lecture 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."

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 325,000 others and sign up now!

"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.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, some suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:
  • New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
  • Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
  • Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
  • Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
  • Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case was dismissed by Judge Michael P. Kenny.
  • Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
  • Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
  • In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
  • Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
  • In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
  • In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
  • California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:
  • In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
  • In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
  • In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
  • In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
  • In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
 
Jeez Already quit crying and get over it. This country has survived worse.
Just another guy who doesn't give two :q:q:q:qs about the Constitution because it doesn't suit his needs (or really his desire to receive the handouts the usurper has promised him). Come on, let's be truthful here.:(
 
I am a man that can stand on my own. I Don't need a hand-out, wrong for you to assume that I do! So to help you out remember this in the future next time you feel as though you want to assume something. ("ASSUMPTIONS ARE LIKE A$$HOLES, EVERYBODY HAS ONE") :)

I am just so over politics at this point cause government can do what ever the hell they want to without caution to the wind...they re-write laws as they see fit, they make up stuff as they see fit:mad: , n really we have no say n e more. So that is all it is with me. Do i like everything that's happening now NO!:mad: seriously ask yourself do u really think all this hype about him being eligible is going to go n e where? The man majored in constitutional law....If it wasn't for people with deep pockets keeping the news alive this would have never gotten this far trust me. Cause the government don't care about the issue of weather he is eligible or not.


Just another guy who doesn't give two :q:q:q:qs about the Constitution because it doesn't suit his needs (or really his desire to receive the handouts the usurper has promised him). Come on, let's be truthful here.:(
 
Just another guy who doesn't give two :q:q:q:qs about the Constitution because it doesn't suit his needs (or really his desire to receive the handouts the usurper has promised him). Come on, let's be truthful here.:(

You obviously "give two s***s about the Constitution" and.... it apparently causes you great stress. I, on the other hand, can smile and relax while I sit here in my office sipping on coffee. I don't like a lot of what is going on right now, and in 2010 my voice will be heard again, but in the meantime it does nobody any good to get stressed out about it.

If it's really a violation of the Constitution, the Courts will do their thing - this may surprise you, but that is, in fact, their job. In the meantime, a few whiners on an Internet message board are not going to change what is happening in the national political picture.
 
If it's really a violation of the Constitution, the Courts will do their thing - this may surprise you, but that is, in fact, their job. In the meantime, a few whiners on an Internet message board are not going to change what is happening in the national political picture.

You really have no clue how the SCOTUS works, do you. They case has already been rejected, apparently, due to dishonest means. There are people running interference between this case and the SCOTUS. The case has to get to the SCOTUS for them to rule on it. It doesn't just magically appear in front of the justices as you seem to assume. Ignorance is truely bliss. :rolleyes:
 
I am a man that can stand on my own. I Don't need a hand-out, wrong for you to assume that I do! So to help you out remember this in the future next time you feel as though you want to assume something. ("ASSUMPTIONS ARE LIKE A$$HOLES, EVERYBODY HAS ONE") :)

I am just so over politics at this point cause government can do what ever the hell they want to without caution to the wind...they re-write laws as they see fit, they make up stuff as they see fit:mad: , n really we have no say n e more. So that is all it is with me. Do i like everything that's happening now NO!:mad: seriously ask yourself do u really think all this hype about him being eligible is going to go n e where? The man majored in constitutional law....If it wasn't for people with deep pockets keeping the news alive this would have never gotten this far trust me. Cause the government don't care about the issue of weather he is eligible or not.


So im going to assume this means youre going to keep bending over? You cant just be "over politics"..
 
For all the misinformed here. It is not even a SCOTUS issue anymore.
They have nothing to do with it at this point.

I got what, 7,8,9 months of deep research into this. Calling into shows. Findings flaws in his forgeries.

Attempting to get FOIA requests to take action on getting his college records.

The biggest laugh is that your defense is he is a Constitutional Lawyer.

You know something. You are right. And the reason has has now spent millions in his defense of not having to /wanting to produce a $10 birth certificate is what exactly???

Continue being a sheep.
But a ask one favor of you people that want to turn a blind eye to the Constitution over this matter.

Do me favor and end your post with a BAAAAAAAAA.

That way I'll know for sure who the sheeple are.

Sheeesh. P&CE is becoming more remarkable everyday.

Obama Supporters (800 x 600).jpg
 
Here's the deal.

He was sworn in. He IS the President.

Without legitimate cause to impeach, there is nothing lto discuss here.

Time to Move on.
 
Here's the deal.

He was sworn in. He IS the President.

Without legitimate cause to impeach, there is nothing lto discuss here.

Time to Move on.

And it was stolen how?
Please explain the exact process that was used to steal the election.
What, ACORN hadn't received $100,000,000 in funding yet?

Man, talk about getting over it.:mad:

Do you know how many liberal newspapers and TV networks went thru that election with a fine tooth comb?:cool:

Or are you talking about the sKerry election.:eek:

Are we still talking about the Republicans owning the electronic voting machines.:shifty:

Have some fun with your responses.;)
I'll be back tomorrow night to lay witness to the comedy.:D
 
Here's the deal.

He was sworn in. He IS the President.

Without legitimate cause to impeach, there is nothing lto discuss here.

Time to Move on.

Do you really want to rehash all this again?

He has to be Constitutionally eligible to hold office. If he is not constitutionally eligible, it doesn't matter if he was sworn in or not, he is not the president. No where in the constitution does it indicate that those other requirements become null and void once someone is sworn in.
 
This is seriously a new low. We lost the election, so let's cry foul.

I'm seeing more and more disappointment in the Republican party as they engage in many of the same tactics that the Dems used after Bush got elected. Lose the electrion, dispute the results, and smear the winner. I honestly expected better.
 
This is seriously a new low. We lost the election, so let's cry foul.

I'm seeing more and more disappointment in the Republican party as they engage in many of the same tactics that the Dems used after Bush got elected. Lose the electrion, dispute the results, and smear the winner. I honestly expected better.

Once again, ignorance is bliss for you apparently. This was an issue long before Obama won the election, and there are countless threads in this forum to prove it. But apparently rule of law, and the Constitution mean nothing to you; only disdain based in ignorance does. :rolleyes:

The comparison to the challenge of election results in 2000 (which I assume you are implying) is false and inaccurate. This was being challenged long before the election and has nothing to do with determining the results of the election.

You really need to STFU and educate yourself before you smear conservatives due to your own utter ignorance of what you are talking about. All you demonstrate is that you talk authoritatively about things that you know nothing about and your superciliousness proves that you are an exceedingly presumptuous fool.
 
This is seriously a new low. We lost the election, so let's cry foul.

I'm seeing more and more disappointment in the Republican party as they engage in many of the same tactics that the Dems used after Bush got elected. Lose the electrion, dispute the results, and smear the winner. I honestly expected better.

Go pound sand bud.

This issue was ignored by the media a year before he became the Usurper in Chief.

So please don't bring that crap to the table. Where were you we good patriotic Americans were trying to stop this illegal alien from being President?

Of course all you ill-informed Obamobots will just be getting clued in now to the MSM spin as this being a dirty trip so it will come as no surprise that you are the ones that wiull be crying foul.

Typical liberal. Up is down. Right is Left. White is .... Oh that's right, can't go there.:shifty:

I'll have to try and see what it is like to go thru life completely clueless.
 
Well, here we are, a month since this thread was started, and it would appear the USSC cares very little about Obama's right to be , or not be,president.
If this man is constitutionally unfit for the office, he should be removed, but apparently there just is no positive indication that will ever happen.
Obviously, as I have said in the past, this issue is dead in the water, always has been.
The courts have had more than enought time to investigate the issue, and rule one way or another.
Their silence speaks volumes.
I never cared for Obama from the gitgo, but he IS the president, and we have to live with that .
What stikes me as being strange is, the amount of cases being filed in this issue, in different courts, and not one has gone forth.
Does not that tell us something?
Bob.
 
he should be removed, but apparently there just is no positive indication that will ever happen.
but he IS the president, and we have to live with that .
What stikes me as being strange is, the amount of cases being filed in this issue, in different courts, and not one has gone forth.

Yea, he should.. Do we have to? It is strange isnt it?

This rat ba$tard was NOT born here!
 
Yea, he should.. Do we have to? It is strange isnt it?

This rat ba$tard was NOT born here!

Do you really think he was born in Africa?
That his mother, while pregnant, boarded a trans Atlantic flight from Hawaii to Kenya to give birth? And then flew back?

Mind you, that flight would be a pain to this day, but transcontinental travel was much more uncomfortable, time consuming, and expensive in 1961.

The issue of his citizenship, both the "natural born" status and the dual-citizen issues, are far more compelling and interesting.
 
I can't believe there's still activity here.

I bet my next paycheck says he's going to remain in office. Any takers?
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top