Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

[American Patriot]

Wait for it....










I TOLD you so.

[Aplomb]

I'm sorry Rick, was that a creative post to give us a visual "nothing" or did you post something there that isn't there anymore?

[Aplomb]

Too risky, I suppose:

Representative Linder Could Object to Electoral College Vote; Looks Like Not

December 17th, 2008
Update: Just received word of the following:

[Former Congressman] JD [Hayworth (R-AZ)] said he called Rep. Linder today, as he is a friend of his. Linder DENIED that he is going to object, so that is a total rumor. JD Hayworth is a reputable source.

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/

[American Patriot]

I'm sorry Rick, was that a creative post to give us a visual "nothing" or did you post something there that isn't there anymore?

/grin

That was an "I told you so" message for you, specifically.

While I certainly appreciate your personal efforts on this, and the efforts of the people who actually filed suits......

you can see quite clearly not a damned thing is going to happen.

On the 15th of December, Obama was confirmed.

He's now "President-Elect Obama" and he'll go down in history as the 44th President of the United States as "Barak H. Obama".

Muslims will consider him the first Muslim US President.

Blacks consider him the first Black President.

Most of the rest of us consider him the first real Socialist President (unless you count Clinton as the first....)

I consider him the first President with several aliases....

but what do I know?

[Aplomb]

January 8th isn't here yet. That is when those electoral votes are to be counted and certified.

Message to members of Congress is presently being distributed:

[Aplomb]

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...008/dates.html

January 8, 2009 Counting Electoral Votes in Congress
Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009 from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008 presidential election.
The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes (Congress may pass a law to change the date). The President of the Senate is the presiding officer. If a Senator and a House member jointly submit an objection, each House would retire to its chamber to consider it. The President and Vice President must achieve a majority of electoral votes (270) to be elected. In the absence of a majority, the House selects the President, and the Senate selects the Vice President. If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State would be counted in Congress.

[American Patriot]

And the President and Vice President ALREADY did get the 270+ votes.

This is merely a "check" of the count. That's all it is.

[Aplomb]

Do you wanna wrestle???

[Aplomb]

Well, here's how it's officially done according to the Liberterian Party, verifying eligibility for the role of the U.S. President:

http://www.yourfellowcitizen.com/200...ian-party.html

I haven't had any luck getting the two major parties to respond to my calls and emails, so today I decided to try the minor parties. One, the Libertarian Party, responded almost immediately to my request for information. What they told me boldly highlighted the problem with our current system. First, the correspondence:

------------
Dear Sir/Madam, According to my Secretary of State's office, it is the responsibility of the party to ensure that its candidates are qualified to hold the office for which they run. I'm doing a research project on how different parties go about fulfilling this obligation. Specifically, I was wondering:

1) How did your organization ensure that Mr. (redacted - I first got the candidate's name wrong) was eligible to hold the office of President, should he have been elected?

2) When did the qualification process take place, and was there a particular date when he was "declared" to be eligible?

3) What evidence was your candidate required to present to the party in order to prove that he is Constitutionally eligible to hold office? I thank you for your time, and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Your Fellow Citizen,
Justin W. Riggs

------------
The response:

There was no question as to Congressman Barr’s eligibility, so we went on good faith that he was Constitutionally qualified.

------------
If you'll remember, the Colorado Secretary of State's office explicitly stated that the legal responsibility for ensuring that a candidate is qualified falls to the candidate's party; yet here we have a concrete example of a party who performed no check on their candidate, proceeding on "good faith" because "there was no question" about their candidate's eligibility. I don' t think I need to point out the more obvious problems with this scenario. In fact, I don't know that I need to say anything at all - the problems are so glaringly obvious that they speak for themselves.

[samizdat]

scary. I agree w/ Rick that nobody cares about the constitution, eligibility etc. And yet I believe bama is toast. Much as I wished and hope he could resign or be bopped- legally, he will likely have a problem much more serious for him and US. Nah- the imam baptism certificate, no birth certificate- no matter- rule by press now. Majority rules. Fools rule in anarchy.

[samizdat]

late but no cigar 4 the supreme dopes.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84609

[Backstop]

Make no mistake; Obama will be the next President.

Unfortunately.

[Aplomb]

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84966

Eligibility case finds 'standing'?
New suit claims unique state law enables citizens to demand proof

Posted: December 30, 2008
9:54 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Attorney Stephen Pidgeon

A new case challenging Barack Obama's natural-born [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]citizenship[/color][/color] and, therefore, constitutional eligibility to serve as president has the potential to clear a hurdle that caused several other similar cases' dismissal: the issue of "standing."


In the case brought by Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg, for example, a federal judge ruled against the lawsuit in deciding Berg lacked the "standing" to sue, arguing that the election of Obama wouldn't cause the plaintiff specific, personal injury.


In Washington state's Broe v. Reed case, however, plaintiff's attorney Stephen Pidgeon says a unique state statute grants everyday citizens the required standing.


"These lawsuits have pointed their fingers at the various secretaries of state and said, 'You handle the elections, it's your job [to verify Obama's eligibility],'" Stephen Pidgeon told WND, "and the secretaries of state have said, 'No, it's not our job. You the voter have to prove he was ineligible.' But when the voters try to do it, the courts tell them they have no standing. So it presents a catch-22.


"Here, we have standing by means of statute," Pidgeon continued. "This particular statute provides for any registered voter to challenge the election of a candidate if the candidate at the time of the election was ineligible to hold office."


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 200,000 others and sign up now!


Further, Pidgeon explained, "In Washington we also have a constitutional clause in Article 1 that says the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of land, so it's very much a state issue that the secretary of state has a duty to enforce the U.S. Constitution.


"He doesn't think he does; we think he does. That's really the issue before the court," Pidgeon said.



Washington's secretary of state, Mr. Sam Reed, has opposed the lawsuit, brought by a group of 12 registered Washington voters with Pidgeon's representation, on several grounds, including the argument that the issue is moot now that Obama has been voted upon by the people.


Pidgeon argues, however, that even if Obama remains in office two years from now, the issue will not be moot.


"The Constitution's criteria for president are never moot," Pidgeon explained. "Article 2, Section 1 says 'eligible to the Office of President'; it doesn't say 'eligible for candidacy to the Office of President."


Therefore, Pidgeon argues, the Constitution's natural-born citizen clause specifically and expressly addresses the man sitting in the Oval Office, not just the main elected and waiting to get in.


"If, at any time during his tenure, a birth certificate actually surfaces showing [Obama] born in Kenya," Pidgeon said, "he is disqualified from the presidency at any time. And the constitutional crisis that is rising out of this – the longer he's in that office, the greater the problem becomes, because everything he does will be illegal."


The Washington Supreme Court is set to hear Broe v. Reed on Jan. 8, but the entire case may be delayed intentionally, as the plaintiffs wait to see if the court will rule first on a requested subpoena of Obama's birth certificate from Hawaii.


Unlike other states where lawsuits challenging Obama's natural-born citizen status were required to move through lower courts, Washington law grants the case "original jurisdiction" at the state Supreme Court, which means the plaintiff can present new evidence, including – if the court will indeed subpoena it – Obama's birth records.


"We have opportunity to present facts before the Supreme Court, where you wouldn't have that normally," Pidgeon told WND. "With original jurisdiction, we have the opportunity to present factual argument, and so what we have said to the court is, 'At no time did Senator Obama produce a single piece of evidence upon which the secretary of state could rely to establish that he was a natural born citizen, or that he was even an American citizen, or that he was running under his legal name.' Those are the three facets of our lawsuit."


Pidgeon also told WND that the case's primary hurdle now is the natural predisposition judges have toward complying with the democratic will of the people. They rarely "upset the apple cart," Pidgeon said, by overturning the results of an election.


Still, Pidgeon believes pursuing Broe v. Reed is necessary.


"I expect the truth of Senator Obama's birth is going to come out," Pidgeon told WND. "It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but the truth of his birth is going to come out, and when that true fact comes out that he was born in Kenya, we will have an unprecedented constitutional crisis in this nation.


"The question is," Pidgeon figures, "will the Washington Supreme Court stand for the rule of law or are they going to stand for an overthrow of the constitutional republic by the will of the electorate?"


Last month, WND reported on the potential complications an ineligible president could create.


"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void," argues a similar case brought by Alan Keyes and pending in California, "Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."


With such high stakes potentially at risk, WND earlier launched a letter campaign to contact Electoral College members and urge them to review the controversy.
That followed a campaign that sent more than 60,000 letters by overnight delivery to the U.S. Supreme Court when one case contesting Obama's eligibility for the Oval Office was pending.


A separate petition, already signed by more than 200,000 also is ongoing asking authorities in the election to seek proof Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution.


WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.


The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn't simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors
The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

[Ryan Ruck]

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts Agreed to Hear My Case

Press Release from Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ01.07.09.

Good news,
Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to hear my case Lightfoot v Bowen, challenging eligibility for presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. He distributed the case to the full conference of the Supreme Court. The timing of this decision by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is absolutely remarkable. On January 7, one day before the January 8 vote by Congress and Senate, whether to approve or object to the electoral vote of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, as president of the United States, Chief Justice Roberts is sending a message to them: "Hold on, not so fast, there is value in this case, read it. Hawaiian statue 338 allows Foreign Born children of Hawaiian Residents to obtain Hawaiian Birth Certificates, it allows one to get Hawaiian Certification of Life birth based on a statement of one relative only, without any corroborating evidence. You need to investigate, you need corroborating evidence. If only one Congressman or one Senator presents a written objection, then there has to be a formal investigation by the joint session of Congress and Senate. During this investigation original birth certificate from Hawaii will be subpoenaed. All other pertinent documents will be subpoenaed: Obama's immigration records, any and all passports from Indonesia, Kenya and Great Britain; University enrollment records, showing if he was enrolled in US schools and universities and received financial aid as a foreign exchange student from Indonesia or Kenya. All of it can be subpoenaed and obtained within a day or two. Each and every member of US Congress and Senate owes it to 320 million American citizens to do his due diligence and demand all necessary records. When American servicemen are told to risk their lives defending Constitution of this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, each and every Congressman and each and every Senator can spend a day or two of their time defending this Constitution, reviewing necessary documents, in order to see if Barack Hussein Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, if he is a citizen at all." This is the message that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is sending to them, and if they are not listening, there has to be a massive petition drive to recall them. Truth will come out, no matter how many millions Obama is spending to hide it.

Dr.Orly Taitz, ESQ
drorly.blogspot.com
dr_taitz@yahoo.com

No. 08A524
Title: Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State

Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.: (S168690)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Orly Taitz 26302 La Paz (949) 683-5411
Counsel of Record Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.

[American Patriot]

January 7, 2009

Interview of Orly Taitz: Chief Justice Roberts calls conference on Obama
challenge - Lightfoot v. Bowen

By Arlen Williams

Breaking...

Chief Justice John Roberts has sent a full-throated challenge of Barack
Obama's presidential eligibility to conference: Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS
docket page). Investigating Obama (I.O.) interviewed Lightfoot lead attorney
Orly Taitz at 2:20pm CT today, minutes after she learned of this move.

Taitz believes, "This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress... the
other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election."

The Lightfoot case has legal standing, due to litigant, Libertarian Gail
Lightfoot's vice presidential candidacy in California. It also addresses two
major issues of legal merit: 1. Obama's failure to provide legally
evidentiary documentation of citizenship and American birth and, 2. his
United Kingdom citizenship at birth, passed to him by his Kenyan father when
that nation was a British colony. (Other current challenges also submit that
Obama's apparent status as an Indonesian citizen, as a child, would have
caused his American citizenship to be revoked.) This case is therefore
considered the strongest yet to be heard by the Supreme Court. Obama
challenger, Philip Berg had previously been granted conference hearings,
scheduled this Friday, 1/9 and on 1/16.

Roberts was submitted this case on 12/29, originally a petition for an
injunction against the State of California's Electoral College vote. His
action comes one day before the Congress is to certify the Electoral College
votes electing Barack Obama, 1/8. The conference called by Roberts is
scheduled for 1/23. Orly Taitz is not deterred by the conference coming
after the inauguration, which is to be held 1/20, "If they find out that he
was not eligible, then they can actually rescind the election; the whole
inauguration and certification were not valid." The strongest time for legal
and judicial rulings is generally after the fact.

Taitz reacts to this new event as a project manager, "We'll continue
working, one step at a time. Now we need to get the word out to all the
media, congressmen, senators." It remains to be seen whether the "major
media" will deign to cover this story, or continue to mainly report news
that is negative as it pertains to natural born Citizen actions addressing
Obama.

"They will hear the case, then, if they find out... Obama was elected
fraudulently, they will find out the whole process was not valid." Taits
calls this conference itself an important hearing and then, "I think that
we'll have four Justices, then it will go to oral arguments and all American
Citizens will be able to hear the case." In such a conference, four Supreme
Court Justices of the nine must vote for certiorari - to have a full review
generally including a public hearing. However, the Lightfoot filing is not
at this point a petition for a writ of certiorari. In theory, the court may
issue an order of the court regarding the process, or pertaining to a then,
apparent President Obama's standing.

Taitz stressed that the public must know immediately about matters that may
have been hidden in Barack Obama's candidacy, citing one example, that "Most
of the country has no clue that one relative can go to the state of Hawaii
and sign an affidavit that 'my relative was born a citizen'" and thus gain
an Hawaiian birth certificate for that person, even if he were born abroad.
That is the same kind of birth certificate that Barack Obama has not allowed
to be seen, but which Hawaiian state officials have reported exists in
privately held state records.

The earlier Lightfoot petition to the California State Supreme Court for a
stay of that state's Electoral College election had been denied at that
level.

One of many potentially odd twists to monitor in this electoral process is
that as of Friday, 1/2, the National Archives had received Electoral College
votes from only twenty-four of fifty states, not nearly enough votes for
Congress to count tomorrow for an election.

Investigating Obama will continue to monitor this and related cases, and
link to news and examinations of them, from other newsworthy sites. The Web
site of Orly Taitz relates her perspective, further. Readers are free to
repost or excerpt this article.

[samizdat]

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden plan to make a preinaugural visit to the Supreme Court.
The Obama transition team said the two will visit the court Wednesday afternoon at the invitation of Chief Justice John Roberts.
It's something of a tradition for incoming presidents and vice presidents to pay their respects to the court, though not all have made the trip. Bill Clinton and his vice president-elect, Al Gore, called on the court in December 1992, and Ronald Reagan and his vice president-elect, George H. W. Bush, visited in November 1980.
The Obama team said Wednesday's visit was private, with no press permitted.

[samizdat]

This is from the api site, commonly regarded as a soap opera, which purports to have located obamas imam birth certificate as well as a revealing and racially prejudiced conversation with Michelle Obama.

Failure to air Michelle Obama tape: Fox News Network USA to be formally informed on Thursday by API about the filing of the case against their two officials
Posted by africanpress on January 13, 2009
API decided last week to take up a legal battle against Fox News Network, USA and has now finally decided where the case is to be filed.
Fox News Network broke the agreement when they did not air the Michelle Obama tape as was agreed between the two parties.
The names of the two officers attached to Fox News Network will be informed of the case against them on Thursday. While informing them, their names will also be made public following the court documents that will be filed.
During the court proceedings, Fox News Network will get an offer to compensate API hugely and be free from our demands to air the tape, or with a smaller compensation but on condition they air the tape unedited - all the 54 minutes as earlier agreed. It is important taking such action because big news outlets should not think they can ask for monopoly of a tape, or any news item and sit on it, only to decide, due to political thinking to cancel the deal already made.
Summons will be directed against the two Fox News Network employees who initiated the talks that led to the deal and they will be made personally responsible.
API regrets that this has taken long and that it has to end this way - through battling it out in the courts and yet the deal was struck in a good and friendly atmosphere and a shake of hands in New York City after the verification of the tape.
Chief Editor Korir

[American Patriot]

FOX News better air it. That's what "Freedom of Speech" is ALL ABOUT.

Screw "compensation".

That's bullshit

[Toad]

Appears all elegibility pending cases before SCROTUS have been pulled. Moot point since Obama's been sworn in. With the seperation of powers, Obama himself would not have been able to order it. SCROTUS itself must have done it.

I'll try to hunt up a link, but I have several pending cases of my own I need to work on today before a 1pm conference call.

[Toad]

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

Berg's case denied by the court. Jan 21 2009 Application (08A505) denied.