Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Topic: Taitz' conversation with Scalia. If she has anything in actively pending mode with SCOTUS now, she might have set herself up for a charge of engaging in improper ex parte communications with a Justice. While one admires her tenacity, one has to step back and ponder legal acumen. She was upset about Obama and Biden and the designated White House Counsel all showing up for a visit with 8 of the 9 Justices (only Alito was missing) at the Supreme Court when one of the 'natural born' cases was on the docket for the weekly conference.

Topic: Hawaii and its birth certificates and certifications. That is one crazy-wild state, partly because it's such a new state, partly because it has "Native Hawai'ian" issues, partly because it had a history of being a Kingdom, a U.S. Territory, and then a state and all were of recent enough vintage to have residual impacts upon how birth records were handled well into the 20th Century. There is an article out there in the blogosphere which broke things down into the Territorial way of doing things, and the statehood era which still was amending how vital statistics were to be documented up through 1972, even though statehood occurred in 1972. I think that that explanation offered up about 4 or 5 different kinds of documents that are certificates or certifications of some kind which fit into the Hawai'ian legal framework, sometimes overlapping, and outlining the processes that allowed for each to come into existence.

What should exist somewhere in the vault is a Certificate of Live Birth from 1961, which is what Hawai'i would have emblazoned on the top of the form itself. What has been shown digitally is a Certification of Live Birth that in other jurisdictions might be called a short-form birth certificate. Earlier in the 20th century, and into its middle decades too, Hawai'i would issue "Certificates of Hawai'ian" birth which might have been important in establishing "native people" land rights in the ongoing feud with the U.S. government about whether it had legitimate claims to Hawaii.

I saw one birth certificate that took pains to identify the races of the parents as follows:

Mother:
Caucasian Hawaiian

Father:
White

This relates back to an earlier post in this thread discussing the problem of State Dept. "contract employees" getting into the passport files of Obama, Clinton and McCain.

http://www.backgroundnow.com/blog/backg ... ort-files/

Since the earlier reports about the matter stated that there were 4 people implicated, this helps narrow things down a bit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/2 ... 92668.html

The plea deal is kind of interesting, since the former employer is referred to as "Firm A" by the document filed in court. Obama's White House advisor on intelligence was a top honcho in one of the firms that was implicated, and WND said that the break-in to Obama's files was really to "cauterize" information from the file, while the break-ins to the other candidates' files were simply distractions or smokescreens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Topic: Taitz' conversation with Scalia. If she has anything in actively pending mode with SCOTUS now, she might have set herself up for a charge of engaging in improper ex parte communications with a Justice.

---

This would be like the two ex parte meetings (one in camera, I believe) Obama had with John Roberts since cases have been filed against him (Obama)?

I want to know what it is that is protecting the messiah from any reproach or condemnation for his law breaking activities because I want some of the same power.

Talk about Teflon Man...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

I want to know what it is that is protecting the messiah from any reproach or condemnation for his law breaking activities because I want some of the same power.

---

One of the things protecting him is the willing accomplices in the media. They are so in love with all things socialist that they will throw gasoline on their burning grandmother if it means getting and keeping liberals/socialists in power.
Second, is the Chicago machine. You don't come out of Chicago politics without being dirty and knowing how to win in ugly fights.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
You don't want what he has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by armbruster512

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

I want to know what it is that is protecting the messiah from any reproach or condemnation for his law breaking activities because I want some of the same power.

---

One of the things protecting him is the willing accomplices in the media. They are so in love with all things socialist that they will throw gasoline on their burning grandmother if it means getting and keeping liberals/socialists in power.
Second, is the Chicago machine. You don't come out of Chicago politics without being dirty and knowing how to win in ugly fights.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
You don't want what he has.

---

You're right. I want Obama to be treated equally with how I get treated by my government. I don't want a two class society - that is what we left behind in England when we created the United States of America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Topic: Taitz' conversation with Scalia. If she has anything in actively pending mode with SCOTUS now, she might have set herself up for a charge of engaging in improper ex parte communications with a Justice.

---

This would be like the two ex parte meetings (one in camera, I believe) Obama had with John Roberts since cases have been filed against him (Obama)?

I want to know what it is that is protecting the messiah from any reproach or condemnation for his law breaking activities because I want some of the same power.

Talk about Teflon Man...

---

Not that I'm defending Obama, but the first meeting he had was a pre-Inauguration "social visit" to the court and all the Justices except Alito were there. Biden and the new White House counsel-designee were also there. The visit resurrected something that had been done by past newly elected POTUSes, but which had fallen into neglect with GWB because a visit to SCOTUS in 2000, after the court's Gore v. Bush decisions, would have been strained and viewed in a dim light.

It's doubtful that the discussion turned to any of the pending NBC cases on a social visit, and it's hard for me to imagine how, at a gathering of 11+, it would be anything but awkward to bring up pending litigation. Just as "watchdogs" of each other, given their split decisions on cases, I'd think that several of the Justices would have halted any attempt to bring up such a topic. The second one that you call "in camera" is assumed to be the second swearing-in at the White House, since the oath of office got garbled at the official inauguration? There were photos of that swearing-in, and while it wasn't a big gathering, it seemed there were more than just the two of them (Obama and Roberts) in the room.

In contrast, and according to her own blog, Orly Taitz engaged in direct discussion about cases for which she is the primary lawyer. If the cases have been rejected and won't be revived, maybe it would merit a "pass"; but that's not what her blog seemed to indicate. She objected to the social visit as unethical, but then she turns around and seeks out Scalia for a one-to-one discussion of cases? I just don't get it.

She's tenacious, so you have to admire that. But if anyone wanted to accuse her of improper ex parte communications, she just handed such an opponent a tremendous club (and sword and dagger and .....)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Topic: Taitz' conversation with Scalia. If she has anything in actively pending mode with SCOTUS now, she might have set herself up for a charge of engaging in improper ex parte communications with a Justice.

---

This would be like the two ex parte meetings (one in camera, I believe) Obama had with John Roberts since cases have been filed against him (Obama)?

I want to know what it is that is protecting the messiah from any reproach or condemnation for his law breaking activities because I want some of the same power.

Talk about Teflon Man...

---

Not that I'm defending Obama, but the first meeting he had was a pre-Inauguration "social visit" to the court and all the Justices except Alito were there. Biden and the new White House counsel-designee were also there. The visit resurrected something that had been done by past newly elected POTUSes, but which had fallen into neglect with GWB because a visit to SCOTUS in 2000, after the court's Gore v. Bush decisions, would have been strained and viewed in a dim light.

It's doubtful that the discussion turned to any of the pending NBC cases on a social visit, and it's hard for me to imagine how, at a gathering of 11+, it would be anything but awkward to bring up pending litigation. Just as "watchdogs" of each other, given their split decisions on cases, I'd think that several of the Justices would have halted any attempt to bring up such a topic. The second one that you call "in camera" is assumed to be the second swearing-in at the White House, since the oath of office got garbled at the official inauguration? There were photos of that swearing-in, and while it wasn't a big gathering, it seemed there were more than just the two of them (Obama and Roberts) in the room.

In contrast, and according to her own blog, Orly Taitz engaged in direct discussion about cases for which she is the primary lawyer. If the cases have been rejected and won't be revived, maybe it would merit a "pass"; but that's not what her blog seemed to indicate. She objected to the social visit as unethical, but then she turns around and seeks out Scalia for a one-to-one discussion of cases? I just don't get it.

---

Points well made.

Obama is also a lawyer, and the second meeting I was thinking of was the one where he sat next to Roberts in the restaurant (I don't remember the event name).

I'm also not certain Taitz asked anything but a procedural question, something I would think she would be permitted to do.

Am I wrong?

I apologize for my negative attitude and comments in this space, which I now delete.

But God... Time and time again when a man crushes all human opposition, the Lord lets it be known Who is Boss.

CCUSA posted:

Quote:

---

Did Supreme Court clerk torpedo eligibility cases?
Taitz submits motion for rehearing in case challenging Obama's citizenship

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 12, 2009
11:30 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


A California attorney whose emergency submission to the U.S. Supreme Court on President Obama's eligibility was turned back without a hearing or comment now is submitting a motion for re-hearing, alleging some of her documentation may have been withheld from the justices by a court clerk.

The motion for reconsideration alleges a court clerk "of his own volition and on his own authority refused to file of record, docket, and forward to the Chief Justice and Associate Justices petitioners' supplemental brief presented on January 15, 2009."

Orly Taitz, who is working on the case Lightfoot vs. Bowen through her foundation, Defend Our Freedoms, told WND that she started checking back through her paperwork after asking Justice Antonin Scalia this week about the case.

---

Read the rest on the thread below.
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-149544.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Obama is also a lawyer, and the second meeting I was thinking of was the one where he sat next to Roberts in the restaurant (I don't remember the event name).

I'm also not certain Taitz asked anything but a procedural question, something I would think she would be permitted to do.

Am I wrong?

---

I didn't hear about the restaurant encounter. What was that about?

I read her blog post after seeing the article posted here, and I wanted to go to the original source of what WND wrote about, but only in summary. It sounded like she could have touched on anything and everything since she spoke to him twice. Once as an "open question" when he opened things up to Q&A from lawyers in the room where he gave a speech and then later, when she positioned herself last in the line for a book signing so she could have more speaking time. She gave him a dossier which might have been stuffed with a lot of things (pleadings, copies of letters to U.S. Attorneys expressing concerns about Obama in relation to people involved in the Chicago criminal investigations) and he glanced at it, but then handed it off to a nearby Secret Service agent assigned to his detail.

Reading the blog got my "oh, dear" radar activated .... that's all I can say. It could have been a mix of procedural ("what do I have to do to get a case heard") and substantive, and her writing style doesn't exactly help in figuring it out.

I haven't read all the briefs and filings that all the people filing these suits have generated, because that would almost be a full-time job to try and keep up with that. But others who have read more of that stuff have reported that Orly Taitz's initial filing to SCOTUS relied on the same tactic of seeking a Petition for Stay that Donofrio's earlier case had. And Wrotnowski's case had.

All of them (except Berg) seem to rely on Bush v. Gore, which found the Supreme Court exercising its right of discretion to overlook a rule to take on an important case and treating a "Petition for Stay" as a paper filing that the Court would "treat" as a Writ for Certiorari. However, the court rules haven't changed. Petitioners are still supposed to file Writs and there are technical requirements about how to do them right. It's paper-intensive work and you're also supposed to be admitted to Supreme Court practice to do them if you're a lawyer and to be admitted to S.C. practice you're supposed to have been "active" as a legal practioner during the immediately preceding 2 years.

Donofrio in his own case, and in assisting Wrotnowski later, never filed a Writ. He could have kept his own case alive, in fact, if he had done so after its Petition seeking emergent relief didn't get taken up by the Justices' weekly conference. Since he came out of inactive status after filing his lawsuit, he didn't meet the 2-year requirement but he potentially could have hired a Supreme Court practitioner to serve as something like a "drop counsel" to share the role of lawyering on the case.

These lawyers can file all the briefs they want, explaining their fact allegations and their points of law, but if they don't file a Writ for Certiorari then they are missing the boat in getting the Clerk to docket, and the Court to take them seriously. It might have been the "Petition only" aspect of Donofrio's first filing that caused the Stays Clerk, Danny Bickel, to try to give the paperwork back to Donofrio when he went into that office with it, for filing.

It's one thing to be sympathetic to the idea that there's a valid legal argument for finding Obama ineligible; it's another to swallow (hook, line and sinker) some of the seemingly paranoid excuses for why the Court isn't accepting the cases. Some of the problems with the cases might have been generated by the way the lawyers handled them.

Now, that said, the decision by the Judge in the Hollister case, although "dicta", is something to which I take strong exception for its tone of ridicule AND its seeming ability to reach conclusions even as the Judge was declining to hear a case on merits which might have proven or disproven his "conclusions" as valid. It reflects a man with a poor judicial temperament; it commits to his hand and pen the kind of remarks that, if I were the lawyer or a friend of the lawyer practicing in that jurisdiction, I would be sorely tempted to take up in whatever suitable avenues exist to challenge "just plain bad" judicial temperament.

It's not about the Judge having a nasty mean streak, but rather, an obvious highly partisan streak. It's as if the judicial need to show independence and dispassion was thrown out the window. Plus he's just plain WRONG that Obama's citizenship status was getting "vetted" over the entire course of 2 years of election preliminaries and the elections themselves, and by voters and the vaguely referred-to bloggers and twitters. The earliest date that Obama's own status can be shown to have come into question is "about" May-June 2008. And God help us if Twitters and Bloggers are "factual evidence" cited as asides by Judges, such as he purports to call himself.