Over at Obama Crimes.com, I was reading through the last few pages of comments (there are over 7,000!!) and wanted to share the following ones so that readers will be up to date on what is happening over at the Supreme Court re: the Berg vs. Obama case. If the commenter is correct in what he has written, we might just see justice in this case, after all!
Ok—Now I see the big picture! Part 1
written by Tom Waite, December 24, 2008
In my previous analysis of the Berg v. Obama Supreme Court case, I said that the Supreme Court Justices were very sly by scheduling a January 9th conference date in order to discuss Berg’s Writ of Certiorari. Because just one day earlier, congress is to open up the Electoral College’s sealed votes from each state, count the votes and declare a presidential winner. But now there is a new development, which seems very perplexing at first but I believe I can shed light on this news and reinterpret it as a sign of political chess.
The new development is that on December 18, 2008 Berg filed an injunction (to stay the congressional electoral vote count on January 8, 2009 until Barack Obama proves his qualifications, i.e. that he was born in U.S.A.) and he submitted it to Justice Antonin Scalia. Now the very perplexing news is that this injunction has been granted a conference date of January 16, 2009! I know—you’re all rubbing your eyes in disbelief and also when you put into context that the inauguration is on the 20th of January, I have no doubt that you’re saying, what the [heck]?
Whenever I try to type a website on my comments, I never get posted on this blog, so I’ll creatively refer you to the following website, type in three ‘W’s’ and then a dot and then type ‘americasright’ then a dot and finally type ‘com’. Read the story ‘Berg’s Application for Injunction Curiously Moves On at Supreme Court’ under Tuesday, December 23, 2008. Jeff Schreiber (the person running this blog), is a law student and he can’t fathom the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision to set a date to discuss Berg’s injunction that is well after the time congress will have counted the Electoral College’s votes. In doing so, Jeff feels this conference on January 16, 2009 to discuss Berg’s injunction will be a moot issue.
However, I see it differently, the Justices of the Supreme Court aren’t sequestered in some castle. The Justices know exactly what the issues are and are constantly being bombarded with similar legal applications to be considered regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility for president. As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, if the Justices wanted to dismiss Berg’s Writ of Certiorari they could have but they deliberately chose to discuss it 24 hours after congress officially counts the Electoral College’s votes; reason being Berg’s issue of standing will now be valid! Once Obama official wins the national vote (via the counting of Electoral College’s votes), Berg’s issue of harm being done to him by Obama now becomes legally valid it is no longer theoretical; thus Berg does have legal standing!
Now in a political game of chess, the Supreme Court’s manoeuvring of the January 9th date to discuss Berg’s Writ of Certiorari can be seen as a move of check against Obama. Obama is now in a corner but still can move his king chess piece and similarly with the Writ of Certiorari, Obama still could refuse to deliver evidence proving he was born in United States. I understand why the Justices set a date one week later (January 16) to discuss Berg’s injunction to stop congress from counting the Electoral College’s votes, this move can be seen as check and mate! Meaning Obama’s king can’t move in any direction on the chessboard, thus he’s trapped and has lost the game!
Setting a date to discuss the injunction on preventing congress from counting the Electoral College’s votes isn’t a moot issue; in this context any judgement is retroactive! So that even if congress has counted the Electoral College’s votes and have declared Obama the presidential winner; if the Supreme Court finds Obama ineligible to be a presidential candidate, they can retroactively cancel the results of the January 8th Electoral College’s vote count!
And that’s why the Supreme Court is allowing for a January 16th conference on Berg’s injunction to stop congress from counting the Electoral College’s vote on January 8th. It’s not a moot issue, it’s a very deliberate political game of entrapment or as in chess it can be seen as a move of checkmate. Because the Supreme Court is basically giving Obama no wiggle room to manoeuvre and escape from the January 9th’s conference of Berg’s Writ of Certiorari. The Supreme Court is ultimately saying to Obama, if you don’t hand over your evidence to us on January 9th, you will be forced to hand over your evidence to us on January 16th, otherwise we’ll retroactively cancel the results from the Electoral College’s votes that were counted back on January 8th!
Ok—Now I see the big picture! Part 2
written by Tom Waite, December 24, 2008
So now I see the big picture and the ultimate endgame that the Supreme Court has in mind for Barack Obama. Just like in chess, the winner is the person who sees many moves in advance; in this case the winner is the Supreme Court! They’ve set a checkmate legal trap for Obama, whereby even if there are no objections by any members of congress, the Electoral College’s votes are counted and Obama is declared the presidential winner on January 8th. The Supreme Court has deliberately chosen to wait until January 9th to discuss Berg’s Writ of Certiorari, whereby Berg’s legal standing (harm that can be done to him by Obama) becomes valid! And finally, the Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear to Obama by its deliberate action of allowing for a January 16th conference regarding Berg’s injunction to stop congress in counting the Electoral College’s votes; that unless he hands over his evidence to them on January 9th—they’ll retroactively cancel the Electoral College’s voting results from January 8th!
I’m smiling so much now because all this time Barack Obama has hired teams of lawyers to go to court and ask to dismiss all these lawsuits that have one similar theme—show proof you were born in the United States. But now because just one of these ‘nuisance’ cases (as Obama sees it) has made it to the Supreme Court, the Justices have already out manoeuvred Obama and his team of high priced attorneys. First, they’ve cornered Obama with a move of check by setting a conference date of January 9th (24 hours after congress counts the Electoral College’s votes) to discuss Berg’s Writ of Certiorari; the case can’t be dismissed—Berg will have legal standing! And finally the Supreme Court has made its devastating move of checkmate by allowing a conference on January 16th to discuss Berg’s injunction to stop congress in counting the Electoral College’s votes! There’s no more wriggle room left for Obama because essentially it’s a fait accompli by January 9th for him to hand over his evidence to the Justices otherwise, if he doesn’t comply by January 16th, the Justices’ will have it within their power to retroactively cancel the results from the January 8th Electoral College’s vote count!
So Obama tried to play a game of legal chess against the Supreme Court—well guess what? Obama—you’ve already lost! Checkmate!
I was extremely disheartened whenever I read that either Berg or Donofrio (lawyers in separate cases) were determined by the Supreme Court to "not have standing" in this issue. I think that commenter "Tom Waite" lays out the "whys" of the "does not have standing" decision - plus the fact that after the Congress opens the sealed votes and counts them - THAT is the moment that Obama OFFICIALLY becomes the "president-elect" and then ANY citizen would have standing against Obama for being ineligible for POTUS due to his NOT being a "natural born citizen" as required by our U.S. Constitution.
The following was another interesting comment:
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN DISCUSSION
written by SM Foyle, December 24, 2008
John Jay was a statesman, diplomat, first Chief Justice of the U.S. President of Continental Congress, minister to Spain, secretary of foreign affairs, and author of the Federalist Papers (with Madison and Hamilton)
Quote: New York 25 July 1787 Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/
convention1787.html
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwfr.html
Admission of Foreigners in national government? Only a natural born citizen as President.
This is what the first chief justice of the Supreme Court was concerned with and informed George Washington. It was added to the Constitution because of this.
Of course a natural born citizen can only be natural born if the person was born in a country whose parents who were born in the same county.
Then there is this:
What's the Secret?
written by Tiza, December 24, 2008
Whatever BO is hiding is truly a secret and will shock everyone! I was reading an article from Atlas Shrugs where Pamela Geller was talking about a discussion that she had with Joseph Farah from WND and that he knows the true story of BO's birth, however, he will reveal it at a time that he chooses. I think for those who know it they are hoping that BO will reveal it himself, give himself a chance to come clean.
There is another person who confirms this, so I'll quote it for you. This person calls BO, "Zero."
On his To The Point News website, Jack Wheeler has divulged that he knows “the true story” about Obama’s birth situation, and it is “wild,” but he - and the contact person who also runs a major news site and told him the facts - are apparently not yet prepared to reveal this shocker to the public. Wheeler said he will let the source of the information reveal it in his own time. ”...The details of what he told me is for him to reveal when he chooses, not me. I can tell you it is OMG wild.”
There are many, many more really good comments to read that will educate everyone about Obama and his sham presidential run. There are a few posts about the Cloward-Piven strategy (and chart) which I had discussed here at Talk Wisdom in previous posts.
The last one that I will share for right now is quite intriguing. It may end up linking the Blagojevich scandal with the natural born citizen case at the Supreme Court.
More good news
written by charlene, December 23, 2008
Orly Taitz spent 1 hr last week speaking with Pat Fitzgerald's asst in Chicago & spilled the beans about all she knows about BO. Also heard through the rumor mill (but can't substantiate it) that SCOTUS is secretly investigating thru FBI & DOJ all these phone calls & letters claiming BO is ineligible.
Let's pray that the rumor is true and the SCOTUS IS SECRETLY INVESTIGATING..
There are a lot more blog posts to read about all of this. Just check my sidebar.
Ultimately, everyone wants the truth to come out! I hope and pray that it does and that this issue will be resolved. That is all that opponents of Obama who question his "natural born citizen" status really wanted in the first place.
HT: Obama Crimes.com & commenters there
*******
Update: 12/28/08 at 8:45 a.m. PT
Just learned that there is another lawsuit against Obama:
Hoosiers file suit challenging Obama's birth status
2 Hoosiers want results of election thrown out
Excerpt:
As officials in Washington prepare for the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama, two Indiana men have filed a lawsuit asking a judge to throw out the election results.
The suit, filed in Marion Superior Court, Room 10, is among five loosely coordinated challenges that question Obama's status as a "natural born citizen."
Gov. Mitch Daniels and the Republican and Democratic national committees are named as defendants in the Indiana suit, filed by Steve Ankeny, New Castle, and Bill Kruse, Roselawn.
These new suits take a slightly different tack than earlier, unsuccessful suits that typically have been tossed by the courts and generally considered frivolous.
The new suits challenge the governor and political parties for failing to uphold the Constitution when they certified the results of the election.
Although it is thought that the two men won't have "standing" in such a lawsuit, it is good that more and more citizens are objecting to the fact that Obama has not proven that he is a "natural born citizen" of the United States of America, and continues to snub his nose at all of the lawsuits against him that are requesting such proof by releasing his vault-length COLB.
The question still remains. What kind of person refuses to present a document that would cost him $10.00 or $12.00 to obtain - and instead - spends nearly a million dollars fighting the release of such a document?
Answer: Someone who has something to hide.
Whether it's the fact that he is not a "natural born citizen" or that Obama Sr. isn't his biological father - the arrogance of Barack Hussein Obama Jr./Barry Soetoro is unprecendented in the history of president-elects. Either way - one fact will remain. Barack Hussein Obama LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!
How long will the charade last? Only God knows for sure...
Posts
9 comments:
I have been consistently working to send out emails, faxes, certified mail, etc... to the electors and elected officials trying to get them to investigate Mr. O or NMP=Not My President for several weeks now.
If this is a true story and from what I understand, it really is a true story, is that the electors are suppose to have their paperwork completed on Dec. 24th, day before Christmas and that is the rule for the electors, but as of the 24th of Dec., of the 270 the NMP is to receive to the the Pres., only 140 to 150 electors have turned in their paperwork.
If I am correct, this is the first time in history that they, the electors have ever been late. What is the reason for this???
I have not investigated this completely, but if this is the truth, then I see many demo. electors that are going against NMP.
This is something of a major importance that should be verified, I understand this.
Best Regards and thanks for sharing your info. God Bless America and God Bless our Patriots.
Nicely done! That'll teach Obama to try and fool the Supreme Court Justices!
I don't know who you are, but I love you!
I am giddy with excitement!
OooooohhRAAAHHHH!!!
This would mean that George "W" Bush would remain as President long enough to replow the frozen field of 2008 General Election.
Mofak
Back to Back We Face the Past
Anonymous -
Not to burst anyone's bubble here, but I recently read a rejection of the concept shared in my original blogpost. Since I am not a lawyer nor a SCOTUS scholar, I just want to be fair and share all opinions on the matter:
Karen
written by Paul Lentz, December 27, 2008
You said: See. in the big picture, SCOTUS has been holding onto the Berg Cert for over 1 month UNNECESSARILY unless they planned/intended to time review of this case in a precisely timed manner. I believe it's the latter.
I'm sorry (really I am), but that is just not correct. The USSC does not "hold on" to a petition for writ of certiorari because no individual justice has the authority to deny/dismiss a petition for writ of cert. Unlike APPLICATIONS (for injunction or other relief), a PETITION for writ of certiorari (or mandamus, habeas corpus, quo warranto...whatever) is submitted to the COURT, not to one justice (who has the authority to deny an application). NO JUSTICE can act independently to deny/dismiss a petition for writ of certiorari. There is a very specific process. Once the petitioner's (in this case Berg) petition for writ (of whatever) is docketed, the "respondents" (in this case, Obama, FEC, DNC, etc.) are automatically given 30 days to file a "response" (if they wish; no response is required) to the petition for writ of cert. In this case, the deadline for response was 12/1/08. The only "response" filed was from the FEC, and it was a "waiver of response." Because not every respondent was heard from, the response period did not expire until (officially) 12/1/08. At the "official" close of the response period, the case is held for about 10 more days (if there was no actual "response," or if one of the respondents filed a response waiver) to allow for mail delays. In the situation where an actual substantive response (addressing the points raised in the petitioner's petition for writ ) is received, then the period is even further extended, to allow the petitioner to file an "answer" to the respondent's "response." Of course, in this case, no "response" was filed, so no "answer" period was necessary.
So, once the 30 day (+ about 10 days) "response" period has pa*sed, then the case goes to the ordinary schedule for "case distribution." The "case distribution schedule" calendar is set prior to the beginning of the USSC term (which runs from October 1 - September 30 each year) and includes the "distribution schedule" for cases which have been processed through the steps I've mentioned above for the very ordinary Friday general conferences (which are also scheduled prior to the beginning of the USSC term). Remember that the USSC goes into recess each June and does not "officially" convene again until the following 1st week of October. Their ordinary schedule allows for a "conference" (and it's a whopping great one, usually with about 1,000 cases set for consideration) in late September just before the USSC officially reconvenes for it's new term. We are currently in the "2008 term," which will run from October 1, 2008 until September 30, 2009. If you are interested, you can find the 2008 term "case distribution schedule" here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/...le2008.pdf
You can find the 2008 term calendar (which was also established long before the 2008 term began) here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/...lendar.pdf
From the looks of this opinion, the scheduling was just an ordinary proceeding of SCOTUS.
Personally, I hope that the other scenario is the correct one.
Either Obama will have to prove that he is a "natural born citizen" to the SCOTUS, or, it will be dismissed like all the others. We have to prepare for a possible dismissal - which means he will be inaugurated and possibly be "usurper in chief."
If Obama has been hiding his true parentage (i.e. that he is really the biological son of either Malcolm X or Frank Marshall Davis), then he would be considered a "natural born citizen" of the United States. However, the American people (not Obots, of course) would probably be outraged over all of his lies (and false accounts in his books about his "father" - Obama Sr.).
It just doesn't seem plausible to me that Obama would spend almost a million dollars hiding his vault-length COLB because he didn't want the public to know that his daddy was Malcolm or Davis. It seems much more likely that he is not a "natural born citizen" (either because he was born in Kenya or because when adopted by Lolo Soetoro); and, because he became an Indonesian citizen - therefore -he could not be considered "natural born" of the U.S. - which is required for the position of POTUS.
An unreliable source, Ed Hale at Plains Radio, said he was told many months ago by an Obama supporter that the USSC would not act against him because Reid, Pelosi, Dean et cabal had informed the justices that if they did so they would be impeached. He was gloating.
Take it for what it's worth.
I am trying to maintain a listing of links relevant to the Obama birth fraud at this page:
http://obamathefraud.blogtownhall.com/
...at least until the media can no longer pretend that this story does not exist.
Suggestions welcome.
Hi Brian H.,
Maybe so. But ObamaBorgbots are programmed to lie - and then gloat about the lies, too.
How about this link for 158 lies told by Obama (thought there were MANY more but this is still a good start):
Documented: 158 Obama Lies
Mel Smith -
Thanks for sharing your link. Maybe the above link could help you with your list!
Below are two official emails that dispute the public version of Obama’s Birth and his mother’s marriage to BHO Sr.
From: pubrec@u.washington.edu [mailto:pubrec@u.washington.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008
Subject: Re: Stanley "Ann" Dunham 1960 to 1970 class registration
Ms. Stanley Ann Dunham (BHO II’s mom) was enrolled at the University of Washington for:
Autumn 1961
Winter 1962
Spring 1962
The records responsive to your request from the University of Washington are above as provided by the Public Disclosure Laws of Washington State. This concludes the University’s response to your Public Records request. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.
Madolyne Lawson
Office of Public Records
206-543-9180
From: Stuart Lau [mailto:stuartl@hawaii.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008
Subject: Re: Inquiry
The University of Hawaii at Manoa is only able to provide the following information for Stanley Ann Dunham:
Dates of attendance:
Fall 1960 (First day of instruction 9/26/1960)
Spring 1963 - Summer 1966
Fall 1972 - Fall 1974
Summer 1976
Spring 1978
Fall 1984 - Summer 1992
Degrees awarded:
BA - Mathematics, Summer 1967 (August 6, 1967)
MA - Anthropology, Fall 1983 (December 18, 1983)
PhD - Anthropology, Summer 1992 (August 9, 1992)
Sincerely, Stuart Lau
****************************************
Stuart Lau
University Registrar
Office of Admissions and Records
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Ph: (808) 956-8010
****************************************
Commentary on University Emails:
For the BHO II Hawaiian Aug 4 1961 COLB to be accurate the following improbable events needed to occur:
1 month after starting classes, Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack’s mom, at age 17, got pregnant by the only black African man on the entire chain of Hawaiian islands.
2 months after getting pregnant, she drops out of college.
3 months after getting pregnant, she marries BHO Sr.
10 months after her first day at the U of HI, she delivers BHO II and immediately leaves her parents, her new husband, and her home, to fly alone with a newborn 2800 miles to Seattle to start college at the U of W.
Stanley Ann Dunham does not return to Hawaii until AFTER BHO Sr left the islands for Harvard.
This is an implausible series of events made even more nefarious because Obama II in his 2 bio books never mentions his mom left Hawaii when she was married to BHO Sr, nor does he mention she was in Washington State during this time.
No Free Lunch -
There is SO MUCH about Obama that is implausible and nefarious. I have lost count! Thank you for sharing that research.
So many questions remain about this man. There is a long list of documents (besides the vault-length COLB) that have not been disclosed.
Why?
What makes him so special that he can get away with this?
Still praying that the Jan. 9th SCOTUS allows Berg vs. Obama to go to a full hearing.
Post a Comment