Sunday, March 15, 2009
Attorney Orly Taitz talks to Roberts, who agrees to read Obama-birth docsBy Drew Zahn
U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts |
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."
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.
Orly Taitz |
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."
Click HERE for full story
We all hold what we believe in to be the truth, but in using the same phrase “what we believe in”, we do not all mean the same thing. The truth is simple. It is nothing more than a collection of verifiable and indisputable facts. It is cold and lacking in passion. It is rigid and unyielding. It is uncaring of anything but itself. What we believe in, is what drives great passions from within us, but it can be based on truths and it can be based on falsehoods. It can be the force that creates great nations and unfortunately by the same power, the one that would destroy them. Law, is the issue of truth. It is what we bind ourselves with in our belief as to what is true. Justice, is the instrument of truth. It is what we rely on to uphold and enforce our beliefs. “Truth, Law, and Justice” are at the very basic premise of our government and must be preserved for the sake of our nation.
ReplyDelete