Supreme Court to hear alleged OBAMA forgeries

[Remster 30]

Quote

>Looks like a criminal enterprise is running our government.

I thought it was a Kenyan. (Although lately it's become a Brit, too.) You guys have to make up your minds.

That's just a covert up to distract us from the fact that he is a part of the Babylonian Brotherhood.

Remster

[DiverMike 5]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but the 1st 3 digits are based on where the Social Security Number was issued at the time of the application. I was born in Missouri, but have an Ohio 3 digit range. Does that mean I am hiding something about my nefarious past in Missouri?

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[lawrocket 3]

You are painting this out to be far more than it is at this point. Seriously.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Fraud and Conspiracy

Looks more like libel.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

>Looks like a criminal enterprise is running our government.

I thought it was a Kenyan. (Although lately it's become a Brit, too.) You guys have to make up your minds.

I suppse the supreme court would not have provided the attorney the conference had they thought the case had no merit. This is not goofiness you are suggesting. This is a real case and if the evidence is convincing, they'll hear the case. Their choice not any choice we have.

Date has been set. And if you took the time to read the PDF you'll learn a tad more about the allegation. I give the woman credit for going after this. At least she's doing something while the rest of us are powerless. Hope they hear the case. Not fiction. A real Supreme Court Case.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

You are painting this out to be far more than it is at this point. Seriously.

It's conference to determine if the case is to be heard. That's all it is. The allegation could be a stretch, false, untrue. That's what the justices will attempt to learn. Due to politcal reasons, even if the allegation is true the Judges don't have hear the case and they don't have to give any reasons for not hearing the case. Someone could have something on Chief Justic that they wouldn't hear the case. Who knows but the story has my interest. Lets suppose they hear the case and determined OBAMA's doc were forged. Then what?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Quote

You are painting this out to be far more than it is at this point. Seriously.

It's conference to determine if the case is to be heard. That's all it is. The allegation could be a stretch, false, untrue. That's what the justices will attempt to learn. Due to politcal reasons, even if the allegation is true the Judges don't have hear the case and they don't have to give any reasons for not hearing the case. Someone could have something on Chief Justic that they wouldn't hear the case. Who knows but the story has my interest.

I like the way you're setting this up so you can still claim moral victory when the justices dismiss it out of hand. Clever.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

I give the woman credit for going after this. At least she's doing something while the rest of us are powerless.

"It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression!"

"It's symbolic of her struggle against reality."

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

>Looks like a criminal enterprise is running our government.

I thought it was a Kenyan. (Although lately it's become a Brit, too.) You guys have to make up your minds.

Not Indonesian?

Isn't it lovely when posters reveal themselves like this?

i know i feel vindicated.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You are painting this out to be far more than it is at this point. Seriously.

It's conference to determine if the case is to be heard. That's all it is. The allegation could be a stretch, false, untrue. That's what the justices will attempt to learn. Due to politcal reasons, even if the allegation is true the Judges don't have hear the case and they don't have to give any reasons for not hearing the case. Someone could have something on Chief Justic that they wouldn't hear the case. Who knows but the story has my interest.

I like the way you're setting this up so you can still claim moral victory when the justices dismiss it out of hand. Clever.

There is no victory in learning if your elected guy is a fraud. There is no moral victory in learning you'll never know he wasn't a fraud. Why all the mystery about a couple of documents. But I have to roll up my sleeves at the airport and gain a randam swab for chemical trace against my constitutional right that I will not be searched without probably cause and without a warrent.


The petition the attorney placed on the Whitehouse petition website was removed. And before it was removed the counter wasn't registering votes correctly. There must be a reason they're so coy with the information and don't want it discussed. [email]

At least we'll have comfort knowing OBAMA's communications machine won't be in the room when the information is talked about.

[billvon 2,990]

There's a petition? There must be something going on!

>The petition the attorney placed on the Whitehouse petition website was removed.

There's no petition? There must be something going on!

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Why all the mystery about a couple of documents.

What mystery?

His birth certificate is his birth certificate. His SSN is his SSN.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Remster 30]

http://tinyurl.com/cjaedfw sfw

Remster

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

She got an audience with the entire Supreme Court on Feb 15 for conference...

Incorrect. It is on the docket (I posted a link, above) as scheduled for judicial conference. That's an in chambers conference amongst the Justices; she will not be present for it. Neither will any other attorneys.

Roughly 10,000 requests for cert and similar petitions are reviewed by the Court each year; only about 100 go to oral argument and a Court opinion. I would not put money on this proceeding to an oral hearing. Procedurally, "getting on the schedule" is meaningless.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[tkhayes 348]

I got my tin foil hat at the ready.....

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

It's conference to determine if the case is to be heard. That's all it is. The allegation could be a stretch, false, untrue. That's what the justices will attempt to learn.

Partially correct; partially incorrect. The Justices will review her filing and determine whether to receive full cert. briefs (written legal arguments) and whether to hear oral arguments. There will be no "fact finding" in the conference.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

http://tinyurl.com/cjaedfw sfw

Aha! You see? He was looking for 'official' documents! Your Jedi friends cannot help you cover this one up

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

She got an audience with the entire Supreme Court on Feb 15 for conference...

Incorrect. It is on the docket (I posted a link, above) as scheduled for judicial conference. That's an in chambers conference amongst the Justices; she will not be present for it. Neither will any other attorneys.

Roughly 10,000 requests for cert and similar petitions are reviewed by the Court each year; only about 100 go to oral argument and a Court opinion. I would not put money on this proceeding to an oral hearing. Procedurally, "getting on the schedule" is meaningless.

So if it is meaningless to be on the schedule then the schedule is meaningless. Right? I suspect if conferences are not scheduled then cases have even less of a chance to be decided to be heard.

OR since you are the expert, are cases heard that are never on any conference schedule? If so, name a few cases the SC has heard that were never on a conference schedule.

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

Quote

Quote

She got an audience with the entire Supreme Court on Feb 15 for conference...

Incorrect. It is on the docket (I posted a link, above) as scheduled for judicial conference. That's an in chambers conference amongst the Justices; she will not be present for it. Neither will any other attorneys.

Roughly 10,000 requests for cert and similar petitions are reviewed by the Court each year; only about 100 go to oral argument and a Court opinion. I would not put money on this proceeding to an oral hearing. Procedurally, "getting on the schedule" is meaningless.

So if it is meaningless to be on the schedule then the schedule is meaningless. Right? I suspect if conferences are not scheduled then cases have even less of a chance to be decided to be heard.

OR since you are the expert, are cases heard that are never on any conference schedule? If so, name a few cases the SC has heard that were never on a conference schedule.

OK, sorry, it's not "meaningless", but purely procedural...

Think of it this way - the Court gets tons of requests for certiorari, right? They have to put almost all of them on a schedule and then decide which ones they are going to actually pay attention to... I say "almost" because the Court does have the ability to eliminate some requests for cert without hearing when it's determined (by the Clerk's office) that they fail to meet the procedural requirements. (There are tons of folks in jail who send in crazy letters to the Supreme Court requesting this and that [e.g., the "Warden is actually a Space Alien..."]; those are often dealt with that way.)

Anyway, the point is that mailing something in and getting on the schedule doesn't mean that anyone has looked at the request and said "oh, ok, let's think about that!". It's merely that it was received, they couldn't kick out the request on procedural grounds, and so it goes on the schedule. There was no independent thought about it - it was purely procedural.

Does that make it more clear?

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

She got an audience with the entire Supreme Court on Feb 15 for conference...

Incorrect. It is on the docket (I posted a link, above) as scheduled for judicial conference. That's an in chambers conference amongst the Justices; she will not be present for it. Neither will any other attorneys.

Roughly 10,000 requests for cert and similar petitions are reviewed by the Court each year; only about 100 go to oral argument and a Court opinion. I would not put money on this proceeding to an oral hearing. Procedurally, "getting on the schedule" is meaningless.

So if it is meaningless to be on the schedule then the schedule is meaningless. Right? I suspect if conferences are not scheduled then cases have even less of a chance to be decided to be heard.

OR since you are the expert, are cases heard that are never on any conference schedule? If so, name a few cases the SC has heard that were never on a conference schedule.

OK, sorry, it's not "meaningless", but purely procedural...

Think of it this way - the Court gets tons of requests for certiorari, right? They have to put almost all of them on a schedule and then decide which ones they are going to actually pay attention to... I say "almost" because the Court does have the ability to eliminate some requests for cert without hearing when it's determined (by the Clerk's office) that they fail to meet the procedural requirements. (There are tons of folks in jail who send in crazy letters to the Supreme Court requesting this and that [e.g., the "Warden is actually a Space Alien..."]; those are often dealt with that way.)

Anyway, the point is that mailing something in and getting on the schedule doesn't mean that anyone has looked at the request and said "oh, ok, let's think about that!". It's merely that it was received, they couldn't kick out the request on procedural grounds, and so it goes on the schedule. There was no independent thought about it - it was purely procedural.

Does that make it more clear?

I don't know the proceedural rules regarding the listing of cases to the schedule to be discussed during a conference. I do know that during the conference they may or may not discuss what is on the schedule or can place items on future schedules. They can also bring up new items not on the schedule for placement in future conferences.

I think the key here is that they got it, and it's on the schedule. I believe the listings on the schedule is controlled by the Chief Justice. Chief Justice get the first vote in deciding cert. on any particular case.

So, the schedule is more than just a receipt they got the petition as there's an elimination procees on what gets listed. Not all petitions make the schedule. Not all items on the schedule gets voted on.

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

So, the schedule is more than just a receipt they got the petition as there's an elimination procees on what gets listed. Not all petitions make the schedule. Not all items on the schedule gets voted on.

I am not sure I'd go that far. Only the utterly fucked up (and I say that as a legal term) get kicked out on procedural grounds at the level I'm talking about.

I'd say "the schedule" means they received it and it was not kicked out on procedural grounds. They also can't kick out the ones that say "the Warden is a Space Alien" if they're not eliminated on procedural grounds.

It basically means that the plaintiffs didn't use the wrong font, used the right margins, didn't write in crayon, etc.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

So, the schedule is more than just a receipt they got the petition as there's an elimination procees on what gets listed. Not all petitions make the schedule. Not all items on the schedule gets voted on.

I am not sure I'd go that far. Only the utterly fucked up (and I say that as a legal term) get kicked out on procedural grounds at the level I'm talking about.

I'd say "the schedule" means they received it and it was not kicked out on procedural grounds. They also can't kick out the ones that say "the Warden is a Space Alien" if they're not eliminated on procedural grounds.

It basically means that the plaintiffs didn't use the wrong font, used the right margins, didn't write in crayon, etc.

OK its on the schedule.

Here is the guy who was in Hawaii during the time the records were produced for OBAMA that are in question. You will note this person spent time in Kenya. This person is also listed in the complaint.
This is an interesting case worth exploring further. AAAAhhh but these guys will never let the truth be known....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schatz

[OHCHUTE 0]

"The fact that Schatz refused to certify Obama's eligibility proves the records do not exist.
.
Using the information in any original records, Schatz would have assessed Obama’s constitutional eligibility and, therefore, if upon confirming that Obama was a Natural-born citizen, would have authorized an Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) which would have included the explicit language required by HRS 11-113(c)(1)(B) thereby enabling the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer, Kevin Cronin, to approve Obama’s placement on the Hawaiian ballot. However, Schatz did not do this.

Then, scandalously, one day after Schatz filed the DPH’s non-certification, the Democrat National Committee (DNC), chaired by Nancy Pelosi, issued a fraudulent Certification stating that Obama was constitutionally eligible to serve as president, even though the DNC had no original documented evidence to support such a claim.

http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/01/third-hawaiian-official-denies.html

Let revisit Feb 16

[billvon 2,990]

>Using the information in any original records, Schatz would have assessed
>Obama’s constitutional eligibility and, therefore, if upon confirming that Obama was a
>Natural-born citizen, would have authorized an Official Certification of Nomination
>(OCON) which would have included the explicit language required by HRS 11-113(c)
>(1)(B) thereby enabling the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer, Kevin Cronin, to approve
>Obama’s placement on the Hawaiian ballot. However, Schatz did not do this.

I was worried that the birther entertainment would end with this election. Good to see it is still going on. I especially like the new angle that he might be a UK citizen.

I'll add to this - I think he's from Antarctica. And no one has ever been born in Antarctica. And until they can explain that, there's NO WAY he can be confirmed as President of the United States a second time! Federal law 1044-22/B specifically prohibits people who aren't born from being President.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

>Using the information in any original records, Schatz would have assessed
>Obama’s constitutional eligibility and, therefore, if upon confirming that Obama was a
>Natural-born citizen, would have authorized an Official Certification of Nomination
>(OCON) which would have included the explicit language required by HRS 11-113(c)
>(1)(B) thereby enabling the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer, Kevin Cronin, to approve
>Obama’s placement on the Hawaiian ballot. However, Schatz did not do this.

I was worried that the birther entertainment would end with this election. Good to see it is still going on. I especially like the new angle that he might be a UK citizen.

I'll add to this - I think he's from Antarctica. And no one has ever been born in Antarctica. And until they can explain that, there's NO WAY he can be confirmed as President of the United States a second time! Federal law 1044-22/B specifically prohibits people who aren't born from being President.

I never really delved into this until yesterday and I find it pretty interesting. And I see the connection between individuals. Obama was compelled to run. Not his choice. I wonder why.

I'm not debating this. I'll let the court decide. BUT WE ALL KNOW NO PHYSICAL ORGINAL DOCUMENT WAS EVER PRODUCED FOR ANY INSPECTION.

Plus his ss# is borrowed.

Go to the friggin airport and try to get on an airliner by showing them a copy of your drivers license and see if you can get on a plane. You need the orginal.

Not sure why so many Americans think that a copy is as good as an orginal.