To: firstname.lastname@example.orgCc: Chiefandarchie@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.comSent: 1/15/2009 11:35:10 AMSubject: Something new, and some review
Just had to share this. I'll take any little ray of light I can find.Cort
Posted on January 15th, 2009 by David Crockett
My eighty-nine year old father practiced law for over 50 years. He was top in his class and clerked for the federal court. When the Gore case went to the SCOTUS he wrote the chapter, paragraph etc. that the court would decide the case on a piece of paper.
He also wrote the vote tally and which justices would vote which way…..He gave the paper to a young judge in town and told him to open it when the decision was published……..He was 100% correct. He thinks any one who thinks that the SCOTUS is going to ignore or dismiss this case is delusional. He is much more qualified to judge the case then you are.
The Supreme Court had to wait until now for Berg to have standing. There is no precedence for this case. It is a historical decision and they will do everything they can to get it right. The constitution does not establish who vets the candidate. Part of their decision will determine who, or what will be held responsible in the future, if not now.
It could destroy the Democratic Party if they are proved to be part of an intentional fraud. If Obama does not provide the documentation they request, he will be held in contempt, and they WILL obtain it.
Here’s another view of this chess game. It explains how the SCOTUS has Obama in Check Mate:
Both Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases said the burden lays with the Secretary of State (SoS) not doing their job. There is no law that states that it IS their job. So, the SoS would win the case. In Conference, they probably talked about who was responsible to VET the candidate. If it wasn’t the SoS of each state, they did not want to waste valuable court time and not hold Obama accountable.
The burden to each SoS to vet each candidate for each office would be prohibitive in both time and expense. You will notice that neither cases were completely released but pending. They can be revisited and opinions may be written on them when a final release is given.
Berg’s case, on the other hand, places the burden on the candidate, the party, and the FEC. Berg, however, did not have standing until Congress certified the electoral votes to present his case. He now has standing, as do Keyes and the other
Writer unknown . . .
* * * *
Then, again, I read another piece on John G. Roberts, Jr., which begins about half way down:
The Robert’s firm used their lawyers to attack retail gun sellers because criminals abused their guns. Their purpose was to make it impossible for Americans to protect their homes. In effect they want to bring about the abolition of the 2nd amendment and make individuals totally dependent for protection on the national police under their control.
By putting Roberts in the Supreme court you can kiss the Constitution good bye. Considering Roberts is the protégé of C. Boyden Gray, the Skull & Bones point man akin to Kissinger and Rasputin and Robespierre.
John Roberts Jr. has already … decided for dictatorship … and against the American people with his decision on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, July 15th 2005, giving the Skull & Bones hierarchy the power to designate any individual as an "enemy combatant."
Thereby ..giving the President total power to set up secret tribunals not subject to judicial review. This is what despotism is all about. John Roberts and C. Boyden Gray are clearing the path for the NWO.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Alan note: Many on both sides of the aisle and of varying political preferences have grown bored or even angry at any mentions of the lawsuits against Obama.
They don't want to know because they DO NOT KNOW that though it seems over - IT IS NOT. There are still many a slip between the cup and the lip.
Ok—Now I see the big picture! Part 1
by Tom Waite
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 ****!?
Whenever I try to type a website on my comments, I never get posted, 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 then be valid.
Once Obama officially 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 chess 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
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!