SCOTUS petitioned for writ certiorari in Obama citizenship case, Obama to respond by Dec 1, page 30

privacy

Pages: << 27 28 29 30 31 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 43 times

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:22 AM by MissysWorld

For anyone who earlier asked about API's newest site, which was at Tripod...That link has again changed, and API is back at the original site at Wordpress.
(And please don't give me any stars for this link, since it seems to upset some people)

africanpress.wordpress.com...

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:36 AM by MetatronCubensis

So there are 17 different lawsuits now? How can Obama continue to sweep this under the rug?? It's amazing that he is just letting this controversy grow and grow. It's time to produce or he will never live this down. It would look a whole lot better if he produced on his own without being forced to. This is worse than the 2000 election.

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:43 PM by Irish M1ck

reply to post by MissysWorld

It's a blog, what's your point? Blogs don't count for anything in the real world.

reply to post by MetatronCubensis

How is he sweeping it under the carpet? By following proper legal procedure?

reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:22 PM by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by MetatronCubensis
So there are 17 different lawsuits now? How can Obama continue to sweep this under the rug?? It's amazing that he is just letting this controversy grow and grow. It's time to produce or he will never live this down. It would look a whole lot better if he produced on his own without being forced to. This is worse than the 2000 election.

DING DING DING DING DING DING

There are 17 lawsuits and not one person in a position to gain or lose with the power to move forward cares.

Tell you anything?

It is settled and over.

reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 12:01 PM by MissysWorld

If anyone is interested, here is a link to Supreme Court Blog, which gives new filings, and daily information on cases that are being heard.
It may be just a "Blog" but its very informative

www.scotusblog.com...

reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 08:01 PM by Irish M1ck

reply to post by MissysWorld

Hey as long as you can back it up with other sources, and it does not provide opinions based off of wild speculation, there's no big deal. You can take a smart attitude if you want, but I am just trying to help you and others from looking foolish by posting up blogs as evidence.

Even Wikipedia, for the most part, cites reasonable evidence for its sources. If schools and professionals in general won't take the source, than neither should I, neither should ATS, and neither should you.

reply posted on 23-11-2008 @ 03:01 PM by Anonymous ATS

If PE Obama is declared ineligible between before dec 15, I do not believe mccain automatically "wins" the office. Obama has not been elected president yet, that will occur, barring his disqualification, on Dec 15 when teh electoral college votes. If he is inelligible to be president then I believe the electoral college can vote for whomever they wish, including HRC. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

reply posted on 24-11-2008 @ 04:26 PM by Averysmallfoxx

there was a point in the past when Hillary and Obama were meeting at (correct me if I'm mistaken as it isn't an unlikely possibility that Iam!) at senator Feinstein's house, for some form of a talk and shortly thereafter Clinton withdrew even if not till later (officially at least). Now she's his head of state. Let me just say that the Clinton's are tied in tight, if shes under him then no lawsuit of any kind is going to stop him from taking office.Whomever is backing his presidency is not going to surrender it to what from a perch of power such as there's would look like a technicality in the game. If he was in a pinch the reporters would be swarming.....the lack of attention to it in the media smacks of external pressure being placed on the major news networks and press to keep their mouths shut and such a widespread black out isn't the type of thing just anyone with a LITTLE influence can do.

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 10:39 PM by Mailman

reply to post by difsjf

How can you be so sure he has the ability to lead?
If all this it true, legal citizen or not, Did you vote for sombody that doesnt heed the call of the Supreme court?
Is that the change you voted for?

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 11:00 PM by Irish M1ck

Any updates on this? Past Dec 1.

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 11:35 PM by Blaine91555

I find nothing on the SCOTUS site to do with Obama other than Bergs case being denied.

The deeper I look the less I think that there is any merit to this at all.

This is worth considering on this subject and if posted already forgive please.

2008-11-12 21:24:49 - Is anti-Obama lawyer Philip J. Berg exploiting vulnerable citizens? A complaint to the Disciplinary Board of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court requests an investigation...

...Berg has been disciplined in the past for misconduct:

systocracy.com/Bergmalpracticetwo
www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0679P.pdf
www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05d0521p.pdf

...He is a threat to vulnerable citizens who tend to believe his false claims and give him money on the false assumption that Berg is acting in good faith. By stealing small amounts of money from people across the nation he has flown under the radar of professional discipline. No competent attorney could have acted as Berg did during the past three months. His behavior in federal court, all of which is a public record, is outrageous.

I've tried to keep an open mind, but?

Is there any real proof at all that the SCOTUS has taken any action whatsoever or requested anything from Obama other than the misrepresented normal notice of 30 days to respond?

I'm off the fence on this. This is nonsense started by a bad lawyer who is bilking money from people somehow through donations in my Constitutionally Protected Opinion

May the bird of paradise drop a big one on Bergs head if it turns out he is taking advantage of people.

I don't agree with Obamas politics, but this is just too much.

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 11:39 PM by redhatty

reply to post by Irish M1ck

No. Since the FEC, et. al. waiver of response, nothing has been updated. source

reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 12:18 AM by Flighty

Originally posted by gordonwest

***-Thank You- America, for being Australia's friend.***

GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Very well said. I totally agree with you.
The West needs America.
It's good to know that there others out there who feel the same.
We aren't all America bashers. Hope our American friends realise this.

reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 11:21 AM by danx

Originally posted by Mailman
How can you be so sure he has the ability to lead?
If all this it true, legal citizen or not, Did you vote for sombody that doesnt heed the call of the Supreme court?
Is that the change you voted for?

I think you do not understand the workings of the court:

1) December 1 was the deadline for participants in the Berg case to provide any relevant or supporting evidence for their cases. Obama was (and is) under no obligation to provide anything by that date at all. In fact, it would be unusual for him to do so. Now that the deadline has passed, a judge will decide whether to recommend that the case go to conference at some later date.

2) The purpose of the conference (like the one for the Donofrio case on the 5th) is to decide whether the court will consider the merits of the case. Most cases do not reach this point, and very few are actually considered by the entire court. Don't hold your breath on this one. (source)

reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 03:21 PM by Gregarious

Originally posted by malcr
Jesus the desperation. From over here in the UK it is all very amusing at how this election has upset so many people.

There's a mixed race democrat as a president FULL STOP

From a Scot who's family has been here for over 300 years, butt out! PERSONALLY, I would not mind a Conservative black, or a woman as POTUS. But NOT a frigin Communist. Especially not an illegal alien, tho that has yet to be proven in court. We don't discuss Scottish politics, and why the Romans could not beat you but the Brits did. And we won't.

reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 05:15 PM by Gregarious

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by MissysWorld

Hey as long as you can back it up with other sources, and it does not provide opinions based off of wild speculation, there's no big deal. You can take a smart attitude if you want, but I am just trying to help you and others from looking foolish by posting up blogs as evidence.

I guess the previous poster, who posted scotus.com, should also listen to this. I'm being sarcastic, just so you know. You can print anything you want, and then quote it as a source, anywhere. If someone like the NY Times says something, everyone seems to take it as gospel, but you and I know that a lot of what they print is total BS. Judges and politicians are trained in the finer points of lying without stating an untruth. They are not credible. Chuck Swindle (Swindoll), the infamous evangelical pastor/author lied to me personally. Just who is credible? Certainly not you, to me. I think this whole business of quoting sources is a bunch of crap. Either the supposed statement fits in to the gestalt, or it does not. I dealt with that last night about $508 Trillion that is about to vanish out of the money supply. I read that in a financial newsletter. I don't believe it, I think it meant billion. Too much money. The gestalt. Analyze what is said based on how it fits into the grand jigsaw puzzle. If it does not fit, it must be from a different puzzle. Maybe. Obama lying fits. Obama not being a US citizen fits. The Communist Democratic Party covering it up fits. The Socialist Republicans covering it up fits. You being a troll, fits.

reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 07:41 PM by Irish M1ck

reply to post by Gregarious

No. See, there are reputable sources, then there are sources, and then there are blogs. In my opinion, blogs fall to the bottom because they almost always have a biased reason for even existing, and usually, in trying to promote their agenda, lies get strewn out all over the place.

Reputable sources, like the NY Times, may occasionally write about something based off of a misconception, but if caught, they will immediately retract the statement and generally apologize. They may print some opinions in the Opinions section, but that's about it.

Other sources, like .coms or Wikipedia, can have validity to them, but it would be wise to find a second source to back it up.

Just look at it this way:

If it can't be used in a peer-reviewed journal, or in any way scholastically, then it probably shouldn't be used as a source.

Pages: << 27 28 29 30 31 >> ^^TOP^^