US Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Presidential Eligibility, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 50 times
Topic started on 20-11-2008 @ 10:38 AM by Gools

US Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Presidential Eligibility


www.blogtext.org
Today, the United States Supreme Court scheduled the case - Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey - US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407 - for a conference of the nine Justices. The conference is a completely private affair and the public may not attend. If four of the nine Justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled. The conference is scheduled for December 5, 2008, ten days before the meeting of the Electoral College.

The case originally sought, pre-election, to have the names of Barack Obama, John McCain, and Roger Calero removed from New Jersey ballots, and for a stay of the “national election” pending Supreme Court review of whether those candidates were eligible under the Constitution as natural born Citizens, as is required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States.

Leo Donofrio brought his case from a lower New Jersey court to the NJ Supreme Court - was denied - and then he filed an emergency stay application in the United States Supreme Court on Nov. 3, 2008, before the Honorable Associate Justice David Souter. Justice Souter denied the emergency stay application on Nov. 6.

Leo Donofrio renewed the application, as per Supreme Court Rule 22.4, to the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas by way of Express mail on Nov. 14. The application arrived at the Supreme Court on Nov. 17 and was submitted directly to Justice Thomas.

On Nov. 19, the case was docketed for full conference of all nine Justices and scheduled for December 5, 2008.
(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 10:38 AM by Gools
This is the result of the court case described above. The source for this story is the plaintiff's lawyer's website where the original documents can supposedly (the site is very slow right now) be found: www.blogtext.org...

I also checked the docket page at the USSC website and did indeed find the case and it's docket history exactly as described.

Go to the USSC site here: www.supremecourtus.gov... and type in the docket number 08A407 in the search box to find the information.

Looks like this is for real and the mainstream media is so far ignoring it. I'm not sure what exact question the Supremes are being asked to answer or conference about but this sure is interesting!

What do you think?

Are the Supremes about to send the US into another electoral tailspin?

The conference takes place ten days before the Electoral College meets.
.

www.blogtext.org
(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:10 AM by Gools
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


If there is going to be any kind of coverup this is where it will happen. The Supremes will have the "final word" on the matter of his birthplace.

The question is what are the plans of the powers that be for the US and which way will they go?

Will the Obama camp play ball with TPTB's agenda sufficiently to be left in place or do TPTB need civil unrest to further their agenda?

I think we can glean the answer depending on whether or not the mainstream media picks up the story.
.


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:14 AM by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Gools


Wouldn't most of the Supremes be rather critical of Obama and hold his feet to the fire? I think so.

I am not sure I understand this question: Will the Obama camp play ball with TPTB's agenda sufficiently to be left in place or do TPTB need civil unrest to further their agenda? Can you explain why the media's attention would tell the answer?

Talk more please.


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:16 AM by Fletcher33
reply to post by Gools


So can the electoral's change there vote after December 5th?


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:17 AM by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Fletcher33


They haven't voted yet. They don't vote till the 10th. Correction, the 15th. Calling it close...

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:24 AM by Gools
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


What I meant was that if the mainstream media picks up the story and starts to talk about the possibility that Obama may not be eligible, they will be preparing the population for that possibility and it becomes more likely IMO.

If they ignore the story then the possibility will not even enter the minds of most Americans and we will have a smooth transition.

Right now it looks to me like Obama (not surprisingly) is appointing people in his administration for more of the same kind of leadership we have had since Reagan (i.e. the Clinton/Bush influential dynasty continues) and there is no urgent reason to have the presidency yanked away from him. That option is still there IMO as long as this birthplace thing is hanging over his head.

All speculation, but it's the way my conspiracy mind sees it.
.



reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:26 AM by Maxmars
reply to post by HunkaHunka


So far, yours is the only hint of such activity. Why post on a thread you feel is unnecessary?

On many other threads dealing with this issue you see many people throwing around the political spin. No one has done that here. But your comments just may 'invite' such activity. The issue in the OP is clear and direct. The Supreme Court WILL be involved in this matter. What's there to complain about?


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:27 AM by Fletcher33
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
[mor

Ah... I see so the electoral votes he won are based on the fact that those states are bound by law to vote based on the popular votes of there state, where the other 24 states that do not require this by law can be changed in December? Do I have this right?


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:30 AM by ZindoDoone
reply to post by Maxmars


Excellent break down and I agree with your hypothesis. As much as I disagree with how Obama wishes to change things, I want to know exactly why this was not vetted to begin with and why there seems to be no requirement to do so.

Zindo


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:38 AM by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Gools


Ah, I see. Thank you. That makes sense (even though a bit scary to me).

Originally posted by Fletcher33
Ah... I see so the electoral votes he won are based on the fact that those states are bound by law to vote based on the popular votes of there state, where the other 24 states that do not require this by law can be changed in December? Do I have this right?


I don't think that's right. I could be wrong on this but I don't think ANY states are bound by law to place their electoral votes to anyone. I'll see what I can find out.


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:42 AM by Maxmars
reply to post by centurion1211


Then we are in the second constitutional crisis of the millennium. Both within the first decade!

It would mean that there could be a real conspiratorial effort to destroy the constitutional nature of the nation, especially if it turns out this vetting should have occurred prior to the election nomination process.

But I suspect that the political parties are beginning to fear the population, and so the establishment may have to attempt to appease us somehow. - Should be an interesting journey.

I recommend everyone keep journals and diaries so future generations don't have to rely on biased media and revisionist historical documentation which will be provided to our children's children years from now. Otherwise the truth may never be told.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^