SCOTUS Expedited Decision On Obama Fraud!

Odessa78

New Member
Who is Harrison J. Bounel? According to the 2009 tax return submitted by President Barack Obama, he’s the President of the United States. All nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices are scheduled to discuss this anomaly today.



The case in question is Edward Noonan, et al v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State, and the Justices are finally looking at it thanks to the dogged determination of Orly Taitz.

The case calls into question many of the documents Obama (Bounel, Soetoro, Soebarkah, etc.) has used and/or released as authentic since he came on the national scene.

The case contends that the documents — birth certificate, Social Security number, Selective Service registration, etc. — are fakes or forgeries. If that’s the case, Obama should not have been on the California ballot in 2008 and, therefore, should not have received the State’s electoral votes.

Four of the nine Justices must vote to move the case forward. We’ll see.


Orly Taitz ~ U.S. Supreme Court Grants Expedited Decision On Obama Fraud For Tuesday February 19, 2013 « Political Vel Craft
 

bcp

In My Opinion
Who is Harrison J. Bounel? According to the 2009 tax return submitted by President Barack Obama, he’s the President of the United States. All nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices are scheduled to discuss this anomaly today.

According to the article it only takes four votes for this to go forward and be heard.
Arent there still a couple Reagan appointments left?
then like 4 Bush appointments, with the Chief Justice being one of them?

I can see how 4 yes vote could be attained.
I expect both of the boy childs justices to vote no, If it were discovered that he was illegal and not able to hold office, everything he did could be reversed, including his Court appointments, Do see those two women voting in such a way that their positions could be in danger.

But the rest?
Reagan = republican
Bush= republican
and then we have the Clinton appointments in there and lets face it, the clintons have little love for obama.

If there is even a shred of loyalty in the supreme court judges, I can only see two of them voting not to hear any case that could prove their massa the liar that he is.

Maybe when the lead obama out in handcuffs, they could also have him on a leash with a choke collar just for the hell of it.
 

tommyjo

New Member
If there is even a shred of loyalty in the supreme court judges

Supreme Court justices are appointed for life...most people understand that a lifetime appointment means they have no need for "loyalty" to a party or President.
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
I doubt it goes through just because of the #### storm it would cause. The hardcore anti Obama side isn't likely to riot in the streets if the vote goes against them, I don't think the same could be said for the pro side.
 

limblips

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I doubt it goes through just because of the #### storm it would cause. The hardcore anti Obama side isn't likely to riot in the streets if the vote goes against them, I don't think the same could be said for the pro side.

If the fear of rioting by the losing group is what now drives our legal system we are in a death spiral.
 
I doubt it goes through just because of the #### storm it would cause. The hardcore anti Obama side isn't likely to riot in the streets if the vote goes against them, I don't think the same could be said for the pro side.

The stay is not going to be granted because it's not a serious application. It's a joke, a publicity stunt. I don't know if people have actually read some of the pleadings or arguments Ms. Taitz has made before, but they've generally been nonsensical (the ones I remember, anyway).

This application was already denied by Justice Kennedy. When she reapplied to Chief Justice Roberts, he did what justices traditionally do and referred it to the entire court (otherwise someone can keep reapplying to different justices after they get denied until all 9 of them have been exhausted). There isn't even an accompanying cert petition (relating to the California Supreme Court's denial of her petition). This isn't a serious plea to the Supreme Court in my opinion. I think she paid the fee and made a filing so that she could (once again) claim that she had something before the Supreme Court - that the Court was considering the matter. She can make a few more press releases, maybe do some more interviews, keep her name in the tabloid-ish media for a few more minutes, drive some traffic to her site and maybe get some more donations.

There's no chance her application gets granted. None, zero, zilch - as in, it's more likely that pictures of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg frolicking nude in the snow together turn up in next month's edition of Playboy. That's not just more likely, it's orders of magnitude more likely.

And the 'expedited decision' claim from the linked piece is horsepucky. The Court has done anything but handled this reapplication for stay expeditiously. It took Justice Kennedy 2 days to deny it originally and then it was 7 weeks after the refilling before it was (supposed to be) considered in conference.
 

Bann

Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
PREMO Member
The stay is not going to be granted because it's not a serious application. It's a joke, a publicity stunt. I don't know if people have actually read some of the pleadings or arguments Ms. Taitz has made before, but they've generally been nonsensical (the ones I remember, anyway).

This application was already denied by Justice Kennedy. When she reapplied to Chief Justice Roberts, he did what justices traditionally do and referred it to the entire court (otherwise someone can keep reapplying to different justices after they get denied until all 9 of them have been exhausted). There isn't even an accompanying cert petition (relating to the California Supreme Court's denial of her petition). This isn't a serious plea to the Supreme Court in my opinion. I think she paid the fee and made a filing so that she could (once again) claim that she had something before the Supreme Court - that the Court was considering the matter. She can make a few more press releases, maybe do some more interviews, keep her name in the tabloid-ish media for a few more minutes, drive some traffic to her site and maybe get some more donations.

There's no chance her application gets granted. None, zero, zilch - as in, it's more likely that pictures of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg frolicking nude in the snow together turn up in next month's edition of Playboy. That's not just more likely, it's orders of magnitude more likely.

And the 'expedited decision' claim from the linked piece is horsepucky. The Court has done anything but handled this reapplication for stay expeditiously. It took Justice Kennedy 2 days to deny it originally and then it was 7 weeks after the refilling before it was (supposed to be) considered in conference.


:twitch: Good Lawd, let's hope not!
 
:twitch: Good Lawd, let's hope not!

No worries, we're probably talking about no more than a 10^(-6) likelihood. That's still more than the 10^(-8) or 10^(-9) chances I'd give the stay of being granted. :smile:

Do you not post much anymore or do you just not post much in the threads I happen to read?
 

Bann

Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
PREMO Member
No worries, we're probably talking about no more than a 10^(-6) likelihood. That's still more than the 10^(-8) or 10^(-9) chances I'd give the stay of being granted. :smile:

Do you not post much anymore or do you just not post much in the threads I happen to read?


Yes, and no. :biggrin:

Although it *has* been a busy year for me. That, and I've gone a bit sour on politics, so I'm not frequenting the Politics forum as much these days.

But you can always find me in the Meet & Greet threads! :yay:
 

Hessian

Well-Known Member
Challenges

The simplest of principles of justice. A candidate who ran against another candidate should have the right to determine the legitimacy of his opponent to be able to run. Keyes ran. He filed suits to challenge Barry Soetoro.

The evidence of a legit SS #...Selective Service Acct...and Birth Cert (LF) are all fraudulent,...why can't the SCOTUS hear this????

Why are those who actually have investigated these fraudulent docs been considered fringe wackos?...because the leftist media paints them as such. They adore their little kenyan prince and his Socialist czars & stooges to continue their charade.

INVESTIGATE...thoroughly.
Or,...breed the conspiracy theories for years.
 

blazinlow89

Big Poppa
Correct me if I am wrong, but if a republican politician had even one alias they would be torn limb from limb, decapitated, and hung out on display. However with Obama, you are crazy for even considering talking about it.
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
No worries, we're probably talking about no more than a 10^(-6) likelihood. That's still more than the 10^(-8) or 10^(-9) chances I'd give the stay of being granted. :smile:

Do you not post much anymore or do you just not post much in the threads I happen to read?
so you're saying that there's still a chance of this happening? Somebody call in a tactical nuke strike.
 

bcp

In My Opinion
Supreme Court justices are appointed for life...most people understand that a lifetime appointment means they have no need for "loyalty" to a party or President.

Most people also understand that lifetime appointment or not, the justices are picked by someone (sitting president) that is going to pick based on a political agenda. just look at obamas picks, take sodomizer, why do you think she was picked? was it for her unbiased attitude? or was it because no white man could understand what she went through.
She admitted during her process that she was going to be leaning left and anti American.
 

Rommey

Well-Known Member
Most people also understand that lifetime appointment or not, the justices are picked by someone (sitting president) that is going to pick based on a political agenda.
I'm not sure that Bush I expected that David Souter would vote with the liberal side of the court when he nominated him. Although (IIRC) there wasn't a whole lot known about him and his record was rather thin...something that probably made it easier to get through the nomination process since there wasn't anything to "Bork" him.
 
so you're saying that there's still a chance of this happening? Somebody call in a tactical nuke strike.

There was always a chance that a clerk made a typo and no one on the Court caught it and when they eventually figured out that they'd granted the stay when they meant to deny it, they just said 'ah, what the heck, let's let the stay stand and see what kind of upheaval that causes - it might be entertaining.' Hence the 10^(-8) or 10^(-9) likelihood.

Anyway, the application was denied.
 

bcp

In My Opinion
Anyway, the application was denied.

Then the way I see it is that the know he is uneligable to hold office, however the damage to the country by this getting out could be greater than the damage he can do while in office.

For them to refuse to even look into this tells me that something is wrong.
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
There was always a chance that a clerk made a typo and no one on the Court caught it and when they eventually figured out that they'd granted the stay when they meant to deny it, they just said 'ah, what the heck, let's let the stay stand and see what kind of upheaval that causes - it might be entertaining.' Hence the 10^(-8) or 10^(-9) likelihood.

Anyway, the application was denied.
I was more worried about this part.
it's more likely that pictures of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg frolicking nude in the snow together turn up in next month's edition of Playboy. That's not just more likely, it's orders of magnitude more likely.
 
Then the way I see it is that the know he is uneligable to hold office, however the damage to the country by this getting out could be greater than the damage he can do while in office.

For them to refuse to even look into this tells me that something is wrong.

No, it doesn't. The Supreme Court is not, generally speaking, a trial court. It doesn't, for the most part, review cases to sort out what the facts are - i.e., to make findings of fact (e.g. this birth certificate is a forgery, the state of Hawaii is lying when it certifies that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii). It reviews cases when an error of law may have been made by the court below, or when the relevant law is unclear, or when certain laws may be unconstitutional. What error of law do you think the California Supreme Court made?

The Supreme Court turns down most cases that it is asked to review, and it's not because they know something is wrong with them - it's because they can only review so many cases so they aren't going to waste time reviewing things that don't need to be reviewed (e.g. when what's at issue is a finding of fact regarding which there's no serious dispute, when what's at issue is an interpretation of law that's already sufficiently well settled). People can fantasize all they want that Hawaii is lying and faking official documents, they can pretend that President Obama's grandmother really does claim that he was born in Kenya, they can claim that U.S. citizenship law is something other than what it is when it comes to minors' losing their status - they can do those things as often as they want and for as long as they want, but that doesn't make them true. Hawaii says that President Obama was born there - they say that officially. Until someone can provide compelling proof that Hawaii is lying, this particular fantasy is not going to be indulged by serious people tasked with meaningful work (e.g. Supreme Court Justices).

The Supreme Court Justices aren't going to take up this issue because there's no there there and they're smart enough to see that. Even those that might prefer President Obama not be our President, they're not so frustrated by the fact that he is that they're willing to delude themselves into believing snake oil salesmen.

And, not for nothing, but Ms. Taitz didn't ask the Court to look into anything (except to the extent necessary to either grant or deny this application for stay). She just asked them to grant a stay - as I pointed out before, there was no accompanying petition for writ of cert. She asked them for a yes or no answer, not to grant cert and review the matter. They considered the application in conference (after Justice Kennedy had already considered it on his own) and gave her an answer. This wasn't the typical cert petition situation where what they were deciding in conference was whether or not to later consider the question and give an answer. What they were deciding in conference in this situation was an actual answer to the question. That answer was no.

At this point, President Obama's citizenship has probably been proven more throughly than that of any president in history. An official document from a the official record keeper of a state is prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein and would be accepted by any court in this nation absent compelling evidence to the contrary. When someone comes up with such compelling evidence, there'll be something to talk about. As it is, I know of only one piece of legitimate (though circumstantial) evidence - and it's not even close to being dispositive as it's too easy to otherwise explain (and ironically, it wasn't even known for most of the life of this conspiracy theory - for most of that life proponents were swinging with air).

This is one of the reasons President Obama has been winning the rhetorical war and, as a result, the political war and many of the policy battles. So many of his ideological adversaries have allowed themselves to be distracted by their thirty or forty hulking giants.
 
Last edited:
Top