The Obots have been keeping score on the loses of the so-called birther cases in court. Many of the cases were dismissed for lack of subject jurisdiction.
The legal reason - the political question doctrine.
The Ninth Circuit has taken up the issue of whether the court has jurisdiction to settle a dispute if a candidate for the presidency is eligible.
The case is Peta Lindsay, et al v. Debra Bowen.
You can listen to the oral argument here and the opening question from the Court is where their decision is heading and the lawyer for Lindsay sounds exactly like the Obots argument and he cited case law which is meaningless.
He admitted she was less than 35 years old.
The direction of the Court is heading the same direction as I argued in my case against the president.
Could you imagine if Orly Taitz was SOS of California and kept the birther Barack Obama off the California ballot using California election laws?
And since Congress is a Republican majority - the Obot's head would be spinning - screaming all along the court has to settle the dispute.
Unfortunately, litigants like Orly Taitz have muddied up the legal landscape with poorly argued cases that rendered poorly thought out legal decisions that are used as case decisions to bolster more poorly crafted decisions.
It has now become a nightmare to litigate in a court, an argument that can break through the idiocy that has been laid by Taitz and enshrined in court decisions.
In the oral argument you will hear how the DOJ under Eric Holder misrepresented the fact that Barack Obama's own campaign admitted he held a dual citizenship (side bar: Ted Cruz is in the Left's sights) in court documents.
So while Justice Winfree focused his questioning on if I could sue a judge or Governor Parnell and Joe Miller's employment records, the fact of the matter is: the Alaska court can order the release of the college and birth records of the president.
That is a legal fact.
How the Alaska Supreme Court rules on your right to know what the facts are? That question will soon be answered.
I have been following the cases that have moved through the courts
dealing with the birth of the President. As such, I have paid close
attention to both sides of the argument.
What struck me odd recently was after my oral argument at the Alaska
Supreme Court, I met a fellow in the elevator at the Alaska Supreme
Court who frequents a site called Fogbow. This individual told me that
you were going to issue a ruling the 22nd. This was told to me on the
I came across Orly Taitz's recent post (http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=445758) ;
and found that you were disparaged by an anonymous individual and it
revolved around a ruling that was going to be issued on the 22nd.
I found it coincidental that I was told the same by the individual who
wrote about the oral argument in the captured screen shot. I found it
interesting Mr. Tepper's name was mentioned. See attachment.
While I don't agree with Taitz on many legal issues revolving the president, it seems that courts are being disparaged (http://www.scribd.com/doc/120269955/screen-shot-great-grey-fogbow)
while the DOJ in one case misrepresented evidence in a "birther" case
by telling the court at no time did the President hold a Kenyan/US
citizenship while the Obama campaign a year earlier had stated on its
Fight the Smears site that indeed he held a dual citizenship until 1983.
Yesterday the Alaska Supreme Court held the oral argument in my case against President Obama.
First some janitorial work (clean up the BS on the internet) must be attended to - according to Great Grey an Alaskan icon in legalese who has a dual identity but hangs his head in an elevator and doesn't like to look you in the eye but put his two cents in.
Here is what took place without the GreatGrey the BS.
The questions and answers were between Justice Winfree and myself and one exchange dealt with his statement that the Alaska Dispatch Joe Miller case revolved around local documents.
This statement was borne out of my statement that the Alaska Dispatch stated in brief the public/voter has a right to know what the facts are that surround a public official.
Even the Court has supported that - so his statement was turned to an issue that required and answer and that was if it was a case of paternity - the documents (like a birth certificate) from another state could be requested.
After the answer, he moved to ask if I could sue Judges - I looked at the Justices and stated yes - reason: after all they were elected by the voter - he then moved to ask if I could sue Governor Parnell - I answered yes - reason: again he is elected by the voter.
He did ask if I was representing the public - I indicated that I had citizen/taxpayer standing and that I am affected by Obamacare, etc, etc, and that the public had an interest in this case.
One important point
It was pointed out that an affidavit states the President went to college as a foreign student. And that the Indonesian constitution barred the President from holding a dual citizenship. Implication is fraud had been committed by the President if he did enroll himself in college as a foreign student.
This case was argued in a manner that it is a Catch 22. I would be surprised if they issue a published ruling.
Interestingly, there was one suit in the audience and he was not part of the crazy fringe that hang out at Fogbow. Who was he? No answer.
As for my conversation with GreatGrey - I can understand why he hides behind an anonymous when he likes to attack people. His lack of strength to look you in the eye and look at the ground was telling.