Nancy (2 Jan 2009)
“Judge’s Entrap Obama? [T. Waite]“
Very interesting…
The Bear on Dec 26 2008 | Filed under: Election 08’
In my previous analysis of the Berg v. Obama Supreme Court case (re: Obama’s birth certificate), 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. [?]
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 now 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 maneuvring of the January 9th date to discuss Berg’s Writ of Certiorari can be seen as a 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!
MESSAGE TO EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS:
When counting the electoral votes, either Congress finds by 1/8/09 that Obama, not being an Article II “natural born citizen”, fails to qualify as President whereupon Biden becomes the full fledged President under 3 USC 19 (free to pick his own VP such as Hillary) or thereafter defers to the Supreme Court to enjoin Obama’s inauguration with Biden becoming only Acting President under the 20th Amendment until a new President is duly determined.
The preferable choice, at least for the Democrats, should seem obvious.
Comment by Ted — January 3, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
The burden of proof does not lie with Obama, whom gave the Hawaiian birth certificate copy, but Berg to prove it is a forgery and he was born outside the U.S.
Comment by Jimbo — January 8, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
The problem is he never released a birth certificate but a certificate of live birth. A birth certificate contains specific information such as the hospital born in, Doctor and witness signatures and names, date, time, and a state seal. A certificate of live birth only shows he was born, there is no proof he was born in a hospital here in the U.S. with witnesses to verify it. What he provided was a vague document that shows what we all know, that he does in fact exist but not that he is qualified to be my president and give orders to our military. Why would he not provide the same document that any other presidential candidate would happily provide freely??
Comment by Kathy — January 10, 2009 @ 12:56 am
Actually the Certificate of live birth has his place of birth listed as Honolulu Hawaii. The time of birth was 0724.
Comment by Stalker — January 11, 2009 @ 9:03 pm