Another case makes it to conference at the Supreme Court. I’m guessing it will be denied just like the others.

Lightfoot v. Bowen, S168690, Supreme Court of CA
Denied on Dec. 3. Filed with SCOTUS 08A524 on Dec. 12, denied Dec. 17 by Justice Kennedy. UPDATE: Distributed for conference Jan. 23, 2009 by Chief Justice Roberts.

Unknown to most Americans, a number of lawsuits are winding their way through the nation’s court system. The basic premise is a challenge to Obama’s eligibility for the office of POTUS. I wish I could offer an up to the minute status on each case, but this research is taking longer than expected AND I have been very busy at home, so here is the list without updates. I do not know if this is a complete list. I’ll update as time allows.

Given that the SCOTUS has denied consideration of two lawsuits on this issue and since the Electoral College has voted, I doubt that these cases will go anywhere. But you never know.

State cases concerning eligibility of Barack Obama for POTUS:

California
Joan Corbett v. Bowen, 30-2008-00114112-CU-FR-CJC, Orange County
There was an ex parte hearing Nov. 3 and no further docket activity, so I’m guessing this case is dead at the Superior Court level. No appeals found with CA Supreme Court.

Keyes v. Bowen, 34-2008-80000096-CU-WM-GDS, Sacramento County
Filed Nov. 13; hearing set for March 13, 2009.

Lightfoot v. Bowen, S168690, Supreme Court of CA
Denied on Dec. 3. Filed with SCOTUS 08A524 on Dec. 12, denied Dec. 17 by Justice Kennedy. UPDATE: Distributed for conference Jan. 23, 2009 by Chief Justice Roberts.

Georgia

Rev. Tom Terry v. Handel, 08CV158774S
Filed with Georgia Supreme Court Nov. 3, S09D0284, Dec. 3 dismissed as moot. Motion for reconsideration filed Dec. 15, pending.

Hawaii

Martin v. Lingle, 1CC08-1-002147, Honolulu County
Denied; emergency motion for reconsideration filed Dec. 1. Opposition to motion filed Dec. 12. I can’t tell from the court website if this is on calendar but there is no case termination date so I assume it’s still alive.

Kentucky

Daniel John Essek v. Obama, Kentucky Eastern District Court, 6:2008cv00379 (Whitley County)
Filed in District Court Nov. 25

North Carolina
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan v. NC Board of Elections, Pender County
No further info available

Texas

Jody Brockhausen v. Andrade

Darrel Hunter v. US Supreme Court
Appeal filed in Texas Northern District Court, 2:2008cv00232
- filed in SCOTUS, Docket number unknown

Washington

James E. Broe v. Reed, King County

Investigating:

Susan Herbert v. United States of America, Barack Obama and John Roberts
Florida Middle District Court, 3:2008cv01201
Filed Dec. 15

Susan Herbert v. Barack Obama and United States
Florida Middle District Court, 3:2008cv01164
Filed December 4, 2008

Kamal K. Roy v. United States of America, George W. Bush, John McCain and Barack H. Obama
Hawaii District Court, 1:2008cv00513
Filed November 13, 2008

Gordon Allen Stamper v. United States of America, R. Barclay Surrick, Barack Hussein Obama and John McCain
Ohio Northern District Court, 1:2008cv02593
Filed November 3, 2008

…it does:

Being a good Samaritan in California just got a little riskier.

The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a young woman who pulled a co-worker from a crashed vehicle isn’t immune from civil liability because the care she rendered wasn’t medical.

The divided high court appeared to signal that rescue efforts are the responsibility of trained professionals. It was also thought to be the first ruling by the court that someone who intervened in an accident in good faith could be sued.

Lisa Torti of Northridge allegedly worsened the injuries suffered by Alexandra Van Horn by yanking her “like a rag doll” from the wrecked car on Topanga Canyon Boulevard.

Torti now faces possible liability for injuries suffered by Van Horn, a fellow department store cosmetician who was rendered a paraplegic in the accident that ended a night of Halloween revelry in 2004.

In 1980, the Legislature enacted the Health and Safety Code, which provides that “no person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission.”

Although that passage does not use the word “medical” in describing the protected emergency care, it was included in the section of the code that deals with emergency medical services. By placing it there, lawmakers intended to shield “only those persons who in good faith render emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency,” Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote for the majority.

The high court cited no previous cases involving good Samaritan actions deemed unprotected by the state code, suggesting the challenge of Torti’s rescue effort was the first to narrow the scope of the law.

The three dissenting justices argued, however, that the aim of the legislation was clearly “to encourage persons not to pass by those in need of emergency help, but to show compassion and render the necessary aid.”

Justice Marvin R. Baxter said the ruling was “illogical” because it recognizes legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical care while denying it for potentially life-saving actions like saving a person from drowning or carrying an injured hiker to safety.

“One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim,” Baxter wrote for the dissenters. “Here, the result is that defendant Torti has no immunity for her bravery in pulling her injured friend from a crashed vehicle, even if she reasonably believed it might be about to explode.” [emphasis added]

Not only do I agree with the opinion of the dissenting justices, but I see here another example of a badly written law. It is the responsibility of the Legislature to ensure that the laws it passes are clear and unambiguous. Where this law is concerned, it was just another failure on their part.

As I noted in an earlier post, the Donofrio case that was today denied for certiorari was not the only case challenging Obama’s eligibility for the office of POTUS filed with the SCOTUS. Another case has been distributed by Justice Scalia for the conference of December 12: Cort Wrotnowski v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State, No. 08A469.

As plaintiff is just a citizen voter and not a government official or candidate for office it is most likely (IMHO) that the SCOTUS will deny the petition for lack of standing.

The SCOTUS has denied Donofrio’s writ of certiorari.

But there are still other cases winding their way through the courts. As usual, I hope to update if/when real life allows.

On Friday, December 5, the SCOTUS held full conference on the matter of whether to grant or deny a writ of certiorari - essentially whether or not to review the case - on the matter of Donofrio v. Wells, the New Jersey challenge to the Obama election.

The SCOTUS did not issue their decision on the matter yesterday which experience tells us means it is likely to be denied on Monday. However, once in a great while, such a delayed decision DOES result in a granting of the writ.

So, while Donofrio’s case is not dead yet, it likely will be on Monday.

However, at last count there were 2 other cases pending before the SCOTUS and numerous others pending in state courts:

SCOTUS:

Berg v. Obama, 08-570
The due date for Obama’s response, Dec. 1, has passed. No response shows on the docket, but then neither does the emergency motion for immediate injunction that Berg is said to have filed Dec. 2.

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, 08A-469
Submitted to Justice Scalie Nov. 29; no further docket activity.

The state info is taking a lot of time to compile so will be the subject of a subsequent post.

From the Washington Times:

The Supreme Court plans to decide Friday whether to hear a case that could determine whether President-elect Barack Obama ever becomes the nation’s full-fledged president.

The Supreme Court judges’ conference today will consider the lawsuit filed by New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio. He contends Mr. Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” as the U.S. Constitution requires.

Mr. Donofrio concedes Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. He argues, however, that Mr. Obama was a British citizen due to his father’s British citizenship.

The judges’ conference today resulted from more than a dozen lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama’s right to be president based on his citizenship at birth.

Guess it’s not news until the day before.

We here have no special divinely-guided foresight or unique forewarning… we just Call BS now and then when we hear it.

And this presidential election cycle has been full of it! Replete, over-flowing, rampant, stuffed to the gills… all across America… left, right and center…

But the two lawsuits coming to critical junctures on or before December 2 of this year, in time to CHANGE the outcome of the Electoral College, deal with much more than simply whether or not Hussein Obama has sold Ice Cream to 40 Million Americans, or set up a minimally-expensive ‘Gotcha!’ to burn a small group of his detractors, who wanted him to show citizenship in America, as required by the United States Constitution.

No, these lawsuits (Keyes’ in California and Justice David Souter’s for the US Supreme Court) are about something much deeper, more profoundly disturbing and central to the lives of rational Americans, namely: whether America will continue to be a nation based on law, respect for the law, equal rights and equal responsibilities before the law?

Or will America choose (is America CHOOSING, right now?) to drift into rule by trickery, subterfuge, spin, hype, bloviation and coordinated lies and half-truths propagated by a wide range of entrenched orthodoxies calling themselves News Media?

For with any law-oriented outcome in either of the lawsuits demanding Mr Obama show documentary proof not only that he was BORN HERE, in America, but that Mr Obama did not acquire Indonesian citizenship as a minor, and hence lose his American citizenship at that time- Mr Obama (and his visible and less-visible supporters and sponsors) would be rather greatly inconvenienced by any ruling that does not allow him, under American law, to serve as president.

Greatly inconvenienced is hardly the word… and the Ice-Cream Third-Graders, all over 21, who voted him in would feel greatly embarrassed, frustrated, angry and victimized. They would feel deprived of their Ice Cream.

Because of these foreseeable outcomes, it is easy to surmise that much pressure is being brought to bear on the court justices hearing these arguments and making decisions, ostensibly in accord with Constitutional law, by December 2nd, that their decisions might somehow gloss over Mr Obama’s Kenyan birth, or his underage mother’s lack of sufficient time in America to bestow upon him legal citizenship, or his stepfather’s loving efforts to get Obama-the-Youth into a Jakarta school and therefore Obama’s acquired Indonesian citizenship.

Maybe the courts will find that, sure enough, Mr Obama has failed to demonstrate his American citizenship, and one or the other of the courts will rule that Mr Obama is ineligible to serve as president… only to have that ruling NOT publicized in ANY American newsprint paper and NOT ONCE spoken of on Mainstream (legacy) Media or Cable TV or any medium except the Internet and the blogosphere…

Then what? It’s Friday, December 5th, and Mr Obama has been found ineligible to serve as president, but nobody can be found to serve papers on him to step aside, and nobody outside of a tiny portion of the blogosphere knows of the ruling… what can be done?

Are YOU going to hand out copies of the District Court ruling, stuff them into the hands of laughing delegates to the Electoral College as they convene to vote? Will YOU raise your voice to go against the speeding train of ‘America’s First Black President’? Will YOU risk everything in order to re-establish government of the people, by the people and for the people BY LAW?

Because if you DON’T, if you are willing to go along with non-Americans ‘ruling’ America… If you are willing to let US troops (NOT the National Guard) be stationed INSIDE America… if you’re willing to work 10 hours a day for 5.2 hours’ pay so that your earnings can be ‘redistributed’ to people unwilling to WORK for their OWN wealth…

If you are willing to accept these and other indignities, then you will get the tyranny you so richly deserve, and will learn to lick spittle from the boots of your masters, marching off to Sensitivity Training to learn how to criticize yourself before a tribunal of your betters, your peers, your comrades… and it still will not save you.

Mr Obama’s friend William Ayers agrees that Obama’s government may have to eliminate (kill) upward of 25 MILLION PEOPLE in America, to get rid of the obstructionists and anti-government racists and other intelligentsia and ne’er-do-wells and holdouts and rednecks and homos and Jews and Bible-thumpers and Pope-lovers and Polacks and Baha’is and all the other ignorant, racist jerks who just don’t want to cooperate with America’s new masters!

Leave a comment or better yet, take the time to LEARN of Justice Souter’s decision and the outcome of the Keyes lawsuit and take them to your local newspaper and a television station near you and courteously DEMAND that they take this news to the citizens of a law-abiding America!