Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat

  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 3      1   2   3   Next

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 64
Reply with quote  #1 

New plaintiff petition for Florida Supreme Court -- Voeltz v Obama eligibility case appeal

GeorgeM is reporting that Attorney Larry Klayman and Plaintiff Mike Voeltz have submitted their final Petition for Writ of Mandamus on the deadline day of 4-29-13.  The original case was dismissed for all the wrong reasons, making it eminently appealable.  They have been keeping this case low profile lately, but are in action again to meet the filing deadline.

Case No.: SC13-560

Petitioner, Michael C. Voeltz, pursuant to Fla. App. R. 9.100 B, files this
Petition for “Writ of Mandamus” to compel the District Court of Appeal, First
District (“Court of Appeal”), to reinstate the appeal of Voeltz v. Obama, et al, case
no. 2012CA00467, 1D12- 3489, which was improperly dismissed by court order
dated February 8, 2013.

In the alternative, Petitioner files this Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to
direct Florida Secretary of State, Ken Detzner, to comply with Florida Statute
97.012(14), and direct the Court of Appeal to issue an opinion regarding the
eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as President of the United States.

Document here . . .

Filed again lets see what happens this time


Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #2 

Judge orders eligibility attorney to stay away

Bob Unruh is reporting that Florida Circuit Judge Kevin Carroll, who previously cited the fictitious judge in "Miracle on 34th Street" in a ruling, now says he's done with arguments over Barack Obama's eligibility.
Carroll released an order today refusing to hear a request for a hearing that is allowed under state law when there are doubts about a candidate's eligibility. And let that be the last, the judge said.
"No petitions for clarification or further rehearing will be entertained by the court," he said in his ruling that refused to respond to a request for the state-allowed hearing in a case brought by Michael Voeltz.
"The court … finds no factual or legal cause to recede from its prior ruling that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction," he wrote.
The attorney handling the case for Voeltz, Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom said if the judge doesn't want to address the dispute, then he'll take it to the appellate level, and that filing could occur as early as this weekend.
He noted that the judge had promised the plaintiffs time to respond to an Obama motion to dismiss the case but then dismissed it without allowing the time frame to expire.
The judge already had decided he would not hold an evidentiary hearing, which is allowed under state law in such a case. A hearing is supposed to be held when candidates' qualifications are challenged, according a state law that allows Florida residents to challenge the eligibility of election candidates, Klayman said.
Carroll earlier had given the plaintiffs until Dec. 23 to respond to Obama's motion to dismiss the case but then changed his mind and abruptly ordered the case dismissed several days before the deadline.
He explained that the fact the government says Obama is qualified to be president is more than enough for him.
"This court notes that President Obama lives in the White House. He flies on Air Force One. He has appeared before Congress, delivered State of the Union addresses and meets with congressional leaders on a regular basis. He has appointed countless ambassadors to represent the interests of the United States throughout the world," Carroll wrote.
Klayman said that Carroll had refused to scheduled the hearing or even respond to inquiries to the court and suggested he was "waiting for Groundhog Day to come out."
"The process now is we will take this to the appellate level," he said.
Continue reading here . . .

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 23
Reply with quote  #3 

Did you receive a reply from Texas Senator John Cornyn?
Lou E Brown

Posts: 516
Reply with quote  #4 
I have been out of everything useful for a few days and feel that I am contagious in my attitude toward the entire Halfrican magic show. He is so full of himself that I am ashamed to recognize his office as anything other than a game for him, like cat and mouse and we are the mouse.
As I scrolled down the comments and pages, I came upon one that I thought was mine and I backed up as I had not commented, being too disgusted by what I had read in my own email. To make it short here, I had written Kay Bailey a letter a few weeks ago, trying to see if she would support America on her way out. I asked if she knew all the Obama stuff about the eligibility and vetting and so forth, never expecting a personal or honest answer and "Yes I will help you save America from the second Obama  4 years and we will ride him out of town on a rail." I got the same letter that Charles posted above.So much for her giving a d**n about NBC qualification.
I wish I had time and money to go to DC and slap her face, if she is still there.
Longknife 21

Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #5 
This is further proof that the Court System is broken, irretrievably broken as long as Liberals are appointed to the bench.

Judges that refuse to obey the U.S. Constitutional, State Constitutions, and existing law must be impeached, convicted, disbarred, and prevented from ever holding any public office or job.  Fines and jail time are also appropriate.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #6 

Larry Klayman reacts to illegal dismissal of Voeltz v Obama
 Case No.: 2012 CA 003857
Plaintiff’s Reply In Support Of Expedited Motion For Rehearing

Plaintiff Michael Voeltz, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files his Reply in Support of Expedited Motion for Rehearing on an emergency basis, as time is extremely short before the electoral college votes on January 6, 2013.

First, Defendant Obama’s "argument" that Plaintiff did not request a hearing is absurd and frivolous. Indeed, in Plaintiff’s Emergency Response to the Court’s Order of December 13, 2012 it states plainly that he did request a hearing and once Plaintiff filed the Motion for Temporary Injunction, an evidentiary one as well. However, the court’s hastily crafted precipitous Order Dismissing Complaint was an obvious attempt to extinguish Plaintiff’s right to any hearing, evidentiary or otherwise.

Second, contrary to the potentially politically motivated decisions of three judges of this Court, Section 102.168, Florida Statutes, plainly provides that Plaintiff does have a right to contest eligibility and candidate fraud in this Court.

Third, the role of the Electoral College is not in lieu of Florida law but complimentary to Florida law. It is axiomatic and constitutionally sacrosanct that states have rights; this should come as no surprise to anyone who has read the Florida and U.S. Constitutions, in particular in the 10th Amendment. The state obviously has a right and a duty to police candidacy fraud and ineligibility before its voters are lead down the primrose path to voter nullification by dishonest candidates for either state or federal office. In this case, involving defendant Barack H. Obama, federal law does not take precedence over clear cut unambiguous, and black letter Florida statutory law for the following reasons:
The text of 3 U.S.C. § 5 does not end timely filed and continuing litigation nor does it state that any decision made after the deadline is not conclusive. The Florida courts have the power and the duty to decide any election contest, and must do so in this case. See State ex rel. Cherry v. Stone, 265 So. 2d 56, 58 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1972); Shevin v. Stone 279 So. 2d. 17, 22 (1972).
Read simply, 3 U.S.C. § 5 provides that any conclusive determination made prior to that particular date "shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes." This creates a sense of finality for Florida court decisions and mandates that these state decisions govern, as the states are responsible for the determination of electoral votes.
Defendant Obama claims federal statutes 3 U.S.C §§ 5, 15 preclude this court’s ability to decide eligibility. Yet these statute simply states the procedure for counting the electoral votes, and objections if improper votes are cast. See Fitzgerald v. Green, 134 US 377, 378 (1890) ("The sole function of the presidential electors is to cast, certify, and transmit the vote of the state for president and vice-president of the nation"). Nothing is stated about challenging the qualification of a candidate.

Nor is Florida law interfering with the Presidential Electors. The Florida law allows challenges to those who are nominated or elected. These actions occur before the electors cast their votes, and are simply in place to ensure that the presidential elector votes for an eligible candidate. It would surely be possible for a disqualified candidate to be declared ineligible, leaving the electors with the duty to vote for the remaining candidates.
A presidential election is not an exclusively federal but is also a state process. In fact, electors, those chosen to ultimately select the President, were to be designated exclusively by the state legislatures. Article II, s. 1, c. 2. See Mcpherson v. Blacker, 146 US 1, 35 (1892) ("The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States"). Presidential elections are thus a cooperative and complementary effort of both the state and federal government. The state of Florida, through its legislative branch, is simply ensuring that eligible candidates who do not defraud voters, for all elected offices, are chosen.

Otherwise the state of Florida would be left "defenseless" against a federal candidate who is intent on defrauding as well as maintaining eligibility when there’s no eligibility with regard to voters of the state.

Fourth, two judges of this court have abdicated this responsibility and we respectfully trust that this judge will follow his responsibility and "the rule of law" under Florida statutory law and the state’s and U.S. Constitutions, and reconsider -- despite what two other judges of this Court decided to do -- based on their apparent politically motivated decision – making.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this court rehear its Order Dismissing Complaint of December 20, 2012 and immediately set down a hearing not only to hear argument with regard to this court’s jurisdiction, but also an evidentiary hearing which is required to properly and fully adjudicate Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Injunction.

Dated: December 26, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
 /s/ Larry Klayman
 Larry Klayman, Esq.
 Florida Bar No. 246220
 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 800
 Washington, DC 20006
 Tel: (310) 595-0800
 Counsel for Plaintiff

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing Reply in Support of Expedited Motion for Rehearing has been filed electronically and served via email this 26th day of December, 2012 upon the following:

Distribution list here . . .

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 1,186
Reply with quote  #7 
people who use cop-outs NEVER fess up, it is against their mental standards to say that they made a mistake or agree that they have to take the REAL blame on ANYTHING, let alone something as big as this is with the whole future of the Country at stake.   And you have the added burden of Obama and minions pressing for stupid or nonsenscial judgements so that they won't be held to the standard that is in our Constitution and also they make threats against whomever they percieve to be in a position that they might make the rightful, honest decision, and that person CAVES each and every time, because of the fear that has been put into their head and heart.  Not doing their job because of fear is as reprehensible as not doing it because of stupidity.

Posts: 13
Reply with quote  #8 
Perhaps most tellingly, Justice Harper was determining whether Santa clause posed a risk of harm to himself or others, such that he was required to be institutionalize e under the NYS Mental Hygiene law. The standard of proof was a preponderance of evidence to prove a near unconstitutionally vague object. The legal effect of Judge Harper's ruling was only to say that the state had not met it's burden of proof. One would hope that Judge Carrol realizes that in the eyes of history and the Constitution, as Santa's attorney's closing line in the film,"Maybe, I didn't do such a wonderful thing"

Posts: 1,186
Reply with quote  #9 

This is what Mario Apuzzzo has to say about the latest Ruling from Florida.....  it is long, but everyone should read it.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

The Florida Courts Say that If Anyone Can Be Santa Clause, Barack Obama Can Be President
The Florida Courts Say that If Anyone Can Be Santa Clause, Barack Obama Can Be President

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
December 22, 2012

Circuit Judge, Kevin J. Carroll, of the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County, Florida, has abruptly dismissed the state law Obama eligibility case of Michael C. Voeltz v. Barack Hussein Obama (Case No. 2012-CA-3857). Judge Carroll had given the plaintiffs until December 23, 2012 to respond to Obama’s motion to dismiss the case. But he then changed his mind and on Thursday issued an order dismissing the case.

After stating that the same case was already decided by the Florida courts and that the Florida courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide the case because it raised a political question, Judge Carroll said that the court was now presented with “Voeltz III.” He then said:

“This court notes that President Obama lives in the White House. He flies on Air Force One. He has appeared before Congress, delivered State of the Union addresses and meets with congressional leaders on a regular basis. He has appointed countless ambassadors to represent the interests of the United States throughout the world.” President Obama’s recent appointment of The Honorable Mark Walker, formerly a member of this Court, has been confirmed by the United States Senate. Judge Walker has been sworn in as a United States District Court Judge and currently works at the Federal Courthouse down the street. The Electoral College has recently done its work and elected Mr. Obama to be President once again.”

Judge Carroll then added:

“As this matter has come before the Court at this time of the year it seems only appropriate to paraphrase the ruling rendered by the fictional Judge Henry X. Harper from New York in open court in the classic holiday film ‘Miracle on 34th St.’ ‘Since the United States Government declares this man to be President, this Court will not dispute it. Case dismissed.’”

Judge Carroll’s order and decision can be read at

Again, our judiciary is disappointing. Judge Carroll could have just said that the matter was moot (the matter no longer presents a justiciable controversy in that the controversy no longer presents any practical consequences to be remedied by the court), res judicata (the matter has already been decided among the same parties and that decision is binding on those same parties in a later action raising the same issues), or the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction (power over the specific matter presented for judicial decision) because the case presented a political question (the Constitution specifically assigns the question of presidential eligibility only to Congress), and that would have ended the case with the appearance of having been decided judiciously. But the judge felt compelled to go further and inject mockery into a judicial decision. I will now only address that part of the decision because that is the part that, despite what might appear to be or passed off as humor of some sort, in a subtle way goes to the merits of the question of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” and is most damaging and prejudicial to the judicial process and the rule of law.

I have shown in my article entitled, Logic and Defining the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause, accessed at how a handful of courts that have reached the merits of the question of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and whether Obama meets that definition have engaged in tautological reasoning (by concluding that a “natural born Citizen is any “born citizen”) and committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent (by arguing that a “natural born Citizen” is a “born Citizen” or anyone who becomes at once a citizen of the United States. Obama is a “born Citizen” or someone who became at once a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Obama is a “natural born Citizen”) to reach their conclusion that Barack Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Now we have the Florida court committing more logical fallacies. First, plaintiff Michael C. Voeltz’s constitutional challenge is that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Mr. Voeltz is correct. Among the briefs that I have filed with various courts and the many articles that I have written on the subject at my blog , see Mario Apuzzo, Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” accessed at (demonstrates based on historical, U.S. Supreme, and Congressional sources that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country and that Obama does not meet that definition). Judge Carroll’s logic and reasoning would have us accept that by Obama acting presidential and the “United States Government” simply saying he is eligible, Obama somehow magically becomes and proves that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Anyone who engages in sound critical thinking should know that things do not become something else by simply acting like something else (cowbirds in other birds’ nests which act like the species of birds they have invaded do not thereby become those other species) or that something is so merely because someone says it is so. (“Unlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so.” U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land in Rhodes v. MacDonald, 4:09-cv-106 (CDL) (U.S. Dist. Ct. of Georgia, Middle Dist., Columbus Div., Sept. 16, 2009). Coincidently, the novel was written by Lewis Carroll). After all, did not the United States Government in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), say that Wong was not a U.S. "citizen," but the Court nevertheless ruled that he was.

Second, Judge Carroll should study what a de facto officer is because that is exactly what he has used to conclude that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” Following Judge Carroll’s logic, a de facto president, a president who is not constitutionally legitimate but who has usurped the office and its powers and who because of practical reasons is tolerated for the time he occupies and exercises the powers of the office but who can be legally removed through a prescribed legal process, would automatically be converted into a de jure president, a president who is constitutionally legitimate. Needless to say, such a result renders Article II’s presidential eligibility requirement meaningless and flouts the rule of law.

Third, Judge Carroll’s reliance on Miracle on 34th St. Judge Henry X. Harper is not only misplaced, but actually contradicts his own point. Judge Harper ruled that since the United States Government says that God exists (“In God We Trust”) without there being any evidence of God’s existence, defendant Santa Clause could publicly say he was Santa Clause even though he did not have any evidence to prove that he was in fact Santa Clause. Hence, he dismissed the charges brought against Santa Clause. Is Judge Carroll telling us that Obama can be President even though there does not exist any evidence of his being an Article II “natural born Citizen” just like Judge Harper found, the United States Government can say God exists even though there is no evidence of His existence or Santa Clause can say he is Santa Clause even though he does not have any evidence to prove that he is in fact Santa Clause? In this connection, I am reminded how New Jersey Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, ruled in election ballot challenge, Purpura v. Obama, that Obama did not have to demonstrate who he is or where he was born to get on the New Jersey election ballot, for even Mickey Mouse can run for President, and who ruled that Obama was a “natural born Citizen” even after admitting that there was absolutely no evidence before him as to who Obama is, where he was born, or who his parents are. See, Mario Apuzzo, Update on the Purpura and Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Access Objection, at . Or how about federal Judge James Robertson, who dismissed an Obama eligibility case, Hollister v. Soetoro, 08-2254 (JR), (U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. of Columbia, March 5, 2009), because as he said Obama’s eligibility to be President had been adequately proven through evidence on the internet and wrote: “The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year campaign for the presidency.” What is ironic is that Judge Carroll, Judge Masin, and Judge Robertson have actually described the state of affairs as they presently exist regarding Obama’s eligibility to be President without intending to do so.

The American people should expect from our courts logical and well-reasoned decisions, based on adherence to due process and well-established legal principles and real evidence. A judge is supposed to be a neutral arbiter who is guided only by the applicable rules of law and equity and whose purpose is to do justice based on those rules and the evidence before him or her for not only the parties in the case but also for society as a whole. In fulfilling that moral and legal duty, he or she must find the facts and the applicable law, apply that law to those facts, and render a reasoned decision, all done without any bias or prejudice. In a constitutional republic such as the United States, merely saying that someone acts presidential or merely saying that someone is presidential cannot take the place of demonstrating based on real law and evidence that someone truly is presidential. Apart from failing to decide the question of whether Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President based strictly on the Constitution, the rule of law, and real evidence, such mockery and illogical reasoning as we have seen from Judge Carroll and other courts bring only contempt upon our courts and is a mar upon the integrity and professionalism of the American judiciary.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
December 22, 2012

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved


Posts: 38
Reply with quote  #10 
I received a letter back from Congressman Shimkus that said, in his opinion Obama had been fully vetted and found to eligible. Horse hockey! If our congress won't do it's job we may as well throw in the towel on this one. I doubt they will take up the issue. All we can do is pray to God that the nation holds together for four more years or we manage to get the Senate in 2014.

Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #11 
Two words for Kay: Sheriff Arapaio

Posts: 23
Reply with quote  #12 

Here is a reply from a Texas Senator about the eligibility issue

What are your thoughts?

Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding President Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States. I welcome your thoughts and comments.
The White House has responded to questions on this subject by making public a copy of the President’s birth certificate. To the best of my knowledge, there is no current government inquiry into the validity of that document.
I remain very concerned about the direction in which President Obama is continuing to try to take our country. From skyrocketing federal deficits, to the legislation that authorizes a government takeover of our health care sector, to the series of hugely expensive and counterproductive programs the administration has put in place in the name of creating jobs and growing our economy, my view is that President Obama has offered the wrong solutions and ineffective leadership for our problems.
I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me again on any issue that is important to you.
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)

Posts: 1,186
Reply with quote  #13 

Constitution in Crisis -- How to stop an ineligible 'president'

Exclusive: Larry Klayman demands GOP lawmakers challenge Electoral College tally

Published: 1 day ago

Over the last four years, modern-day “Sons of Liberty” – such as Joseph Farah, WND, its prized investigative reporters such as Jerome Corsi and courageous lawmen like Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse – have worked tirelessly to have President Barack Hussein Obama thoroughly investigated over the issue of his place of birth.

It is well-known that Obama had for years refused to release his claimed Hawaiian birth certificate and other official documents that reflect on whether he was born in U.S. territory as he claims, or in Kenya where his father of the same name hailed. If born in Kenya or somewhere else outside of American territory, Obama would be ineligible to run for and serve as president. And, even if born in America, Obama does not qualify as a “natural born citizen” under our Constitution, since he was not, as also required under our law to be president, sired by two American citizen parents. Only his mother was an American at the time of his birth.

The author and readers of this column know this issue well; we have lived and agonized over it as the Republican Party – the so-called opposition to the racist/socialist Muslim who lied his way into the White House – proceeded to bring the nation to its financial, social and international knees, put its head in the sand and looked the other way for fear they would be vilified by the leftist mainstream media. Obama’s father, an anti-neo-colonialist, anti-American, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian Muslim featured in his son’s book “Dreams from my Father,” is smiling from his grave.

Now, this Republican Party, soundly beaten in the November elections and essentially politically a dead letter, has yet a new opportunity to resurrect itself and show some courage. While We the People should not hold our breath that political establishment dinosaur hacks of the likes of Speaker of the House John Boehner or Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell will lead the charge, other so-called tea-party conservatives, such as Rep. Michele Bachmann and Sen. Marco Rubio have the power in their hands to throw a monkey wrench into Obama’s coronation on Jan. 21, 2013, and start an official proceeding over Obama’s place of birth and his natural born citizen status. If, indeed, the Republican Party wants to regain any standing among the patriotic and law-abiding populace, do what is right for the nation and carry out its constitutional duties, it has a golden opportunity to do so immediately, without wasting any more time and subjecting the country to another four years of rule by this truly evil and destructive president.

For instance, the process for objecting to electoral votes is laid out in Title 3 of the U.S. Code, section 15. Under this law, the Congress will meet in a joint session in the House of Representatives on Jan. 6, 2013, to conduct the official tally of electoral votes. The vice president, as president of the Senate, will serve as the presiding officer. Two tellers are then appointed to open, present and record the votes of the states in alphabetical order, beginning with the state of Alabama. The president of the Senate will then announce the results of the vote and declare who have been elected president and vice president of the United States. The president of the Senate will then call for objections to be made. Any objections made must then merely be submitted in writing and be signed by at least – and importantly only – one member of the House and Senate. Indeed, all that is needed is for one person from each chamber to stand up and attempt to do what he or she has sworn to do: support and defend the Constitution of the United States. This would force the House and Senate to withdraw to their respective chambers and consider the merits of any objections and would finally trigger an official inquiry to be made as to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be president of the United States.

While I and others have filed eligibility challenges that are pending in states like Florida and Alabama, thus far the courts have strained to buy the false argument of Obama’s lawyers that the “proper” and only mandated procedure to challenge his eligibility is under this federal statute, rather than state law, at this time. And, while the liberal and other judges who have so ruled are not correct and are simply doing what they think is “politically correct,” in violation of the law, and while my cases are on appeal or, in the case of Florida, have been refiled (see also, there is no excuse, especially for House and Senate Republicans, to shirk their constitutional duty. Is there not one Republican representative or senator who has the guts to do what must be done to save the nation?

This process is not without precedent. In January 2005, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, lodged a formal challenge to the Electoral College results of the 2004 election, objecting to Ohio’s 20 electoral votes for President George W. Bush based on alleged voting irregularities. The challenge to Bush’s re-election, according to a New York Times report, sparked a two-hour debate and the eventual affirmation of Bush’s Electoral College victory.

I thus call upon the Michele Bachmanns and Marco Rubios of the Republican Party to now put their “money where thus far only their mouths have been” for years and take legal and appropriate steps to prevent this evil and destructive president from fraudulently seizing control of the White House again. I am not calling for a coup d’etat, only that the Constitution be respected and enforced. If these constitutional conservatives and their Republican Party cannot summon the courage, which is not difficult at all, to follow the law, then they, themselves, have no real or inherent authority to be in Congress.

Our Founding Fathers risked and gave of their honor, sacred fortunes and lives to found a new nation. Now, today, 236 years later, We the People simply request that what is left of the Republican Party obey the law and properly object to Barack Hussein Obama’s claim that he is eligible to be president and thus start a constitutionally mandated process that will lead to an official inquiry before he takes the oath of office on Jan. 21, 2013.

Too much to ask from us conservatives and other concerned Americans? As it now stands, for the Republican Party, the answer is likely yes! I therefore urge you to contact these and other House members and senators and demand that they do their constitutional duty or forfeit their offices, having proved themselves “ineligible” to serve We the People.

Come On Guys, let's take the time and write a letter to our Republican Congress Critters and force them to take a stand for the Constitution and the LAW of and for WE THE PEOPLE, so that we can all save America.......  not one of US want the next four years to follow and go unchallenged giving Obama the ability to get away with the total destruction of OUR COUNTRY.


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 64
Reply with quote  #14

hope this stays at the top this time too much right now for everyone to talk about

Posts: 39
Reply with quote  #15 

Voeltz v Obama -- Filed 12/13/12

Voeltz v. Obama - Final Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss - Florida Electoral Challenge - 12/13/20...

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #16 

Breaking!  Two huge announcements on BHO's eligibility

Watch to the end.

Simmons promises a surprising and potentially devastaing eligibility event is scheduled to happen before Electoral College certification, January 6th.

Cross-posted in the Eligibility thread

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 39
Reply with quote  #17 
Judge Stanley Mills ruled today, July 10, 2012, in the Pasco County Florida ballot challenge case against Barack Obama, to transfer the case to Leon County (Tallahassee). Jerry Collette, the plaintiff, had argued that his case should proceed in Pasco County, under the rule that venue is proper in the county where he suffered his damages.

Collette said, "Apparently, the judge did not want this hot potato. Passing my case off to Tallahassee got it off his plate. I am glad that he did not toss it out completely, which he certainly could have done. I am still hoping that a judge, somewhere, will allow a case like this to proceed on the merits and order the original birth documents produced."

Sam Sewell, Director of Florida Ballot Challenge, said, "We still need more plaintiffs to file similar cases. Some judge, somewhere, is waiting for somebody to show up with one of these ballot challenge cases. The more cases people file, the more likely we are to find that one courageous judge that we have been seeking."

Collette stated he would not appeal this ruling now, but would proceed in Tallahassee. It could take several weeks for Collette's case to show up in and for the pending motions to get calendared for hearings. We will post updates, including the new case number and judge's name, as we know them.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #18 

BREAKING! Florida judge issues ruling in Obama eligibility case!

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 1,186
Reply with quote  #19 
Here is it all living color.......

Judge issues ruling in Obama-eligibility case

Addresses question of whether dual citizen can be 'natural born'

Published: 25 mins ago



The judge in a Florida lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president has dismissed the case “with prejudice.”

In his issued ruling Circuit Judge Terry Lewis agreed with White House attorneys that Obama’s eligibility could not be challenged under Florida election law because, technically, Obama hasn’t been nominated yet and furthermore, the judge said, Obama’s birth in the U.S. meets the Constitution’s requirements for being a “natural born citizen.”

The attorney challenging Obama’s eligibility, however, told WND the judge’s ruling is “intellectually dishonest” and so poorly written it makes an appeal “relatively easy.”

A fund has been set up for donations to cover legal expenses for the case.

As WND reported, Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County,” had challenged Obama’s eligibility, arguing that the “natural born citizen” clause was rightly understood in historical context to mean a child not only born in the U.S., but born to two American-citizen parents, so as not to have divided loyalties. Obama, however, readily admits to being born a dual citizen because of his father’s British citizenship.

Judge Lewis rejected Voeltz’s and attorney Larry Klayman’s arguments on three grounds.

First, the judge insisted, Obama’s candidacy cannot be challenged because he has not been nominated yet.

“The respective major political parties determine their nominee at a national convention [that hasn't occurred yet],” Lewis writes. “Thus, under Florida law, Mr. Obama is not presently the nominee of the Democratic Party for the office.

Second, the judge insisted, it’s not the Florida secretary of state’s job to determine a presidential candidate’s eligibility.

Quoting Florida law, Lewis writes, “The secretary of state has no affirmative duty, or even authority, ‘to inquire or pass judgment upon the eligibility of a candidate to hold office for the nomination for which he is running.”

Third, Lewis insisted, Obama should be considered a natural born citizen.

“The United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States,’” Lewis writes.

Then citing district and appellate court ruling from other states, Lewis adds, “Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of president of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”

As WND reported, Klayman had earlier suggested he would seek “declaratory relief” in the case, regardless of whether or not Lewis considered Obama “nominated” yet or not, a move Lewis appears to anticipate in his ruling.

“Plaintiff suggests the possibility of a declaratory judgment claim,” Lewis writes, “but I don’t see how Plaintiff, as an individual voter, would have standing to seek declaratory relief.”

Klayman, however, spoke with WND to break down what he says are glaring flaws in the judge’s ruling.

“The decision issued today by Judge Terry Lewis was poorly reasoned and written,” Klayman asserts. “It goes against prior Florida Supreme Court precedent in particular, thus making our chances on appeal great. … In any event, Plaintiff Micheal Voeltz filed a new complaint today for declaratory relief, which will, in addition to his appeal, now proceed forward. In short, we remain confidant that if the Florida courts ultimately decide to obey their own election law, we will prevail in the end.”

Specifically, Klayman objected first to Lewis’ assertion that Obama’s nomination is a matter for the Democrats’ national convention and not subject to Florida law.

“He basically said that a presidential candidate can never be nominated under Florida law, ever, and that’s just wrong,” Klayman said. “He made our appeal relatively easy, because he flies in the face of the Florida statute and also a Florida Supreme Court case. There’s nothing on which for him to come to this conclusion. The law is clear here that Obama was nominated for office.”

And as for the judge’s concession that Voeltz might have cause for an election challenge after Obama is elected president, Klayman scoffed, “That’s a disingenuous dodge.”

At the heart of the case, however, was the judge’s reasoning that a citizen born in the U.S. fulfills the U.S. Constitution’s “natural born” citizen requirement for the presidency.

“The judge equated being a ‘citizen’ with a ‘natural born citizen’ and cited no authority to conclude the two terms are the same,” Klayman continued in his analysis. “He quotes other state’s cases, where judges reached that conclusion, but that’s not precedent for him. What other courts said in lower cases means nothing to him.”

Klayman also bristled at the judge’s claim that the “burden of proof” fell upon Voeltz to demonstrate Obama’s ineligibility, despite denying Klayman’s team “discovery,” a process that may have allowed subpoena power of Obama’s identifying documents.

“How can you say we have the burden of proof, then not allow discovery?” Klayman asked. “He says we have burden, but doesn’t allow us to meet it. We’re entitled to discovery. That’s a very vulnerable part of this case going forward.”

Finally, Klayman marveled that the judge would declare his client doesn’t have “standing” for declaratory relief – a common argument many judges around the country have used to dismiss eligibility challenges without considering them on merit.

“That’s not true, we do have standing under Florida law,” Klayman said.

“The ruling is intellectually dishonest, from a Democrat-appointed judge who didn’t want to be put on the hot seat by his own party,” Klayman asserted. “We’re immediately appealing, and we’re confident on appeal. The main thrust of the judge’s decision is contrary to how the Florida Supreme Court has already ruled on when a candidate is nominated.”

Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? Here’s WND’s complete archive of news reports on the issue

Longknife 21

Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #20 
Dismissed with prejudice.

Judge Lewis agrees with the silly argument that Obama is not the Democrat candidate because he has not been named by the Democrat Convention.

Judge Lewis improperly quotes part of Minor vs Happersett but does not quote the section that does define "natural born citizen". He goes with the 14th Amend. definition of citizen by birth as being NBC. (I could not get the part of the decision to copy to paste)

Freaking Idiot.  Can't read or refuses to understand the words.
What do you call a lazy lawyer with an IQ of less than 75?

"Your Honor"

Posts: 217
Reply with quote  #21 

The judge dismissed the case.  So sad.  Is there anyone in our justice system that we can trust?


Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #22 

Unexpected turn in eligibility case: "Put it on record!"

Drew Zahn is reporting that the attorney in a publicized challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president told WND the Florida case took an unexpected turn in court yesterday, one he says "pulled the rug out" from Obama’s lawyers and should force a quick answer from the judge.
Attorney Larry Klayman told WND he had expected an "uneventful" hearing in the ongoing case, which returned before Judge Terry Lewis yesterday, but instead found a legal tangle that he believes means Lewis will "have to make a decision, have to put it on record."
Klayman originally filed the challenge to Obama’s eligibility for the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as "a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County."
However, attorneys representing Obama at the case’s main hearing argued that the Florida presidential preference primary, which listed Obama as the only Democrat nominee, didn’t make him the party’s nominee for president. They urged Lewis to decide that Obama is not yet the Democratic nominee for president and therefore ignore evidence challenging his eligibility.
A video recording of the hearing is available for viewing online here . . .
But Klayman told WND yesterday that Florida law is unique in that it gives the average voter "much greater freedom to challenge eligibility and fraud than most other states."
Florida law permits filing for "declaratory relief" at any time, Klayman said, a move that would force a judge to rule on the facts of the case even before a decision on whether to compel some legal action. In other words, in the Voeltz case, instead of waiting until the nominating convention -- which Klayman called a "shell game" Obama attorneys are playing to put off the issue -- Lewis would be pushed to make a declaration on Obama’s eligibility "whether nominated or not."
"Lewis would have to reach a decision; he would have to put it on record," Klayman said. "By amending for declaratory relief, we’re pulling the rug right out from Obama and the Florida secretary of state."
Klayman told WND Obama’s lawyers immediately went into a tailspin and filed to have the amendment for declaratory relief stricken, which the judge granted, arguing he wanted to wait to issue a formal decision in the case.
But Klayman said his team is willing to file a stand-alone complaint for declaratory relief with Lewis as soon as next week and "pull the rug out from under him, too."
"This judge can’t get out from under his legal requirement," Klayman said. "If he screws around, he’s violating law."
In hundreds of cases filed challenging Obama’s eligibility, the full range of questions -- from Obama’s birth records, charged by some as fraudulent, to the Constitution’s meaning of "natural born citizen" -- have never been ruled upon, dismissed typically on questions of who has "standing" to bring the challenge.
Klayman said, "It doesn’t matter how Lewis rules, the losing side will appeal, and this case is going up, maybe all the way to the Supreme Court."

Continue reading here . . .

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #23 

Obama Florida eligibility lawsuit continues

The Washington Times is reporting that a third hearing in a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to appear on the Florida ballot is being held this morning, Friday June 29 in Tallahassee. The hearing comes on the last day of a critical week for the Obama Administration, which included yesterday's Supreme Court health care ruling and a vote by the U.S. House of Representatives to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress.

Obama through his attorneys filed a motion to strike the amended complaint, and the plaintiff, a Florida voter represented by Attorney Larry Klayman, has filed an opposition to the motion to strike.

Judge Terry Lewis, noted for presiding over the 2000 Florida election results dispute between George W. Bush and Al Gore, is assigned to the case in Leon County Florida Circuit Court.

The second amended complaint, Michael C. Voeltz versus Barack Hussein Obama and Ken Detzner, Secretary of State of Florida, also refers to defendant Barack Obama as “aka Barry Soetoro”. Barry Soetoro is the name which appears on President Obama’s Indonesian school records.

Amended Complaint:  “No physical, paper copy has been produced”, “not born in the United States”

The amended complaint (See PDF exhibit) states on page 3 that “No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate, or any other identifying document, has been produced in order to establish Barack Hussein Obama’s birth within the United States”.

The amended complaint then states that “Barack Hussein Obama’s failure to produce an actual birth certificate, or other identifying document, is because he was not born in the United States.”

Although challenges to Obama’s eligibility to hold office have been presented in a number of states, so far no judge has allowed a case to move into discovery, a pre-trial phase of a lawsuit in which the parties can request evidence, take depositions, request documents and issue subpoenas.

If Judge Lewis denies Obama’s motion to strike the amended complaint, the case moves forward and closer to discovery, opening the door to the possibility President Obama’s Hawaii birth records could come under scrutiny of the court,

Judge to Plaintiff:  “Can you amend that he was born outside of the jurisdiction of the United States?”

Judge Lewis asked Attorney Klayman during the second hearing on July 10, 2012 “if I give you leave to amend can you amend that he was born somewhere outside of the jurisdiction of the United States?” to which the reply was yes.

Although Obama’s attorney Mark Herron implored Judge Lewis not to allow the plaintiff to file an amended complaint alleging that President Obama was born outside the jurisdiction of the United States, Judge Lewis responded by stating “I made a note that you (plaintiff) would like to amend…I would not have done that if I thought there was nothing you could amend.”

First Complaint:  Focus on “Natural Born Citizen” clause of Constitution

The original complaint focused on questions over Obama’s eligibility under Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the Constitution, which states that “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”.

Obama’s legal team, led by Mark Herron, argued during the second hearing before Judge Lewis that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Obama has not yet been nominated as the official Democratic Party candidate for President. “There has been no nomination to office, there has been no election to office,” Herron told Judge Lewis.

Florida Secretary of State Detzner maintains the position of Obama’s lawyers that the Florida eligibility lawsuit should be dismissed.

Barack Obama Senior, who is identified as Obama’s father in Obama's memoir “Dreams from My Father” and on the “long form” Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth posted to the official White House website, was a citizen of the British Colony of Kenya.

Because Hawaii officials have never made Obama’s original birth records in Honolulu available to the public, the media, or any election officials, questions remain over what is in the records.

A new documentary film “Dreams from My Real Father” directed by Joel Gilbert, argues that Barack Obama’s father is Frank Marshall Davis, a political activist in Honolulu identified by informants in FBI memos as being a member of the Communist Party USA. Gilbert, a Los Angeles filmmaker who according to his website graduated from the London School of Economics and holds a MBA from George Washington University, highlights physical and speech trait similarities between Barack Obama and Davis, and presents a cache of racy photographs he argues are of Barack Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, purportedly taken by Davis. Gilbert claims that window measurements recently taken at Davis’s former house in Honolulu confirm the location.

As first reported in Communities, officials with the Hawaii Department of Health refused to confirm to Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett that the Certificate of Live Birth posted to the White House website is a “true and accurate representation of the original record in your (Hawaii’s) files”, instead stating that “information matches”. Secretary Bennett nonetheless accepted the “Verification of Birth” letter provided to him by Hawaii officials. The Verification of Birth sent to Arizona omitted Barack Obama’s date of birth.

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (Ariz.) Cold Case Posse announced at a March 1, 2012 press conference hat there is probable cause the Certificate of Live Birth posted on the White House web site is a forgery.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 217
Reply with quote  #24 

“Judge Lewis denied Plaintiff’s 2nd Amended Complaint, which requested a declatory judgement. Attorney Larry Klayman pointed out there is nothing to stop him from filing a new complaint with that in it, but Lewis wouldn’t change his mind. So, we have to spend another $600 to do that and tie up more court resources. In any case, the existing case arguments stand and must still be decided upon, too. Folks, we are running behind on resources to fund the case as it is already, so any help would be appreciated.”


Posts: 217
Reply with quote  #25 
Here is an update (somewhat) but we still don't know when Judge Lewis will rule:
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved