| Posted 02/26/12 at 09:44 AM||Reply with quote #1 |
Phil berg has some information on the Florida Secretary of State’s unsatisfactory answer to Obama Ballot Challenge"
"This (non)response from Florida Assistant General Counsel Gary Holland suggests that since there is no specific procedure to remove an ineligible candidate from the ballot, that it simply cannot be done and that officials cannot even try to figure out a way to do it. So, they would have him wait until the election is over, with the nation waiting with bated breath, while a court action is initiated and litigated. Simply asinine. Florida: what are you paying your overpriced civil servants for?"
This is consistent with what I read and was told in 2008. Florida has a procedure for advisory opinions.
"Division of Election Advisory Opinions
Who May Request an Opinion?
By law, the Division of Elections may provide advisory opinions only to a supervisor of elections, candidate, local officer having election related duties, political party, political committee, committee of continuous existence or other person or organization engaged in political activity, relating to any provisions or possible violations of Florida election laws.
Legal Effect of an Opinion:
The Division of Elections provides a historical database of advisory opinions for reference purposes only. An advisory opinion represents the Division’s interpretation of the law applicable at the time the opinion is issued, as applied to a particular set of facts or chcircumstances, and is binding solely on the person or organization who requested the opinion. A previously issued advisory opinion may or may not apply to your situation depending upon your particular facts and circumstances and the current state of applicable law. Therefore, before drawing any legal conclusions based upon the information in this database, you or an attorney engaged on your behalf should refer to the current Florida Statutes, rules adopted by the Division of Elections, and applicable case law."
| Posted 03/21/12 at 06:20 AM||Reply with quote #2 |
Larry Klayman files presidential qualifications lawsuit in Florida
Tichard Winger is reporting that on March 20th, Larry Klayman filed a lawsuit in Leon County, Florida Circuit Court. The case is Voeltz v Obama. Another defendant is Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner. The lawsuit urges the state to keep Barack Obama off the November 2012 ballot on the grounds that he does not meet the constitutional qualifications. The complaint argues that “natural-born citizen” means the child of adult U.S. citizens, and also disputes the authenticity of the long-form birth certificate Obama released last year. Here is the seven-page complaint.
Florida is one of the states that has a policy of not printing presidential candidates’ names on the general election ballot if the candidate does not meet the constitutional qualifications. For example, in 2008, the Socialist Workers Party presidential candidate, Roger Calero, did not meet the constitutional qualifications. States that nevertheless printed his name on the November 2008 ballot, or accepted him as a declared write-in candidate, are Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, and Washington. The Socialist Workers Party was on the ballot in Florida in 2008 but the state would not print Calero’s name, so the SWP used a stand-in, James Harris, in Florida and certain other states.
| Posted 03/22/12 at 05:44 PM||Reply with quote #3 |
|Looks like we may get some traction in Florida|
A Congressman who told a town hall meeting recently that he questions whether Barack Obama’s birth certificate is legitimate now has confirmed he’s watching Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation into the president’s eligibility.
It was at a Feb. 25 town hall meeting that Rep. Clifford Stearns, R-Fla., told constituents, “All I can tell you is that the general consensus is that he has produced a birth certificate. The question is, is it legitimate?”
Now in a report in Roll Call, Stearns has doubled down on the issue, revealing that he is “looking at all the evidence” that has been uncovered by Arpaio.
| Posted 03/28/12 at 08:20 AM||Reply with quote #4 |
Florida ballot challenge -- update
Rev. Sam Sewell, project manager for the Florida Ballot Challenge says I have organized my message as one would organize a worship service.
Our overall strategy could be compared to a three stage rocket.
1. We have lift off! A nationally known attorney has announced that he has signed on a lead attorney in a case that has already been filed here in Florida.
2. Stage two is another individual case filed in Pasco County by a fellow *Mensan using a creative legal theory that has been overlooked until now.
3. Stage three carries the payload of empowering citizen activists to file many more cases by using our “Do it Yourself” ballot challenge kit.
These stages will be funded and logistically supported by Constitution Action Fund and Obama Ballot Challenge on the national level and Florida Ballot Challenge at the state level.
Here are the details of our mission:
STAGE ONE -- Florida Ballot Challenge has one case already filed. On February 17th a registered Democrat, Mike Voeltz, filed a complaint challenging Barack Obama’s intention to have his name on the ballot in the state of Florida for the 2012 presidential election. That complaint is being amended and expanded by our attorney.
STAGE TWO -- Another complaint using a different legal theory has been completed and has been filed in Pasco County. We emphasize that this case is a whole new strategy from the cases that have been getting dismissed on procedural grounds for the past four years. Instead of election code challenges, it makes constitutional rights challenges. Also, particularly in Florida, there’s a constitutional provision that clearly gives us standing. This complaint was created by a fellow Mensan who is a paralegal, and me. Jerry Collette is well known for his creative legal strategies. Jerry is amazingly inventive when it comes to novel applications of legal theory. His business website is Gifted Legal Mind for those who are interested in knowing about Jerry.
STAGE THREE -- Jerry and I have also created a way for ordinary citizens to file complaints by using our “Do it Yourself Ballot Challenge Kit.” Using this kit allows a plaintiff or a group of plaintiffs to file ballot challenges in each of the twenty judicial districts in Florida, as well as in courts in other states. Jerry and I will be available to coach plaintiffs if they need clarification on how to fill out the forms and follow judicial procedures.
All we need is one honest judge strategy! The filing strategy of the Do It Yourself Ballot Challenge Kit is to have individuals file their own cases, in their own counties, all over the country. The purpose of filing so many cases all over the country is to find at least one honest judge willing to allow the evidence on these important issues to be brought forth publicly. Eventually, we will find at least one such honest judge who will let the case proceed on the merits.
Each of these complaints will cost about six hundred dollars for filing fees and serving the papers at the White House. Interested plaintiffs who cannot afford six hundred dollars are encouraged to cooperate with other plaintiffs so they can share the cost. For instance, members of a Tea Party Group could each be listed as plaintiffs, and the costs could be shared.
We have also created a nonprofit corporation ConstitutionalElections.org that can join as a plaintiff and, as necessary, provide a corporate shield for individual plaintiffs, as things develop. This could be especially helpful when we foresee victory in any particular court. Using this nonprofit corporation, we can ask the court to order Obama and the Democrats to pay our attorneys fees and, if we lose, only the corporation, not our individual plaintiffs, will have to pay the other side’s attorneys fees.
Here comes the sermon:
The Constitution of the United States has been under attack since it was ratified and signed. Here is a video that documents recent attempts to erode the constitution.
In modern times, our elected public servants have forgotten who they work for, and have become an elite, ruling class. We can no longer rely on elected officials to solve problems or care about the will of the people. Fortunately, all power in the United States comes from U. S. citizens, thus the first three words of the Constitution are “We the people.”
How the people exercise their power is through voting. Recently the election process has been corrupted to the point that the power of the people to control their government is dangerously diminished. The examples of these threats against the power of the people are many.
Ø Propaganda and falsehood from the media
Ø Campaign contribution fraud
Ø Campaign laws that disenfranchise the citizens and aid and abet corporations and political parties at the same time that they give an unfair advantage to incumbents
Ø Improper or non-existent vetting of candidates by political parties and legislative bodies
Ø Corrupt judges who support the ruling elite, rather than the rule of law
Our first action is to challenge any candidate’s name being placed on a ballot unless that person is constitutionally qualified for the office they seek. We emphasize that this is a constitutional issue, not a political issue. For instance, Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida and Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana may be rising stars in the Republican Party, but they are not natural born citizens and therefore ineligible to be candidates for President or Vice President. Likewise, Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. He holds the Office of President illegally, and is not qualified to be on the 2012 ballot. Since Gov. Jindal and Sen. Rubio are not on the ballot at this time our efforts are focused on Barack Obama.
Ø For a comprehensive report on the natural born citizen issue concerning Mr. Obama, go here.
Ø A concise summary of the issues that has been the leading article on my blog since it was first published on February 13th 2012 can be found here.
Ø A recent Naples Daily News article contains a brief explanation of our goals:
| Posted 04/23/12 at 08:36 AM||Reply with quote #5 |
Florida ballot challenge constitutional eligibility conference report
GeorgeM says Florida presents a potentially fertile ground for ballot challenges. Statutes support it (although Mike V. points out some astonishing contradictions), notwithstanding previous lies from the now-departed previous Secretary of State. Certain types of cases may be filed in any county. There are plenty of very Conservative counties, presenting a greater chance of finding a Conservative judge. Finally, Florida is a swing state with lots of electoral votes. A loss or disqualification there would probably cost the election and also gain enormous energy for the eligibility movement.
Sam Sewell became Florida Ballot Challenge Project Manager by virtue of his extensive knowledge/understanding of the issues, communication and leadership skills. Also, because no one else seemed to be anxious to do it and some of us drafted him, for all of the aforementioned reasons. He’s a Psychiatrist, not a lawyer, which may be an advantage. Finally, I’ll say it so he won’t: he never lets you forget that he is a MENSA member. Sam has written several excellent pieces on eligibility, both technical and designed to educate the general public. All appeared on his “Steady Drip” blog and some appeared in American Thinker, local media and other places, like here on Obamaballotchallenge.com.
I’m told that about 50 mostly very enthusiastic people showed up for the conference, including Republican officials, 912 group officers, lawyers, two plaintiffs, two more anonymous would-be plaintiffs, donors and potential donors to legal actions. Speakers were Sam Sewell, Mike Voeltz, Jerry Collette and Larry Klayman. They covered the Constitutional presidential eligibility issue, its importance, especially given the current usurpation, lies and fraud, far more serious than the only other ineligible President, Chester A. Arthur. Finally, they described what is being done about it and what should still be done. Mike and Jerry described their cases and potential opposition objections. Mike stated that Florida is claiming we have no case because no one ever claimed O is eligible. The fact that we are now challenging him and demand an answer is being ignored so far. Jerry has now received a motion to dismiss.
Here is an additional report by project manager Rev. Sam Sewell . . .
| Posted 04/23/12 at 08:58 AM||Reply with quote #6 |
I was thinking outside the box (dreaming). What if Obama requested exhumations of his alleged father and also Frank Davis and Malcolm X and associated DNA tests? Then there could be two chances thet he could produce a US citizen father. O tempora! O mores!
| Posted 04/23/12 at 09:46 AM||Reply with quote #7 |
And prove he is a real bastard instead of a self-made one? I don't think so.
| Posted 05/17/12 at 06:47 AM||Reply with quote #8 |
Democrat argues now is time to resolve eligibility
Bob Unruh is reporting that A Democrat who has filed a legal challenge to Barack Obama’s name on the 2012 election ballot for president in Florida says now is the time to resolve the controversy, because to wait would mean voters could be defrauded.
"The eligibility of defendant Obama must be dealt with now. Plaintiff Voeltz, and the rest of the electors in the state of Florida, must be assured that if they cast their votes for defendant Obama in the general election that their votes will not be in vain," explains a filing in the case brought by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch USA on behalf of Democrat Michael Voeltz, "a registered member of the Democrat Party, voter, and taxpayer in Broward County, who was an eligible elector for the Florida Primary of Jan. 31, 2012."
[ snip ]
The latest filing came in response to Obama’s demand to the court that the case be dismissed. Among other issues, his attorneys argued that the dispute was not ready for a resolution yet since there hasn’t been a Democratic primary in the state to select a candidate.
That argument came even though the Democrat Party nominated only Obama, and state rules say that when that happens, that name automatically is the nominee.
"In Florida the voter has more rights to contest elections than in most other states," Klayman told WND. "And we have a judge who is not afraid to make hard decisions; Judge Terry Lewis. In the Gore v. Bush case he ruled on occasion in favor of Bush even though he generally leans left. I am hopeful he will do the right thing and rule that the Florida Secretary of State must verify Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot for the Florida presidential election."
The issue just has too many unanswered questions to ignore, the filing explains.
"No physical, paper copy of defendant Obama’s birth certificate has been presented to establish his eligibility … Defendant Obama has electronically produced a copy of what he purports to be his ‘birth certificate.’ Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered."
The argument also cites Barack Obama Sr.’s birth in Kenya, making him a "British subject."
"The British Nationality Act of 1948, Part 2, Section 5, Clause 1, makes Defendant Obama, the son of a British subject, also a British subject at birth. At best, defendant Obama was born a dual citizen of Britain and the United States. These facts make clear that defendant Obama was not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the U.S. Constitution."
The fact that state officials have sworn an oath the "support, protect, and defend" the Florida and U.S. constitutions means the issue needs an answer, the brief argues, and that state officials are "duty bound to uphold the eligibility requirements."
Named as defendants are Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner and the state Elections Canvassing Commission.
The new case follows about a dozen others that already have been filed on similar grounds in other states. While most of the cases have been dismissed, some now are on appeal.
| Posted 05/25/12 at 06:44 AM||Reply with quote #9 |
Voeltz vs Obama filed in Florida
Florida - VOELTZ v Obama, et al. - Amended Complaint
GeorgeM says this is a promising case. Mike is a very knowledgeble and dedicated plaintiff. He has been intensively studying the eligibility issue and Florida law for years and is highly knowledgeable and motivated. He did this on his own initiative, with his own research. We persuaded him that it would be good to team up with an experienced counsel and paired him with one, Larry Klayman.
| Posted 05/31/12 at 09:26 PM||Reply with quote #10 |
|WND (Bob Unruh) is saying A hearing has been scheduled in a Florida court to allow attorneys representing the White House to support their claim that the term “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution means something other than the offspring of two American citizens.|
Judge Terry Lewis in Leon County has set a hearing for June 18 to consider arguments from both sides of a challenge to Obama’s name on the 2012 state election ballot.
| Posted 05/31/12 at 10:38 PM||Reply with quote #11 |
hope to hell that this Judge has some guts and courage and actually believes in our Consitution......
| Posted 06/02/12 at 06:04 AM||Reply with quote #12 |
Obama attorneys without defense in Florida eligibility case
Tim Brown is reporting that Terry Lewis in Leon County has set a hearing for June 18 to consider arguments from the attorneys for Barack Obama and Attorney’s representing Michael Voeltz, who filed the challenge to Obama’s name being on the state ballot.
Judge Lewis is famous for being the judge that was crucial in the 2000 election between Geroge W. Bush and then vice-president Al Gore.
Voeltz is represented by Attorney Larry Klayman’s law firm. Support for Klayman is coming from ConstitutionActionFund.org. What is most interesting in all of this is that this case is not being brought forth by Republicans, but a Democrat.
Klayman cited a U.S. Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett as the grounds for determining a "natural born citizen." The Constitution puts a restriction on the office of president of the United States that it puts on no other office and that is to make sure there are no divided loyalties to any other nation.
Klayman’s argument is one that has not been used in each of the previous cases in the states where Barack Obama’s eligibility has been questioned before a court.
In Minor v. Happersett, Virginia Minor was petitioning the court for the voting rights of women and eventually that was ruled unconstitutional at the time.
However, one thing was clear in the outcome. The Minor v. Happersett ruling defines "natrual born citizen" as the offspring of two U. S. citizens. Klayman is thus making his argument from the birth certificate that Barack Obama has put out which clearly shows that his father was not a U. S. citizen but was a citizen of Kenya.
To understand the citizenship argument from a legal precedent, the below chart from TheObamaFile.com makes understanding the legal terms used for "natural born citizen", "citizen by statute", and "native born citizen" easy to understand. It cites the relevant precedence for the use of these terms in the history of American jurisprudence.
Mr. Klayman said, "The framers were not stupid. They understood that a president with divided loyalties could present a security and other risks for our nation."
According to Klayman, "Obama’s Muslim heritage, which emanates from his Kenyan father (who had to be deported from the U.S.), frankly explains why he frequently sides with and takes actions to further the interests of Muslim nations against the United States; specifically his refusal to take forceful action against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its leaders over nuclear armament and human rights violations and atrocities."
Klayman told WND that the case is in the discovery stage in which attorneys are supposed to be able to request documents, evidence and testimony that would further refine and define the issues in dispute for the court.
"Obama’s briefs [said] it would be an undue burden and expense to have discovery," Klayman said.
Then the judge said he wanted Obama’s representatives to cite the "authority" on which they based their argument that it isn’t necessary to have two citizen parents to be a natural-born citizen.
So far Obama’s attorneys have been unable to cite a credible authority.
According to The Steady Drip the "bare essence of the case" is,
• 1 The sitting president’s birth certificate is fraudulent.
• 2 The sitting president is not a natural born citizen, and is therefore ineligible for the presidency, because his father was not a US citizen.
• 3 If the sitting president is formally ruled ineligible to be on the ballot in Florida, he will not be able to be elected as President of the United (50) States.
The article goes on to say, "Our high profile attorney, Larry Klayman, is the only one who has ever sued a sitting president and won."
So far Barack Obama’s attorneys have been unable to produce anything credible to demonstrate legally that he is eligible to be president.
Barack Obama is not the only defendant in the case. The Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner and the state Elections Canvassing Commission have also been named as defendants.
One thing that many people, including myself, are wondering is what will happen as far as laws signed and supreme court judges appointed along with a host of other things during Barack Obama’s occupying of the White House would be overturned. In a constitutional crisis of this magnitude, how will it all be handled? Second, we also have to wonder how exactly this would effect Barack Obama. Since it would most definitely fall under "high crimes and misdemeanors," would that entail impeachment proceedings and then since the Senate is controlled by Democrats, would they vote to impeach him?
Related: More Obama treason -- by Larry Klayman
| Posted 06/11/12 at 06:45 AM||Reply with quote #13 |
Florida court sets hearing on Obama ballot challenge for June 18, 2012
Larry Klayman says Judge Terry Lewis said "Natural Born Citizen" definition will be decided.
May 31, 2012, Tallahassee, FL – Activist attorney Larry Klayman announced today that Judge Terry Lewis of Leon County, FL has set a hearing on June 18th, 2012 at 9:00am to hear arguments from both sides about whether the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama can be determined in open court. Judge Lewis made crucial rulings in the famous Bush v. Gore case in 2000.
Florida's election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of such laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking. Plaintiff Michael Voeltz, a registered Democrat, challenged the eligibility of Obama because he was not born to two citizen parents and thus not a "natural born citizen” as required by Article II the U.S. Constitution.
During the hearing over discovery issues, which Mr. Klayman wants to take the week of June 18, Judge Lewis noted that Mr. Klayman's brief cited legal authority that a president, to be eligible, must have two (2) U.S. citizen parents, but Barack Obama and the other defendants cited no authority to the contrary. Mr. Klayman had cited the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Judge Lewis ordered further briefing on this issue prior to the hearing.
Klayman stressed that the eligibility is very important particularly with Barack Hussein Obama. He added: "The framers were not stupid. They understood that a president with divided loyalties could present a security and other risks for our nation. Obama's Muslim heritage, which emanates from his Kenyan father (who had to be deported from the U.S.), frankly explains why he frequently sides with and takes actions to further the interests of Muslim nations against the United States; specifically his refusal to take forceful action against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its leaders over nuclear armament and human rights violations and atrocities.”
In a CNN interview yesterday Donald Trump stated "Obama hates this subject" meaning the eligibility issue. This is because he appears not to be a legitimate American president, but instead an imposter who has fooled many. Unfortunately, the American people are the victims. It's time that Obama, despite his protestations in proving his eligibility, either put up or shut up by coming forward with real proof, not doctored, computer-generated "proof” that he is eligible. The courts should finally require this real proof as to whether he is eligible for office,” Klayman added.
The case is entitled Voeltz v. Obama, et. al. (No. 2012 CA 467) and is being heard in the Circuit Court Of The Second Judicial Circuit In And For Leon County, Florida. To request an interview please contact Adrienne Mazzone at (561) 750-9800.
| Posted 06/13/12 at 06:51 AM||Reply with quote #14 |
Sheriff Joe challenges eligibility in Florida
Art Moore is reporting that Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse lead investigator have submitted sworn affidavits in a Florida case challenging President Obama’s eligibility for the election ballot of the crucial swing-state that decided the 2000 presidential election.
Significantly, Judge Terry Lewis in Leon County – known for his rulings in the Bush v. Gore case at the center of the 2000 contested election – has confronted the White House for failing to support its claim that the term “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution means something other than the offspring of two American citizens
Lewis has scheduled a hearing for Monday at 9 a.m. at the Leon County Courthouse in Tallahassee to hear the Obama team’s motion to dismiss the case and determine whether it should go forward with discovery.
Affidavits from Arpaio, Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo and WND author and senior reporter Jerome Corsi have been filed ahead of the hearing. The briefs support the complaint’s charge that there is evidence Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the White House and, therefore, original documentation is needed to determine whether he should be on the ballot.
Attorney Larry Klayman, founder of the Washington, D.C., watchdogs Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is representing a registered member of the Democratic Party, Michael Voeltz, who has filed the complaint as a Florida voter. Klayman’s work is supported by the non-profit ConstitutionActionFund.org.
Klayman told WND today that unlike other Obama eligibility cases, this case “likely will go the distance” because of the strength of Florida law, which provides voters with the right to challenge a candidate’s eligibility.
“The judge must make a decision based on eligibility,” Klayman explained. “He can’t sidestep it as judges in other states have attempted to do.”
Florida “is our best hope to get rulings on the merits.”
Klayman said he’s confident his client “has an absolute right to challenge Obama’s eligibility on the Florida ballot.”
“As a Floridian,” he added, “I’m proud that the court has the legal means to make a determination on Obama’s eligibility and pray that this court will follow the law.”
Also at issue in the case is whether it is the duty of Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner and the state Elections Canvassing Commission – named as defendants – to ensure that all candidates on the state’s ballot are eligible.
In a hearing May 31, Lewis noted that while Klayman’s brief cited a U.S. Supreme Court’s decision defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, the White House’s arguments provided no citations.
As WND reported, the Florida eligibility case points out that Obama posted on the Internet an electronic image of a purported birth certificate alleging he was born in Hawaii to an American citizen mother and a Kenyan father. The complaint notes that Arpaio’s investigation found probable cause that the document is a forgery. But it argues that even if Obama was born in the U.S., he is not a natural-born citizen, because his father was a foreign citizen.Continue reading here . . .
Arpaio recounts in his affidavit how, in response to the request of Maricopa County residents, he commissioned a team “of former police officers and attorneys who have worked tirelessly since last October, looking into this controversy.”
“Upon close examination of the evidence,” Arpaio states, “it is my belief that forgery and fraud was likely committed in key identity documents including President Obama’s long-form birth certificate, his Selective Service Registration card, and his Social Security number.”
Related: Florida ballot challenge hearing to have Arpaio Posse affidavit submitted
| Posted 06/15/12 at 08:16 AM||Reply with quote #17 |
Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been subpoenaed to testify at Florida ballot challenge hearing
| Posted 06/16/12 at 08:24 AM||Reply with quote #18 |
Reminder about Monday's hearingYou will be emailed instructions on how to view the live event two hours before it starts.
WND-TV will provide exclusive, free live-stream video coverage of an evidentiary hearing to a 2012 ballot challenge for Barack Obama based on his constitutional eligibility Monday, June 18, at 9 a.m. Eastern.
Sign up here . . .
If you have comments on the hearing, please post them to this thread.
| Posted 06/18/12 at 06:18 AM||Reply with quote #19 |
Florida judge hearing Obama ballot challenge this AM
The AP is reporting that a judge is holding a hearing on a ballot challenge alleging Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen."
The plaintiff represented by conservative legal activist Larry Klayman questions Obama's birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii. It also argues that even if Obama was born in the United States he still is not a natural citizen because his father was a foreign national.
Lawyers for Barack Obama and the Florida Department of State are asking Circuit Judge Terry Lewis to dismiss the case Monday.
They say the suit challenging Obama's placement on the 2012 Florida ballot as the Democratic presidential nominee fails to state a cause of action because he hasn't yet been nominated.
The suit describes plaintiff Michael Voeltz, as being a registered Democrat.
| Posted 06/18/12 at 09:17 AM||Reply with quote #20 |
|WorldNetDaily boots it|
It looks like WND has dropped the ball on its live feed of this morning's hearing.
They never emailed viewing instructions two hours before the hearing as promised on their "registration" page, and there is no live feed that I can find on their website.
| Posted 06/18/12 at 09:18 AM||Reply with quote #21 |
|I am signed up and logged in to wnd's live site but it says they are off the air. Has anyone heard anything?|
| Posted 06/18/12 at 11:25 AM||Reply with quote #22 |
|It worked for me but for what i could tell obama lawyer were saying fl cant do nothing yet because obama is not the candidate until Sept that is all they talk about when the fl judge can do something about obama |
this is a replay hope it works it is up now at 11.15 e.t
| Posted 06/18/12 at 02:51 PM||Reply with quote #23 |
|The judge has asked each side to prepare an order with the outcome they desire and submit to him by "Monday" (June 25). Judge will use the orders submitted by the attorneys to craft his order. Judge said he would address this quickly.|
So we continue to wait.
Now, I am not a lawyer, and do not know FL laws, but to me (unfortunately), it sounded as if Obama's attorneys had some really good points to allow this judge to kick the can down the road.
| Posted 06/19/12 at 06:48 AM||Reply with quote #24 |
Obama attorneys argue he's not Democrat nominee
Attorneys arguing on behalf of Barack Obama’s re-election plans today urged a Florida judge to decide that Obama is not yet the Democratic nominee for president and ignore evidence challenging his eligibility.
Attorney Larry Klayman filed the challenge to Obama’s eligibility for the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself in the complaint as "a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter, and taxpayer in Broward County."
Attorneys representing Obama at the 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.
Herron argued the Florida process affirms only that Obama is the choice in the state’s presidential preference primary but is not necessarily the party’s nominee for president.
"This language clearly indicates the winner of the president preference primary, not the nominee of the party," he said.There's more here . . .
But the judge noted that the party wrote to Florida’s secretary of state a letter indicating Obama’s name was the only one submitted, and he thought the state’s electors were bound to vote for him.
"Wasn’t there a letter [that said] this is the only candidate whose name will appear?" Lewis asked.
Obama’s attorneys said such a decision "has not been triggered yet."
Klayman argued that according to state law, when only one name is submitted, that person automatically becomes the nominee, even if the national Democratic Party nominating convention has not been held.
Again, Obama's lawyers present some of the looniest objections imaginable -- "there has been no election to office," so you have to dismiss, judge.
| Posted 06/19/12 at 07:20 AM||Reply with quote #25 |
|Video of the hearing|
Video streaming by Ustream