Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Attorney asks judge to have Obama vetted
Decision expected soon in constitutional fight over ballot eligibility
World Net Daily

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Just make sure Barack Obama meets the requirements of the Constitution to be president.

That’s essentially what a lawsuit pending before a Florida judge is seeking, according to attorney Larry Klayman, who has proposed to Judge Terry Lewis an order the judge could adopt, excerpt, or reject.

Lewis, who is best known for presiding over the 2000 Bush v. Gore election dispute, is credited with making crucial rulings in that case.

Klayman filed the current 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.”

A video of the most recent hearing in the case, when Obama’s attorneys argued he’s not the Democratic nominee for president yet, is available online.

In a proposed memorandum opinion and order Klayman has just submitted to the judge, he asks for a determination that Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner “has an affirmative duty to determine the eligibility of defendant Obama before his name is placed on the Florida primary or general election ballots, or before the presidential electors for the state of Florida cast their votes after the 2012 general election should he ‘win’ the Florida presidential election.”

Klayman suggests that the court issue “preliminary and permanent injunctions
preventing the certification, by the Florida Election Canvassing Commission, of defendant Obama as Democratic Party nominee for the 2012 presidential primary and Florida general elections, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the placement of defendant Obama’s name on the 2012 Florida presidential primary and general election ballots and with regard to the presidential electors voting for defendant Obama should he ‘win’ the Florida general election for the office of the president of the United States.”

The court should “issue a writ of mandamus requiring that the Florida Secretary of State adhere to the Florida and U.S. Constitutions and verify the eligibility of defendant Obama for the office of the president of the United States, or rule that the failure to do so is an abuse of discretion, arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law,” the proposal recommends.

CONTINUED HERE: http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/attorney-asks-judge-to-have-obama-vetted

WATCH THE COMPLETE SHERIFF JOE PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT OBAMA'S FORGED IDENTITY DOCUMENTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/joe.html 

SHERIFF JOE TEA-PARTY PRESENTATION VIDEO HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/arizonavideo.html

-ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

New Ad - AZ Sheriff Arpaio - Obama Birth Cert & Draft Reg Card Are Forged! Wash Times Natl Wkly - 12 Ma...

19 comments:

  1. The Other Eric Holder Scandal

    Posted by Ryan Mauro On June - 26 - 2012



    U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is in the spotlight after the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to hold him in contempt because he is refusing to provide documents related to the Fast and the Furious scandal. But there’s another scandal you should know about. For over one year, he has refused to hand over documents about the Muslim Brotherhood network in the U.S.

    Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), vice chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, confronted Holder about the matter on Thursday, June 21. Rep. Gohmert wants Congress to have access to documents from the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history. Five Foundation officials were found guilty of funding Hamas and evidence introduced by the federal government shows it was set up by the Muslim Brotherhood’s secret “Palestine Committee” in the U.S.

    Three prominent Muslim-American organizations were labeled by the federal government as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the trial-the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). The documents requested by Rep. Gohmert for the past year were provided to the Holy Land Foundation’s defense team, yet are being denied to Congress.

    “They are terrorists, and we wanted the documents you gave to the terrorists. We are a year later, and we still don’t have them,” complained Rep. Gohmert. Holder replied that he’d only provide what is already available publicly.

    Rep. Gohmert is one of five members of Congress requesting investigations into the influence of Muslim Brotherhood-tied organizations and individuals in the U.S. government. As I reviewed here, this influence is far-reaching. It is very possible that the documents from the Holy Land trial would be embarrassing to many government officials, not to mention businesses and interfaith groups that have embraced Brotherhood entities. At the very least, they could provide further justification for the labeling of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT as “unindicted co-conspirators.”

    ReplyDelete
  2. If what World Net Daily reported as being Mr. Klayman's words as submitted in his proposed order are, in fact, these:

    "...as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the placement of defendant Obama’s name on the 2012 Florida presidential primary and general election ballots...."

    Please know the Florida Presidential Primary is OVER. It was held Tuesday January 31, 2012.

    Seems, Birther Folk, you got yourself another winner of an attorney here in Mr. Klayman. I am certain Judge Lewis, or his Legal Assistant(s), will notice Attorney Klayman's fine legal scholarship when reviewing the proposed order.

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that asking the judge to require the SOS to determine eligibility (of any candidate) contradicts prior FL Supreme Court rulings that the SOS cannot statutorily make eligibility decisions. Thus if a candidate follows the rules the court directs they go on the ballot and that ONLY the courts can review eligibility issues if they are challenged. I believe Klayman should have asked the judge to find Obama ineligible PERIOD. However I doubt this matters as Lewis will rule how and when he so desires. TBD.
    Born912

    ReplyDelete
  4. Also... If Judge Lewis was going to dismiss the case he would have done it already. (I'm hoping for change here). Perhaps he is delaying to avoid the hullabaloo that would come if he ruled Obama ineligible at the same time the US Supremes are killing ObamsterCare and going on vacation. Lewis might wait till Monday!
    Born912

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Sancho Panza

    You're obviously not a lawyer, and have no understanding of how the law works.

    Yes, the 2012 Presidential primary has already occurred. But the court can still place an injunction against Obama being on the ballot. If such an injunction is put in place, then Obama was never legally on the ballot, and the results must be throw out.

    It legally MUST be done this way. You can not say that Obama was legally on the Presidential primary ballot, but is not legally eligible to be on the Presidential general ballot.

    ReplyDelete
  6. yes mashman, my words exactly...but wait
    florida did not have obama as a nominee....or was it candidate>
    ?
    what does is mean?
    what is marriage?

    when the freaks are in charge, everything is topsy turvy, up is down, right is wrong, down is up

    typical libtard talk, twist and spin BS.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This decision is already bought and paid for by Obama for America.

    See you on Friday, losers!

    Calamity Jane.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Mashman

    Actually I do understand and you are as wrong as he was sloppy.

    If Mr. Klayman wanted the effect -- the effect of vacating the results of the primary -- that should be in the proposed order. As it stands his language means nothing as the event is past and the results have been certified.

    Of course, if he is (and I do not know nor am I saying he is) getting paid to do this and looking to stretch the action out(thereby increasing billable hours) then using that language, if it is accepted by the Judge, could form the basis for a challenge to the results of the primary in a separate filing. Though why he would do that (and I do not think he would) is a puzzle as the effect of the results of the primary was/is only the allocation of delegates to the Party Convention and after that is concluded the results are just numbers in a file of interest to some future historian.

    BTW Leading with "You're obviously not a lawyer, and have no understanding of how the law works," makes it "obvious" you jump to unsupported conclusions.

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Mashman

    Hey pot, that's kettle. Speaking of not knowing how the law works - you do realize there wasn't actually an election for the Democrats? No ballots. No votes.

    So an injunction to prevent him from being on the Primary ballot wouldn't mean anything, since his name wasn't on a primary ballot in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  10. *Bought and paid for* Calamity you must be soooooooooo proud of your party! Lie, cheat, spin, twist and hang out to dry the true Patriots that love this Country the way it was. The way it was before Liberal, Socialist, Commie, PUNKS took it over. Yep, any way to get to a destination is great as long as you *win*.
    Personally, I see it as a great big loss. and consequently that makes all you Marxist loving folks....... LOSER>

    ReplyDelete
  11. Of course, Barry is ineligible and everybody who isn't sitting on their brains (e.g. the OBOTS here) knows it. That being said there is simply no way this will ever be decided against Barry. Of course he's being protected, but at this stage it's no longer about him.

    Nobody except Mario Apuzzo is (or has) asked the right question. The Constitution makes clear that there is both 'citizen' and 'natural born citizen' - and defines 'citizen' in Article XIV. So, clearly the founders said there is a difference. But, according to the dickhead OBOTS, the dickhead media and the dickheads that protect Barry - there is no difference - citizen = NBC. So the right question is: What is the difference in the Constitution? The Constitution distinguishes between the two in the requirements for POTUS and Congress. So what's the difference? If there is no difference - as you OBOT assholes would have everyone believe, then the founders did what? Make a mistake? If they did, that would be the only one.

    This question cannot be answered by the Barry sycophants because there can only be one answer - the one they don't want to hear. But, we aren't ever going to go there. Barry has successfully usurped the office of POTUS and the political establishment has dismissed and usurped the Constitution forever. Mitt Romney may well choose Marco Rubio for VPOTUS. Marco is also ineligible. But, nobody in the media or the political establishment is breathing a word about that. This demonstrates the status of the Constitution both in fact as it applies to our actions, and also in our political discourse. If Romney picks Rubio you can forget it now, and forever.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sancho Panza said...[Reply]
    If what World Net Daily reported as being Mr. Klayman's words as submitted in his proposed order are, in fact, these:

    "...as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the placement of defendant Obama’s name on the 2012 Florida presidential primary and general election ballots...."

    Please know the Florida Presidential Primary is OVER. It was held Tuesday January 31, 2012.

    _____________________________________________

    Klayman acknowledged that fact obviously....that Obama's therefore the nominee. THAT'S what Obama's defenders are arguing that he's not the nominee before nominated officially at the convention. But there are also provisions in the law: re: the admittance that Zero is the ONLY one put forward...there is no other. Pay attention next time....through the fog of your limited understanding and prejudice.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Anonymous

    "This decision is already bought and paid for by Obama for America."

    What? Paid for with gravy boats?

    ReplyDelete
  14. What's the end game for all of this madness. I ask myself every day, "What will be the weight that tips the scale".

    ReplyDelete
  15. It was Al Gore in 2000 who initiated lawsuits in Florida because he realised that if he could get the vote count changed by mere hundreds, he would win Florida and the Presidency. The Florida Supreme Court floundered around but appeared to be trying to help Gore. It was the Supremes of the USA that finally put an end to the circus. I hereby petition my government to put the question before the Supremes again - is Barack a natural born citizen? Sancho Panza is counsel for Barack.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Kanbun: " and defines 'citizen' in Article XIV"

    There is no "Article XIV" in the Constitution. If you are trying to protect it, it would be apposite to first know what it actually says.

    If you mean the 14th Amendment, that is not the same as "Article XIV".

    Especially since the 14th was enacted many years after the Constitution, so it's kinda hard to claim the Founders (!) used it to define "citizen".

    " according to the dickhead OBOTS, the dickhead media and the dickheads that protect Barry - there is no difference - citizen = NBC"

    No, they claim that NBC is the same a native born citizen.

    ReplyDelete
  17. > But there are also provisions in the law: re: the admittance that Zero is the ONLY one put forward...there is no other.

    Then why kan't Klayman point to any such "provision"?

    I just find it funny that some people want to claim, at the same time, that "O" isn't "the President" (despite winning the election and being sworn in) and simultaneously is "the candidate" (despite the candidate not having been chosen yet).

    I think if we want to make a legal argument, we need at least to be consistent about it.

    You cannot claim "A is B" if it suits you and at the same time "A is not B".

    The likes of Klayman, Orly and Van Irion obviously have a problem with that. If this were a trial, the defendant's lawyer would rip them to shreds about this.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It only takes an hour to read Obamster's Motion to Dismiss sample order to the court and past it into an order and sign it. That was Monday. So what is taking Judge Lewis so long??
    Either he wants to tack a gazillion dollar penalty on Klayman for a frivolous suit OR he wants to say something other than what either party gave him to work with. I think the latter is true and that Obama is not going to like it! I've said all alone it only takes one honest judge to set the course of action toward the truth (whatever the truth may be, it is not what we have been told).
    Born912

    ReplyDelete

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.