Posted on 09/22/2013 1:06:51 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Next Friday, at or before 11:30 a.m. CST, the decision on oral argument in the Barack Obama eligibility case now under deliberation in the Alabama Supreme Court could come down. You can call Clerk Julia Weller’s office at # 334-229-0700, but you must ask for this case or you will not receive an answer. Ask for status results in the “Hugh McInnish, Virgil Goode v. Beth Chapman, Secretary of State.” Every Friday morning before noon Clerk Weller receives her Friday document release in cases in front of the nine member Alabama Supreme Court. Additionally, you could also call new Alabama Secretary of State Jim Bennett at 1-800-274-8683 or # 334-242-7200. They may have something for you.
This case is being brought by high ranking, Alabama Republicans Hugh McInnish and Virgil Goode with the lead appellant L. Dean Johnson asking the court to determine if then Secretary of State Beth Chapman failed to properly verify that all candidates on the 2012 election ballots in Alabama were...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
How about that. The Florida Supreme Court resorts to legal standing to deny the appeal.
There are no “problems.” A court ruling stands unless and until it is overturned by a higher court ruling or is rendered moot by legislation.
Just today the Florida Supreme Court refused to grant a Writ of Mandamus in a Florida eligibility challenge to Obama’s status under Article II, Section 1.
The original trial court had ruled: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. 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.”— Voeltz v. Obama, Judge Terry P. Lewis, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge, June 29, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99025994/FL-2012-06-29-Voeltz-v-Obama-order-dismissing-amended-complaint
And then in Voeltz v. Obama (request for reconsideration), Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge ruled “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV
The Florida Supreme Court denied a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in Voeltz v. Obama. They did not rule on Article Three Standing.
“Obama’s mother wrote “indefinitely” not “permanently”. And we know from her passport records that she continued to renew her US passport continuously throughout her life.”
Obama’s mother returned to the US on an expired passport in 1971. An expired passport and failure to notify the State Depart of a return date are expatriating acts which may result in the SoS issuing a CLN. The issuance of a CLN is discretionary. Rescinding a CLN after issuance is discretionary, as well.
Obama could have rescinded his CLN up to 6 months past his 18th birthday because he was a minor when it was issued, but he made a choice not to do that. He marketed himself as a foreign born person raised in Hawaii and Indonesia until it was no longer convenient. SCOTUS has opined a naturalized U.S. citizen is ineligible for POTUS. Obama chose to recapture in U.S. Citizenship in 1983 by completing the naturalization process. Proof of his naturalization on file with DHS. Contrary to popular belief, the naturalization papers of a U.S. citizen are subject to the Privacy Act and unobtainable without their permission or a Court order.
“An expired passport and failure to notify the State Depart of a return date are expatriating acts”
Link to the law? Frankly, I think you made that up.
Obama’s mother returned in October, 1971, she renewed again in January, 1972. Since she is deceased, her immigration records are available for public viewing. So show us her CLN. It should be in her file.
“Obama could have rescinded his CLN up to 6 months past his 18th birthday because he was a minor when it was issued, but he made a choice not to do that.”
Any proof of this? Speculation doesn’t count as proof.
“He marketed himself as a foreign born person raised in Hawaii and Indonesia until it was no longer convenient.”
Not according to the 1990 New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune which all interviewed him and in which he said he was born in Hawaii.
There is also his 1999 Illinois Senate webpage that lists him as born in Hawaii. In fact, the only document from the 1990s that mentions Kenya is the literary agent’s bio, which the agency says was their screw up.
Because petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to the relief requested, he is not entitled to mandamus relief.
That is not a ruling on standing.
The issue before the Florida Supreme Court was should the plaintiffs be granted a Writ of Mandamus to compel the lower Florida Appeals Court to reconsider the plaintiffs’ claim that Obama is ineligible due to his not being a natural born citizen.
The Supreme Court denied the Writ of Mandamus on the grounds that the plaintiffs were not legally entitled to the Writ.
The Supreme Court did not deny the Writ of Mandamus because the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit.
Expatriation is a founding principle of this country and a function of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. The Executive Branch, alone, is the final authority on expatriation. Courts issue opinions on expatriation, but the Executive Branch makes the final decision, regardless of the opinion of the Court.
CLNs may be issued for expatriating acts, such as not informing the State Department of a return date and allowing your U.S. Passport to expire, but it is discretionary. Congress in only authorized by the Constitution to establish a uniform rule of immigration. CLNs, once issued, may be withdrawn by order of the Executive Branch.
Obviously, Stanley Ann was issued a passport after her return to the U.S. in 1971. If a CLN was issued to her, it was withdrawn. If the CLN was withdrawn by the Executive Branch, DHS won’t have a copy of it. CLNs are proprietary and not subject to FOIA due to Exemption 6.
So, you can focus on Obama’s birth certificate or his CLN and you won’t get anywhere. If you can get a Court order to release his Certificate of Naturalization, then you’ll have proof he’s not eligible. Apparently, the only way to get a Court order for his Certificate of naturalization is to claim you are immune from an adverse action by the U.S. Attorney or U.S. Tax Court because Obama is a usurper. Individuals charged with a Federal Crime or subject to an adverse action due to a law signed by a usurper are subject to objection. After an objection, Obama must declare you exempt from the law or prove he is not a usurper.
“The Executive Branch, alone, is the final authority on expatriation.”
That’s absolute nonsense. The laws on US citizenship and how one loses it are derived from Congress. From the first attempt in 1797 for Congress to pass an expatriation law to the Expatriation of Act of 1868 through the nationality and immigration acts of today, Congress determines how and when someone can give up their US Citizenship. All the Executive Branch can do is follow the laws enacted by Congress.
“the Executive Branch makes the final decision, regardless of the opinion of the Court.”
Are you on drugs? The Courts can overturn any decision made by the Executive Branch.
“Obviously, Stanley Ann was issued a passport after her return to the U.S. in 1971. If a CLN was issued to her, it was withdrawn.”
She returned to Hawaii on October 21, 1971 and got a renewed passport by January 14, 1971. You can speculate, guess, make up little storylines all you want but there is no logical scenario that has Stanley Ann Soetoro giving up Obama’s US Citizenship while maintaining her own US citizenship. It’s ludicrous.
“If you can get a Court order to release his Certificate of Naturalization, then you’ll have proof he’s not eligible.”
There is not a single, solitary shred of evidence that such a document exists. Your delusions or whatever your fanciful stories are, do not constitute evidence.
The Expatriation Act of 1868 concerns the rights of citizens; specifically the right of a citizen to renounce their citizenship. An oath of renunciation is a request to be issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN). The issuance of a CLN is discretionary.
Only the Executive Branch can issue a CLN. Even after an Oath of Renunciation is issued, the President may refuse to issue a CLN. Congress does not have Constitutional Authority to issue a CLN or force the President to issue a CLN. Congress does have the authority to pass legislation concerning the rights of a citizen to demand a CLN from the President. The Courts do not have authority to issue a CLN or order the President to issue a CLN. The Courts have authority to issue an opinion on whether or not a CLN should be issued or withdrawn. The final decision is with the President.
Failing to notify the State Department of a return date and not renewing a passport while residing outside of the U.S. are expatriating acts. A CLN could be issued, but it’s not a requirement. If issued, a CLN could be withdrawn without an intervention from Congress or the Courts. It’s up to the President. The SoS speaks for the President on this matter.
“Failing to notify the State Department of a return date and not renewing a passport while residing outside of the U.S. are expatriating acts.”
A situation that may have occurred with Stanley Ann but did not occur with Obama Jr. He returned to the Honolulu in June/July, 1971 while his US passport was still valid. Of course, his mom might have renewed his passport in the spring of 1961 in anticipation of his impending return.
I wonder if this has anything to do with McInnish v Chapman, case 1120465, Alabama Supreme court? or just off to pastures new.
http://www.wset.com/story/22734500/gov-bentley-comments-on-beth-chapmans-resignation
the new SOS for Alabama:-
"Standing to sue" is defined as the one who has the right to relief in court. What this means is that the person who is suing the other person in court has a claim against that other person. A simple example would be where one person might be injured as a result of an automobile accident, but another person attempts to sue for those injuries. This other person clearly lacks standing to sue because he or she has no right to that relief in court.
link to definition
This court said the plaintiffs didn't clearly prove a legal right to relief, which is the same as not proving they have standing. Why is it so hard for you to admit this??
Like the Fogblowers, he wants a birfer smackdown. FOAD, etc.
I think you may have forgotten or did not know that the Voeltz v. Obama lawsuits are ballot challenges. The only standing issues in ballot challenges are where state law requires being a member of a particular political party in order to challenge a primary election candidate. In Florida, Mr. Voeltz had standing to challenge Obama’s eligibility but all three challenges were dismissed due to rulings that Obama was indeed eligible.
If you can find any reference to standing in any of the orders issued by the lower courts, please post it. And I’m sure you know that an appellate court like a state Supreme Court only deals with issues of law raised by the case that is on appeal. So no standing issue exists.
The original jurisdiction lawsuit was adjudicated (not dismissed for lack of standing) in Leon County Circuit Court. It was then adjudicated for reconsideration by a different judge. It was then re-filed as a different lawsuit and adjudicated by a third judge.
This latest appeal was an attempt to get the Florida Supreme Court to compel the lower court to reconsider the original lawsuit.
In the three previous attempts, the judges ruled that Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen.
Voeltz v. Obama (Original Ruling), Judge Terry P. Lewis, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘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.”—June 29, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99025994/FL-2012-06-29-Voeltz-v-Obama-order-dismissing-amended-complaint
Voeltz v Obama (Reconsideration), Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV
Voeltz v. Obama (3rd attempt): Judge Kevin J. Carroll, Leon County Circuit Judge—”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. As this matter has come before the Court at this time of year it seems only appropriate to paraphrase the ruling rendered by the fictional Judge Harry X. Harper from New York in open court in the classic holiday film “Miracle On 34th Street.” Since the United States Government declares this man to be President, this Court will not dispute it. Case dismissed.”
December 21, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/117659188
I didn't forget anything. I responded to what the denial said verbatim and I gave an explicit definition that backed up my point. Now you're trying to baffle you're way out of an obviously losing argument with a bunch of irrelevant commentary and quotations. This is a typical fogger tactic, but no one is falling for it.
When a lawsuit is dismissed on grounds of lack of standing, the word “standing” appears in the dismissal.
None of the three lower courts dismissed Voeltz v. Obama on grounds of standing. Therefore there is no possible way that an appeal could be heard by the Florida Supreme Court to rule on standing when that was not an issue in original jurisdiction courts.
The Supreme Court rejected Voeltz’ request for a Writ of Mandamus on the grounds that he was not legally entitled to such relief.
I don’t know what could be clearer:
“Because petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to the relief requested, he is not entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby denied. See Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000).”
What that means in standard English is that Voeltz failed to convince the Florida Supreme Court that he was legally entitled to receive a Writ of Mandamus.
Standing was not the issue. Voeltz simply failed to make a convincing argument that a Writ of Mandamus to compel a rehearing in the lower court was warranted.
“None of the three lower courts dismissed Voeltz v. Obama on grounds of standing.”
I think the opinion of Judge Lewis was based on both standing and the NBC issue. As the case was filed after the Presidential Primary but before the DNC Convention, Judge Lewis said that at that time Obama was not the parties nominee and so Voeltz didn’t have the standing of a Florida voter.
As I read Judge Lewis’ Order for Dismissal, the grounds were: (1) Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted; (2) a court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus against itself and (3) Judge Lewis disagreed with Plaintiff Voeltz’ assertion that two U.S. citizen parents are required in order to be considered to a natural born citizen.
Judge Lewis did mention standing briefly but only as a hypothetical should the plaintiff file a declaratory judgement claim.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99025994/FL-2012-06-29-Voeltz-v-Obama-order-dismissing-amended-complaint
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.