Posted on 07/08/2012 2:45:27 PM PDT by IbJensen
A Circuit Court has decided that Florida election law applies to everyone but Barack Hussein Obama. In response to a suit brought by Florida resident and Democrat Party member Michael Voeltz challenging Obama’s eligibility to the Florida ballot, Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis ruled that Florida election law “…is not applicable to the nomination of a candidate for Office of President of the United States.” This means that the Florida Statute which says, “the… nomination of any person to office…may be contested in the circuit court…by any elector or any taxpayer…” is null and void when it comes to Mr. Obama’s nomination to the presidency.
“If the plaintiff was challenging the candidate’s eligibility for any other office, his analysis would be correct and [the law] would apply,” said Lewis of Voeltz’s suit. However, according to the Judge, “…Political parties determine their [presidential] nominee at a national convention pursuant to rules that the parties draft and approve…” In short, Mr. Voeltz’s contest of Barack Obama’s eligibility will NEVER be permitted in a Florida court; for voters do not nominate the president, political parties do in balloon filled convention halls! With this ruling, Lewis has spared Barack Obama the necessity of having to prove his eligibility for office as no Florida voter will have the right to question it, the language of the state’s election law notwithstanding!
Lewis also passed judgment on the natural born citizen challenge of plaintiff Voeltz, ruling that as Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States, he is also a NATURAL BORN citizen and therefore meets that constitutional requirement. “The judge equated being a ‘citizen’ with a ‘natural born citizen’ and cited no authority to conclude the two terms are the same,” exclaimed a stunned Larry Klayman, the attorney who handled the suit for Mr. Voeltz.
Perhaps the most remarkable of Lewis’ contentions was his statement that “it is the plaintiff’s burden…to allege and prove that a candidate is not eligible.” For the judge did not allow Klayman the right of discovery–the right to subpoena Obama for proof of his eligibility! “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.”
Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch, went on to say “The decision issued today by Judge Terry Lewis was poorly reasoned and written.” “It goes against prior Florida Supreme Court precedent in particular, thus making our chances on appeal great.”
The bias and lack of honor displayed during the past year by the American legal system represents not only a threat to the Constitution, but to the continued existence of the Republic. When citizens mistrust the integrity of the court, they lose faith in their right to expect and receive justice. Klayman said “…if the Florida courts ultimately decide to obey their own election law, we will prevail in the end.”
Unfortunately, ignoring both the law and the Constitution has become standard fare for the nation’s judges. Mr. Klayman may need a miracle if he expects the law to be fairly applied in his client’s appeal.
How have so many in this country in positions of power decided to turn a blind eye to Obama’s questionability? It’s as if they just don’t think the law appllies. It’s as if Obama was to murder a 17 year old white kid, it would be seen as totally acceptable under the circumstances. If Obama didn’t pay his taxes, it would be okay because Michelle was down for the struggle. If Obama stole a car and crashed it while smoking various substances and completely out of his mind, and the cops said the pressures of the office could mitigate this all would not only be good, but would not even be reported in the media. If Fox mentioned it, they would be dismissed as liars.
The judge was appointed to the bench by a Democrat governor. He must be beholden to the parry elite.
The “fix” is in ..... all the way up to SCOTUS.
I think there may be some very serious cases of judicial intimidation going on! Surely there is one honest judge in this Country who cannot be bought or intimidated?
Tell that to Al Gore.
I think a lot of these “judges” are afraid that they might be labeled as being “rasis” if they don’t side with Barry. Everybody Loves Barry. Especially the so called “courts”. Who needs the U.S. Constitution when they’ve got Barry?
How ironic: this is the same judge that decided Gore v. Bush in 2000.
I guess blind justice is above his pay grade.
I like absentee ballots in FL so I can google every judge that is on the ballot.
Klayman is a sort of Al sharpton or Jessie Jackson with a law degree
.
we’d see a lot more common sense and less egomania and a lot more justice
.
Dictators don’t have to follow the law. If he gets elected, he will attempt to change our laws so he could stay in office forever. Don’t laugh at this one folks, that’s what dictators do. Then there will be only one way to get rid of him.
Well, that was 2000. Today, it’s the Chicago Way.
SHOCKING! Obama is above the Law! Shocking!
BTW, do you think that Traitor John Roberts had an influence with this Judge?
Larry Klayman ... this guy is snake bit ... has he ever won a case?
No challenge to Obamas legitimacy is ever going to go anywhere.
I just love these satire pieces.
Agreed. They’ve proven they can get to anyone. Anyone at all. If sending Col. Lakin to jail didn’t prove how serious they were about keeping the lid on, nothing will.
The truth is never going to come out as long as he’s in office. Afterwards? He might release it himself. It would be the ultimate F-U to a nation he obviously hates and did his best to destroy.
(Trayvon case, another corrupted Florida judge)>
Leni
Islamics and democrats unite to cut off Adam Smith’s invisible hand and to gouge the eyes out of “Blind Justice”
Today the Obama threat is more serious vis-a-vis the existential threat to our Republic; but it was clear that the Clinton Administration was covering up deaths of American citizens at the hands of government employees.
I am glad that Americans did not run away back then.. I am old enough to remember W.W.II. I am glad that I knew both Americas.
What is going on today with those Americans screaming "Run away, run away!"
So...the "sovereignty" of the two political parties, trumps the Sovereignty of the state.
This is how revolutions begin.
Miss Newt's comments on outing liberal activists judges? Romney, ah hell, nuf said!
Yes, he has won a case against the Federal government. Recently:
The Washington Times - "[Obama] White House must make visitor logs public, court holds ; Judicial Watch wins ruling on FOIA Wednesday, August 17, 2011
A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that White House visitor logs maintained by the U.S. Secret Service are agency records and, as a result, are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act if not covered by one of the law’s many exemptions.
In a setback for the Obama administration, which had argued that the records did not have to be made public, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell, in a 19-page opinion, sided with Judicial Watch, a Washington-based public watchdog organization, in a case challenging Secret Service arguments that the visitors’ logs were presidential records and, as a result, exempt from public disclosure.
In her ruling, Judge Howell, whom President Obama named to the bench in July 2010, said the Secret Service had not met its burden to show that the requested material either fell within an FOIA exemption or would have been unreasonably burdensome to search.
“While there are some limits on what an agency must do to satisfy its FOIA obligations, the defendant has not met its burden to establish that the search requested by the plaintiff is so unreasonable as to require a blanket rejection,” the judge said.
“Therefore, the proper course of action by the Secret Service is duly to process plaintiff’s FOIA request, disclose all segregable, nonexempt records, and then assert specific FOIA exemptions for all records it seeks to withhold,” she said.
Judicial Watch had asked the court to order the release of Secret Service logs of White House visitors from Jan. 20, 2009, to August, 10, 2009. ”
-end snip-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/17/white-house-must-make-visitor-logs-public-court-ho/
It's not an easy thing to do by winning in the slanted and corrupt courts who favor the DC Establishment.
Stock up on ammo; start building networks; if it doesn't exist form a local militia; start training; stock up on food-stuffs; stock up on medicines.
Things will likely get 'interesting' pretty soon.
Apparently, justice is merely a concept, whereas fear is a powerful motivator.
Maybe someone should file treason charges against nancy polosi for cert. barry to be prez- using sheriff joes affidait that O’s BC is a forgery. that should grant discovery huh?— hell, i’ll do it if someone knows a attorney that would do it and draw it up.. I’m sure a treason charge would grant a dicovery on the matter- ????
Klayman and JW have been suing each other, and Klayman hasn't been associated with JW for years...about the time they started producing results.
Actually, in this case, the judge may be legally correct.
Q: Who elects the President of the United States?
A: The Electoral College.
Q: Who do the people vote for when they vote for the President of the United States?
A: They vote for an elector who pledges that on the first ballot of the Electoral College, that he will vote for that given candidate. If no candidate wins on the first ballot, the electors are no longer bound to vote for “their” candidate and may vote for anyone.
Q: Can state law demand proof of a presidential candidates eligibility?
A: This varies, but generally not, for the peculiar reason that, while the constitution sets eligibility requirements, congress has never created the necessary “enabling acts” essentially to create the rules needed to do so.
That is, they have never designated anyone to verify if a candidate is qualified, how they are to do this, what will happen if it isn’t done, and penalties for not doing so properly.
However, this is an entirely national government jurisdiction, so the individual states are not permitted to interfere.
Importantly, the judge did err on at least one count, equating any citizenship with “natural born” citizenship.
The correct suit would be TREASON=
the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2.
a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
3.
the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
Ah! I see the problem right there....
You got me there Con. I see that Klayman the founder and chairman of Judicial Watch are no more.
Obama is still going down this year one way or the other. ;-)
so Larry's record is still intact .... unless he won that lawsuit he brought against his mother
.
It pleased Bill Moyers so much, he interviewed Klayman on his PBS show “Now”.
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_klayman.html
Klayman ultimately lost.
The problem with this route is two-fold: 1 -- You have to draw the reasoning from failure to qualify to "aid and comfort" of the enemies of the Several States, and 2 -- you have to prove the intentionality thereof. {#2 may not sound like the most important of things, but likely without it the case will be dismissed.}
#1 is actually easy; show how putting someone who cannot legally be President is placed in the President's role of Commander In Chief destroys the legitimacy of the Chain of Command for the military rendering all orders not directly stemming from the Constitution to be invalid (due to the properties of authority).
I beg to differ, if the following is accurate:
“the… nomination of any person to office…may be contested in the circuit court…by any elector or any taxpayer…”
then it says that the nomination to any person may be challenged; it does not restrict the whom of who is nominated, or the how.
The Office of President of the United States is an Office, obviously. So it, too, must be challengable.
There could be argument that Obama has not won the primaries (or has he? I don't know) and is therefore not yet nominated…
You're using the wrong definition; you need to use the one found int the Constitution.
But it doesn’t.
The law applies ot everyone but the Devil.
It’s really quite obvious.
can you put that in plain terms that i could understand—i’m a oil field worker and i’m not much of knowing (law) -thanks.. ha ha..
your right — sorry
“Importantly, the judge did err on at least one count, equating any citizenship with “natural born” citizenship.”
Actually, he said that someone born a US citizen at birth was a NBC. He did NOT claim every citizen is a natural born citizen.
I thought if (2) witnesses stand up in court and testify (under the treason law) that the BC is a forgery you will be proven correct. and the opposing party will have to prove you wrong.. i didnt think a treason case could be dimissed under 2 witnesses.. but maybe i got it all wrong
Must belong to the Robert’s School of Making Sh*t Up.
Sure.
The Constitution defines Treason as: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Further it says: "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.", which means that we need at least two witnesses or a confession in court.
Interestingly, it may be possible to use multiple signatured documents to 'witness' the "overt act." This is because the signature on the legal document is bearing witness to the document. (When you have something notarized, that is taking a person to officially recognize the document, that is one witness, and then you yourself presenting the document is a second witness. The "two witness" requirement can be traced back into the ancient law of the Israelites in the Mosaic Law.)
Previously I said it was easy to show the fulfilling of the "aid and comfort" portion of the definition for Treason. [S]how[ing] how putting someone who cannot legally be President is placed in the President's role of Commander In Chief destroys the legitimacy of the Chain of Command for the military rendering all orders not directly stemming from the Constitution to be invalid (due to the properties of authority).
Perhaps a better way to explain this is to imagine yourself a Private, the lowest of the low, militarily speaking. Imagine that you've just received an order from your platoon's Lt; where does he get the authority to command you? It's actually not from his position, if it were anyone could forge a set of orders assigning him to that position and then you would be bound to follow all those orders; no, it is from his commander, the company Cpt.
The Company Captain, likewise, receives his authority from the Battalion's commander the Col. And this goes on and on until it reaches the Army's General, and the Army's General receives his authority from the President. The President, in turn, receives his authority form the Constitution, which places the President as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces (Army & Navy; the Marines are part of the navy, and the Air Force is an extra-constitutional organization spun out from the Army Air Corps).
So then, if the person who is claiming to be the President does not meet the Constitution's restrictions on qualification, then that person cannot be the President and therefore cannot be the Commander in Chief; if he is placed as CIC then the Army's General has no legitimate authority because he cannot derive any from the person acting as President because the President has no legitimate authority himself. So the entire chain of command is literally null and void, it is like cutting the hook off of a chain and then expecting the chain to pull the hook: it can't because the whole thing is no longer anchored.
Thus the entire structure of the military is compromised and thus virtually any action can be challenged as illegitimate. Remember, "I was only following orders" has been soundly discarded as an allowable defense, but this situation is even more insidious because even if you, the private, are following orders those orders are likely to be invalid precisely because of that broken chain of command; i.e. even what would otherwise be legitimate orders are not legitimate.
That's why putting an ineligible President into position would be treason.
...doesn't that belong in humor writing, like Good Omens or somesuch?
“No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”, which means that we need at least two witnesses or a confession in court.
you have mike zullu and sheriff joe has said openly in the news it is a forgery.. they are the 2 witnesses
I'm pretty sure that's incorrect; if someone is born a US Citizen via the 14th Amendment then are they not statutory citizens and therefore not natural born citizens?
Though this may have to do with the fact that the 14th Amendment is a fraud. (Never properly proposed/passed.)
But not in court. This is where things get difficult; every time someone tries to bring something up regarding eligibility itself they are denied standing.
In fact, I've become convinced that 'standing' is a method they [government] use in order to keep you from being able to challenge them.
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.