Skip to comments.Monday, June 18, 2012, 9 a.m. hearing on Obama ballot challenge
Posted on 06/18/2012 8:18:19 AM PDT by Brown Deer
The video of todays hearing ...
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
watching it right now-
I’ve been watching for an hour now. It’s still going.
Are they at lunch or in recess??
They just testified that 0bama was born outside of the U.S.
How about this then...@Obama attorneys argue he's not Dem nominee
you can go to the video and run it again.
Guess I'll have to wait for the recap.
The argument from the FL Sec. of State about Hillary winning the 2008 primary, but not ultimately being the Democratic nominee for Pres., kind of makes sense to me.
Thanks for the heads up.
Watching now (if this is indeed a live video)
Motion to Dismiss being heard from BHO’s team.
If the argument is followed to its logical extreme, it seems, then parties should be allowed to nominate Mickey and Minnie Mouse for President and Vice President.
Live stream here.
If there’s ANY court in this land, before ANY judge
with common sense, historical, judicial and Constitutional
savvy and integrity, this presentation by Klayman is
an excellent description of the core issues. I’m impressed.
After all, it IS a simple issue.
The judge, on the other hand, is raising some inane
hypotheses that are totally irrelevant to the main
eligibility/foreign influence issue on the CIC.
God protect and save this nation from the evildoers.
This judge appears to be taking the issue seriously. The Obummer usurpation team have been getting a free ride...they may not get it in this court room.
This judge appears to be taking the issue seriously. The Obummer usurpation team have been getting a free ride...they may not get it in this court room. Court now in session.
Obama attorneys argue he’s not Dem nominee
The arguments by Obamas attorneys reflected their desire to have the judge simply dismiss the case because they claim a sitting president chosen by his party at multiple levels is not yet or officially the nominee.
Klayman accused them of running a shell game and simply trying to put off the issue, as numerous court cases did during the 2008 election, until the election was over and Obama was inaugurated.
The judge called the hearing on the issue of Obamas eligibility because as part of the challenge, Klayman cited a definition of natural born citizen, which the Constitution requires of presidents, from the U.S. Supreme Court. Obamas attorneys, however, simply said that didnt apply but offered no further citations.
What law team is doing a telephone-court councel? I missed part of that.
What law team is doing a telephone-court counsel? I missed part of that. ...I know now.
...Obama team gets two lawyers to attend by phone.
So they can't find any cases to cite that Zero is a NBC. I'm surprised they even bothered to show up.
It worked last time so they are going to try it again.
Spit OBot lawyer lawyer citing Florida law of who qualify for the FL ballot ...plaintiff can’t get any relief.
The Constitution supports Obama. Citing party electors.
The old "We ain't got nothing but forgeries defense" and the "We don't want to go up against the constitution, so lets drop it defense".
There is no way this judge rules against zero. He looked scared just talking about it.
This is going no where.
This guy doesn’t want to get a Breitbart Dart.
O’s team has counsel via conference call .. I know it’s an attorney from Miami .. Rosenbloom? Rothman? You can playback the video.
OMG .. I’m just ROFLMBO ... his attorneys are actually seriously stipulating that he’s not the candidate .. yet. They read the doc where he was placed in contention last October (the ONLY one), but he’s not the official candidate for the Dems. That’s their grounds????? OMG ... unreal the depths of minutiae and granularity for which they’re reaching..
Standing, etc., hearing date have to perfectly converge with the exact moment he’s an officially declared candidate??
God bless Judge Lewis with supernatural courage and clarity.
Obot - ‘There was no FL Drat presidential preference primary’; so “can’t be any contest” ...
OBama lawyer cited Florida statute 102.168 and sub section 3.
If I’m understanding this correctly, Bob Kerrey filed to be on the Nebraska democratic Senate primary ballot at the very last possible moment (5pm on the last day you can file), and when his eligibility was challenged because he’s not a Nebraska resident, it was thrown out because it was “too late to file a challenge”. You can’t file a challenge until the person is a candidate and whoever is unchallenged at 5pm on the last date of filing automatically goes on the ballot. As long as Bob Kerrey was the last person in line before they closed that office, there was no way to challenge his eligibility.
But I think there should be penalties for saying you’re eligible when you’re really not. Like perjury penalties.
What would make me laugh my guts out would be if the judges said you can only challenge when somebody is the DNC’s final candidate, and then the dems were left without ANY candidate on the ballots all over the country because Obama was thrown out.
It would serve them right. They should be thanking anybody who raises the issue while they still have the opportunity to choose another candidate - maybe inmate #xxxx.
Judge questioned about conception v. birth.
Klayman cited Marshall’s Venus case to go along with Minor v. Happersett.
Klayman just accused the Obama defense for lying by omission about the FL Supreme Court opinion. They are playing a shell game.
ping for later read
Did Obama already file the paperwork with SOS to be on the upcoming FL state primary ballot, or not?
I don’t know, but how can somebody argue that a guy’s name should be allowed on the ballot because he’s not running? lol
Judge questioned Klayman can’t a political party put anyone they want on the ballot?
How did Obama even get CONSIDERED to be on the ballot? Did somebody fill out a form and/or pay some money? If so, what did the form say?
Adobe Flash Player messes up my computer so I’m not able to see this right now. Who testified that he was born outside of the US, and on the basis of what evidence? Did Arpaio testify?
Florida’s primary is over with already.
PRIMARY January 31, 2012
President Barack Obama, who is running uncontested in most states for the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination, has captured enough delegates to become the party’s presumptive nominee, according to a CNN estimate.
Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012
The 2012 Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses is the selection process by which voters of the Democratic Party will choose its nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Incumbent President Barack Obama won the Democratic Party nomination by securing more than the required 2778 delegates on April 3, 2012 after a series of primary elections and caucuses that will officially culminate with the 2012 Democratic National Convention held September 36, in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Apparently it was the National Dem party that put Obama on th FL ballot. Judge pushed - How do you get on the ballot if you're not the nominee from FL?
Here is jdirt’s post from this thread:
The Judge clearly asked the plaintiffs attorney, Mr. Klayman, that if I grant you leave to amend your complaint, will you be providing something that shows Obama was not born in the US?
And Klayman said YES.
The Dem National Party ONLY put Obama on the FL ballot without Florida getting a say so for anyone else.
And Klayman said YES.
Yes he did. Maybe twice.
Apparently it was the National Dem party that put Obama on th FL ballot. Judge pushed - How do you get on the ballot if you’re not the nominee from FL?
Parsing words - a liberal disease.
The DNC can’t put anybody they want on their ballot - not if they’re going to follow their own by-laws.
The issue is what the Secretary of State will do if (since) the DNC clearly violated their bylaws by nominating somebody who was known (by the DNC’s own process set in place, actually) to not be eligible. San Fran Nan had to sign a statement of Obama’s eligibility for Hawaii because the Hawaii Democratic Party refused to certify that. The claims by the DNC people in 2008 were that the state parties are the ones who are supposed to check out eligibility. That could be part of the reason that Hawaii law requires the state party to sign off on the national party’s candidate being the STATE PARTY’s candidate as well. Interestingly enough, the OCON for the Hawaii Democratic Party never did actually state that Obama was THEIR candidate. He should never have been on the HI ballot because he lacked the HDP statement required by HI law.
And for the dem party in the state that supposedly has the birth records .... to refuse to even sign off on Obama as their candidate as required by law.... leaves San Fran Nan with NO EXCUSE.
What actually needs to happen is San Fran Nan needs to be thrown in jail, along with a bunch of other people.
The judge needs to realize that if the DNC nominates somebody who is ineligible they are committing fraud and perjury, because their nominations are required to certify that the candidate was DULY NOMINATED, and part of that nomination process that has to be followed in order to use the word “duly” is ensuring that the candidate is eligible, per the DNC bylaws.
So the answer to the judge’s question is that they can only nominate whoever they want if they are willing to perjure themselves. But if they perjure themselves, does the Secretary of State still have a duty to keep the oath he/she swore to protect and defend the US Constitution?
I presume that this judge took the same oath at some point...