Posted on 06/30/2012 7:43:07 AM PDT by circumbendibus
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2012 – A third hearing in a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s eligibility to appear on the Florida ballot is being held this morning, Friday June 29 in Tallahassee. The hearing comes on the last day of a critical week for the Obama Administration, which included yesterday's Supreme Court health care ruling and a vote by the U.S. House of Representatives to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress.
President Obama through his attorneys filed a motion to strike the amended complaint, and the plaintiff, a Florida voter represented by Attorney Larry Klayman, has filed an opposition to the motion to strike.
Judge Terry Lewis, noted for presiding over the 2000 Florida election results dispute between George W. Bush and Al Gore, is assigned to the case in Leon County Circuit Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at communities.washingtontimes.com ...
PING!
Florida law makes it easier for a voter to challenge candidate eligibility, so the usual nonsense of “no legal standing” will not fly here....unless the judge has been instructed to fix the case
Sad is that not only the liberal MSM will not cover it....but we have a lot of so-called “conservatives” who act as liberal as the MSM when it comes to Obama Eligibility. I swear you think a lot of the so-called “conservatives” are helping Obama win re-election
Larry Klayman doesn’t have the best track record.
A whole bunch of so-called conservatives just want everyone to shut up so Rubio can be nominated.
“Florida law makes it easier for a voter to challenge candidate eligibility, so the usual nonsense of “no legal standing” will not fly here”
Man, it would be great if even only 1 state declared him not fit to run. Of course, with his October surprise of a newly doctored set of papers, he would declare a constitutional crisis and void election, making himself king.
Um.... so like this was supposedly done yesterday?? Is there a follow-up or do I have to look for myself?
So the BIG question is what happened yesterday. I suppose I’ll have to go to Klayman’s site to see. Be right back kiddies!
Cool - thanks: much appreciated. Was thinking that the Judge might rule on the motion to dismiss yesterday.
Nothing on either of Klayman’s sites. I would have thought a dismissal would have made news.
You have to remember that if the not-eligible suit is successful, we may get Hillary as the Dem nominee. Many Republicans may not like that if they consider O is easier to beat.
Doesn’t matter at all.
If it goes to the Supreme Court, guess what...
States control voting, just ask Holder who tried to intimidate Scott from cleaning the rolls of ineligible voters.
While I agree on Hillary, I also don’t believe that’s the point: we’ve got a guy who has been going far out of his way to duck the eligibility question... I wanna know the answers and I want the law upheld.
All Holder needs to do is find a judge who agrees with him, then it’s over.
There is no recourse anymore, there is no justice anymore.
I believe the judge who decides is Roy Lamberth. He is no friend of this administration.
Someday, someone is going to force him to prove he was eligible to sign this law.
Monckton tells Lords: Obama presidency at risk
From the report:
Attorneys for anyone accused of a criminal offence signed into statute by President Obama under Art. I, s. 7, have the right to request access by their forensic investigators to the Hawaii Health Department’s original birth record for Mr. Obama to satisfy them that the President is the President, the statute the statute and the alleged offence an offence. he suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process [14th Amdt.] where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment”. Therefore, the courts will be obliged to grant any such defence request. By the supremacy clause (Art. 6), Hawaii must comply.
By the precedent set in Brady v. Maryland (373 US 83, 1963), “T Does the issue matter? Advice from an eminent constitutional lawyer is that it does: “The Constitution is the supreme law of the US. We amend it, or we abide by it.” He expects a credible court challenge to the authenticity of Mr. Obama’s birth certificate soon. If it occurs, and if the certificate is a forgery, the constitutional consequences will be grave.
Standing, by virtue of direct, personal harm involved in a criminal indictment/conviction? What types of cases would this involve?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2900297/posts
Judge to Plaintiff: “Can you amend that he was born outside of the jurisdiction of the United States?”
Judge Lewis asked Attorney Klayman during the second hearing on June 10, 2012 “if I give you leave to amend can you amend that he was born somewhere outside of the jurisdiction of the United States?” to which the reply was yes.
Out of hundreds of Obama usurpation cases, this may be the first time this goes to discovery against Obama. :-)
Both sides were required to prepare proposed orders and briefs by Monday. Monday came and went. Now they had another hearing yesterday? of which no one knows what happened! Not even WND or Klayman himself. Something is not right here.I’m hoping but thats not much.
Sheriff Joe was going to give another Presser with BIG STUFF. Never happened. This was to be in June. In light of the Arizona decision I would think Sheriff Joe would be hastening the Presser. Any thoughts!
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.