Posted on 08/27/2023 8:48:38 AM PDT by bitt
A challenge has been filed in a federal court seeking a declaratory relief on the eligibility of President Donald Trump to run in the 2024 Presidential Election.
The petitioner cites Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which disqualifies individuals involved in “insurrections” against the government from running for federal office.
The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday by Lawrence A. Caplan, alleges that Trump is constitutionally prohibited from running for president again due to his alleged involvement in the January 6 “insurrection” at the U.S. Capitol.
Caplan claimed he has participated in the last twelve presidential elections and is a legal resident of Florida. He is also a member of various state bars and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, asserting that this gives him standing in the matter.
Below is a transcript from the complaint:
"The facts of this case are undeniably simple. Donald J. Trump served a the 45th President of the United States having won the election in 2016 and was inaugurated on January 20, 2017. He served for four years until he lost the 2020 Presidential Election to Joseph R. Biden, Jr. who took office on January 20, 2021. President Trump chose not to appear at the inauguration of his successor. Having left for his estate in South Florida while the ceremony was taking place…
On January 6, 2021, after giving a speech to a throng on the Ellipse near the Capitol, President Trump exhorted the throng to march to the Capitol and told them that he would be right there with them. After he was finished with his speech, Trump returned to the White House and watched he later events unfold on television. As we are well aware, the throng marched on the Capitol, forced their way into the Capitol building, ransacked the rotunda area, and even made their way into several offices of representatives and senators…
Of note, President Trump had sent out a tweet the day before claiming that “January 6th will be wild”. Trump also later remarked that the insurrectionists who had breached the Capitol were “special” and that “we love you”. He also later remarked that had Vice-President Pence simply done his job and refused to certify the results of the election that everything would have been fine. Not for several hours were the National Guard called in to quell the insurrection as allegedly President Trump refused to do so and had been mesmerized by the events that were taking place on his television at the White House…"
,...more
p
No standing.
BTTT
I believe this strategy will be effective and that Trump will not be on the ballot in November 2024.
Stop relying on appeals to revolutionary institutions.
“Don’t quote laws to us, we carry swords” - Pompey
It can be effective all you want. When millions write him in, Caplan is going to strike out. Which is fine by me
He must be hurting for business if he has time for this. Let me help him advertise.
https://www.floridabar.org/directories/find-mbr/profile/?num=400531
EC
Caplan needs to be Sleeping With The Fishes. These SCUM need the Jimmy Hoffa treatment. I Hate Lawyers!!!!
Hope you’ve had your morning BP meds...
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ashli-babbitt-michael-byrd-promoted/2023/08/25/id/1132053/
Who defines “insurrection” and has Trump been tried in court for insurrection?
this is the play, folks
the reason for the indictments
NH and now FL
we will see more of this
even if unsuccessful
Trump campaign will have to expend time and effort to stay on ballot
the process is the punishment
So a conviction is not necessary, just the accusation?
In that case, let’s accuse all politicians of “insurrection” and clear the playing field!
He was acquitted of this charge during impeachment. That is why that rat smith could not include it. This goes nowhere.
If he’s a Florida citizen he has standing. That he’s an attorney and may be able to file a coherent complaint is a plus for him. Get it before scotus and let them sort it out.
1) A person is innocent til proven guilty. Trump is innocent. Period. No discussion. Absolutely nothing on the other side.
2) From what I have seen (mostly here in GA) Tryump is accused of using his Freedom of Speech to say things for which he had suspicious statistics, but no proof. Trump is accused of not having freedom of speech. Based on what I have seen so far, there is no basis for the courts to accuse him of a felony for exercising freedom of speech.
3) does #2 disqualify me from the jury? If I say the 1st amendment can be abridged I am qualified for the jury? But if I say the 1ast amendment cannot be abridged I am disqualified from the jury?
Who gives a flying monkey-turd what you "believe?"
Contrary to the what the media would have us believe, Trump has not been indicted on insurrection, much less convicted. Thus to the question the courts must assume innocence until proven guilty.
How does he have standing when nobody challenging the big lie did?
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.