Obama Attorney’s Desperation Leads Him to Tell Florida Judge He is Not the Democratic Nominee
posted on June 19, 2012 by da Tagliare

Obama-Lawyer-Admits-In-Court-Birth-Certificate-On-White-House-Website-Is-A-ForgeryThe case before Florida Judge Terry Lewis claims that Barack Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements for President of the United States. The lawsuit, believe it or not, was filed by a registered Democrat. Just last week I wrote about Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Cold Case Posse Investigator Mike Zullo filing affidavits in the case.

At that time, Obama’s attorneys had asked Judge Lewis to dismiss the case because Barack Obama met the legal definition of a natural born citizen. Lewis didn’t buy their argument and demanded they provide documented evidence to back up their claim. He pointed to the fact that the claimant’s attorney had provided a Supreme court decision that had defined natural born citizen to mean that both parents were US citizens.

In the latest round before Judge Lewis, Obama’s attorneys evidently could not produce the requested documentation to support their claim that Obama is a natural born citizen. Out of what seemed to be an act of desperation on their part, they tried to divert addressing the central claim in the case by telling Lewis that Obama is not the Democratic nominee and therefore the case is irrelevant.

According to WND, Judge Lewis challenged Obama’s attorneys by indicating that there was only one name on the Democratic ballot for president and therefore the delegates were bound to that candidate. He also asked them about a letter submitted by the Democratic Party to the Florida Secretary of State that only listed one name.

Larry Klayman, attorney for Michael Voeltz who filed the lawsuit against Obama’s eligibility, argued before Judge Lewis that state law describes anyone as being the party’s nominee if they are the only name on the ballot.

In a twist, Lewis asked Klayman a hypothetical question about the eligibility of a person who was born of two US citizens but later on emigrated to some other country such as Israel. Klayman replied that the Founding Fathers could not have accounted for every situation, but that it was clear that they intended to prevent dual loyalties of anyone ascending to the leadership of the nation.

Judge Terry Lewis still has not rendered a decision in the case which could have as much, if not more historical importance than when he declared Bush the winner over Gore in 2000. If Lewis rules in favor of the claimant, Michael Voeltz, it could keep Obama off of the November ballot in Florida. It may also prompt similar lawsuits in other states which in turn could keep him off of their ballots as well.

If, however, Lewis rules against the lawsuit and supports Obama’s right to be on the November ballot, it will make it all the more difficult for anyone else to succeed in getting a similar case upheld anywhere else. Considering the fragile condition of our nation, its very fate could lie in the hands of Judge Terry Lewis, for the second time in twelve year

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/5733/obama-attorneys-desperation-leads...

Views: 1367

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


They are not stupid, actually it is the perfect legal strategy and what I have been telling people was going to happen for a long time now. If you remember back in 2008, Steve Pidgeon filed a Obama ballot challenge and had established standing under state law, the defense was that at the time Obama's candidacy was SPECULATIVE as the DNC convention had not been held so it was not a legal fact that he was or would be the candidate until the filing of the OFFICIAL CERTIFICATE OF NOMINATION, at that point it stops being speculative and becomes fact. My Arizona case under A.R.S. 16-351(B) is prepared, the law states this:

"B. Any elector may challenge a candidate for any reason relating to qualifications for the office sought as prescribed by law, including age, residency or professional requirements, if applicable." (emphasis added).

There is the standing, perfected under the law. Very much what Pidgeon was dealing with in Washington State in 2008, I'm sure.

Here is the fact under Az. law. The political parties that preformed well enough in the last primary election is afforded a column in the general election and they own it. It, the ownership, does not not get transferred to any candidate until the party does so by the submission of the "official certificate of nomination" to the SOS. That date, or I should say , as it stands right now there is no statute that sets that date, it is an administrative date set by the SOS, and right now the last day for filing is September 7, 2012 at 5:00 pm. 

I'm Ready.

The very reason there was no vetting of Obama's qualifications is because constitutionally, each state has the responsibly to their resident voters to insure each candidate appearing on a state ballot is qualified to hold the office sought.

This ain't rocket science. 

ex animo


Obama-Lawyer-Admits-In-Court-Birth-Certificate-On-White-House-Website-Is-A-ForgeryThe case before Florida Judge Terry Lewis. Did Obama's Lawyer really say the brith certificate was a forgery. If so they should start IMPEACHMENT! It is unreal how no news networks, including fox, have not covered this court case. 

Dumbos Atty in Jersey actually did say it was a forgery, the MSM isn't going to report anything until they are told to.

davidfarrar   YOU Wrong!  Remember Donofrio? He brought his action against the New Jersey SOS ( an action in lieu of prerogative writ) for failure to vet candidates before certifying them to the ballot. There is nothing in the law that mandates that action or even allows it. The legal question in that case is can you mandate the SOS to preform an act that is not prescribe by law? The answer is NO. If the SOS tried to ask for documents that are not required by law to be submitted, the SOS would be subject to legal action for over reaching the bounds of their authority in an abuse of power not under color of law.

I am pretty sure your view is the prevailing view. But if the local political party 'certifies' only one candidate, and that candidate's name appears on the PPP, as was the case in Florida and Georgia; I believe standing is achieved. 

As I say, I will file again after Obama is nominated, just to remove that bone of contention. I would like to put together a class action suit, with a number of other Georgia Tea Party members in and around the Atlanta area, if that is possible. 

Sometimes, no matter how formidable the odds, you just have to make a stand, if only to note your objection for posterity's sake.

ex animo


Have you given any thought to invoking Common law Private Atty. General status, or filing as "independently and on behalf of all others similarly situated" ?

As all legally registered State voters are parties in interest and you seek to restore resolve an issue of status in the relationship of Employer (voters) and Public Officer (employee). Is it legal to elect a person that does not satisfy the "qualifications for the office sought as prescribed by law"?  Art II, sec.1, Clause 5.

Interesting. Although I follow your reasoning easy enough; I wonder  if "voters" can be legally classified as an "Employer", and the public office seeker an "employee?"

Do you have case law?

But I really do believe the 'natural' born Citizenship issue can be successfully addressed using de Vattel and the Natural Political Right of Inheritance, and I aim to give it a shot.

Although Klayman mentioned de Vattel's 'Law of Nations,' so he must have plead it; I didn't actually hear him expound on the issue. Perhaps I am wrong.


ex animo



Lets al Prayer that Judge Lewis holds his ground. If he does I think there is about 19 other states with cases pending that will jump on the band wagon and remove Obama from their states ballots. That should be enough to eliminate Obama from running and the Democrats will have to find another candidate really fast and they will have to use Obama's fund he has raised to back the new nominee....Saying a prayer right now........JMHO

23 states do not have their Presidential Electors bound by law. That means that keeping Obama off the ballot in those states does nothing. The Presidential Electors elect the President not the common elector, the common elector actually cast their vote at the general election for the presidential electors not the president . I'LL PROVE IT. Here is Az. Revised Statute

16-507. Presentation of presidential candidates on ballot

"When presidential electors are to be voted for, the candidates therefor of each party shall be grouped and printed together, arranged in each group in alphabetical order, and the entire group of electors of each party shall be enclosed in a scroll or bracket to the right and opposite the center on which shall be printed in bold type the surname of the presidential candidate and vice-presidential candidate. The indicator for the selection of a candidate shall be next to the surname of the presidential candidate, and one mark opposite a presidential candidate's surname shall be counted as a vote for each elector in that party." (emphasis added).

NOTE; nowhere in the laws of this state are the presidential electors bound to cast their electoral college vote for the candidate that they appear in connection with pursuant to the preceding law.




Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Joe Biden Vows: Give Taxpayer-Funded Obamacare To All Illegal Aliens In U.S.

Former Vice President and 2020 Democrat presidential primary candidate Joe Biden is vowing to give Obamacare, funded by American taxpayers, to all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens living in the United States.

During an interview with Telemundo’s Jose Diaz-Balart, Biden forgot that Obamacare technically bans illegal aliens from enrolling in healthcare plans — although illegal aliens are still able to obtain subsidized and free healthcare at Americans’ expense — and promised that under his plan, all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens would be able to get Obamacare.

The exchange went as follows:

DIAZ-BALART: When I … NBC moderated that first debate with you, I didn’t … I don’t recall a clear answer, under your plan should … would the 11, 12 million undocumented immigrants that live in the United States, that have been here many for generations, would they have access …


DIAZ-BALART: — to health insurance.

BIDEN: Yes, they … if they can buy into the system like everybody else.

DIAZ-BALART: Because you know, in [Obamacare] they can’t.

BIDEN: Yeah. Yeah, I know. Well they can, that’s my point. They continue to be able to do that.

DIAN-BALART: They cannot under the ObamaCare.

BIDEN: Well and that’s my point, they will though. They will be able to buy into … [illegal aliens] would be able to buy in, just like anyone else could.

Biden joins Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg — among other 2020 Democrats — in committing to forcing American taxpayers to pay for healthcare for illegal aliens who arrive in the U.S.

Already, due to loopholes, American taxpayers are spending nearly $20 billion every year to provide illegal aliens with subsidized healthcare, emergency room visits, and other health services.

Under the 2020 Democrats’ plan to provide taxpayer-funded healthcare to all illegal aliens living in the U.S., Americans would be billed potentially $660 billion every decade just to cover the costs. Other research has found that the plan would cost Americans at least $23 billion every year.

As Breitbart News has reported, experts have said that giving taxpayer-funded healthcare to effectively all foreign nationals who can make it to America’s borders would drive “strong incentives for people with serious health problems to enter the country or remain longer than their visas allow in order to get government-funded care.”

Despite 2020 Democrats’ continued push for taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal aliens, American voters are overwhelmingly opposed to the plan. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey revealed that the healthcare-for-illegal-aliens plan is the least popular policy position, with opposition from 62 percent of U.S. voters.

Similarly, a CNN poll from July discovered that 63 percent of likely swing voters oppose providing healthcare to illegal aliens, along with nearly 6-in-10 of all likely U.S. voters and 61 percent of moderates. A Rasmussen Reports survey also found that likely voters, by a majority of 55 percent, oppose giving healthcare to even the most low-income illegal aliens.

Infantilization of Popular Culture

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service