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
HOW STUPID DO THE ATTY. FOR OBAMA THINK WE AND THE JUDGE ARE??? THE JUDGE EVEN ASK THEM TO PROVIDE INFO TO BACK UP THEIR CLAIM THAT HE MET THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF NBC, THEY COULD NOT PRODUCE IT.
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.
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.
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.
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.
8 June 2012 at 16 : 25 PM
Read WND.com story: http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/obama-attorneys-argue-hes-not-dem-nominee/ comments Obama’s attorneys are desperately scrambling for technicalities to knock this case out, claiming he hasn’t been nominated, not a state decision, so the case is inappropriate. Larry Klayman, plaintiff attorney for Mike Voeltz, countered with statute language seeming to indicate that a nomination HAS taken place and added that [...]Read More
18 June 2012 at 15 : 36 PM
Debates Motion to Dismiss, natural born Citizenship Video streaming by Ustream ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ need your help NOW! Support the Florida and Other Ballot Challenges! Constitution Action Fund What is the Article II Legal Defense Fund? Find out. Only a natural born Citizen can legally be President of the USA. ”Obama” is not either. Subscribe free to ObamaBallotChallenge.com. [...]Read More
18 June 2012 at 13 : 41 PM
Above: Obama attorney Mark Herron pleads his case in Tallahassee, FL Today’s Florida Obama Ballot Challenge hearing of Voeltz v Obama ran a little over an hour. Defendants’ lawyers attempted to dismiss– they say nomination has not yet even taken place, that states cannot decide this, that Obama is natural born. Video archive: http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2012/06/this-mornings-florida... [...]Read More
16 June 2012 at 23 : 46 PM
Anatomy of a Florida Ballot Challenge By George Miller, Obama State Ballot Challenge June 16, 2012 The Voeltz v Obama case is finally getting its first day in court Monday, June 18. Like all such cases, it challenges the right of the man who calls himself “Barack Hussein Obama” to be on the state ballot, [...]Read More
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.