I CAN’T WAIT
(Tallahassee, Florida, June 14, 2012). A hearing will be held this Monday, June 18, 2012, at 9 a.m. in the courtroom of Judge Terry Lewis, the judge whose decisions helped decide the 2000 presidential elections. The subject of the hearing is a lawsuit filed by Michael Voeltz, a registered Democrat who is challenging, as he has a right to do under Florida law, the eligibility of Barack Obama to be on the Florida presidential ballot in 2012.
The issues in the case at this stage include but are not limited to: 1.) the duty of Florida’s Secretary of State to confirm eligibility before the name of a candidate such as Barack Obama is placed on the ballot, 2.) the definition of the term “natural born citizen,” which is a constitutional requirement for presidential eligibility and 3.) whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen born in the United States or its territories to two American citizen parents.
In a prior hearing, Judge Lewis stressed that Mr. Voeltz’s attorney, Larry Klayman, had cited Supreme Court authority that a natural born citizen must be born to two American citizen parents, but the Barack Obama’s attorneys had cited no authority to the contrary. Judge Lewis called for Obama’s attorneys to submit briefing on the issue prior to the hearing, and for Mr. Klayman to submit affidavits attesting to issues of fact in dispute as to where Obama was born. Among several affidavits, Klayman submitted the sworn testimony of Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, whose Cold Case Posse has been investigating Obama’s eligibility on behalf of Arizona and found that his alleged birth certificate is likely forged.
This case is monumental particularly since Florida is once again at the center of an election dispute that could have a major impact on American history. Larry Klayman observed: “Most of the Washington, D.C. and media establishment have never wanted to confront the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be president, as this is not considered ‘politically correct.’ But the framers did confront it and this is why they required a higher threshold to be president that goes beyond just being a citizen. They understood, particularly given the times they lived in, where British Tories and spies sought to undermine the new Republic, that they could not permit someone with divided loyalties to occupy the highest office in the land.”
The case is titled Voeltz v. Obama, No. 2012 CA 00467 in Leon County Circuit Court. The hearing is open to the pubic and the media. Klayman’s work is supported by the non-profit ConstitutionActionFund.org. The hearing is being broadcast “live streamed” on the internet by www.wnd.com. For more information contact Adrienne Mazzone at (561) 750-9800 x210 orAMazzone@transmediagroup.com
Laurence Said:
as to whether a court decisin would make a final resolution it is debatable as interpretations can also change. The court is meant to interpret whether a law is constitutional and whether a particular circumstance is constitutional.Although there appears to be some vagueness there have been other issues in which vageness was confronted and decisions made. This situation appears to be one of avoiding massive national security issues, conflict and possible civil war by stalling the issue that can spark conflict. Perhaps they hope that time will make the immediate problem disappear(eg obama not is office) and will then deal with the real constitutional problem which could be resolved by court or legislation. A constitutional amendment might be the optimum solution as it would reuire a high level of partisan agreement, that when not dealing with an immediate partisan interest(eg obama), can be resolved in Congress without destroying many lives. If the issue grows too big before the next election it would be wise for the democratic party, and in the interest of the nation, that Obama not be run again unless they can produce squeaky clean documents. the worst would be that Obama is reelected and then the issue becomes big. this migh endanger the national security and spark justification for a coup from either side. NOt running Obama again would be the immediate best solution to avoid serious conflict.
Laurence Said:
If it is as bad as some of us suspect this would be best done when Obama is out of office. However,judging from the extent of avoidance, everyone may be guilty of a criminal offense. This does not promote transparency but rather cover ups. If Obama is not eligible then the least damaging solution is that the dems choose a different leader and afterwards Congress clarifies the law with additional legislation. The under the table deal between the parties would be to limit prosecutions and investigations into the obama circumstances to protect themselves.
@Rahm and @Bernard:
I think you are both right; as well as most of the other commentors. It is still sort of ‘skirting’ the basic issue–that there has been no definitive conclusive decision on the phrase. Even John Jay’s insertion of his letter to Washington in 1787 does not do so. No court opinion has ever been rendered clearly defining “natural born citizen”.
It seems, and all the fine comments here, seem to still rely on this basic definition. Legal end-arounds, avoidance, obfuscation, political intentions good or bad, would and could be laid to rest on this key issue. Yes or no?
If even one such court rendering were made, and made public with a spotlight, would it not establish precedence, and allow a final resolution? I am not a lawyer and would not want to be one, so am I right or wrong and why or why not?
In the light of day, the truth will out. I keep believing that, and also keep my powder dry.
Hi folks, taking time out of the bathhouse with BHO right now to give you the scoop.
No judge in the US will oppose BHO because we get to all of them.
Laurence Said:
sorry to interject, but there is also the question as to how states guarantee that elections fulfill the constitution. what this challenge has done is shine a light on the incredible idea that a presidential candidate apparently does not have to present documents to prove his elgibility. according to current practice affidavits from his political party are acceptable.
Laurence Said:
One of the jobs of the supreme court is to clarify constitutional legal questions and apparent contradictions. The court appears to be derelict in that it has been avoiding the real issue to date. This of course renders their existence as irrelevant in matters of real importance. Perhaps the Supreme court should be impeached for dereliction of its duties. Cases are being brought based on apparent legal precedent and it is the job of the supreme court to make decisions in this regard. This is what should happen but no one wants to tackle the issue, I believe, because all the players have been intentionally defrauding or negligently colluding so as to stall and get to the next election in the hope it becomes a non issue. All the court members are guilty in this regard including those who did ot concur in decisions as they are preventing disclosure to the public. Corruption is prevailing at the highest levels of the executive, the court, the legislature and the MSM in an effort to continue to defraud the public by obstructing the course of Justice. It is a snowball becoming an avalanche with everyone running to cover their backsides. What is important is not the outcome but that the US gvernmental structure is not corrupted as it now is.
Laurence Said:
I think your statement is correct. This may be because there has never been a case where a political party has certified its candidate with the knowledge that their eligibility is questionable and therefore the court has cont been called to decide. Perhaps their strategy was that if it comes up the worst scenario is that it is a case that must be decided by the supreme court which would take years and they could deny culpability because the issue was undecided and they could not be held accountable. However, it is now appearing that perjury, aiding and abetting, what did you now and when did you know it, could if ever properly prosecuted, ruin the careers of hundreds.
Ted, while I fully support this effort and indeed do believe that BHO has ‘frauded’ his way into being called a citizen, and is therefore ineligible to be POTUS, can you please tell me the basis for this, item #2— regarding the definition—following, quoted from your article in para 2:
“The issues in the case at this stage include but are not limited to:…2.) the definition of the term “natural born citizen,” which is a constitutional requirement for presidential eligibility…”
I have looked long and hard over the legal info, references, cases, everything I can find going back to the early 1800s and up to the highest courts. I have only been able to determine that there has never been an undisputed decision of exactly what the definition of “natural born citizen” is.
The entire challenge to BHOs citizenship and ineligibility rests what this legal definition is. Until or unless this is resolved nothing can happen. At least, that is what I understand at this point. Can you add any light?
@ bernard ross:
P R E C I S E L Y !
The problem is everyone else that either colluded or were complacent, especially and including the republican party and its leadership. The Republican party and others would not want to be seen as part of the cover up but in fact they have facilitated the cover up by not demand and investigation and laws which guarantee the execution of the relevant constitutional clauses in elections. Those with responsibility to protect the public are no less guilty than the perpetrators of the crime. Most cover ups by govt and politicians are to do with covering their backsides from negligence and incompetence charges(which truly apply here right up to the republican presidential candidat)e.
@ Dr. Sanford Aranoff:
doc. can i interpret your question as asking in other words if ‘fast and furious’ eric holder and his minnions will ACTUALLY do something about it….
i guess i forgot to include the ‘justice department’ in this entire joke called the republic of the usa who is behind this bastard.
nothing more to say, doc.
The reason Obama wants illegal students to be able to work in the U.S., displacing Americans who want to work but cannot find work, is because he himself came here as an illegal student. Question: Can an Executive Order signed by the President then help the President if the courts find that he is here illegally?
I can. June 18 will probably come and go… and July 18… and November 18
The only way Obama will get out of office, short of some personal calamity, will be in the ballot box. I will be pleasantly surprised, if the US courts actually try to defend the law and the Constitution.
it is four years late, but excuse me, which part of ‘the bastard (literally and figuratively)is the biggest fraud in history’ is not clear???
he’s got NO birth certificate, NO social security number, NO record WHATSOEVER of his ‘school days’ (how do you spell foreign student?)
at the risk of being moderated/comment deleted or whatever.
the man is a TRAITOR and the only fitting punishment would be capital punishment.
pure and simple.
unfortunately, none of that will happen. the ENTIRE CONGRESS AND SENATE were aware of this criminal con man’s origins and till now..nothing..was..done??? excuse me?
they are all guilty, guilty, guilty.
since NOTHING short of armed revolt to dispose of these rulling crooks is even REMOTELY on the radar screen, (and since this is the ONLY WAY to start with a clean slate), the bastard will somehow get a second term