Larry Klayman filed three lawsuits against Barack Obama in Florida on behalf on an alleged Democrat, Michael Voeltz. Klayman (right) in his briefs indicates a certain frustration with having his cases dismissed because they were filed at the wrong stage in the election process. His response was to keep filing, I guess in hopes that he will find that magic time when some law exists to give him standing to challenge the eligibility of President Obama to office. What Klayman and Voeltz did not understand from their first two attempts in Florida is that the Courts have said that even if they had standing to challenge Obama, they are wrong on the law when they assert that US Presidents must have two US citizen parents.
Whether it was to shock Plaintiffs with what the real world looks like, or express the Courts displeasure at seeing the same lawsuit three times, or just to put a little seasonal cheer into an otherwise drab legal decision, Circuit Court Judge Kevin J. Carroll wrote this remarkable statement in dismissing the case:
This Court notes that President Obama lives in the White House. He flies on Air Force One. He has appeared before Congress, delivered States of the Union addresses, and meets with Congressional leaders on a regular basis. He has appointed countless ambassadors to represent the interests of the United States throughout the world. President Obama’s recent appointment of The Honorable Mark Walker, formerly a member of this Court, has been confirmed by the United States Senates. Judge Walker has been sworn in as a United States District Court Judge and currently works at the Federal Courthouse down the street.
The Electoral College has recently done its work and elected Mr. Obama to be President once again. As this matter has come before the Court at this time of year it seems only appropriate to paraphrase the ruling rendered by the fictional Judge Henry X. Harper from New York in open court in the classic holiday film Miracle on 34th St. “Since the United States Government declares this man to be President, this Court will not dispute it. Case dismissed.”
I am reminded of an early Obama eligibility case where a judge injected a little humor into a decision: Judge James Robertson of the US District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in Hollister v. Soetoro:
The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.
The birthers didn’t take that well. Rather than respond to the legal analysis presented by Judge Robertson, they focused on that single sentence to claim the dismissal was based on what the Judge found on the Internet. I can imagine that in the Voeltz case, they will say the case was dismissed wholly based on a fictional precedent from a fictional judge in a movie and not for the actual reason, lack of jurisdiction.
“I can imagine that in the Voeltz case, they will say the case was dismissed wholly based on a fictional precedent from a fictional judge in a movie and not for the actual reason, lack of jurisdiction.”
You don’t have to imagine. Just start clicking on birther sites and read the comments. Very predictable.
I will say one thing about these birther suits: They seem to be inspiring judges to get very literary when booting them out of their courts. It’s not good for the birthers, but it makes entertaining reading for the rest of us.
I guess we need to start cataloging literary and cinematic allusions that judges have invoked in dismissing frivolous Birther cases. Right off the top I can think of Alice in Wonderland and Miracle on 34th Street.
Don’t forget Don Quixote!
It’s a frivilous decision Doc. Here is what Larry Kalyman (sic) has to say about it:
*******
Attorney Larry Klayman, representing Voeltz in the case, immediately responded with a motion for rehearing, contending that the judge “prematurely and precipitously” dismissed the complaint without a hearing as outlined under state law.
“This act also flies in the face of this court’s own order of Dec. 13, 2012, which was law of the case,” noted Klayman, founder of FreedomWatchUSA.
“This court had a statutory duty under the Florida Election laws, the Florida and U.S. Constitutions, and 3 U.S.C. Section 5, to adjudicate defendant Obama’s eligibility and his alleged fraudulent acts expeditiously, timely, and before the electors met on Dec. 17, 2012, and before the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, 2013, Klayman explained. “Thus, this court also violated these law is dismissing the complaint summarily.”
Klayman suggested to the court its order “at a minimum creates an appearance that it simply jettisoned this case not only on the extrajudicial and non-legal premise that President Obama was president during the prior four year term, and has already performed many ‘presidential’ acts but also because this court did not want to be ‘inconvenienced’ by holding an evidentiary hearing.”
Klayman also questioned Carroll’s “off-the-cuff” remarks about a friend being appointed to a federal post by Obama as inappropriate.
He said the remarks about fictional judge Henry X. Harper in “Miracle on 34th St.” also were “inappropriate” and showed “a mindset simply to rid the court of this case.”
“This court seems to want to sidestep having to reach these serious and important matters before it,” Klayman said.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/eligibility-judge-quotes-famous-santa-case/#qAMpRwUIeCh8oX2b.99
BAM!
KKKlayman is not amused:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/the-judicial-grinch-who-stole-due-process/
” Whatever Judge Carroll’s motive in dismissing Voeltz’ case without providing due process of law – for example, perhaps like his buddy he wants to be nominated for a higher federal judgeship – this jurist has not only violated his oath of office to obey the U.S. and Florida constitutions, but subverted the rule of law generally.
Our greatest Founding Father and second American president, John Adams, in arguing successfully for the Declaration of Independence, stressed that the new nation, unlike the British crown, was to be a country of laws and not men. In the face of this, Judge Carroll apparently believes that he, as part of the establishment judicial club, can do as he pleases without legal consequences.
Notwithstanding our forthcoming appeal of this dismissal, Judge Carroll and our other so-called public servants, who have brought us to the brink of revolution with their disregard for the constitutional rights of We the People, are about to learn otherwise.
This will be “Judicial Grinch” Carroll’s lawful gift from us this Christmas. ”
I do not lightly say something which may violate Godwin’s law and even more when people of Jewish heritage like KKKlayman are concerned.
But to threaten judges with “otherwise consequences” after the coming revolution is a typical Nazi tactic, Some judges and a lot of lawyers had to suffer for their resistance against the Nazis in the Concentration Camps.
Judge Royce C. Lambert in Taitz v. Obama:
Poor Johnny Boy, yet another ANY…..DAY…..NOW….. moment goes up in smole.
Now do remember this is the 3rd time that Voeltz and Klayman have tried this noinsense and on each and every occassion it’s gone bye-bye.
Want to know what Little Johnny..?
It’s because Klayman, in common with every other Birfoon in the world is full of cack and without a single solitary fact to their name, just like you.
So back to the nice “rest home” with the padded walls, wrap around coats and lead based paint walls with you.
Klayman can always appeal.
Frivolous decision? I’d say it was a frivolous suit.
Learn to use the spell check, John. It’s “frivolous,” not “frivilous.”
No hearing was required because the state court has no jurisdiction over Presidential eligibility. It’s a simple as that. The state court cannot hold hearings on a matter over which it has no jurisdiction.
Klayman can appeal if he wants, but he will lose again. You heard it first here.
Anyone else noticed that if you remove the K, it becomes Layman?
I think that suits him!
Besides the already mentioned Man of La Mancha (sorry, the musician in me felt the need put Don Quixote in musical terms), we also have our mythology in Orly’s Sisyphean quest.
Helena Bonham Carter plays Orly, in the musical version of The Birthers?
And of course there was the Alice in Wonderland reference. Simply saying something is so does not make it so. Loved that one.
“I can imagine that in the Voeltz case, they will say the case was dismissed wholly based on a fictional precedent from a fictional judge in a movie and not for the actual reason, lack of jurisdiction.”
It seems appropriate, as the birther legal arguments are all based on fictional precedent.
If Klayman wants to succeed under Florida Law, he’ll have to answer these two questions:
Was Obama nominated or elected on any Florida ballot to any office?
Which one?
Since he can’t answer those questions, he will never succeed in Florida.
Since, I suspect (note this John, when it is my personal opinion even when others may share it, I say so and not state, “it is believed”) his intent is not to succeed in court but just to make a stink and get press, he need not worry about any questions pertaining to law.
Well said, all of you. I completely agree.
Doc, any lawyer will tell you that winning an appeal is no small task. Courts don’t like to be told that they are wrong and will try very hard to protect their own. Appeals are merely put in place as a simple matter of due process to give the accused or the other party in a suit a piece of mind. Every once in while, the Appeal court will have to look good and actually have a purpose and may set aside a ruling.
Both John and Klayman chose to ignore the actual ruling in the case,
“In conclusion, this court finds that notwithstanding section 102.168, the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida does not have jurisdiction to determine the issue of qualifications for the Office of President of the United States, particularly at this late date in the process. In accordance with Florida Statute 103.061, the Florida electors to the Electorial College met and voted on December 17, 2012. Consistent with the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, this Court cannot now alter the Electorial College process. Plaintiff’s remedy, if there is any (and this Court does not suggest there is) lies with the Congress pursuant to title 3 U.S.C. Section 15. See also Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1147 (N.D. Cal 2008) (concluding that the issues regarding Presidential qualifications are committed to the Congress). Because the Court finds Plaintiff cannot amend his complaint to cure this jurisdictional issue, the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. All other pending motions are rendered moot. This Court retains jurisdiction to award fees and costs to the Defendants as appropriate.”
Poor KKKlayman.
The comments in the WND article are the usual calls for armed revolt (more like “armchair revolt” from those keyboard warriors) and crying over their loss in November. Boo-hoo.
Well, I guess you have no hope.
john:
do you expect klayman to say, “after reading the appropriate statutes, rules, precedent, etc, i concluded that i had no case?”
perhaps, “no case” is the reason why RESPECTABLE attorneys like ted olson, ben ginburg, victoria toensing, joe digenova, etc (ALL CONSERVATIVES) have not touched the issue of obama’s eligibility
when the issue of mccain’s eligibility arose, he contracted with ted olson and lawrence tribe (2 respectable attorneys from both sides) to prepare a memorandum
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The Tribe/Olson Memo on Natural Born Citizenship
on page 2, they discuss obama
http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2010/01/tribeolson-memo-on-natural-born.html
Since ‘we’ are into paraphrase today…
To paraphrase an often quoted motto that could almost be unofficial motto of this site:
“If you don’t want to be treated with frivolity, don’t act frivolous.”
A birfer alleging inherent, systemic conspiracy in the justice system. I’m shocked.
When will the revolt begin? I grow so weary of waiting. I demand entertainment, and continue in the hope that the eventual revolution will eventually be televised.
I see a vast cavalry of almost thirty geezers mounted on power chairs, an infantry of Chubby Pants-a-lots (Rudy, Corsi, Arpaio, Mario, etc.) eating as they march, a naval force of two bass boats captained by Kerchner and the JAG Hunter, and Darren Huff, the Tranny Hunter, scouting ahead in a hillbilly-gilly suit. Dean Haskins (remember him?!) can write the score, and Joel Gilbert can make the video. Mail out a million copies to Ohio voters and in 2016 well have another Democratic president.
Earth to John: Most appeals fail because most of the time the lower court ruling is correct.
What I like about “john” is the amusing notion of being lectured to by a guy who can’t even spell.
Winning an appeal is no small task simply because usually, the court knows what it is talking about. However, appeals are successful fairly often, simply because courts do make a mistake. Any attorney who files an appeal simply to give the other side a piece of their mind is potentially committing legal malpractice, as they are wasting the time and resources of the courts, their adversaries and their own clients. Unless you think you have a valid claim in making the appeal, you should not bring the appeal.
And Mendax Mario the bloated, bloviating, bag of BS chimes in on the butt hurt
http://puzo1.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-florida-courts-say-that-if-anyone.html
Usual nonsense, usual verbal diarrhea, usual sad whine, usual inability to actually read the courts findings, usual ME ME ME ME ME ME.
In the comments is Voeltz adding his two cents. Of course he is wrong again.
The birthers don’t seem to understand that the judge was paraphrasing to make a point. They actually seem to think he was using the movie as precedent.
More filings in Voeltz
http://www.scribd.com/doc/118046451/Plaintiff-s-Reply-in-Support
True, but not for the reasons you cite. (Tellingly, you did not say “any lawyer will tell you that winning an appeal is no small task because courts work hard to protect their own”.)
Crank 101 talk – “I did not lose because I had no case but because the court was wrong and the appeals court covered it up”.
You forgot “to milk the poor citizens off some more money in cahoots with the lawyerers”. You only get a “C-” in this Crank 101 lesson.
Then you just have to hope one of your precious birfer cases will draw the lucky number and be among those rulings. Rejoice! Any. Day. Now.