Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    12:57 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Voeltz v Obama - Newly Found Case Authority Notice - Florida Obama Electoral Challenge - 12/31/2012 Back to Topics
jdhelm

Champion Author
Iowa

Posts:16,067
Points:1,792,415
Joined:Dec 2009
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 6:34:54 AM

[L=http://www.scribd.com/doc/118730291/text deleted v Obama - Newly Found Case Authority Notice - Florida Obama Electoral Challenge - 12/31/2012 [/L]

-

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDAMICHAEL C. VOELTZ,Plaintiff,Case No.: 2012 CA 003857 vs.BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, et. al.Defendants.__________________________________________/ NOTICE OF NEWLY FOUND CASE AUTHORITY AND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTIONFOR REHEARINGPlaintiff Michael Voeltz, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this Noticeof Newly Found Case Authority and Supplement to Motion For Rehearing. In conducting further research, Plaintiff has come across the case of Palm Beach CountyCanvassing Board v. Harris, 772 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 2000) (Exhibit 1), legal authority that wassomehow overlooked by the court and the parties.At issue here is the applicability of Florida Election law to the presidential election. Inconsidering the presidential election, the Florida Supreme Court ruled:"It is important, perhaps, to remind ourselves that the Florida Legislature has expressly vested inthe voters of Florida the authority to elect the presidential electors who will ultimately participatein choosing a president:Electors of President and Vice President, known as presidential electors, shall be elected onthe first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each year the number of which is amultiple of 4. Votes cast for the actual candidates for President and Vice President shall becounted as votes cast for the presidential electors supporting such candidates. TheDepartment of State shall certify as elected the presidential electors of the candidates forPresident and Vice President who receive the highest number of votes. -

I can't get the url/www address to highlight, any help on this is appreciated.

[Edited by: jdhelm at 1/3/2013 6:36:40 AM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
mswiggy
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:2,299
Points:403,255
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 3:15:01 PM

I do not intend to say what should happened if it is proved he is not a natural born citizen; he would have no defense as he claims to be versed in Constitutional Law.

-----
Personaly my therory-- If the supreme court was to ever define Natural Born citizen, which they would not do untill Obama is out of office, we would never truely know. It would be like finding Capones body or how M. Monroe really died. The true coverups would never end.
Profile Pic
mswiggy
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:2,299
Points:403,255
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 3:11:02 PM

BGT- you last post seems to contain many things we do agree with. First the research and learning part is the best of sites like these. I agree that natural born citizen and citizen would have 2 meanings in there own. That is also why I believe our forefathers also stated the word or in the constitution so that as long as the person going to be President had to be one or the other. My understanding is that a natural born citizen is always a citizen, however a citizen is not always natural born citizen.

----------
Glad to hear your on the way to better health, God Speed with your recovery.
PS Did you get your putor working correctly?
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 11:50:12 AM

You are correct, The "problem is in the translation and the way people want to twist it now."

I have been ill for about a week with a head cold which has impeded my memory at times but my memories are now coming back but not as fast as I would like them. It seems I came across a Supreme Court case which definitely said that a natural born citizen was a citizen of two parents who were US citizens at the time of birth but I don't remember where I found that and hope it was not my imagination.

But think about it. If being a citizen at birth with only one parent a US citizen is the same as natural born citizen, then the term natural born citizen is practically worthless. The term "natural born citizen" is to insure that anyone who is President has absolutely no foreign influence. The circumstances of Obama's birth would be considered by our forefathers as giving him foreign influence.

Don't be discouraged. It's good we research this and work it out. I do not intend to say what should happened if it is proved he is not a natural born citizen; he would have no defense as he claims to be versed in Constitutional Law.

[Edited by: BlackGumTree at 1/6/2013 11:53:24 AM EST]
Profile Pic
mswiggy
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:2,299
Points:403,255
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 11:12:49 AM

I am not disputting they had copy's, thats not in question for me.

My problem is in the translation and the way people want to twist it now. That there is my problem.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 11:07:18 AM

Swiss editor Charles W.F. Dumas sent Benjamin Franklin three original French copies of de Vattel's Le droit des gens (The Law of Nations). Franklin presented one copy to the Library Company of Philadelphia. On December 9, 1775, Franklin thanked Dumas:

It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary to frequently consult the Law of Nations.

Franklin also said that this book by Vattel, "has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting".

Two notable copies of The Law of Nations owned by the New York Society Library have been associated with US President George Washington. One copy had been borrowed by Washington on 8 October 1789, along with a copy of Vol. 12 of the Commons Debates, containing transcripts from Great Britain's House of Commons. When the staff of the Washington museum at Mount Vernon heard about the overdue books, they were unable to locate them, but purchased a second copy of the de Vattel work for US$12,000. This identical copy was ceremoniously "returned" 221 years late on 20 May 2010. The library waived the unpaid late-fees.

Congress didn't need translations; they worked from and checked the versions in French.



[Edited by: BlackGumTree at 1/6/2013 11:09:36 AM EST]
Profile Pic
mswiggy
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:2,299
Points:403,255
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 10:46:06 AM

Vattel’s Law of Nations was translated into English in 1760, based on the French original of 1758. A Dublin translation of 1787 does not include notes from the original nor posthumous notes added to the 1773 French edition. Several other English editions were based on the edition of 1760. However, an English edition from 1793 includes Vattel’s later thoughts, as did the London 1797 edition. The 1797 edition has a detailed table of contents and margin titles for subsections.

----

Important wording found twice -- translations were based on the 1758 version and 1760 version. Some versions were missing pieces of the orginal, some pieces were done in error ( as your link shows) and some pieces were added.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,073
Points:2,981,920
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 10:41:19 AM

"I would love to see something from the supreme court that states this not a birther site, sorry not attacking you in any way but I do prefer law over translation of a bias source. Thank you for taking the time to post it."

You might love to see it, but you won't. None of the Justices has bothered to write a dissent in denial of cert for any of these utterly pathetic cases; surely, if there were a remote chance that one of them felt that Obama was not legitimately in office, they'd be writing dissents to every denial of cert to a birther case. But they don't. They don't need to dignify ridiculousness with an explanation.
Profile Pic
mswiggy
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:2,299
Points:403,255
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 10:34:40 AM

BGT - from your birther link--

"Please note that the correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader---

How many other errors were made?

I would love to see something from the supreme court that states this not a birther site, sorry not attacking you in any way but I do prefere law over translation of a bias source. Thank you for taking the time to post it.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 10:15:21 AM

When our forefathers wrote the Constitution, many of them had copies of "The Law of Nations" written by Emmerich de Vattel in 1758 and were familiar with its contents. The copies were written in French which our forefathers could read. I don't know if any had English translations or not.

See the following:

Vattel’s Influence on the term a Natural Born Citizen

Please note that Obama's father was never a citizen of the United States and never intended to be a citizen of the United States. As such he introduces the idea that Obama could be affected by foreign influence thus making him ineligible to be considered a Natural Born Citizen; Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States of America.
Profile Pic
mswiggy
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:2,299
Points:403,255
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 11:41:14 PM

No Supreme Court opinion has "defined" natural born citizenship for purposes of presidential eligibility. The cases cited were either dictum or concerned ordinary citizenship sufficient to vote or hold office other than that of president.
The evidence we have of the original meaning of "natural born" citizen (although they used the term "subject") come from the commentaries of William Blackstone and Edward Coke. Vattel is not a correct source on this point, because he was a Swiss writing about the rule used on the European Continent, jus sanguinis, not the different rule used in Britain and its colonies, jus soli

Presidential Eligibility From Constitution.org
Profile Pic
mswiggy
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:2,299
Points:403,255
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 11:28:35 PM

Those cases you site still Do not give a full defintion of a Natural Born Citizen, that is why it was asked again of the supreme court as late of Nov. 2012 to define it. Which they have not done. The closest again comes Wong, who's situation is closest to Obamas with the fact of being born here, leaving the country and coming back which seems to be the issue since most now believe he was born here.
Profile Pic
mswiggy
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:2,299
Points:403,255
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 11:24:57 PM

The Constitution’s text on the issue states “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The problem arises due to a pesky comma. Does the clause “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” refer only to “a Citizen of the United States” or to both clauses including “a natural born Citizen?” It turns out that according to accepted rules of grammar in 1787, the pesky comma means that “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” refers to both antecedent clauses.

This means that the President must be a natural born citizen at the time of adoption or a citizen at the time of adoption, 1789. Any person born after 1789 isn’t eligible to be President of the United States. That makes Zachary Taylor the last constitutional President.

Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 10:17:18 PM

mswiggy - "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States"

Think you're pretty clever thinking you can get by with that. What the Constitution actually says is: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

You can see from that Obama must be a natural born Citizen because he is NOT "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution".

I expected you to do better than that! And try these on for size:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

In 16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners

On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

[Edited by: BlackGumTree at 1/5/2013 10:23:07 PM EST]
Profile Pic
mswiggy
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:2,299
Points:403,255
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 9:33:21 PM

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) --- womens rights to vote or not and were they considered citizens.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

another womens rights case, way before women had rights as humans or citizens of the usThe Venus says nothing about the definition of a “natural born citizen.” It doesn’t even contain the term. Klayman is correct to say that the “definition” is “repeated” and not “cited,” but he is at best disingenuous when he says it is a definition of “natural born citizen.”

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Wong was born here left for vacation came back was went through his court battle to prove he was a citizen because he was born here. This one actually should not be used by birthers because in the end he was considered by the court as a citizen of the US.
Profile Pic
mswiggy
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:2,299
Points:403,255
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 9:13:43 PM

BGT= Yes that is the definition of a citizen, why do you ignore the fact that the constituion states clearly ==

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States

==========
that very little word of (or) a citizen makes it so.

-------
yes the supreme court has been asked to define natural born citizen, however we already have the defintion to citizen which covers Obama.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 8:41:49 PM

mswiggy - "BGT- So which definition do you want to go by, the constitution of the united states or the supreme court-"

The Supreme Court decides the meaning of the Constitution and the laws. The Supreme Court does not make up its own definition; it tells you what the word in the Constitution means.

You seem to be confused. The 14th amendment defines citizen, but not "natural born citizen".

Here are four Supreme Court cases to get you started:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 8:27:02 PM

mswiggy - "BGT- So which definition do you want to go by, the constitution of the united states or the supreme court-"

The Supreme Court decides the meaning of the Constitution and the laws. The Supreme Court does not make up its own definition; it tells you what the word in the Constitution means.

You seem to be confused. The 14th amendment defines citizen, but not "natural born citizen".

I will look up the case and let you know.

[Edited by: BlackGumTree at 1/5/2013 8:29:22 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,299
Points:3,830,955
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 8:14:05 PM

"before they were saying he wasn't born in Hawaii. Now its challenging the status of his parents"

And when that doesn't work, they will challenge the status of Hawaii, claiming it is actually a federal state of Japan, or some such other dumbitity.
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:10,662
Points:2,041,465
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 9:17:40 AM

Good God, worryfree's Alzheimer's is kicking in BIG TIME! ;)
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 12:49:09 AM

oh no this is a new one worry. See before they were saying he wasn't born in Hawaii. Now its challenging the status of his parents thereby negating his citizenship.
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,236
Points:2,411,550
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 11:47:41 PM

Good God I thought the birthers had gone back to their caves
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,236
Points:2,411,550
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 11:47:39 PM

Good God I thought the birthers had gone back to their caves
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,236
Points:2,411,550
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 11:47:39 PM

Good God I thought the birthers had gone back to their caves
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,299
Points:3,830,955
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 7:13:30 PM

This sameoldsameold never-ending garbage from a small group of sore losers has cost the United States court time at many levels, and an unknown amount of productivity.
Profile Pic
mswiggy
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:2,299
Points:403,255
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 5:38:21 PM

BGT - I must respectivly disagree with you simply on the grounds that as per the contisitution states natural born citizen or a citizen. There has been no defintion by law that would make Obama not eligable. As far as he being a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution , that would include all of us because none of us were born at that time.
I know the supreme court has been asked to define natural born citizen but they have not done so as of yet. Because his (Obama) mother was a citizen of the US and he was born in the US he qualifies.

I respect your opinion (From my understanding of the term "Natural Born Citizen", none of these meets the requirement to be President or Vice President of the United States)

He (Obama) either way is covered under the 14th admendment stating that "all persons born or natualized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizen of the United States".
This in itself covers him as a citizen and allows him to complete the qualification in the constitution to be president. Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States

Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,073
Points:2,981,920
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 12:24:28 PM

"You gave us a link to the Freedom Watch List and it exists on that site."

All I saw there was the motion by the plaintiff. What are you talking about?
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 11:56:39 AM

smg4law - "It can't show up on their site if it doesn't exist."

You gave us a link to the Freedom Watch List and it exists on that site.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 11:49:08 AM

mswiggy - "so either way Obama makes the cut as per the Constitution-"

Not so.

Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen

and was not a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution

And therefor is not eligible for the office of President of the United States.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 11:39:49 AM

mswiggy - "Why is this ok for Rubio and Jindal but not Obama?"

From my understanding of the term "Natural Born Citizen", none of these meets the requirement to be President or Vice President of the United States.

To be a Natural Born Citizen a person must be born a citizen of the United States of parents who were both citizens at the time of the birth of their child. None of these meets that requirement.
Profile Pic
mswiggy
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:2,299
Points:403,255
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 11:35:00 AM


Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.---------
The Constitution addressed both - a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States,

so either way Obama makes the cut as per the Constitution-

Profile Pic
mswiggy
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:2,299
Points:403,255
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 11:29:59 AM

BGT- So which definition do you want to go by, the constitution of the united states or the supreme court-

you said below- Wake up! If Obama is does not me the eligibility requirements in the United States Constitution, then he is NOT actually a President and your statement would not be applicable to Obama

Now your saying the defintion by the supreme court ( I can not find anything by the way that states a different defintion from them compared to the Constitution)
---

PS sorry bout your computor and you being under the weather- Hope both get better soon
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 11:06:23 AM

mswiggy - "All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father's nationality."

All that defines is "citizen", not "natural born citizen". The Supreme Court has defined what "Natural Born Citizen" means and that is a citizen who is born of parents who are citizens of the United States.

Obama does not meet that definition.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,073
Points:2,981,920
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 10:39:24 AM

"How soon should the reinstatement show up on the Leon County Court's website?"

It can't show up on their site if it doesn't exist. Larry Klayman, the plaintiff's attorney, does not list it on his site, either, so there is no conspiracy hiding it from you.

Freedom Watch list of cases and orders in cases
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:70,752
Points:4,254,285
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 10:16:20 AM

"Wake up! If Obama is does not me the eligibility requirements in the United States Constitution, then he is NOT actually a President and your statement would not be applicable to Obama."

I am wide awake, though the birther wet dream is exceedingly tiresome.

Since Obama DOES meet the eligibility requirements and he IS the President, it appears you are just perpetuating the delusional claims that have been refuted over and over.


Profile Pic
mswiggy
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:2,299
Points:403,255
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 10:12:19 AM

Bret Baier of Fox News, for example, reports having received e-mails from many concerned about the status of Rubio and Jindal. In a blog, Baier writes:

The Constitution requires that the president be a "natural born citizen," but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father's nationality.

---

Why is this ok for Rubio and Jindal but not Obama?
Are Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal Natural-born Citizens?

[Edited by: mswiggy at 1/4/2013 10:15:51 AM EST]
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 9:52:36 AM

Zimcity - "I'm sure the President of the United States is no more an idiot or Bozo than those who continue to refer to him so shamefully and despicably."

Wake up! If Obama is does not me the eligibility requirements in the United States Constitution, then he is NOT actually a President and your statement would not be applicable to Obama.

Would you consider Obama an idiot if his being eligible depends on people like you being idiots?

It is alright to criticize those who blindly believe that Obama is not eligible but do not dismiss those who are looking at real evidence that Obama does not meet the requirements to be eligible for the office of President of the United States.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 9:41:51 AM

sgm4law - Thank you for your research on this. How soon should the reinstatement show up on the Leon County Court's website?

It appears that there is a valid argument that "Natural Born Citizen" has been defined by the United States Supreme Court as meaning that both parents must be US citizens at the time of birth. It does appear that Obama is not a "Natural Born Citizen" of the United States making him not eligible for the office of President of the United States. If he is not, there will be a lot of repercussions when it is proven.

Then the question arises of why Obama's eligibility has not been challenged in other courts.

Please note that my computer blew its power supply and I have been under the weather for days delaying repairs. I am still not back to normal yet making research and responses slower and incomplete. So your help is appreciated.
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:70,752
Points:4,254,285
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 9:41:03 AM

I'm sure the President of the United States is no more an idiot or Bozo than those who continue to refer to him so shamefully and despicably.

The birther wet dream will never die.
Profile Pic
Cliffisher
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:30,249
Points:3,726,075
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 9:18:08 AM

ODS still runs rabid.
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:10,662
Points:2,041,465
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 7:17:16 AM

NickHammer said: >That's what birthers do. "Oh, our first argument is BS? Well, here's another one. Oh, that's BS, too? Well, here's another one." And on and on and on... These jokers have been wasting the court's time almost continuously for the last 9 1/2 months on this nonsense.<

The "nonsense" is ignoring the blatant flaws in the eligibility case for your idiot messiah. There's more than enough evidence that shows Obozo should have never been considered for the office and some pretty damning evidence of his disdain for the law, including publishing an obviously forged document that you liberals insist is somehow legitimate.

The first argument wasn't BS, nor the second, nor subsequent ones. What is BS is justices throwing out cases by basically saying "Other people must've vetted Obozo, otherwise he couldn't be president right now. I don't know who those other people are, but I'll trust their judgment".

Shameful and despicable!
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,601
Points:3,167,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 11:32:03 PM

>>All I have seen is a very poorly argued motion to reinstate<<

That's because - as I'm sure you already know - there is no "reinstatement order". Never was, probably never will be.

>>(because oops, Klayman figured out another source of precedent he should have cited in his first filing. Unbelievable.)<<

That's what birthers do. "Oh, our first argument is BS? Well, here's another one. Oh, that's BS, too? Well, here's another one." And on and on and on... These jokers have been wasting the court's time almost continuously for the last 9 1/2 months on this nonsense.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,073
Points:2,981,920
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 10:46:20 PM

"It seems odd that you quickly found the dismissal order of 12/21/12 but missed the reinstatement order that found the dismissal order invalid."

When you find that, please post a link. All I have seen is a very poorly argued motion to reinstate (because oops, Klayman figured out another source of precedent he should have cited in his first filing. Unbelievable.). Maybe he got an interlocutory order from a higher court. LOL.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,073
Points:2,981,920
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 10:39:21 PM

It's not odd. I went to the Leon County Court's website and looked under their high profile cases. The last thing listed in the Voeltz case was the order of dismissal.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 9:43:39 PM

A little more of what is going on in this case in a nutshell:

Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875) has held that a “natural-born citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens when the child was born.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898) held that a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment is a child born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” but an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the United States to citizen parents

Obama when he was born in Hawaii became a citizen or the United States, a citizen of Kenya, and a citizen of Britain.

The Founders and Framers demanded that future presidents, who also were to be our commanders in chief of the military, have allegiance and loyalty from birth only to the United States.

Obama was not born with sole allegiance and loyalty from birth to the United States.

The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed the definition to be a child born in the country to citizen parents. Congress is constitutionally bound to apply this definition to Obama.

It therefor appears that Obama is not a "natural born citizen" and it ineligible for the office of President of the United States.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 12:26:11 PM

sgm4law - "Here's the dismissal order from 12/21/12."

It seems odd that you quickly found the dismissal order of 12/21/12 but missed the reinstatement order that found the dismissal order invalid.

The case challenges the eligibility of Obama on his lack of being a "Natural Born Citizen". It appears that the United States Supreme Court in other cases defined "Natural Born Citizen" as someone born of parents who were both United States citizens. Congress do0es not have the option of defining the term.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

I am having difficulty looking this up as my computer is down and the one I am using is not up to date on software thus giving me a hard time. Need to put my regular computer back together. The power supply went bad.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 12:00:43 PM

jdhelm - "I can't get the url/www address to highlight, any help on this is appreciated."

The reason for this is the url is too long for the GasBuddy site to handle. When this happens part of it in the middle is replaced with "text deleted" and there is no link.

To get around this problem, convert the url to a tinyurl and use the tiny url instead.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,073
Points:2,981,920
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 10:03:49 AM

Here's the dismissal order from 12/21/12. I don't know if the court will consider a motion to add newly discovered legal authority; that's pretty odd (not to mention not really dispositive, since it doesn't deal directly with the reasons for dismissal).

[Edited by: sgm4law at 1/3/2013 10:06:45 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Cliffisher
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:30,249
Points:3,726,075
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 7:41:54 AM

What was that empty box car all about?
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:10,662
Points:2,041,465
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 6:52:36 AM

...and good for Michael Voeltz for pressing the judicial system to hear the case. What's gone on with all these dismissals makes our justice system look anything but just!
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:10,662
Points:2,041,465
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 6:47:54 AM

I was going to find the full link and turn it into a TinyURL, but found that just a partial link would get you to the right page.
Post a reply Back to Topics