Main Menu

Florida hearing set for June 18 in Voeltz case

According to a press release from Larry Klayman, Leon County judge Terry Lewis has called for additional briefing on the meaning of “natural born citizen” prior to a discovery hearing in Voeltz v. Obama June 18 at 9 am.

Klayman has argued, as many have unsuccessfully before, that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father was British. So far courts have ruled against this contention, most recently the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey in the case of Purpura v. Obama.

,

81 Responses to Florida hearing set for June 18 in Voeltz case

  1. avatar
    realist June 2, 2012 at 5:53 pm #

    And anyone who believes the judge made this statement “Judge Terry Lewis States “Natural Born Citizen” Definition Will Be Decided” I’d love to meet with them as I have some lakefront property in the Sahara Desert I’d like to sell.

    This sounds like the same type of statement Orly made in Barnett v Obama when she stated that Judge Carter had promised her a trial. Anyone with an IQ higher than a grape knew even before the transcript was produced which proved differently that the judge said no such thing, because at that stage of the case no judge would have.

    I feel the same about the statement attributed to the judge in the Voeltz case by Klayman.

  2. avatar
    richCares June 2, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

    you have to admit that Klayman had one successful suit, the one where he sued his mother.

  3. avatar
    Rickey June 2, 2012 at 10:42 pm #

    Klayman previously announced that “discovery is underway” in the Voeltz case, so we know how trustworthy his word is. I certainly wouldn’t trust anything he says without seeing an actual hearing notice.

    The docket doesn’t list anything for June 18 yet – perhaps it will be updated next week. There are several motions filed by the defendants which are pending.

    http://cvweb.clerk.leon.fl.us/process.asp?template=dockets&addQuery=real_case.case_id=%2758101756%27

  4. avatar
    Xyxox June 2, 2012 at 11:39 pm #

    The Birthers may have judge shopped enough to finally find one who will actually rule in their favor. Lewis, after all, was the judge who allowed Katherine Harris to certify the results in the 2000 presidential election which was a ruling ultimately upheld by a 5-4 ruling on Bush v. Gore in the SCOTUS on December 12, 2000.

  5. avatar
    JPotter June 2, 2012 at 11:52 pm #

    Xyxox: The Birthers may have judge shopped enough to finally find one who will actually rule in their favor.

    There’s fudging, and then there’s ripping the time-space continuum. Let’s get some odds going on whether Lewis will birf. Even if he is completely in the tank for the Reds (and such political partisanship would be a disgrace to his profession and office), any ruling in the birther’s favor would not do them any favors. There’d be a national titter, some entertaining hullbaloo, but ultimately it would force the ongoing silliness to center stage, where it would be DOA. Some proscription would be put in place to keep the new national embarrassment in the garden shed, once and for all. What form would that take tho?

    Seeing the Red brain trust forced to denounce birtherism—again, this time in a formal fashion—would do wonders for Romney’s chances. Seeing them all flip flop would be even better, and doom the Reds coast to coast.

    Not that I want to see a judge go off the deep end or anything.

  6. avatar
    Xyxox June 3, 2012 at 12:02 am #

    Not that I want to see a judge go off the deep end or anything

    Call me cynical but from where I sit, there never has been nor will there ever be anything remotely approaching “justice” on this planet. All court decisions are politically motivated, IMHO.

    Had circumstances been different, I could easily see rightwing judges ruling that Obama is not a natural born citizen. I can easily see Lewis doing so just as a “screw you” to Democrats. After all, he’s done it before, as has members of the SCOTUS.

  7. avatar
    Sam Sewell June 3, 2012 at 12:17 am #

    Do you really think AKA Obama would have won the election if all the things he is hiding were made known?

    Do you really think AKA Obama will be able to finish his first term if all the things he is hiding are made known?

    Why aren’t the polls on the birth certificate issue 100% in favor of AKA Obama practicing the virtue of full disclosure? It makes sense that supporters of AKA Obama would want the issue settled along with everyone else. I guess there is a significant portion of the population who are opposed to releasing AKA Obama’s history because they are afraid of what it will reveal. I would conclude that those opposed to releasing all of Obama’s history are frightened of the truth just like AKA Obama.

    If you are not suspicious of a man who hides his history I have a bridge in the desert I want to sell you.

    If you are unwilling to call for an investigation of a man who attempts to sell you a bridge in the desert I have some beach front property in Florida at the intersection of I75 and Florida # 29 that I want you to buy.

    If you place a down payment on a contract for the bridge in the desert and the beach front property in the swamp I would conclude that you voted for Obama.

    Obama will be exposed –Don’t get caught on the wrong side of this issue
    ObamaBallotChallenge.com

  8. avatar
    gorefan June 3, 2012 at 12:36 am #

    Sam Sewell: Do you really think AKA Obama would have won the election if all the things he is hiding were made known?
    Do you really think AKA Obama will be able to finish his first term if all the things he is hiding are made known?

    Yes, he would have been elected since he told us pretty much everything we needed to know.

    Yes, he would be allowed to finish his first term since nothing that has been revealed sine Januray 20, 2009 hasindicated any reason for him not to complete his first term.

    I don’t understand the third question.

  9. avatar
    JPotter June 3, 2012 at 12:55 am #

    Xyxox: All court decisions are politically motivated, IMHO.

    Yep, Xyxox, that’s pretty darn cynical!

    If you’re saying judges are influencing by peronal bias and contemporary politics, I agree. Say, “Well, duh” even. But to assert that judges commonly make blatantly partisan decision …. putting party politics above principle … I’d say, “yikes”. That’s somewhat of what i meant by fudging vs. ripping the space-time continuum. I know it happens, but rarely. It’s a extreme perversion of the function of a judge.

  10. avatar
    JPotter June 3, 2012 at 12:57 am #

    Sam Sewell: It makes sense that supporters of AKA Obama would want the issue settled along with everyone else.

    I hypothesize that Sam is stuck in a time loop.

    Sam, please check your nearest calendar! What year is it? You are being received in 2012! What year is it on your end?

  11. avatar
    Wile June 3, 2012 at 1:09 am #

    Sam Sewell:

    If you are not suspicious of a man who hides his history I have a bridge in the desert I want to sell you.

    What’s this bridge made of? What’s the price? How close is the nearest scrap yard?

  12. avatar
    G June 3, 2012 at 1:39 am #

    Yes and yes. The only difference between where we are today and where things stood at this time in 2008 is that we have amassed an amazing amount of additional evidence that ALL CONFIRMS what was already stated and known about Obama’s background during the 2008 election.

    There was ZERO secret about his dad being from Kenya or his birth in HI. The “LFBC” only confirmed what was ALREADY made clear from the COLB in 2008.

    So of course he would have still won the election. All these nonsense “concerns” about his background or associations that floated around in 2008 didn’t seem to matter to an OVERWHELMING segment of the voting population, which CHOSE him over McCain by a massive 9.5 million vote margin of victory. His electoral college victory margin was even more impressive.

    And all that was when he was a relative newcomer on stage, where one of the key REAL issues in the election was EXPERIENCE.

    Now, he’s the INCUMBENT. Only ODS suffering fools who never would vote for him anyways waste time pretending to care about his distant past and make up slanderous revisionist nonsense stories about him.

    For any sane and non-petty people, the only REAL issues this time around is evaluating his record during his first term versus whether someone seriously thinks his opponent(s) would be able to do any better. That is really what a reelection campaign comes down to, outside of the blindly partisan and hate-based crowds, which are already factored into the equation (and therefore, are NOT the ones who actually determine the result of the election).

    Sam Sewell: Do you really think AKA Obama would have won the election if all the things he is hiding were made known?
    Do you really think AKA Obama will be able to finish his first term if all the things he is hiding are made known?

  13. avatar
    bob j June 3, 2012 at 1:44 am #

    Sam Sewell: I guess there is a significant portion of the population who are opposed to releasing AKA Obama’s history because they are afraid of what it will reveal. I would conclude that those opposed to releasing all of Obama’s history are frightened of the truth just like AKA Obama

    Sam Sewell: Obama will be exposed –Don’t get caught on the wrong side of this issue
    ObamaBallotChallenge.com

    What, exactly, happens to people on the wrong side of the issue? Birthers seem to be on the wrong side, and the only thing that happens to them is constant court defeat.

    By the first quote, are you accusing tens of millions of people of being involved in a conspiracy?

  14. avatar
    nbc June 3, 2012 at 2:29 am #

    Sam Sewell: Do you really think AKA Obama would have won the election if all the things he is hiding were made known?

    Sure. Him hiding his Hawaiian birth hardly would have made a difference. Oh wait, he did not hide his birth

  15. avatar
    nbc June 3, 2012 at 2:30 am #

    Sam Sewell:

    Obama will be exposed –Don’t get caught on the wrong side of this issue
    ObamaBallotChallenge.com

    That’s a wise advise. So what are you going to do about this? It’s a two edged sword my dear Sam and so far, you are on the losing side with no evidence.

  16. avatar
    Whatever4 June 3, 2012 at 4:50 am #

    Sam Sewell:
    Do you really think AKA Obama would have won the election if all the things he is hiding were made known?

    Do you really think AKA Obama will be able to finish his first term if all the things he is hiding are made known?

    If you are not suspicious of a man who hides his history I have a bridge in the desert I want to sell you.

    I’m probably an idiot for asking, but what do you allege he’s hiding? He’s been in the public eye since age 23, when he moved to Chicago and started appearing in local publications. Interviews with neighbors, classmates, teachers, professors, landlords, and more have been published in major publications since 2004 when he hit the national stage. There’s plenty of people who knew him at every stage of his life. http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/people-remember-president-obama/friends-3/

  17. avatar
    Scientist June 3, 2012 at 8:22 am #

    Sam Sewell: If you are not suspicious of a man who hides his history I have a bridge in the desert I want to sell you.

    This one? http://www.flickr.com/photos/60752229@N06/5916611151/

    or this one? http://www.ronsaari.com/stockImages/bridges/IBPerrineBridge.php

    Both seem like they might be worth a fair amount.

    How can I contact you to arrange purchase?

  18. avatar
    Bob June 3, 2012 at 8:28 am #

    The only thing the Birthers have actually proven so far is that Obama was born in Hawaii. Now, they’re working on making sure that their mythical two-citizen-parent-for-presidents-only rule wouldn’t disqualify him or anyone else born under the same circumstances.

    Thanks Birthers and

    >–FULL-STEAM-AHEAD–>

  19. avatar
    realist June 3, 2012 at 8:57 am #

    Sam’s posts tend to prove Shaklee products cause brain damage.

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 3, 2012 at 9:13 am #

    The birthers make Obama to be the great hider of information, but I don’t see it. I see behavior in line with everybody else, and other past presidents and presidential candidates.

    You and your kin build a false argument, pointing out every imaginable bit of documentation you don’t have, but keeping quiet about the mountain of information you do have and totally failing to put your questions into the perspective of what you know about other political candidates.

    I know you hate the guy, but you’re making is a dishonest argument and a smear. Your hatred and biased thought make you worthless as a commentator except for people equally jaundiced.

    Sam Sewell: Do you really think AKA Obama would have won the election if all the things he is hiding were made known?

  21. avatar
    JPotter June 3, 2012 at 10:39 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The birthers make Obama to be the great hider of information, but I don’t see it.

    Oh, Doc, your wit is legendary. 😉

  22. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 3, 2012 at 11:36 am #

    Sam Sewell: Do you really think AKA Obama would have won the election if all the things he is hiding were made known?
    Do you really think AKA Obama will be able to finish his first term if all the things he is hiding are made known?

    What is he hiding? And, if it’s hidden that means you don’t know what it is, right? And, if you don’t know what it is then how do you know what could have or will happen?

  23. avatar
    John Reilly June 3, 2012 at 11:45 am #

    Friends, you are going at it the wrong way with our friend Mr. Sewell.

    In 2008 we knew the following about then Senator Obama:

    He is Black.
    His Father was not American; his Father was Black and from Kenya.
    His Father may have been a Muslim.
    Senator Obama lived for a while in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country.
    Senator Obama’s stepfather was a Muslim.
    Senator Obama had a funny name, including a Muslim middle name.
    Senator Obama is Black.
    Senator Obama attended a church whose minister said intemperate things.
    Senator Obama is Black.

    Given all of that, it is insane to think that seeing Senator Obama’s kindergarten records would have made a difference. What would the discussion be in the typical home:

    “Ma, I was going to vote for the Black guy who might be a Muslim, but now that I know he got only a B in coloring within the lines, I’m voting for McCain.”

    Really?

  24. avatar
    y_p_w June 3, 2012 at 12:26 pm #

    John Reilly: Senator Obama had a funny name, including a Muslim middle name.

    Specifically it’s an Arabic name meaning either good or handsome. I’m not authority, but I would think it might be possible for non-Muslims to receive the name because it is such a common name in Arabic speaking countries. It’s also fairly well adopted in non-Arabic countries with Muslim populations.

  25. avatar
    Daniel June 3, 2012 at 12:37 pm #

    John Reilly:
    Friends, you are going at it the wrong way with our friend Mr. Sewell.

    In 2008 we knew the following about then Senator Obama:

    He is Black.
    His Father was not American; his Father was Black and from Kenya.
    His Father may have been a Muslim.
    Senator Obama lived for a while in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country.
    Senator Obama’s stepfather was a Muslim.
    Senator Obama had a funny name, including a Muslim middle name.
    Senator Obama is Black.
    Senator Obama attended a church whose minister said intemperate things.
    Senator Obama is Black.

    Given all of that, it is insane to think that seeing Senator Obama’s kindergarten records would have made a difference. What would the discussion be in the typical home:

    “Ma, I was going to vote for the Black guy who might be a Muslim, but now that I know he got only a B in coloring within the lines, I’m voting for McCain.”

    Really?

    I agree the things they demand or make up about Obama border on the ludicrous.

    “He’s not eligible because he’s a socialist”

    Even if it was true, which it most certainly is not, being a socialist is not illegal, nor is it an impediment to eligibility. Yet you see that, and the Muslim meme all the time, as if he needs to be arrested for it.

    Who can really explain the delusions of birtherism?

  26. avatar
    AlCum June 3, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

    Sam Sewell:
    It makes sense that supporters of AKA Obama would want the issue settled along with everyone else.

    What issue?

  27. avatar
    Dave B. June 3, 2012 at 1:47 pm #

    What does Voeltz need an attorney for? He’s already said he knows more about this than “any attorney”, because he’s been reading “probably the most knowledgeable source of information on the subject of, you know, what a natural born citizen is”: Leo Donofrio’s blog.
    He says so right here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8apBFXLHeU
    right after he makes his little joke about 7 minutes in.

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 3, 2012 at 3:01 pm #

    I think that it’s more that Klayman needs Voeltz rather than the other way around. No plaintiff, no fee.

    Dave B.: What does Voeltz need an attorney for?

  29. avatar
    Xyxox June 3, 2012 at 3:18 pm #

    JPotter: Yep, Xyxox, that’s pretty darn cynical!

    If you’re saying judges are influencing by peronal bias and contemporary politics, I agree. Say, “Well, duh” even. But to assert that judges commonly make blatantly partisan decision …. putting party politics above principle … I’d say, “yikes”. That’s somewhat of what i meant by fudging vs. ripping the space-time continuum. I know it happens, but rarely. It’s a extreme perversion of the function of a judge.

    To each their own. I have come to trust judges not at all, especially in more local circumstances where they stand election. There is no justice, there is only politics.

  30. avatar
    JPotter June 3, 2012 at 5:24 pm #

    Dave B.: What does Voeltz need an attorney for?

    Preparing legal paperwork, and stage presence: standing up in a court of law, opening his mouth, and vocalizing coherently. He might be convinced he’s an expert on Presidential eligibility, but, to my knowledge, even Donofrio’s blog is short on practicalities. (heehee!) Further, I’d postulate no one has yet found their courage (or recognized their inner shamelessness) by reading blogs. So, he’s buying someone else’s shamelssne—er, courage.

  31. avatar
    Reality Check June 3, 2012 at 5:56 pm #

    Doc

    Thanks for the info. I added this to the Birther Events Calendar.

    In other matters the Birthers at Mario’s blog have promoted me to a full professorship so I now expect more money, more respect, more perks, to be called Dr. Check, and especially, more money. 😆

  32. avatar
    Bob Weber June 3, 2012 at 6:13 pm #

    JPotter and Xyxox: I’ll make book on the odds of Judge Lewis going birfer at 100 to 1 against.

    Sam Sewell: Do you believe that Obama’s paternity was kept secret from you? When did you first learn of it? Did you watch his speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention? Was the “two citizen parent” requirement concealed from you? When did you first learn of it?

  33. avatar
    Northland10 June 3, 2012 at 6:38 pm #

    Sam Sewell: Do you really think AKA Obama would have won the election if all the things he is hiding were made known?

    Do you really think AKA Obama will be able to finish his first term if all the things he is hiding are made known?

    In other words, you are saying, “if he would just admit that is guilty like we know he is, this would all be over.” You most long for those that glorious times of Salem in 1692.

    Maybe you could toss President Obama in the pond, and if he floats, he is not eligible.

    Any day now…

  34. avatar
    JPotter June 3, 2012 at 6:48 pm #

    Reality Check: to be called Dr. Check

    Not Dr. Reality? Aww, dang, already taken (that’s not you, is it?)

    Bob Weber: I’ll make book on the odds of Judge Lewis going birfer at 100 to 1 against.

    I see you’re no fool! Odds long enough to attract some “what the hell” money, but still far, far short of the actual probability, making it practically free money for the house.

    You’ll have no trouble collecting birfer bucks with those odds, all you need is a paypal button! 😉

  35. avatar
    Keith June 3, 2012 at 6:50 pm #

    Reality Check:
    Doc

    Thanks for the info. I added this to the Birther Events Calendar.

    In other matters the Birthers at Mario’s blog have promoted me to a full professorshipso I now expect more money, more respect, more perks, to be called Dr. Check, and especially, more money.

    In my experience, the “Dr.” doesn’t get you any extra money unless its an MD. On the other hand a “full professorship” should get you 1.5 or 2 times the money you were getting before. But ‘they’ are starting to do away with tenure, so don’t count on keeping it for long.

  36. avatar
    Rickey June 3, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    Sam Sewell:

    If you are not suspicious of a man who hides his history I have a bridge in the desert I want to sell you.

    The London Bridge in Lake Havasu City? I might be interested if the price is right.

    http://photographs.mccumber.us/540/southwest2003_07.jpg

  37. avatar
    clestes June 3, 2012 at 7:38 pm #

    Well it is just going to be another ruling by the court in favor of the president and add to the more than 125 cases in favor of the president. Every case makes them look more ridiculous. All this birther stuff is becoming ridiculous and it does no favors. Romney is going to have to make some choices.

  38. avatar
    Bob Weber June 3, 2012 at 7:52 pm #

    JPotter: Not Dr. Reality? Aww, dang, already taken (that’s not you, is it?)

    I see you’re no fool! Odds long enough to attract some “what the hell” money, but still far, far short of the actual probability, making it practically free money for the house.

    You’ll have no trouble collecting birfer bucks with those odds, all you need is a paypal button!

    My momma didn’t raise any dumb kids!

  39. avatar
    BillTheCat June 3, 2012 at 9:21 pm #

    Nice to see you visit Sam, too bad you won’t be back since you’re too much of a chicken to do anything but drop a copy and pasted screed and bounce. Ciao!

  40. avatar
    roadburner June 4, 2012 at 5:58 am #

    Bob: The only thing the Birthers have actually proven so far is that Obama was born in Hawaii. Now, they’re working on making sure that their mythical two-citizen-parent-for-presidents-only rule wouldn’t disqualify him or anyone else born under the same circumstances.Thanks Birthers and >–FULL-STEAM-AHEAD–>

    now this one is going down in flames more often than a looped film of the hindenberg, i’m seeing a rise in birfoons saying `well, it’s NATURAL LAW to need 2 citizen parents!’

    they do seem to get a bit pissed when you ask them where that is written in u.s. law and the constitution.

  41. avatar
    The Magic M June 4, 2012 at 7:06 am #

    roadburner: i’m seeing a rise in birfoons saying `well, it’s NATURAL LAW to need 2 citizen parents!’

    Still, the Vattelist stuff isn’t going to get much track among the population, so that’s as dead-end as the “flag with gold fringe” nuttery. The birth certificate stuff may still sway a couple of people, but anything else? Especially after they’ve invested most of their efforts into the Kenyan birth myth.

  42. avatar
    Majority Will June 4, 2012 at 10:05 am #

    john:
    HOLLYWOOD PRODUCER HEARD BILL CLINTON SAY OBAMA INELIGIBLE
    Insider in Hillary’s 2008 campaign points to ‘original birthers’

    “Everybody who has called this a conspiracy from the Republicans or the tea party, they need to know who started it – the Democrats,” she said.

    More pathetic smear tactics from Farah and his favorite boy toy Jerome.

    How many books and articles has WND profited from on birtherism?

    Isn’t Arpaio just one of several book agents for Puffy Jerome?

    So Apuzzo, Taitz, Donofrio, Kreep, Van Irion, Klayman, Hatfield and all of the other cockroaches who continue to clog the courts with asinine bigotry are Democrats?

    Good to know.

  43. avatar
    JPotter June 4, 2012 at 10:13 am #

    Again, Birthers cement their grade school cred, this time with: “She started it! She started it!”

    Even if true, it doesn’t matter whose hand was their firtst, your hand was caught in the cookie jar.

    8-yr olds, dude. 8 year-olds.

    Kindergarten teachers would make excellent anti-birthers.

  44. avatar
    The Magic M June 4, 2012 at 10:44 am #

    Majority Will: “Everybody who has called this a conspiracy from the Republicans or the tea party, they need to know who started it – the Democrats,” she said.

    It seems that for some people, doing something bad is OK as long as they can say “somebody else started it”.

    So according to that attitude, if Democrats started slavery, it means it’s OK to have slaves. And because Germans invented genocide on an industrial scale, it’s OK to advocate killing all Germans. Amazing.

    Besides, as I was already told as a child (about fighting): it doesn’t matter who starts something, it matters who finishes it.

  45. avatar
    Stanislaw June 4, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    Sam Sewell:

    Obama will be exposed –Don’t get caught on the wrong side of this issue
    ObamaBallotChallenge.com

    “Any day now…any day now…”

  46. avatar
    sfjeff June 4, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

    Majority Will: HOLLYWOOD PRODUCER HEARD BILL CLINTON SAY OBAMA INELIGIBLE
    Insider in Hillary’s 2008 campaign points to ‘original birthers’

    You know that was a Birther claim that died pretty hard and fast- the ‘producer’ seemed to make the claim and then disappear.

    Oh my god- she was disappeared! Clearly the Obama/One world Government/Bilderwhoosies have silenced her…..

    But overlooked all of the Birther attorney’s with their spinning heads.

  47. avatar
    Suranis June 4, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    Sam Sewell: Do you really think AKA Obama would have won the election if all the things he is hiding were made known?

    Sammy, you were screaming everything you were saying now way back in 2008, with the possible exception of the 2 parent nonsense as that only came into prominence after the election when you needed some way to pretend the black guy was not really the prez. But there were people on Free Republic pushing Vattel since july 2008 and everyone was laughing at them.

    And despite you screaming everything you are screaming now, Obama still won by a margin of 10 million votes.

    As you will now doubt be able to deduce with your Mensa intellect, that means it made sod all difference.

    I think I’m pretty safe on this side of history, thanks. Now run along and try and impress some other people with your Mensa membership, loser.

  48. avatar
    JD Reed June 4, 2012 at 3:18 pm #

    C’mon, Sa m Sewell, why don’t you reply to the posters above who have asked very common-sense questions of you, such as what do you consider that Mr. Obama is hiding, and what is the relevance of that? Birther certificate? Two forms have been vouched for by the Hawaiian DOH. Disblieve that agency if you will, but there’s certainly legiitimate reason for believing the DOH. Grsades? They’re private by law, and no president or residential nominee has ever voluntarily released his.
    Another legitimate question: If Mr. Obama has successfully hidden certain records, how do you know what those records would show if made public.

    Another zany thing you seem to subscribe to, the notion that if one takes a public stand stating his belief that Obama is legit — and it turns out otherwise (only in a parallel universe, if even there), those whose only error was believing Obama face legal peril. Totally nonsensical, even if you compare to Watergate. To review that event, no one who merely stood up for Nixon befopre the evidence became overwhelming against him suffered any legal problems — although many in Congress suffered poltiical l problems in the ’74 el;ection. The only ones who went to jail are those who obstructed justice or had a hand in the original break-in and related crimes.

  49. avatar
    richCares June 4, 2012 at 7:25 pm #

    klayman’s skills come to fruit in his wnd case against Esquire magazine, he lost!
    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/farah-v-esquire-memorand-opinion-dismissing-case/

  50. avatar
    Arthur June 4, 2012 at 8:34 pm #

    Delicious news! Thanks for sharing it.

    richCares: klayman’s skills come to fruit in his wnd case against Esquire magazine, he lost!http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/farah-v-esquire-memorand-opinion-dismissing-case/

  51. avatar
    Northland10 June 4, 2012 at 9:02 pm #

    richCares:
    klayman’s skills come to fruit in his wnd case against Esquire magazine, he lost!
    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/farah-v-esquire-memorand-opinion-dismissing-case/

    Maybe Klayman can use part of the opinion to help is case.

    I. FACTS

    President Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Ann Dunham, from Wichita, Kansas, and Barack Obama, Sr., from Kenya.

    Oops… maybe not.

  52. avatar
    Tarrant June 5, 2012 at 10:48 am #

    I think my favorite part of the opinion is where the judge points out that early in the day that Esquire made the post, Farah had already gone on the radio talking about the “parody” and “satire” that the post was – and that a decision sometime later that maybe they could sue for big bucks and this changed their tune and suddenly denied it was satire can’t change the fact that they admitted from the start that it was, before they decided to deny it.

    Klayman has made a post or two talking about what a travesty the ruling is but of course like many birthers hasn’t actually addressed the ruling itself, just made the standard birther innuendo that “someone” must have gotten to the judge and/or written the opinion for her.

  53. avatar
    donna June 12, 2012 at 9:28 pm #

    2 additions to the docket

    6/12/2012 NOTICE OF FILING OF AFFIDAVITS OF SHERIFF JOSEPH A. ARPAIO AND PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR MIKE ZULLO IN CONTRAVENTION OF CLAIMS BY DEFENDANT BARACK OBAMA THAT HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES OR ITS TERRITORIES

    6/12/2012 PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ON THE DEFINITION OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

    http://cvweb.clerk.leon.fl.us/process.asp?template=dockets&addQuery=real_case.case_id=%2758101756%27

  54. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 12, 2012 at 9:49 pm #

    donna: 2 additions to the docket

    Interesting that Zullo is referred to as a “private investigator”. I don’t believe he has a PI license in Arizona and, of course, he isn’t a peace officer either.

    Your link didn’t work on my first try and a search found the case docket at this url:

    http://cvweb.clerk.leon.fl.us/process.asp?template=dockets&addQuery=real_case.case_id='58101756

    It doesn’t appear that they upload documents so it will be real interesting to see what Arpaio and Zullo have said…..especially if the affidavits were taken under oath.

  55. avatar
    donna June 12, 2012 at 10:10 pm #

    sorry about the link – i had the docket save and just refreshed the page –

    i too looked for the filings –

    this is the “POOP” from the birthers:

    Judge also wants White House to back its definition of natural-born citizen

    Significantly, Judge Terry Lewis in Leon County – known for his rulings in the Bush v. Gore case at the center of the 2000 contested election – has confronted the White House for failing to support its claim that the term “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution means something other than the offspring of two American citizens.

    confronted the white house?

    wants the white house to back blah blah?

    these people should write fiction – oh wait, THEY DO

  56. avatar
    donna June 12, 2012 at 10:25 pm #

    gorefan: thanks

    so do we know any more than we did before?

    any bets that the court will grant the SOS’s motion to dismiss/summary judgment?

  57. avatar
    gorefan June 12, 2012 at 10:30 pm #

    donna: any bets that the court will grant the SOS’s motion to dismiss/summary judgment?

    I’m guessing yes.

    The judge is probably unfamilar with Minor v. Happersett so at first blush he takes the plaintiff’s at their word. But then he reads the opinion and realizes that it doesn’t say what they said it did. And he grants the dismissal.

  58. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 12, 2012 at 10:36 pm #

    gorefan: Here is Arpiao’s affidavithttp://www.scribd.com/doc/96895159/Sheriff-Joe-Arpaio-Affidavit-Obama-s-Forged-Identity-Records-Florida-Ballot-Access-Challenge-6-12-2012

    Is the “registrar’s stamp” a new position for the goal posts? I can’t keep up.

    How about Zullo’s affidavit, did you find it?

  59. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 12, 2012 at 10:44 pm #

    donna: so do we know any more than we did before?

    That’s a trick question, rigtht????

    Anyway…..World Net Daily says there are affidavits from Arpaio, Zullo and……Jerome Corsi.

  60. avatar
    donna June 12, 2012 at 10:45 pm #

    CarlOrcas: That’s a trick question, rigtht????

    BEST giggle of the day

    grazie mille

  61. avatar
    RetiredLawyer June 12, 2012 at 10:46 pm #

    gorefan:
    Here is Arpiao’s affidavit

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/96895159/Sheriff-Joe-Arpaio-Affidavit-Obama-s-Forged-Identity-Records-Florida-Ballot-Access-Challenge-6-12-2012

    The “affidavit” does not actually say anything, other than the copy put on the web, might be , altered.

    It specifically does not address the fact that the HI DoH has verified the information as accurately reflecting the information they have. Nor does it explain why, if there is “evidence” of fraud that the “evidence” has not been presented to a grand jury.

    And, lastly, since Assholdarapio does not state that he did any of the ‘investigation’ the entire affidavit is hearsay and inadmissible.

  62. avatar
    gorefan June 12, 2012 at 11:19 pm #

    RetiredLawyer: The “affidavit” does not actually say anything, other than the copy put on the web, might be , altered.

    Supposedly, Zullo and Corsi are going to supply affidavits but it would seem they need to include one from Mara Zebest their computer expert.

    I was wondering if this is some type of response to the verification. Is it an attempt to get the defense to introduce the verification so they can then claim they need to see the original? They got to understand that the verification kills the forgery claims.

  63. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 12, 2012 at 11:50 pm #

    gorefan: Supposedly, Zullo and Corsi are going to supply affidavits

    World Net Daily has their affidavits in the following story:

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/sheriff-joe-challenges-eligibility-in-florida/?cat_orig=us

    Here is Zullo’s……………

    http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/06/zulloaffidavit.pdf

    And here is Corsi’s……………

    http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/06/corsiaffidavit.pdf

    They speak for themselves.

  64. avatar
    gorefan June 13, 2012 at 12:10 am #

    CarlOrcas: Here is Zullo’s

    He sure has a hard on for the Hawaii officials. Make’s sense since their verifications makes him look like an idiot.

  65. avatar
    donna June 13, 2012 at 12:11 am #

    still awaiting PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ON THE DEFINITION OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

  66. avatar
    JPotter June 13, 2012 at 12:15 am #

    CarlOrcas: They speak for themselves.

    Sure do ….. nothing beyond a cut-and-dried history of their CCCP activities. These affidavits attest to nothing more than that both have been active birthers! Devastating.

    I do love Zullo’s #13. The obligatory Any Day Now Clause.

    gorefan: I was wondering if this is some type of response to the verification.

    If that was the intent, I’m not seeing it. Birthers everywhere are brushing those verifications off as “hearsay”. I’d say asking a state to blow off a certified statement from another state’s official is asking that state to open up a can of worms and toss it down a rabbit hole. Especially over something so pedestrian as vital information in a records archive. Why would one state be moved to question the files of another ….. without a compelling cause to do so? They won’t. Birfer dreams ….

  67. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 13, 2012 at 12:30 am #

    JPotter: I’d say asking a state to blow off a certified statement from another state’s official is asking that state to open up a can of worms and toss it down a rabbit hole.

    Arizona Secretary of State Bennett got to the edge of of the rabbit hole and decided he didn’t like what he saw. I can’t imagine any other official even getting close now.

  68. avatar
    gorefan June 13, 2012 at 12:31 am #

    JPotter: If that was the intent, I’m not seeing it.

    Ok, so i this an attempt to silence the birthers who are complaining that the Sheriff is sitting on the investigation, without him actually having to do anything?

  69. avatar
    JPotter June 13, 2012 at 12:39 am #

    gorefan: Ok, so i this an attempt to silence the birthers who are complaining that the Sheriff is sitting on the investigation, without him actually having to do anything?

    IANAL, just saying I see no relevance to a ballot challenge in FL in these affidavits. “Birthers are birfin’.” “OK, thanks.” These are the type of useless docs Orly tries to file.

    ALL WND endeavors (and esp. the CCCP!) are about appearance, never substance.

    ____________

    Speaking of, check this ad on WND …. it’s tailor-made to trigger the bias of the WND crowd! Using a pic of Obama with the phrase, “Has it all been a lie?” to trick them into clicking an ad for some health scam!

    http://media2.adshuffle.com/images/725746/8892772764b04057863ffcf6d3a512d7.jpg

  70. avatar
    gorefan June 13, 2012 at 12:50 am #

    JPotter: IANAL

    Me neither, I’m just wondering why now?, why this case? Why not wait for the big revealing press conference later this monthor next? The timing seems unusual. It seems weird to fire these blanks.

  71. avatar
    RetiredLawyer June 13, 2012 at 12:55 am #

    CarlOrcas: World Net Daily has their affidavits in the following story:

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/sheriff-joe-challenges-eligibility-in-florida/?cat_orig=us

    Here is Zullo’s……………

    http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/06/zulloaffidavit.pdf

    And here is Corsi’s……………

    http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/06/corsiaffidavit.pdf

    They speak for themselves.

    Even less information and more hearsay than Sherruff A’s. Now, the Sherruff must know what is required to be in an affidavit since affidavits are required for search and arrest warrants. You have to state what was done, not just one’s conclusions.

    But, an affidavit is only the first step, assuming a court lets one of these in, the defense has the right to depose the affiant. Since Sherruff Joe has been avoiding being deposed, that would be worth the popcorn!

  72. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 13, 2012 at 1:03 am #

    gorefan: It seems weird to fire these blanks.

    That’s all they’ve got!

  73. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 13, 2012 at 1:09 am #

    RetiredLawyer: Since Sherruff Joe has been avoiding being deposed, that would be worth the popcorn!

    Oh boy! Wouldn’t you love to depose these people?

    The Sheriff’s depositions in the many cases against his department give new meaning to the word “vague”.

  74. avatar
    JPotter June 13, 2012 at 1:11 am #

    gorefan: Me neither, I’m just wondering why now?, why this case? Why not wait for the big revealing press conference later this monthor next? The timing seems unusual. It seems weird to fire these blanks.

    It’s time to drip another drop.

    They (as always) promised NEW INFORMATION (Guess what? There isn’t any.) Having none, it’s catch as catch can.

    They’re opportunists, they takses whats they can getses. Invent when they can. Roping in Arpaio was brilliant, and has kept WND’s birfer strain on life support for 9 months. But time has passed. Another empy church service? not good enough, need something new!

    Rehashed stories only calm the rubes so long, it takes a regular drip feed of Big News to keep’em hooked, docile, unthinking. It’s the Two Minute’s Hate with Monthly Boosters. 😉

  75. avatar
    The Magic M June 13, 2012 at 9:20 am #

    JPotter: Roping in Arpaio was brilliant

    It was kind of a reboot – back to the early days of birtherism when the claim was “Obama somehow sneaked in with forged documents” and not the Almighty Konspeeracee [tm] wingnuttery it has evolved into since.
    Indeed a clever move.

    However, if the announcements on some birther sites regarding Arpaio’s next press conference are correct, Arpaio’s value is going to be reduced to zero when he unravels the whole “everyone is in on it, international conspiracy yadda yadda” enchillada.

  76. avatar
    Scientist June 13, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    donna: still awaiting PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ON THE DEFINITION OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

    If the birth certificate is fraudulent, that becomes irrelevant, since then there is no evidence as to who the President’s father was. Unless we take the INS memo. But that says the President was born in Honolulu. Or we can revert to “Dreams From My Father”. But you can’t call the author a liar and then rely on what he wrote. Things are tough all over in Birthestan.

  77. avatar
    JD Reed June 13, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

    Also, doesn’t the Hawaii DOH’s verification of Obama’s birth records make the assertions of the Cld Case Posse et al moot, because even if the online image was created from scratch, that’s not the document the state of Arizona and Maricopa County rely on to vouchsafe Obama’s eligibilirty, The letter to the AZ secy. of state satisfies that requirement nicely.
    And, oh John, I had an aunt who was fond of a common expression that is tailor made for you. Sanitized just a tad, it goes like this:
    “Wish in one hand, and poop in the other, and see which fills up the quickest.”
    If you do this regarding what you hope will happen — and try to convince the fo9lks who post here that you actually believe — you will wind up with one naty hand.

  78. avatar
    Rickey June 13, 2012 at 5:33 pm #

    Florida’s Secretary of State filed a brief in response to questions raised at the hearing on 5/31/12, but it has nothing to do with the definition of NBC.

    Essentially, the argument is that a ballot challenge to Obama’s placement on the ballot in November is premature because he hasn’t been nominated yet. Apparently, under Florida law only an election or nomination which has been certified can be challenged. Florida cannot certify Obama’s candidacy until he has been officially nominated and the paperwork is submitted to the Secretary of State.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/96993669/FL-Voeltz-2012-06-08-SOS-Addl-Brief-in-Support-of-MTD-or-MSJ

    If the Secretary of State’s recitation of the law is correct, this case should be dismissed without any discussion of the definition of NBC.

  79. avatar
    AlCum June 13, 2012 at 11:12 pm #

    Scientist: If the birth certificate is fraudulent, that becomes irrelevant, since then there is no evidence as to who the President’s father was.Unless we take the INS memo.But that says the President was born in Honolulu.Or we can revert to “Dreams From My Father”.But you can’t call the author a liar and then rely on what he wrote.Things are tough all over in Birthestan.

    As Mark Twain allegedly said: “It is easier to fool people than to convince then that they have been fooled.”

  80. avatar
    The Magic M June 14, 2012 at 10:57 am #

    Rickey: Apparently, under Florida law only an election or nomination which has been certified can be challenged. Florida cannot certify Obama’s candidacy until he has been officially nominated and the paperwork is submitted to the Secretary of State

    Makes perfect sense. Similar to the principle of standing, it would be ludicrous to allow someone to challenge a candidate who hasn’t even been nominated yet.
    If that were possible, I could challenge Tom Cruise’s eligibility – after all, he hasn’t yet been nominated by the DNC either. Simple judicial economics.