Main Menu

Political theater coming events

The Voeltz v. Obama hearing in Florida starts in a couple of days (June 18). One thing I wanted was to provide this quote from a Larry Klayman press release providing a little detail as to what Klayman meant about the issue of “natural born citizen” being decided at a hearing this week. I think the text has appeared before, but not on this site.

In a prior hearing, Judge Lewis stressed that Mr. Voeltz’ attorney, Larry Klayman, had cited Supreme Court authority that a natural born citizen must be born in the United States to two American citizen parents, but the Barack Obama’s attorneys had cited no authority to the contrary. Judge Lewis called for Obama’s attorneys to submit briefing on the issue prior to the hearing, and for Mr. Klayman to submit affidavits attesting to issues of fact in dispute as to where Obama was born. Among several affidavits, Klayman submitted the sworn testimony of Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, whose "Cold Case Posse" has been investigating Obama’s eligibility on behalf of Arizona and found that his alleged birth certificate is likely forged.

Three Stooges photoThis is consistent with the fact that Obama’s attorneys did subsequently brief the court on “natural born citizen” and with Mr. Klayman’s submission of the vacuous, fact-free affidavit of what Sheriff Joe Arpaio “believes” “likely happened,” along with the affidavits of Mike Zullo and Jerome Corsi (the other two stooges1 of WorldNetDaily) that I haven’t had the opportunity to read, but I expect are equally weasel-worded and devoid of any actual evidence.

WorldNetDaily is broadcasting the hearing live. To view it, you have to sign up in advance at WorldNetDaily. When you sign up, you opt into receiving “email alerts” from WND, and they promise to email you instructions for viewing the video stream 2 hours before it starts.


1Other published reports about the Cold Case Posse suggest that I might have better selected this photo:

Keystone Cops photo

, ,

29 Responses to Political theater coming events

  1. avatar
    JPotter June 16, 2012 at 9:55 pm #

    I can’t believe you slandered The Stooges so! And what happened to Shemp? Hey, i know, he can be a proxy for all those bit actors that come and go … Gillar, Zebest, Vogt …. blah, blah, blah.

    Yeah, the Keystone Kops would be a great analogy for the CCCP … if the CCCP had that kind of manpower! How do the Kops look in leias?

    And yes, I attest that all the of WND affidavits are equally meritless. 100% weaselly guaranteed.

  2. avatar
    richCares June 16, 2012 at 10:37 pm #

    I am really going to enjoy Monday, I won’t use WND’s live feed unless I sign up with a gmail account temporally to avoid WND spam. WND is projecting this as an OMG moment to get paypal pushes (Birthers are easy to Scam).

  3. avatar
    JPotter June 16, 2012 at 11:46 pm #

    LOL! Another political theater event, fresh from WND:

    VIDEO: WND CONFRONTS ‘OBAMA’ FACE TO FACE
    Joseph Farah grills ‘president’ on questions mainstream media won’t ask

    Farah is acting out his fantasies …. and oh, look, it was an attempt to promote a new book, a new attempt to influence the election …. by projecting Obama’s ‘real’ agenda for him!

    Farah was at BookExpo 2012 to help promote the upcoming new release from WND Books and authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott, “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed.”

    “Fool Me Twice,” scheduled for release in August….

    Yeesh.

  4. avatar
    Lupin June 17, 2012 at 3:21 am #

    When he appeared on Bill Maher’s show during the Clinton years, Larry Klayman struck me a nasty little man full of bile — that would be bad enough in a lawyer, but he also seems mentally deranged (like, obsessive compulsive). If the birther cause had any legitimacy at all, it would attract respectable attorneys, not these deranged bottom feeders,

  5. avatar
    Bob June 17, 2012 at 5:51 am #

    Birtherism amounts to asking a rotating list of absurd “questions” and ignoring the responses.

  6. avatar
    elmo June 17, 2012 at 9:05 am #

    If this is indeed the Judge Lewis from the 2000 recount battle, he is an excellent, thorough, “stick to the rules” judge.

    In other words, another disaster for birthers.

  7. avatar
    Thrifty June 17, 2012 at 11:05 am #

    More false argument from authority by invoking Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse. I wonder what the state of Birtherism would be today if Arpaio hadn’t put on his little dog and pony show.

  8. avatar
    JPotter June 17, 2012 at 11:32 am #

    Orly has linked to this article …. although, as usual for her site, why she has linked to it is completely unclear. Smearing her WND competition? Just drawing attention to anti_obama activity? Some posters have alleged she is posting here; this link does indicate she is at least paying attention to OCT. 😉

  9. avatar
    richCares June 17, 2012 at 12:02 pm #

    as for Voeltz v. Obama , the proof is in the pudding, tomorrow is the pudding day. Birthers heads will explode!

  10. avatar
    Majority Will June 17, 2012 at 12:28 pm #

    Thrifty:
    More false argument from authority by invoking Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse.I wonder what the state of Birtherism would be today if Arpaio hadn’t put on his little dog and pony show.

    Fewer fleas.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 17, 2012 at 1:36 pm #

    Dr. Taitz posted here a few times under her own name, but I doubt that she posts here under an alias. I know she occasionally reads the site, perhaps when someone sends her a link or something.

    JPotter: Some posters have alleged she is posting here; this link does indicate she is at least paying attention to OCT.

  12. avatar
    The Magic M June 17, 2012 at 1:40 pm #

    elmo: If this is indeed the Judge Lewis from the 2000 recount battle, he is an excellent, thorough, “stick to the rules” judge.

    In other words, another disaster for birthers.

    But birthers needed another OMG moment, so they think “since the guy ruled pro Bush and anti-Democrat in 2000, he’s gonna rule anti-Democrat again”. Because they are projecting and, if they were judges themselves, they would rule based on their political preference and not annoying stuff like “the law”, ceiling cat forbid!

  13. avatar
    donna June 17, 2012 at 2:20 pm #

    “If the birther cause had any legitimacy at all, it would attract respectable attorneys, not these deranged bottom feeders”

    SERIOUSLY, can you imagine the initial consultation between a birther and someone like ted olson?

    i mean why WOULDN’T ted olson take on the world’s biggest case of fraud?

  14. avatar
    JPotter June 17, 2012 at 2:30 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Dr. Taitz posted here a few times under her own name, but I doubt that she posts here under an alias. I know she occasionally reads the site, perhaps when someone sends her a link or something.

    I dunno, she did create a precedent in calling in to a radio show under a pseudonym. Some posters are postulating she is posting here as ‘foreigner’ but I don’t see it. I do wish her reference was explained …. she agrees the Florida case is political theater? Ah well, if wish were horses, then birthers would be literate.

  15. avatar
    tes June 17, 2012 at 2:52 pm #

    From the article: “This [Klayman’s characterization of what Judge Lewis said at teh prior hearing] is consistent with the fact that Obama’s attorneys did subsequently brief the court on “natural born citizen” and with Mr. Klayman’s submission of the vacuous, fact-free affidavit[s]…”
    ——-
    Possibly. Without a transcript, no way to be sure, but just reading Klayman’s briefs, we know that he “mischaracterizes” facts regularly.

    Here’s what I think happened.

    FACTS from the Docket and/or publicly-released documents:

    April 23 – Obama filed Motion to Dismiss; SOS filed Motion to Dismiss or Motion for Summary Judgment in alternative. No docket entry for memo in support of either motion.

    April 24 – Klayman issues notice of deposition of Florida SOS to take place May 30.

    May 14 – Klayman files response/opposition to Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

    May 23 – SOS and Obama file motions for protective order/to stay discovery. (SPECULATION: That Obama filed motion to stay discovery indicates that some notices of depos may have been filed on Obama/FDP as well).

    May 29 – SOS and Obama file motions to stay discovery. other defendants join in. (SPECULATION: That other parties joined in motion to stay discovery indicates that notices of depos may have been filed on those other parties as well). Klayman files opposition same day.

    May 30 – Notice of hearing.
    (SPECULATION: Subject was almost certainly the motions to stay discovery, given that the SOS depo was scheduled for this day.)

    May 31 – Hearing. This is the hearing that Klayman has touted as a grand victory.

    SPECULATION: What almost certainly occurred is that KLAYMAN LOST — and the motion to stay discovery was granted. How do we know? Because the deposition didn’t take place. Klayman refers to it as “postponed” – but you can be sure that he did not voluntarily postpone the depo – which would have been a major “coup” in birther history. Additionally, if you go back and read Klayman’s initial press release concerning the hearing, you can see that he had wanted discovery – but didn’t get it.

    At least one basis for the motion(s) to stay discovery was the pending motions to dismiss. How do I know that? Logic. Any competent attorney would make that argument if they had dispositive motions pending. Not sure what other arguments they may have made (there were likely several additional arguments available to them, depending on who was noticed for depo) – but am virtually certain that they made the “pending dispositive motions” argument.

    As such, the court and parties (almost assuredly) discussed the pending MOTIONS to dismiss. All parties probably asked for a quick resolution on those motions – Klayman would (say he) want(s) it because he wants to move forward with discovery (he can, of course, appeal the decision that he must surely know will result – so no concerns about funding drying up ….)

    And, of course, the defendants want quick resolution, because they want to stop wasting resources on frivolous actions.

    So –FACT: hearing was set for June 18.

    SPECULATION: As noted above, the motions had been filed, but there were no “memos in support of motion” filed by Defendants on the docket. Klayman, however, had filed an opposition – which would be a memorandum .

    So, presumably, the court asked the defendants to file memorandum in support of their motions to dismiss.

    FACT: June 8: SOS files “Additional Brief in Support of” Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment.
    SPECULATION: Now, admittedly – this says “additional brief” indicating that there was a prior brief. However, I just can’t find any such brief in the docket – maybe they made the basic arguments in the motion – but didn’t address the one issue addressed in the “supplemental brief.”

    FACT: June 15: Obama files “Memo in Support of Motion to Dismiss” – clearly indicating that no such memo had previously been filed. The Memo addresses multiple issues, including (very briefly) NBC.

    The memo also states as follows:

    “At the hearing of May 31, 2012, the Court inquired regarding the burden of proof in this case on whether President Obama is a “natural born citizen.”

    See Obama June 15, 2011 brief at p10, n11.

    NOTE: Klayman’s description of the hearing were all in the press – in his post-May 31 pleadings with the court, he NOWHERE describes what the court asked for in the manner he described it “in the press.” In contrast, Obama set forth what the court asked for … in a paper to the Court. If Obama’s characterization was wrong, I’m sure the court will take the attorneys to task for that. Only time will tell (less than 24 hours …)

    NOTE: Klayman’s post-May 31 briefing implicitly acknowledges that his client carries the burden of proof: He nowhere argues that President Obama carries the burden to prove his citizenship. Rather, Klayman files a brief on the definition (seemingly accepting the burden to prove this legal issue) and files (worthless, nonevidentiary) affidavits on the factual claims (seemingly accepting the burden to prove this legal issue.)

    SPECULATION: Seems to me that the various Klayman descriptions of the May 31 hearing are – in all likelihood – nothing more than the typical birther claims that defeat is VICTORY. Seems to me that Defendants WON on May 31 by getting the discovery stayed pending resolution of their dispositive motions – which is set for hearing tomorrow, June 18.

    Seems to me very likely that in course of discussing briefing schedule on motions to dismiss, the court noted that Plaintiffs’ briefs cited to law on the NBC issue – but he wasn’t sure who even carried the burden of proof on that issue, so he asked the parties to brief the issue.

    Tomorrow, assuming WNDTV does provide live telecast, we’ll all know just how far off this speculation was.

  16. avatar
    donna June 17, 2012 at 3:43 pm #

    “Seems to me very likely that in course of discussing briefing schedule on motions to dismiss, the court noted that Plaintiffs’ briefs cited to law on the NBC issue – but he wasn’t sure who even carried the burden of proof on that issue, so he asked the parties to brief the issue.”

    it seems to me that the court would KNOW who had the burden of proof ….. the plaintiffs ….. but asked for it on papers from both sides to be included in the record –

    when i have been present for pre-trial conferences with judges in chambers, he/she hears from both sides and then says this is where I’M GOING so go sell it to your clients –

    to my knowledge, we have never heard after-talk from the defendants just from the birthers asserting i won, discovery is underway, there will be a trial, evidence, experts, blah blah and yet, to date, they have WON NOTHING

    i think of the expression “empty barrels make the most noise”

  17. avatar
    clestes June 17, 2012 at 4:40 pm #

    So, briefly will someone please explain what is going on tomorrow?

  18. avatar
    linda June 17, 2012 at 5:36 pm #

    It is a hearing in Voeltz v Obama on the Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff’s attorney, Klayman, has built it up, saying that the Court will rule on whether Obama is a NBC.

    clestes:
    So, briefly will someone please explain what is going on tomorrow?

  19. avatar
    donna June 17, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

    “So, briefly will someone please explain what is going on tomorrow?”

    in the sec of state’s motion to dismiss, he said that the “plaintiff (voeltz) does not have a valid contest”

  20. avatar
    Rickey June 17, 2012 at 8:41 pm #

    donna:

    it seems to me that the court would KNOW who had the burden of proof ….. the plaintiffs ….. but asked for it on papers from both sides to be included in the record –

    I’m not certain that the judge’s “burden of proof” inquiry was limited to the case at hand.

    Clearly, in a ballot challenge the burden of proof is on the party making the challenge. However, there also is the question about whether there is a burden on a candidate to establish eligibility when seeking a place on the ballot.

    Obama’s attorney addressed both scenarios in the footnote on page 10.

  21. avatar
    Clestes June 17, 2012 at 8:48 pm #

    So birthers think that this judge is going to rule that the president is not a NBC and over turn over 100 years of precedent setting rulings since the 1898 Wong case??

    Based on what new evidence? As far as I know there has been no new evidence introduced that shows the president was not born in Hi.

    I predict another series of whines about how the judge has been bought off when he dismisses the case.

  22. avatar
    JPotter June 17, 2012 at 9:27 pm #

    Clestes: So birthers think that this judge is going to rule that the president is not a NBC and over turn over 100 years of precedent setting rulings since the 1898 Wong case??

    Why else would they keep filing? Why keep shopping for that mythical “one honest judge”? They either believe it, or just want to keep the spectacle alive …. or are down to “Oh, what the hell, let’s have another go!”

    As the lottery nuts say, “You can’t win if you don’t have a ticket!” Birthers might say, “The only case that can’t win is the one that’s never filed!” … putting their trust in absolute probability, with no consideration of the [im]practicalities of applied probability!

  23. avatar
    Keith June 17, 2012 at 9:35 pm #

    richCares:
    as for Voeltz v. Obama , the proof is in the pudding, tomorrow is the pudding day. Birthers heads will explode!

    Promises, promises…

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 17, 2012 at 9:43 pm #

    I had an email exchange with one of the former commenters here who I believe is banned. We argued about the Voeltz likely outcome. I told him that the case will most likely be dismissed and if not, decided for the defense. I said that I have been 100% accurate on every birther lawsuit prediction I ever made, never wrong once.

    His reply: “we’ll see.”

    I preferred to leave him the last word, than carry on the exchange; however, my belief based on long experience is that when the case is decided, however it goes, I will see, but he will not.

  25. avatar
    Scientist June 17, 2012 at 10:13 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I had an email exchange with one of the former commenters here who I believe is banned. We argued about the Voeltz likely outcome. I told him that the case will most likely be dismissed and if not, decided for the defense. I said that I have been 100% accurate on every birther lawsuit prediction I ever made, never wrong once.His reply: “we’ll see.”I preferred to leave him the last word, than carry on the exchange; however, my belief based on long experience is that when the case is decided, however it goes, I will see, but he will not.

    I fail to understand how Voeltz differs from all the other ballot challenges already decided in numerous other states. The facts and the law are the same, nor is Florida law more favorable to such challenges than Georgia or Illinois or New Jersey or any of the states where the birther arguments have been shot down. Is it that Klayman is supposedly a better attorney? IMO, the written arguments he submitted are no better or worse than Mario’s or Farrar’s or Ankeny’s. Just more of the same old nonsense. Nonsense spelled correctly is still nonsense. The judge? Yes he ruled for Bush, but the law was actually somewhat supportive of the Secretary of State’s position in that case. Anyway, in Voeltz, neither the Republican Party nor the Secretary of State are on the birther’s side. The Arpaio “I believe” affidavit? Come on.

    So, I really see nothing that distinguishes this case from those that have gone before.

  26. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 17, 2012 at 10:31 pm #

    I’m not following this closely as I am finding birther litigation to be increasingly boring (round and round and round and round the same thing over and over and over again)….

    but I’d point out that busy Judges appreciate letting lawyers do the work for them by citing to appropriate authority in their briefs. It’s easier for a Judge to put the tired Minor v. Happersett argument to rest by cutting and pasting from a defense brief than to force his law clerk to spend time researching the obvious, assuming he even has a law clerk.

    So a request for further briefing can be taken, as often as not, as an indication that the judge simply wants help from the side most likely to provide helpful information to him.

  27. avatar
    donna June 17, 2012 at 10:47 pm #

    “However, there also is the question about whether there is a burden on a candidate to establish eligibility when seeking a place on the ballot.

    Obama’s attorney addressed both scenarios in the footnote on page 10.”

    from the footnote:

    however, with respect to being placed on the ballot, there is no requirement that a presidential candidate present proof that he or she is a “natural born citizen” or to affirm his or her qualifications to state election officials. citing 99.021(3) fl statutes (2011)

    pursuant to fl statutes (2011)

    103.021 Nomination for presidential electors.

    Candidates for presidential electors shall be nominated in the following manner:

    103.101 Presidential preference primary.—

  28. avatar
    Clestes June 17, 2012 at 11:46 pm #

    Oh I get it now. I did not realize that this judge was the one in the Bush case. I can see why they think they are going to at last have the one judge who will give their BS arguments some credit.

    He won’t. There is no judge in the country who will. This case will be dismissed.

  29. avatar
    JPotter June 22, 2012 at 5:19 am #

    Dear Spambot:

    You forgot to say something of substance …. and we’re more concerned with brain fat. Have anything for that?

    how to reduce stomach fat:
    Just wish to say your article is as surprising. The clarity for your post is just cool and that i can think you’re an expert in this subject. Well along with your permission allow me to snatch your RSS feed to stay updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please keep up the rewarding work.