Main Menu

Second hearing in Voeltz case tomorrow

The Leon County court docket shows a hearing scheduled for 9:00 tomorrow morning (June 29, 2012) before Judge Lewis in the case of Voeltz v. Obama. I had hoped for a decision this week, but I presume the filing of a “Second amended complaint” by Voeltz’ attorney Larry Klayman and two other filings (a motion to strike the “unauthorized” SAC and a motion in opposition) have led to this second hearing. The fact of the second hearing suggests to me that Judge Lewis is going to allow the “Second amended complaint” and the hearing is to discuss new points raised in that complaint, specifically the plea for declaratory judgment.

Also noted on the docket is the notation: “High profile case” and the filing of an amicus brief filed by Scott Rille1.

Based on Judge Lewis’ remarks to Klayman at the last hearing about including material for an appeal, I concluded that he was prepared to dismiss the case: Klayman wouldn’t appeal a favorable decision.


1Scott Rille is a name not familiar to me. There is a note at The Fogbow  linking to an online dating service for men looking for Russian brides and a Scott Rille profile.

, , ,

29 Responses to Second hearing in Voeltz case tomorrow

  1. avatar
    Sam the Centipede June 28, 2012 at 10:23 am #

    IANAL but isn’t there some rule or law against Klayman and Voeltz stating outright lies in this sort of document? Isn’t it perjury?

    Klayman and Voeltz lie:

    There is credible evidence indicating that this electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered.

    There is not a scintilla of truth in that statement There is absolutely no credible evidence of the sort he describes. There’s a bunch of lying right-wing racist nutters making right-wing racist lies, that’s all.

    And then they lie again:

    No physical, paper copy of the actual long firm birth certificate, or any other identifying document has been produced in order to help establish Barack Hussein Obama’s birth within the United States.

    For heaven’s sake, there have been plenty of paper and other documents produced. And there is no requirement anyway for the President, or a candidate for the presidency, to respond to racists like Klayman shouting “show us your papers boy!”.

    Shouldn’t this misconduct be sanctioned in some way? Isn’t it criminal, as well as unethical? Do US courts not care if plaintiffs and their lawyers lie repeatedly and often, and to use Taitz’s favorite word, egregiously?

    I detest liars, and I detest racists, and I certainly detest lying racists like Klayman and Voeltz.

  2. avatar
    Rickey June 28, 2012 at 11:43 am #

    I wouldn’t assume that the hearing tomorrow means that Judge Lewis has agreed to allow the second amended complaint. The hearing may be to hear arguments about the defendants’ objections to the second amended complaint. If this hearing is good news for Klayman, I would expect to see him crowing about it but I’m not seeing anything from him.

    The Fogbow information about Scott Rille is correct. The information about him on the dating site matches the information about him in his amicus brief.

  3. avatar
    JPotter June 28, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    “There is a note at The Fogbow linking to an online dating service for men looking for Russian brides and a Scott Rille profile.”

    Birthers have been in desperate need of a branding consultant from the beginning.

    At least van Irion tried to scrubbed his neo-confederate associations. They aren’t completely oblivious.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 28, 2012 at 2:10 pm #

    In my poking around for “Scott Rille” I searched federal court cases and got a hit on a case involving Joe Arpaio, no less, styled “Allen v. Arizona.” I thought I had something until upon closer examination the defendant Maricopa County deputy wasn’t “Scott Rille” but two deputies, one named Scott and one named Rille. The case was one of the thousands filed against Arpaio by folks in the jail over their treatment.

    Rickey: The Fogbow information about Scott Rille is correct. The information about him on the dating site matches the information about him in his amicus brief.

  5. avatar
    Rickey June 28, 2012 at 5:01 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    In my poking around for “Scott Rille” I searched federal court cases and got a hit on a case involving Joe Arpaio, no less, styled “Allen v. Arizona.” I thought I had something until upon closer examination the defendant Maricopa County deputy wasn’t “Scott Rille” but two deputies, one named Scott and one named Rille. The case was one of the thousands filed against Arpaio by folks in the jail over their treatment.

    He has a Facebook page. Most of it is private, but he calls himself “‘General George Washington 2011/2012.'”

  6. avatar
    bgansel9 June 28, 2012 at 5:10 pm #

    “Scott Rille is a name not familiar to me. There is a note at The Fogbow linking to an online dating service for men looking for Russian brides and a Scott Rille profile.” – we need to investigate this dating service. I think This Rille fellow and Orly Taitz met through their dating events.

    I kid, I kid!

  7. avatar
    linda June 28, 2012 at 5:48 pm #

    I would swear I read that amicus brief, there was an indication that it was rejected by the court. Courtesy of Jack Ryan, most likely. Now I can’t find either the first version or the amended brief. Maybe I have it confused with another case…

  8. avatar
    richCares June 28, 2012 at 5:58 pm #

    “This Rille fellow and Orly Taitz met through their dating events. ”
    you are correct, it was through BirherMingle.kom.

  9. avatar
    linda June 28, 2012 at 6:06 pm #

    Well done.

    richCares: you are correct, it was through BirherMingle.kom.

  10. avatar
    donna June 28, 2012 at 6:40 pm #

    6/26/2012 AMENDED AMICUS BRIEF FILED BY SCOTT RILLE

  11. avatar
    Reality Check June 29, 2012 at 8:56 am #

    No live TV today?

  12. avatar
    JPotter June 29, 2012 at 9:18 am #

    Reality Check: No live TV today?

    short notice?

  13. avatar
    donna June 29, 2012 at 10:34 am #

    there has been no word of this hearing on wing nutzzz daily nor has it been mentioned by the usual birthers i communicate with in forums – i purposely didn’t mention it either

  14. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 29, 2012 at 10:54 am #

    Looking forward to the ruling! I need more birther tears to sell on eBay, and to season my jerky with!. They also work better than Oxyclean!

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 29, 2012 at 12:28 pm #

    Here is the amended Scott Rille Amicus brief.

  16. avatar
    Joyce Clemons July 3, 2012 at 9:11 pm #

    strain at gnats, but swallow camels. take eric holder…please.

  17. avatar
    G July 3, 2012 at 10:40 pm #

    Another angry yet meaningless non sequiter from what comes across as some random drunk person that stumbled onto this site by accident and can’t stop themselves from sharing their incoherent rants with the world…

    …sleep it off…

    Joyce Clemons:
    strain at gnats, but swallow camels. take eric holder…please.

  18. avatar
    Arthur July 3, 2012 at 10:57 pm #

    Actually, I think I know what Joyce is getting at. She’s quoting something attributed to Jesus that comes from the Gospel of Matthew. The qutation describes people who are fixated on meaningless issues while ignoring significant problems, e.g., Eric Holder’s supposed violations regarding “Fast and Furious.” Joyce thinks we’re not paying attention to what’s really wrong with Obama.

    G: Another angry yet meaningless non sequiter from what comes across as some random drunk person that stumbled onto this site by accident and can’t stop themselves from sharing their incoherent rants with the world…

  19. avatar
    bgansel9 July 3, 2012 at 11:04 pm #

    Joyce Clemons: strain at gnats, but swallow camels. take eric holder…please.

    Judge not, lest ye be judged also.

    Two can play that game.

    Perhaps, unless you work in the Justice Department, you might not have all of the information and don’t know the entirety of the story? But, go ahead, judge Holder as guilty and quote Bible scriptures. Jesus is watching you!

    I might also remind you, Joyce, that you’re off topic for this thread.

  20. avatar
    Joyce Clemons July 4, 2012 at 12:19 am #

    “…Klayman and Voeltz stating outright lies…” Gnats. it’s in the thread.
    you say it yourself…they are like gnats, a distraction to the grand plans to
    save the nation.

    Henny Youngman: “Take my Attorney General….please.” Isn’t the highest attorney in the land supposed to be setting an example? Zealous advocacy FOR ME. That is the professional standard. Hot seats are where the big bucks are.

    But this is a camel. People died. Executive Privilege does not go this far, regardless
    of what eight pages of precedent concocts.NATIONAL SECURITY?

    Eric says in his letter “Take my advice…PLEASE. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASEPLEASEPLEASE.

    Last time I checked, I do a service when I question authority. I spent 25 years in government service. It was never supposed to be about self-service. All I am asking for here, is trickle down integrity. If it trickles down to those gnats…that’s ‘come to Jesus’ enough for me.
    bgansel9: If I am swine, fine, cast not thy pearls.

    Gotta admit it was fun being dissected for 10 cryptic words. Love me some libs.

  21. avatar
    JPotter July 4, 2012 at 1:14 am #

    Umm …. yeahhhhh.

    So, about that crazy Voeltz case. I hear they went ahead and filed another complaint, despite being utterly bounced on the first two.

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/fl-voeltz-v-obama-part-ii/#comment-34293

    Have any thoughts on that, Joyce?

  22. avatar
    Rickey July 4, 2012 at 1:35 am #

    Joyce Clemons:

    But this is a camel. People died. Executive Privilege does not go this far, regardless
    of what eight pages of precedent concocts.NATIONAL SECURITY?

    In case you missed it, this blog is dedicated to discussing the conspiracy theories about President Obama’s eligibility. We are not here to discuss Eric Holder or the use of Executive Privilege.

  23. avatar
    aarrgghh July 4, 2012 at 2:58 am #

    Arthur: Joyce thinks we’re not paying attention to what’s really wrong with Obama.

    it is perhaps the most common offense committed on the interwebs: demanding that a forum or blog devoted to a particular subject address one’s own off-topic pet issues.

    it’s like admonishing the chess club for playing chess instead of checkers. one’s not likely to find agreement but i suspect that’s not what the offender’s looking for.

  24. avatar
    G July 4, 2012 at 3:33 am #

    Agreed.

    Rickey: In case you missed it, this blog is dedicated to discussing the conspiracy theories about President Obama’s eligibility. We are not here to discuss Eric Holder or the use of Executive Privilege.

    YEP!

    aarrgghh: it is perhaps the most common offense committed on the interwebs: demanding that a forum or blog devoted to a particular subject address one’s own off-topic pet issues.

    it’s like admonishing the chess club for playing chess instead of checkers. one’s not likely to find agreement but i suspect that’s not what the offender’s looking for.

  25. avatar
    G July 4, 2012 at 3:42 am #

    See, now you’ve gone an made an assumption, without actually knowing who you are dealing with.

    While a number of the regulars here are liberals, progressives and democrats, not all of us are.

    While I have certain views I share with them, I myself am neither of those categories. Yes, I did vote for Obama and I plan to again. But simply because I view him as my best option… not out of any sense of party loyalty.

    But beyond myself, quite a few of the regulars here are NOT even Obama supporters at all. Some of them are loyal GOP voters and/or conservatives, who voted for his opponent last time and plan to again. Some are libertarians or another type under the “Independent” classification.

    The main thing in common that we all have is that, after rationally looking at these issues, we’ve determined that Obama is NBC and Birtherism is a sham, based on a bunch of lies, faulty premises and misconceptions.

    So, when you hastily jump to labelling this forum as a bunch of “libs”…you are simply speaking out of ignorance and therefore come across foolish to the rest of us, who know better.

    Joyce Clemons:
    Love me some libs.

  26. avatar
    Lupin July 4, 2012 at 4:59 am #

    G: But beyond myself, quite a few of the regulars here are NOT even Obama supporters at all. Some of them are loyal GOP voters and/or conservatives, who voted for his opponent last time and plan to again. Some are libertarians or another type under the “Independent” classification.

    And some of us are even furriners.

    Without straying OT, as I mentioned before, I’m not thrilled about Obama’s economic and foreign policies, but OTOH I heartily agree with G that he is (by far) a better option that the present alternative.

    From where I stand, you have no “liberal” alternative in the US: your choice is between moderate right with a sprinkle of popularism (Obama) and far right oligarchy (Romney).

  27. avatar
    Thrifty July 4, 2012 at 9:06 am #

    I think for the hard right crowd, “liberal” and “conservative” are not descriptors of political stance but rather handy labels of human beings, like “demon” and “angel”.

    G: See, now you’ve gone an made an assumption, without actually knowing who you are dealing with.

  28. avatar
    Majority Will July 4, 2012 at 9:39 am #

    Thrifty:
    I think for the hard right crowd, “liberal” and “conservative” are not descriptors of political stance but rather handy labels of human beings, like “demon” and “angel”.

    Labels serve as lazy, fear based accusations for the close minded: “You libs.”

  29. avatar
    Scientist July 4, 2012 at 10:10 am #

    Rickey: In case you missed it, this blog is dedicated to discussing the conspiracy theories about President Obama’s eligibility.

    According to the description at the top of the page, it is dedicated to “conspiracy theories and fringe views about Barack Obama”. Surely there are theories out there that have Obama as a born-in-Hawaii, 100% eligible member of various conspiratorial cabals. There are countless JFK conspiracy theories, none of which, so far as I know, have him born in Ireland. The “truthers” hold Bush to be part of a monstrous conspiracy, yet none have alleged him to be ineligible.

    It’s a great big conspiracy universe out there. Let’s not limit ourselves to mere eligibility when there are so many far worse things that the conspiratorily-minded could practice their OCD on.