Main Menu

Unripe, ripe and rotten

One of the persistent problems for birther plaintiffs is timing1.  The venerable case of Barnett v. Obama, just denied by the US Supreme Court, suffered from being filed too late (after the Presidential Inauguration). The political candidate plaintiffs were no longer candidates by then, and the court had no power to remove a sitting president and so could not grant the relief sought. No standing, no case.

Just the opposite appears to be the case in the Florida ballot challenge of Voeltz v. Obama. Larry Klayman, representing Voeltz, argues that the Court should order the Florida Secretary of State to certify Barack Obama’s eligibility for President before placing him on the ballot and an injunction against Obama being on the Ballot. The Florida Secretary of State argues that Obama has not been nominated by the Democratic Party yet and as such the suit is not ripe, not ready to be heard.

This problem of ripeness seems to be a sticky one. One needs a “perfect storm” of an applicable statue, a plaintiff with an actual injury in fact, and something the court can do to redress the complaint.

While I don’t see any real legal significance to the Voeltz lawsuit, it makes for a good theater. We have the high-profile attorney Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch, and affidavits submitted by Jerome Corsi, Mike Zullo and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. WorldNetDaily says that it will provide a video feed and claims are made that finally, once and for all, a court is going to rule on the definition of “natural born citizen.” We are somewhat hampered by the lack of the text of defense motions and orders, having  to rely solely on what Klayman represents, meaning a somewhat “sensational” bias.

A hearing is scheduled for June 18 in Tallahassee.

Read more:


1One of the persistent problems for me is bananas.

, ,

46 Responses to Unripe, ripe and rotten

  1. avatar
    john June 14, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

    Although the courts have been corrupt, the state SOSs have most corrupt. The Florida SOS filed a motion to dismiss. This SOS is rotten to the core and I will never ever vote for him again. As Klayman has pointed out, the SOS is the chief election officer in the State of Florida and has the highest absolute sworn duty and oath to honor both the Florida Constitution and US Constitution. The Florida SOS is ignoring is sworn oath and duty by allowing a candidate to be on the ballot who may not be eligible under the Constitution. I suspect these SOSs do not want Obama’s eligibility to be vetted for several reasons:
    1. Rubio and Jindal have same eligibility issue as Obama and they can’t risk having Obama deemed not an NBC because of his father.
    2. The SOSs are worried about media attacks and fears of racism if they were to vet Obama.

    These SOSs are cowards and absolute disgraces to our Constitutional Soverign. I hold the highest honor and respect to Orly Taitz and Sheriff Joe Arpaio for defending the glue that holds this country together.

  2. avatar
    Wile June 14, 2012 at 2:04 pm #

    Doc…”One of the persistent problems for me is bananas.”

    Once they are past their prime, simply peel and freeze them in a zip-loc baggie.

    You can thaw them out the night before making banana pancakes, or throw them in frozen when making your favorite smoothie.

    My figs are starting to ripen. Yours?

  3. avatar
    john June 14, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiTFfrm5jvY&feature=youtu.be
    Sherrif Joe’s Cold Case Posse Commander Responds to The CNN Hit Piece On Donald Trump

    Excellent video. Zullo reports that the birth announcements alleging Obama’s birth in Hawaii is NOT credible source of evidence to determine if Obama was born in Hawaii. According to Zullo, anyone who thinks so is not privy to facts of the issue.

  4. avatar
    PaulG June 14, 2012 at 2:50 pm #

    Normally, I’d put the timing mistake down to ineptitude, but what troubles me is that Arapio and all got sucked in.They aren’t dumb enough to actually testify, either to perjure themselves or show they have nothing. I think the point is to file a flawed suit and then make the claim “we had the evidence but Obama hid behind technicalities” which segues into the old “what’s he hiding” refrain with extra smears of fraud.

  5. avatar
    Scientist June 14, 2012 at 3:01 pm #

    Courts are not dictionaries-they do not define terms. They have never exactly defined “freedom of the press”, “right to bear arms” or “establishment of religion” Rather, courts rule on what the law is as applied to a given set of facts and circumstances. No court could possbly define “natural born citiizen” to cover all conceivable birth scenarios (in vitro fertilization, human cloning, melding with the Borg). However, multiple courts, starting with Ankeny and moving through Malihi and others have already ruled that Obama’s facts and circumstances make him a natural born citizen. This court will do no different.

  6. avatar
    Jamese777 June 14, 2012 at 4:10 pm #

    This is a “politics makes strange bedfellows” moment. The Obama Administration Justice Department is suing the Florida Secretary of State for trying to purge the Florida voter rolls of Latinos who might possibly be illegal aliens. Yet that same Republican Secretary of State is defending Barack Obama’s eligibility in the Voeltz lawsuit.

  7. avatar
    bgansel9 June 14, 2012 at 4:35 pm #

    Jamese777: The Obama Administration Justice Department is suing the Florida Secretary of State for trying to purge the Florida voter rolls of Latinos who might possibly be illegal aliens.

    As soon as American Citizens with a right to vote started getting purged, that argument became bogus.

  8. avatar
    Rickey June 14, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

    Klayman has claimed that at the 5/31/12 hearing the judge ordered the defendants to address the NBC “issue.” The SOS responded to that hearing by filing a brief which makes no mention of NBC.

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

    Nearly two months ago Klayman claimed that discovery was “underway” in the Florida case.

    Conclusion: When Klayman speaks, assume that the truth is the opposite of what he claims.

  9. avatar
    john June 14, 2012 at 7:41 pm #

    The Florida SOS is just one of the defendants. As chief election officer of the state he has the absolute and sworn duty to insure candidates on the ballot are eligible to be there. The SOS has filed a motion to dismiss because if the SOS were to remove Obama from the ballot or even attempt to vet him, the SOS would incure intense media attacks and allegations of racism. The other defendants are Obama defenders of his actual eligibility so they have direct responsibility of showing Obama is eligible whereas the SOS has the absolute responsibility to verify Obama’s eligibility before placing him on any ballot.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 14, 2012 at 7:57 pm #

    So, pray tell what are the facts and why are they not credible.

    Talk is cheap. I recall he made some claims that he had proof that others had legal Hawaiian certificates of live birth but weren’t born there. I never saw the evidence for that. I believe he’s lying.

    john: Zullo reports that the birth announcements alleging Obama’s birth in Hawaii is NOT credible source of evidence to determine if Obama was born in Hawaii. According to Zullo, anyone who thinks so is not privy to facts of the issue.

  11. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater June 14, 2012 at 7:59 pm #

    john:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiTFfrm5jvY&feature=youtu.be
    Sherrif Joe’s Cold Case Posse Commander Responds to The CNN Hit Piece On Donald Trump

    Excellent video.Zullo reports that the birth announcements alleging Obama’s birth in Hawaii is NOT credible source of evidence to determine if Obama was born in Hawaii.According to Zullo, anyone who thinks so is not privy to facts of the issue.

    And What makes a used car salesman like Zullo qualified to make those claims?

  12. avatar
    sfjeff June 14, 2012 at 8:06 pm #

    “And What makes a used car salesman like Zullo qualified to make those claims?”

    Its obvious.

    Zullo makes the ‘correct’ claims…..

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 14, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

    Mr. Colette and Mr. Klayman seem to be having a problem nailing down exactly where in the law that obligation appears. Do you know?

    john: The Florida SOS is ignoring is sworn oath and duty by allowing a candidate to be on the ballot

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 14, 2012 at 8:16 pm #

    I think there is a more tawdry explanation. Klayman wasn’t hired on until after the Primary, and he had to file SOMETHING to justify his fee.

    PaulG: Normally, I’d put the timing mistake down to ineptitude, but what troubles me is that [Arpaio] and all got sucked in.They aren’t dumb enough to actually testify, either to perjure themselves or show they have nothing

  15. avatar
    Northland10 June 14, 2012 at 8:18 pm #

    Has John ever actually responded when somebody posted a reply and question to his comment? I am having trouble placing a time when he actually did that. Maybe when he was James or Steve but not while John.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Mr. Colette and Mr. Klayman seem to be having a problem nailing down exactly where in the law that obligation appears. Do you know?

  16. avatar
    Joey June 14, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

    john:
    The Florida SOS is just one of the defendants.As chief election officer of the state he has the absolute and sworn duty to insure candidates on the ballot are eligible to be there.The SOS has filed a motion to dismiss because if the SOS were to remove Obama from the ballot or even attempt to vet him, the SOS would incure intense media attacks and allegations of racism.The other defendants are Obama defenders of his actual eligibility so they have direct responsibility of showing Obama is eligible whereas the SOS has the absolute responsibility to verify Obama’s eligibility before placing him on any ballot.

    John has completely missed the argument that the Republican Secretary of State of Florida is making. John has also missd the point of Doc.C’s article that John is responding to.
    The Florida Secretary of State is saying that he has no legal authority or duty under Florida statutes to rule on a candidate’s eligiblity under AFTER a candidate becomes the OFFICIAL nominee of a political party.
    In the case of Barack Hussein Obama II, that is September 3-6, 2012. Most likely, Barack Obama can become the official nominee on Wednesday, September 5th.

  17. avatar
    Northland10 June 14, 2012 at 8:30 pm #

    Not providing services after receiving a retainer could result in discipline from the Florida bar. Klayman probably did not want that to happen… again.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think there is a more tawdry explanation. Klayman wasn’t hired on until after the Primary, and he had to file SOMETHING to justify his fee.

  18. avatar
    JPotter June 14, 2012 at 8:31 pm #

    PaulG: I’d put the timing mistake down to ineptitude

    Timing “mistake”? I don’t think there was any “timing” at all! Just file like crazy, when and where they can manage it. WND has targeted some moves, snaring Arpaio for instance, and now filing with “the judge that got Bush elected” because the rubes will assume he shares their bias.

    Doc’s right, the only timing involved centered on when the check cleared! 😉

    PS … yet another batch of bananas turned today at my house. Why do I bother?

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 14, 2012 at 8:47 pm #

    I wouldn’t say that the Secretary of State is defending Obama’s eligibility. He is just trying to have a nuisance lawsuit based on an invalid interpretation of the law dismissed.

    Jamese777: Yet that same Republican Secretary of State is defending Barack Obama’s eligibility in the Voeltz lawsuit.

  20. avatar
    john June 14, 2012 at 8:51 pm #

    There is always the letter of the law and spirit of the law. In this case, Klayman argues elegantly the spirit of the law regarding the definition of NBC and The SOS’s duty and responsible to vet Obama. Let’s hope the court understands the spirit of the law.

  21. avatar
    john June 14, 2012 at 8:52 pm #

    Yes, Republicans certainly don’t want Obama not ruled an NBC. It would effect Rubio and Jindal.

  22. avatar
    Mitch June 14, 2012 at 9:08 pm #

    john:
    Although the courts have been corrupt, the state SOSs have most corrupt.The Florida SOS filed a motion to dismiss.This SOS is rotten to the core and I will never ever vote for him again.

    John, you big liar, you never voted for him – in Florida, the Secretary of State is an appointed office.

  23. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 14, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Mr. Colette and Mr. Klayman seem to be having a problem nailing down exactly where in the law that obligation appears. Do you know?

    Doc, you must have me confused with somebody else. I have never alleged that any SOS has such a duty, and have been encouraging birthers to ignore SOS’s and file directly in court against Obama and the Democrats, such as I have done.

  24. avatar
    US Citizen June 14, 2012 at 9:50 pm #

    Jerry Collette: (I) have been encouraging birthers to ignore SOS’s and file directly in court against Obama and the Democrats, such as I have done.

    So how’s that been working out?

  25. avatar
    BillTheCat June 14, 2012 at 9:53 pm #

    Mitch: John, you big liar, you never voted for him – in Florida, the Secretary of State is an appointed office.

    Gee, surprise, John is a complete liar. Just like his bigoted, ignorant heroes.

    This is why you will always lose, John. Because courts deal with facts, not hearsay, rumors, insane rants, or racist conspiracy theories from grifters running websites that bilk their readers through fear and lies.

    Enjoy the next 4 years!

  26. avatar
    Keith June 14, 2012 at 10:00 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    So, pray tell what are the facts and why are they not credible.

    Talk is cheap. I recall he made some claims that he had proof that others had legal Hawaiian certificates of live birth but weren’t born there. I never saw the evidence for that. I believe he’s lying.

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: And What makes a used car salesman like Zullo qualified to make those claims?

    What I was thinking, and maybe its only me, after all, IANAL, but I anyway I was thinking that the image just under the “Quote of the Day” has pretty good advice.

  27. avatar
    Jamese777 June 14, 2012 at 10:37 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I wouldn’t say that the Secretary of State is defending Obama’s eligibility. He is just trying to have a nuisance lawsuit based on an invalid interpretation of the law dismissed.

    It’s a “nuisance lawsuit” challenging the president’s eligibility to be on the Florida ballot. I can’t imagine anyone prone to bitheritIs not seeing support for motions to dismiss or for summary judgement as not supporting Obama’s eligibility.

  28. avatar
    AlCum June 14, 2012 at 11:35 pm #

    john:
    Although the courts have been corrupt, the state SOSs have most corrupt.The Florida SOS filed a motion to dismiss.This SOS is rotten to the core and I will never ever vote for him again.As Klayman has pointed out,the SOS is the chief election officer in the State of Florida and has the highest absolute sworn duty and oath to honor both the Florida Constitution and US Constitution.The Florida SOS is ignoring is sworn oath and duty by allowing a candidate to be on the ballot who may not be eligible under the Constitution.I suspect these SOSs do not want Obama’s eligibility to be vetted for several reasons:
    1.Rubio and Jindal have same eligibility issue as Obama and they can’t risk having Obama deemed not an NBC because of his father.
    2.The SOSs are worried about media attacks and fears of racism if they were to vet Obama.

    These SOSs are cowards and absolute disgraces to our Constitutional Soverign. I hold the highest honor and respect to Orly Taitz and Sheriff Joe Arpaio for defending the glue that holds this country together.

    You’re quite incorrect. Obama is actually the first and only presidential candidate in US history to actually prove he is a natural born citizen. None ever bothered to prove it until he did. Taitz and Arpaio are certifiable nitwits. They, and you, have been proven incorrect,

  29. avatar
    bgansel9 June 15, 2012 at 1:30 am #

    Mitch: John, you big liar, you never voted for him – in Florida, the Secretary of State is an appointed office.

    LMAO! I used to be a Florida resident (I was there during embarrassment-2000, only to move to Arizona in time to be part of embarrassment-SB1070) – and I was also a notary public. Florida Notaries are regulated by the FL Secretary of State (who was Glenda Hood when I was an NP). You are correct, the FL SoS is an appointed position, not elected.

  30. avatar
    Lupin June 15, 2012 at 3:07 am #

    John is like of those unkempt, smelly folks passing out greasy leaflets and haranguing people in parks. What he says makes no sense and you can’t have a sane exchange with him.

    Frankly, the only advantage to reading him here is that we’re spared the obligatory spittle that would come from his mouth.

  31. avatar
    The Magic M June 15, 2012 at 5:30 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I recall he made some claims that he had proof that others had legal Hawaiian certificates of live birth but weren’t born there. I never saw the evidence for that. I believe he’s lying.

    I don’t think he is lying, he is just using an intellectually dishonest standard birther argument. Of course there are people who have Hawaiian COLBs without having been born there. But their COLBs do not say they were born in Hawaii, that’s the kicker.

    Remember that about 30% of birther claims are not outright lies but truths that have been selectively presented to twist them into the opposite.
    Propaganda 101. Just like “There are examples of Hawaii issuing birth certificates falsely stating Hawaiian birth” actually translates to “Sun Yat Sen” (i.e. just one example 50+ years before Hawaii became a state).

    And the CCP statements are full of this type of claims (contrary to run-of-the-mill birthers, they stay clear of obvious lies such as the “Pakistan travel ban” or “no-one remembers Obama from college”).

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 15, 2012 at 7:42 am #

    I do not think an out of state birth would be called a “certificate of live birth.” The terminology is wrong. It would be a certificate of out of state birth, or something like that.

    The Magic M: I don’t think he is lying, he is just using an intellectually dishonest standard birther argument. Of course there are people who have Hawaiian COLBs without having been born there. But their COLBs do not say they were born in Hawaii, that’s the kicker.

  33. avatar
    realist June 15, 2012 at 8:31 am #

    Doc C… “While I don’t see any real legal significance to the Voeltz lawsuit, it makes for a good theater. We have the high-profile attorney Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch, and affidavits submitted by Jerome Corsi, Mike Zullo and Sheriff Joe Arpaio.”

    All of which are worthless hearsay. In addition, they state “I believe” “may” etc., which are inadmissible in court. They will have to testify, subject to cross, which they clearly are not going to want to do.

    Doc C… WorldNetDaily says that it will provide a video feed and claims are made that finally, once and for all, a court is going to rule on the definition of “natural born citizen.”

    I call complete and utter bullshit that a judge ever said any such thing. To do so at this stage would effectively be denying the various motions to dismiss without them being heard. This comment is much akin to Orly’s declaration that Judge Carter was going to give her a trial, which anyone with legal experience knew was false, then the transcripts proved it to be erroneous.

    Doc C… We are somewhat hampered by the lack of the text of defense motions and orders, having to rely solely on what Klayman represents, meaning a somewhat “sensational” bias.

    To put it mildly.

    I don’t know if it’s been posted here but we do have the FL SoS’s memorandum in support of their MtD. Hopefully more documents will be available soon.

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

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 15, 2012 at 8:48 am #

    Yes, it’s posted here. As always, I appreciate the efforts of those who provide the original document to the public.

    realist: I don’t know if it’s been posted here but we do have the FL SoS’s memorandum in support of their MtD. Hopefully more documents will be available soon.

  35. avatar
    AlCum June 15, 2012 at 9:21 am #

    john:
    There is always the letter of the law and spirit of the law.In this case, Klayman argues elegantly the spirit of the law regarding the definition of NBC and The SOS’s duty and responsible to vet Obama.Let’s hope the court understands the spirit of the law.

    The court does understand it. Both you and Klayman are wrong on both the letter and the spirit of the law. That’s why all the courts have ruled against your position. It is a complete fabrication.

  36. avatar
    AlCum June 15, 2012 at 9:25 am #

    john:
    Yes, Republicans certainly don’t want Obama not ruled an NBC.It would effect Rubio and Jindal.

    Also because it would be legally incorrect. They are all natural born citizens if born on US soil. Well settled law and historical precedent.

  37. avatar
    James M June 15, 2012 at 9:32 am #

    Jerry Collette: Doc, you must have me confused with somebody else. I have never alleged that any SOS has such a duty, and have been encouraging birthers to ignore SOS’s and file directly in court against Obama and the Democrats, such as I have done.

    And I have consistently pointed out that allegations of forgery should be followed by demands for criminal prosecution, not civil litigation. To date, no one has come forward willing to personally testify as a witness to any such forgery.

  38. avatar
    ASK Esq June 15, 2012 at 11:08 am #

    john: Klayman argues elegantly

    Doc, thanks for the edit and spell-check features. Now, can you put in something that will warn us that a comment like this is coming so we can swallow our coffee before reading it? I’ve gotta clean my monitor now.

  39. avatar
    The Magic M June 15, 2012 at 11:41 am #

    john: There is always the letter of the law and spirit of the law.

    Of course. Whenever what someone claims can’t be found in the letter of the law or, worse, is clearly against it, laymen try to argue the “spirit of the law”, or rather, what they believe said spirit to be.

    I see this in my country’s cranks. When a court slaps them on the law, they try a Hail Mary by claiming their human dignity is being violated, and after all, that’s what Article 1 of the German Constitution protects, so they must win since that’s the most important article of the most important law of them all, right?

    So if the law says “no release to anyone except A”, you can claim the “spirit” was that this does not hold if B really really really wants to see the stuff and yells “Constitutional cry, sis’!”, so the court should overrule the letter of the law and say “here you are”. Right. That’s the legal system in Birtherverse. Oddly reminds me of religious law – “Rights? What rights? You’re a witch, you have no rights! That’s the spirit of the law!”

  40. avatar
    JD Reed June 15, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

    John, not that you ever respond to valid points made against your assertions here, but I still ask for clarification. When you refer to the spirit of the law, are you saying the Secretary of State should, consistent with the spirit of the law, vetthe presidential candidates the way you say they should be vetted? Or are you saying that under the letter of the law, Obama, Jindal and Rubio may not be disqualified as NBCs, but under they spirit of the law, they should be.
    Either way, this looks a whole lot like a call for judicial activism to me.

  41. avatar
    Sef June 15, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

    john: Klayman argues elegantly

    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king

  42. avatar
    clestes June 15, 2012 at 2:03 pm #

    For all you birther everywhere who are pinning their hopes on this case, may I remind you that a court HAS ALREADY RULED on what a natural born citizen is.

    The year was 1898 and the case was Wong Kim Ark. The effing SUPREME COURT of the US ruled that natural born citizen was where the child was born. Not where the parents were born.

    This precedent setting case has been cited for over 100 years as THE definition of what a natural born citizen is.

    Hate to burst your bubble of hope here, but the chances of a court overturning that precendent are ZERO. The president was born in HI in 1961. He is a natural born citizen. There is absolutely NOTHING that can be said or shown that is going to change that.

  43. avatar
    JPotter June 15, 2012 at 6:09 pm #

    clestes: For all you birther everywhere who are pinning their hopes on this case, may I remind you that a court HAS ALREADY RULED on what a natural born citizen is.

    Yes, indeedy, and any ruling contradicting that one wouldn’t last long enough for the toner to cool onto the paper it was ultimately distributed on. It’d be flipped before your monitor could refresh!

    IANAL, would appreciate some of our judicial neighbors speculating how the aftermath of such a surprise would play out. I mean, the birthers are convinced this is their judge, the Honourable Bush v. Gore. If a ruling contradicting Wong comes down from any bench, what happens next?

  44. avatar
    Rickey June 15, 2012 at 11:24 pm #

    Jerry Collette: Doc, you must have me confused with somebody else. I have never alleged that any SOS has such a duty, and have been encouraging birthers to ignore SOS’s and file directly in court against Obama and the Democrats, such as I have done.

    Which is another fatal flaw in your lawsuit. The SOS of Florida is an indispensable party to a ballot challenge. Even if you won your case, the court could not order the SOS to remove Obama’s name from the ballot because the SOS is not a party to the lawsuit.

  45. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 16, 2012 at 12:16 am #

    Rickey: Which is another fatal flaw in your lawsuit. The SOS of Florida is an indispensable party to a ballot challenge. Even if you won your case, the court could not order the SOS to remove Obama’s name from the ballot because the SOS is not a party to the lawsuit.

    I debunked this argument in my opposition to the MTD, using, primarily, citations supplied by the defendants. Did you read it?

  46. avatar
    Rickey June 16, 2012 at 1:00 am #

    Jerry Collette: I debunked this argument in my opposition to the MTD, using, primarily, citations supplied by the defendants. Did you read it?

    Yes, I read it. To the extent that your arguments are comprehensible, they are utterly without merit.