Main Menu

Voeltz case dismissed with prejudice

Circuit Judge Terry P. Lewis has the dismissed the amended complaint in the Florida ballot challenge,  Voeltz v. Obama with prejudice (it cannot be fixed with amendment).  In an 7 page order, Judge Lewis cited several reasons for the dismissal, most importantly that Florida law does not provide for challenges to presidential party primaries in the state.

Judge Lewis made the following additional points:

  • Under Florida law, the Secretary of State has no duty or even authority to inquire as to the eligibility of candidates.
  • As a matter of law, persons born in the United States are citizens at birth and eligible to the Presidency (citing Hollander v. McCain and Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana).
  • Plaintiff does not have standing to bring a claim for declaratory judgment.

Judge Lewis, dismissing the complaint with prejudice, said:

I am unable to conceive of any other legal theory upon which the Plaintiff could proceed at this time relative to the relief sought.

Plaintiff Voeltz previously described Judge Lewis as “professional” and “fair.” The decision follows.

FL 2012-06-29 Voeltz v. Obama order dismissing amended complaint

,

44 Responses to Voeltz case dismissed with prejudice

  1. avatar
    ellen July 3, 2012 at 4:55 pm #

    That was the main reason for dismissing the case.

    But the judge DID declare that he was in agreement with the other four state courts (Indiana, Georgia, New Jersey and Arizona) and one federal court (in the Tinsdale v Obama ruling) that have ruled on Obama’s eligibility and the one case (Hollister v. McCain) that did so on McCain. And the Florida court agreed with the other six courts, that the term Natural Born Citizen has been defined by the Wong Kim Ark case, and that the term comes from the common law and that it refers to the place of birth (not the parents), and that all children born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats are Natural Born.

  2. avatar
    bgansel9 July 3, 2012 at 6:37 pm #

    Doc state: “Plaintiff Voeltz previously described Judge Lewis as “professional” and “fair.”

    Probably not anymore.

  3. avatar
    bgansel9 July 3, 2012 at 6:55 pm #

    Awww, they’re going to try for declaratory relief. Isn’t that cute:

    “Larry Klayman’s initial comments (found on OBC):

    “The decision issued today by Judge Terry Lewis was poorly reasoned

    and written. It goes against prior Florida Supreme Court precedent in

    particular, thus making our chances on appeal great. The judge also

    equated being a citizen with a natural born citizen and cited no

    authority to conclude the two terms are the same. In any event,

    Plaintiff Michael Voeltz filed a new complaint today for declaratory

    relief which will, in addition to his appeal, now proceed forward.

    In short, we remain confident that if the Florida courts ultimately

    decide to obey their own election law, we will prevail in the end.”

  4. avatar
    linda July 3, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

    Voeltz and Klayman did file another Complaint. I thought he couldn’t do that since it was dismissed with prejudice? Anyway, they are not quick studies, this one is Voeltz v Barack Hussein Obama Florida Democratic Nominee. It is not on the high profile list yet. NativeBornCitizen.com a copy of the docket.

  5. avatar
    GeorgetownJD July 3, 2012 at 8:58 pm #

    the Supreme Court of Florida is, no doubt, familiar with the doctrine of res judicata, which precludes not only the relitigation of claims that were previously litigated but also claims that could have been raised. As explained by the United States Supreme Court, in Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392 (2000):

    “Res judicata not only bars relitigation of claims previously litigated, but also precludes claims that could have been brought in earlier proceedings. Under the doctrine of res judicata, “when a final judgment has been entered on the merits of a case, ‘[i]t is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy, concluding parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.” Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110, 129-130 (1983) (quoting Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352 (1877)). ”

    Klayman’s eleventh hour attempt to amend the complaint to raise declaratory judgment is all the court needs to evidence that the plaintiff could have — but failed to — litigate the claim in the prior proceeding. Klayman knows this and so is merely playing to the PayPal crowd.

    Oh, and Larry’s ex-wife says, “Send more money to Larry.”

  6. avatar
    Scientist July 3, 2012 at 9:07 pm #

    Dismissing with prejudice is quite apt, since that was the main reason the case was filed in the first place.

  7. avatar
    Joey July 3, 2012 at 9:13 pm #

    Current Status of 2012 State Ballot Challenges. The Article II, Section 1 vetting of Barack Obama continues.
    2012 STATE BALLOT CHALLENGES TO PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY

    Alaska: Epperly v Obama (REJECTED); Hackney v Obama (REJECTED)
    Alabama: Hendershot v Mark Kennedy (DISMISSED); McInnish v Chapman (DENIED);
    Sorensen v Kennedy (DISMISSED); Thompson v Kennedy (DISMISSED)
    Arizona: Allen v Obama (DISMISSED); Liberty Legal Foundation v Obama (Pending)
    California: Dummet v Bowen (Pending); Noonan, et. al. v Bowen and Obama (DISMISSED)
    Florida: Collette v Obama (Pending); Voeltz v Obama, et. al. (DISMISSED)
    Georgia: Farrar v Obama (DENIED); Powell v Obama (DENIED); Swensson v Obama (DENIED);
    Weldon v Obama (DENIED)
    Illinois: Freeman v Obama (OVERRULED); Jackson v Obama (OVERRULED); Meroni, et. al. v Obama (DENIED)
    Indiana: Kesler v Obama (DENIED); Ripley v Obama (DENIED); Swihart v Obama (DENIED);
    Taitz v Obama (REJECTED); Taitz v Indiana Elections Commission (DISMISSED); Weyl v Obama (DENIED)
    Maryland: Fair v Obama (Pending)
    Mississippi: Taitz v Democrat (sic) Party of Mississippi & Secretary of State, et. al. (Pending)
    New Hampshire: Taitz v Obama (DISMISSED); Taitz v Gardner & New Hampshire Ballot Commission (DENIED)
    New Jersey: Galasso v Obama (DENIED); Purpura, et. al. v Obama (DENIED)
    New York: Dean v Obama (OVERRULED); Garvey v Obama (OVERRULED); Strunk v Board of Elections (OVERRULED); Thompson v Obama (OVERRULED); Van Allen v Obama (OVERRULED); Volodarsky v Obama (OVERRULED)
    North Carolina: Vestal v Obama (REJECTED)
    Pennsylvania: Berg v Obama (DISMISSED); Schneller v Obama, et. al. (DISMISSED);
    Schneller v Corbett, et. al. (DISMISSED)
    Tennessee: Liberty Legal Foundation v Obama (DISMISSED)
    Virginia: Tisdale v Obama (DISMISSED)
    Washington D.C.: ex-rel. Sibley v D.C. Board of Elections (Pending)

    Thanks to Tes and the Birther Scorecard for the data.

  8. avatar
    G July 3, 2012 at 10:43 pm #

    Agreed. Well put. 😉

    Scientist:
    Dismissing with prejudice is quite apt, since that was the main reason the case was filed in the first place.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 4, 2012 at 1:31 am #

    But, but, but. Where are the cases the birthers won?

    Joey: Thanks to Tes and the Birther Scorecard for the data.

  10. avatar
    G July 4, 2012 at 1:51 am #

    ROTFL!!! 😉

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    But, but, but. Where are the cases the birthers won?

  11. avatar
    Sam the Centipede July 4, 2012 at 4:18 am #

    Perhaps “pending” by a case indicates that the uperser (have I got that right?) and his co-conspirators in the White House have not yet managed to corrupt the judge, forge new documents or suppress the court, and all the “pending” results will turn into great victories for the birther movement?

    Yeah, “pending” must indicate an almost certain birther wins. Go Larry go! Go Taitz go! Go Mario go! Send money! Send money! Send money!

    Of course, the alternative hypothesis that “pending” means “the judge has not yet decided between dismissing or rejecting the case” has some merit.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    But, but, but. Where are the cases the birthers won?

  12. avatar
    Majority Will July 4, 2012 at 8:31 am #

    Sam the Centipede: Of course, the alternative hypothesis that “pending” means “the judge has not yet decided between dismissing or rejecting the case” has some merit.

    That’s outstanding.

  13. avatar
    Jamese777 July 4, 2012 at 12:16 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    But, but, but. Where are the cases the birthers won?

    I’m hoping for a huge birther victory in Taitz v Kreep. I can’t wait for the frog marching to begin.

  14. avatar
    brygenon July 4, 2012 at 1:14 pm #

    Jamese777: I’m hoping for a huge birther victory in Taitz v Kreep. I can’t wait for the frog marching to begin.

    Three years ago I thought birthers would get their first win in Liberi v. Taitz. It was East Coast birthers versus West Coast birthers, so either way, birthers would chalk up both a loss and a win. The loss would dissolve in the ocean of birther losses, while the win would stand alone. It would raise their average above zero.

    Three years later, near as I can tell, there was no winner.

  15. avatar
    brygenon July 4, 2012 at 1:44 pm #

    ellen:
    That was the main reason for dismissing the case.

    But the judge DID declare that he was in agreement with the other four state courts(Indiana, Georgia, New Jersey and Arizona) and one federal court (in the Tinsdale v Obama ruling) that have ruled on Obama’s eligibility and the one case (Hollister v. McCain) that did so on McCain. And the Florida court agreed with the other six courts, that the term Natural Born Citizen has been defined by the Wong Kim Ark case, and that the term comes from the common law and that it refers to the place of birth (not the parents), and that all children born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats are Natural Born.

    Not exactly. The courts have held that birth in the U.S. is sufficient regardless of parentage, but have not said that natural-born citizenship is defined by place and not parentage. The prevailing view is that natural-born citizen mean citizen from birth, and the opinion in this case agrees.

    Judge Lewis finds against the two-citizen-parent theory on page 6, noting, ‘the United States Supreme Court has concluded that [e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.'” Judge Lewis cites that our laws bestow citizenship upon birth to those born in the United Sates, and implicitly equates citizenship from birth with natural-born citizenship.

    Also it’s “Hollander v. McCain, not “Hollister v. McCain”. Easy to conflate with Hollister v. Soetoro.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 4, 2012 at 2:21 pm #

    If you’ve seen one birther lawsuit …

    brygenon: Also it’s “Hollander v. McCain, not “Hollister v. McCain”. Easy to conflate with Hollister v. Soetoro.

  17. avatar
    Joey July 4, 2012 at 4:15 pm #

    brygenon: Not exactly. The courts have held that birth in the U.S. is sufficient regardless of parentage, but have not said that natural-born citizenship is defined by place and not parentage. The prevailing view is that natural-born citizen mean citizen from birth, and the opinion in this case agrees.

    Judge Lewis finds against the two-citizen-parent theory on page 6, noting, ‘the United States Supreme Court has concluded that [e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.’” Judge Lewis cites that our laws bestow citizenship upon birth to those born in the United Sates, and implicitly equates citizenship from birth with natural-born citizenship.

    Also it’s “Hollander v. McCain, not “Hollister v. McCain”. Easy to conflate with Hollister v. Soetoro.

    In the recently oft quoted Ankeny et.al. v Daniels lawsuit in Indiana. the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

    In the Arizona ballot challenge Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon ruled: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”–Allen v Obama, et. al. Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona.
    Judge Gordon cited to US v Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v Daniels.

  18. avatar
    brygenon July 4, 2012 at 7:51 pm #

    Joey: In the recently oft quoted Ankeny et.al. v Daniels lawsuit in Indiana. the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

    Footnote 15 of that opinion reads:

    “We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.”

    Joey:
    In the Arizona ballot challenge Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon ruled: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”–Allen v Obama, et. al. Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona.
    Judge Gordon cited to US v Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v Daniels.

    US v Wong Kim Ark quotes British Jurist A.V. Dicey: “‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.'”

    Judge Gordon also cited Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F.Supp.2d 1144, 1147 (N.D.Cal. 2008). To rule on Robinson’s motion for preliminary injunction, the District Court assessed the likelihood of Robinson winning on the merits, and considered whether Panamanian-born John S. McCain III was a natural-born citizen:

    ‘At the time of Senator McCain’s birth, the pertinent citizenship provision prescribed that “[a]ny child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797. The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” in this statute to be the converse of the phrase “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore to encompass all those not granted citizenship directly by the Fourteenth Amendment. Under this view, Senator McCain was a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already. This order finds it highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for provisional relief, that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.’
    http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2008cv03836/206145/39/

    The Congressional Research Service explained the Robinson v. Bowen ruling:

    ‘The court thus implicitly adopted a meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause which would include not only the narrow”common law” (based on apparent British common law) and the later United States constitutional designation for 14th Amendment purposes, that is, one born “in” the United States (jus soli), but also the statutory designation by Congress of one entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth” transmitted from one’s parent or parents (jus sanguinis).’
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/11/congressional-research-service-punctures-birther-balloon/

  19. avatar
    Keith July 4, 2012 at 7:58 pm #

    Jamese777: I’m hoping for a huge birther victory in Taitz v Kreep. I can’t wait for the frog marching to begin.

    I see what you did there… 🙂

  20. avatar
    clestes July 5, 2012 at 7:35 am #

    Well, no surprise and just what I expected.

    Hey, has anybody heard that Sheriff Joe is back in the news with another announcement about his findings on the president’s BC?

    We have to wait till July 17 to find out what the blockbuster news is, but he promises it will definately prove the BC is a fraud.

    His other legal problems must be pressing.

  21. avatar
    Tarrant July 5, 2012 at 9:19 am #

    Re: Sheriff Joe, he has his next meeting in court with the DOJ on the 19th, so much like his previous presser, it’s timed to just preempt a case against him already scheduled. That way he can complain (and beg for money based on the falsity) that the DOJ action was planned only as a result of him announcing the press conference, in retaliation, rather than him scheduling it based on the long-ago announced date of the DOJ action. His supporters won’t notice or care that the DOJ hearing was scheduled well before.

    Re: Klayman and his “appeal”, I like that he says the judge ruled that being born in the country is sufficient for NBC but claims that the judge gave no reasoning. Here’s a tip, Larry – reasoning you disagree with or that’s inconvenient to your claims, like when judges say that Ankeny is persuasive, or cite WKA and say Minor is not controlling, is not the same as going no reasoning at all. But you go ahead with your “Easy” appeal. The gullible birthers will, after all, keep click-click-clicking that PayPal button, and your children will appreciate te child support.

  22. avatar
    Rickey July 5, 2012 at 12:26 pm #

    Klayman’s Complaint for Declaratory Relief is now available for viewing:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/99188187/2012-07-02-VOELTZ-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Relief

    Note that Klayman continues to mistakenly assert that President Obama is the Democratic nominee for the 2012 election; that no physical copy of his long-form birth certificate has ever been produced; that Obama was not born in the United States (however, Klayman does not say where Obama was actually born); and that Barack Obama Sr. was deported.

    There also is the usual claptrap about the LFBC being a forgery.

  23. avatar
    G July 5, 2012 at 2:29 pm #

    Under the previous ruling by the judge, where his case was dismissed WITH PREJUDICE, I don’t see how this latest filing doesn’t fall under that ruling…it is just covering the same ground of nonsense.

    So…doesn’t the act of filing this new piece of frivolity, in light of that prior dismissal, open Klayman to sanctions?

    Rickey:
    Klayman’s Complaint for Declaratory Relief is now available for viewing:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/99188187/2012-07-02-VOELTZ-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Relief

    Note that Klayman continues to mistakenly assert that President Obama is the Democratic nominee for the 2012 election; that no physical copy of his long-form birth certificate has ever been produced; that Obama was not born in the United States (however, Klayman does not say where Obama was actually born); and that Barack Obama Sr. was deported.

    There also is the usual claptrap about the LFBC being a forgery.

  24. avatar
    donna July 5, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

    G: “doesn’t the act of filing this new piece of frivolity, in light of that prior dismissal, open Klayman to sanctions?”

    one would think

    would this FIASCO have continued had the courts followed judge land’s example?

  25. avatar
    G July 5, 2012 at 3:31 pm #

    Agreed. So far, most of the courts have erred on the side of leniency on these clowns, assuming that if they just smile and are polite to them, while gently dismissing their rubbish, that they will go away. How naive and misguided, if you ask me.

    The mindset we are dealing with doesn’t take “polite hints” well. Anytime leniency is given, it only gives them an excuse to keep pushing the envelope. These clowns will only respond if they face real consequences for their actions…

    donna:
    G: “doesn’t the act of filing this new piece of frivolity, in light of that prior dismissal, open Klayman to sanctions?”

    one would think

    would this FIASCO have continued had the courts followed judge land’s example?

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 5, 2012 at 3:43 pm #

    Judge Lewis said he couldn’t imagine a way to fix the complaint, but remember that the declaratory judgment petition was not before the court, the Second Amended Complaint having been stricken. So I think Klayman is safe from sanctions, but not from dismissal.

    G: So…doesn’t the act of filing this new piece of frivolity, in light of that prior dismissal, open Klayman to sanctions?

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 5, 2012 at 3:57 pm #

    Yes, and not only does he assert that Obama is the nominee, he actually names “BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE” as the defendant, after Judge Lewis specifically ruled that he wasn’t a nominee. That’s pretty bad.

    Rickey: Note that Klayman continues to mistakenly assert that President Obama is the Democratic nominee for the 2012 election

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 5, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

    While we see 140 cases, an individual judge sees one or at most two. It’s different from where they sit.

    G: Agreed. So far, most of the courts have erred on the side of leniency on these clowns, assuming that if they just smile and are polite to them, while gently dismissing their rubbish, that they will go away. How naive and misguided, if you ask me.

  29. avatar
    JPotter July 5, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: “BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE”

    Doesn’t even say nominee for what? (for some reason, 1st page is loading for me at ScribD 🙁 )

    I’d reply, “No such party…”

  30. avatar
    donna July 5, 2012 at 5:14 pm #

    “While we see 140 cases, an individual judge sees one or at most two. It’s different from where they sit.”

    i humbly disagree , doc

    they don’t live under a rock and they cite recent precedent

    and i find it hard to believe (if they are clueless) that they don’t ask “hey, what’s this all about?”

  31. avatar
    G July 5, 2012 at 5:18 pm #

    True, however as the defense’s string cites are more and more commonly making these judges “aware” of the rest of the Birther cases (assuming they didn’t already become aware of this nuttery themselves), that string cite should quickly clue them into the type of impervious-to-reality frivolity and propaganda masquerade being placed in front of them.

    Confronted with that information, I don’t see how they still opt for leniency… seems naive to me…

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    While we see 140 cases, an individual judge sees one or at most two. It’s different from where they sit.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 5, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

    So you are saying that a Judge in Florida should act punitively against a fellow in Florida because of something some other guy in Alaska did and some other guy in New Jersey did? That sounds like a very prejudicial way to act.

    donna: i humbly disagree , doc

    they don’t live under a rock and they cite recent precedent

    and i find it hard to believe (if they are clueless) that they don’t ask “hey, what’s this all about?”

  33. avatar
    Scientist July 5, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: So you are saying that a Judge in Florida should act punitively against a fellow in Florida because of something some other guy in Alaska did and some other guy in New Jersey did? That sounds like a very prejudicial way to act.

    Judges should sanction frivolous arguments, whether they are made for the first time or the 55,693rd time. The IRS imposes a penalty for filing frivolous returns.

    The reality is that society doesn’t have infinite resources to pour into the courts. All over the country, courts are overloaded and budgets are being cut to the bone. Every moment devoted to Voeltz and Collette and other such junk cases is a moment a potentially innocent person sits in jail awaiting trial or someone with a life-altering injury waits to be heard. They are the real victims of Voeltz and Collette.

  34. avatar
    G July 5, 2012 at 9:00 pm #

    I share this view.

    Scientist: Judges should sanction frivolous arguments, whether they are made for the first time or the 55,693rd time.The IRS imposes a penalty for filing frivolous returns.

    The reality is that society doesn’t have infinite resources to pour into the courts.All over the country, courts are overloaded and budgets are being cut to the bone.Every moment devoted to Voeltz and Collette and other such junk cases is a moment a potentially innocent person sits in jail awaiting trial or someone with a life-altering injury waits to be heard.They are the real victims of Voeltz and Collette.

  35. avatar
    G July 5, 2012 at 9:07 pm #

    Well, that sounds like the type of spin and twisting that a Birther would pull.

    Reality is, citations to other court cases occur all the time. Once a similar case is brought to a court’s attention, a judge has the ability to at least review the findings in that case. As just about all the other cases declared the litigant’s claims and actions to be frivolous / without merit , that should “clue” any rational thinking person in that they are likely facing an irrational case before them as well…

    Besides, ALL these cases have something important in common that you’ve conveniently left unsaid; the *guy* that that fellow in Florida and that fellow in Alaska and that fellow in New Jersey…(etc) happened to go after is the SAME GUY…and he happens to live in none of those places…and most importantly, he has NO more connection and direct relationship or interaction with any of them…than he does with the guy in the case before the judge at this time either…yet their grievances claimed against him are all pretty much the same…

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    So you are saying that a Judge in Florida should act punitively against a fellow in Florida because of something some other guy in Alaska did and some other guy in New Jersey did? That sounds like a very prejudicial way to act.

  36. avatar
    JPotter July 5, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    As maddening as they are, birther cases must be given the same consideration as all other complaints.

    Until such time as some cross-jurisdictional accomodation can be put in place for recognizing and responding to popular hysterias which are leading to crowd-sourced waves of litigation …. which will be never as states jealousy guard their sovereignty … or this can be prosecuted as a conspiracy … or transformed into some sort of class v. class action (again, massive jurisdictional and sovereignty problems) … it will roll on.

    There’s a lot of frivolous action out there. This is a couple hundred cases with something in common. That 2 orders of magnitude larger than a single worthless case, but a drop in the legal ocean.
    ____________________

    That said, the second the 2 knuckleheads in FL filed after being bounced, they nominated themselves for a nuclear strike. A small, targeted one. You know I just hate to see a birther disappointed …. 😉

  37. avatar
    G July 5, 2012 at 11:21 pm #

    I agree with that premise.

    However, I would argue that that premise can be considered quickly satisfied by a volume of essential copy-cat filings, making the same argument that has failed in other jurisdictions at ALL levels up the chain. That happened a long time ago in these regards. They may throw a lot of silly-spaghetti against the legal wall, but there really isn’t any argument in these filings that they haven’t already tried and failed in some combination before.

    More importantly, enough of these states have seen multiple filers try the same thing. So, while I can understand, at some level, those arguing that each state should give these things a “fresh shot”…

    … I would say that once a state (FL for instance) addresses one of these and dismisses it with prejudice, it should take a very harsh stance (sanctions) against anyone (same filer included…but new “copy-cats” as well), who tries to essentially re-litigate these same dead-horse issues again…

    JPotter: As maddening as they are, birther cases must be given the same consideration as all other complaints.

  38. avatar
    JPotter July 6, 2012 at 12:03 am #

    G: those arguing that each state should give these things a “fresh shot”…

    Who argues that? No jurisdictions goes into a a proceeding consciously giving the pleading a fresh shot, that’s just the way it is. Filings are, to my knowledge, and very wisely, not subjected to any sort of screening or analysis, other than the judge’s reading. Pre-judging cases (well, beyond interns and other office staff having a chuckle over the “live ones”) would be a slippery slope. How much would it suck to take your complaint to court and be brushed off as a copycat scam artist?

    Run a search for copycat litigation, there’s tons. One lawyer wins a judgment for a particular offense against a particular entity, and, the next day, some lawyer somewhere has sued every other similar entity for the same offense.

    Consider class actions. They exist to avoid having a multitude of similar suits. But each injured party retains the right to be heard separately. A stringent anti-copycat regime could result in that right being curtailed. “You’ll be lumped in and you’ll like it!”

  39. avatar
    G July 6, 2012 at 12:48 am #

    Well, the way Doc C. had phrased his statement, it came across that way (at least to me). If I am mistaking what he or anyone else meant, I apologize. I do understand and agree with the points you are making here. I am not arguing against that.

    JPotter:
    Who argues that? No jurisdictions goes into a a proceeding consciously giving the pleading a fresh shot, that’s just the way it is. Filings are, to my knowledge, and very wisely, not subjected to any sort of screening or analysis, other than the judge’s reading.

    I agree with you points here, but that was not what I was referring to at all.

    I’m talking about the point when the judge has made his dismissal ruling in these cases. At that point in the case, the defense has always had an opportunity to state why a case was dismissed and cite the related “copy-cat” cases, and most importantly, point out that those were dismissed as frivolous . That is the specific scenario and point in a case before a judge that I am talking about. IANAL, so I am just posting an assumption, in that the judge, at the time of his dismissal, might have the authority to impose sanctions and harsher penalties in these scenarios, in order to discourage further copy-cats of failed frivolous arguments.

    I am just saying that there seems to be enough material that should be before these judges by now, at the point of making his ruling, in order to quickly realize this is nothing but an intentionally vexatious movement, with zero intention of learning from and respecting prior court rulings, which will only continue to come back with the same defeated arguments, again and again, unless there such action comes with sufficient costs and consequences, to discourage frivolity.

    JPotter:
    Pre-judging cases (well, beyond interns and other office staff having a chuckle over the “live ones”) would be a slippery slope. How much would it suck to take your complaint to court and be brushed off as a copycat scam artist?

    Again, what you are describing is the opposite scenario that I’m talking about. I fully understand why a winning case and legal argument would lead to “copy-cats”.

    I’m talking about the nut-burger stuff – the completely wasteful “copy-cats” of already failed and declared frivolous claims. That includes Birtherism and the Sov Cit/”Tax Cheat” scams. That is where I’m merely advocating support for judges to take a harder line at the time they render their dismissal rulings, including applying whatever penalties they have the discretion to invoke, under the law.

    But look, I’m not of the mindset of the RWNJ whiners at all on this. I’m not losing any sleep because I merely am of an opinion that these things should receive less tolerance. IANAL and I am not a judge.

    I am simply expressing a personal support and advocacy for harsher treatment in these already-attempted-and-frivolous scenarios, but I do respect the law and a judge’s ruling, whatever it may be.

    JPotter:

    Run a search for copycat litigation, there’s tons. One lawyer wins a judgment for a particular offense against a particular entity, and, the next day, some lawyer somewhere has sued every other similar entity for the same offense.

    Consider class actions. They exist to avoid having a multitude of similar suits. But each injured party retains the right to be heard separately. A stringent anti-copycat regime could result in that right being curtailed. “You’ll be lumped in and you’ll like it!”

  40. avatar
    Scientist July 6, 2012 at 6:38 am #

    JPotter: How much would it suck to take your complaint to court and be brushed off as a copycat scam artist?

    How much would it suck to be the party sued in a baseless, frivolous lawsuit and have to hire a lawyer and spend a lot of time defending yourself? How much more would it suck, after it’s dismissed, to have to do it again? How much would it suck to have a real case and have it delayed because courts are clogged with junk cases?

    JPotter: Run a search for copycat litigation, there’s tons. One lawyer wins a judgment for a particular offense against a particular entity, and, the next day, some lawyer somewhere has sued every other similar entity for the same offense.

    The key word there as regards birther suits is “win”. A winning case by definition has merit.

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 6, 2012 at 8:40 am #

    The Florida statute on declaratory judgments provides for costs to be assessed against the loser.

    Scientist: How much would it suck to be the party sued in a baseless, frivolous lawsuit and have to hire a lawyer and spend a lot of time defending yourself? How much more would it suck, after it’s dismissed, to have to do it again? How much would it suck to have a real case and have it delayed because courts are clogged with junk cases?

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 6, 2012 at 8:47 am #

    Let me be clear here.

    The Court in Leon County Florida is not clogged with birther cases. Michael Voeltz is not a vexatious litigant (so far as I know). Birthers may be a national nuisance, but a judge looks at individuals and the merits of the case before him and the behavior of the parties.

    I would be outraged if a judge let the behavior of other people influence his treatment of a party to a lawsuit. That would be like a judge in Florida throwing the book at some black kid in Jacksonville because of what he read about black gang members in Los Angeles. Ones personal beliefs, race, politics or religion must not be a factor in how the courts treat an individual.

    A judge can certainly use the precedent of other courts’ decisions on the law, but he must not rely on unproven allegations made in other courts, or use prejudice based on political association and beliefs to bias his judgment.

    I’m frankly shocked to find anyone here advocating that birthers be discriminated against as a class by the courts and the idea offends me to the core.

    G: Well, that sounds like the type of spin and twisting that a Birther would pull.

  43. avatar
    Scientist July 6, 2012 at 9:37 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: A judge can certainly use the precedent of other courts’ decisions on the law, but he must not rely on unproven allegations made in other courts, or use prejudice based on political association and beliefs to bias his judgment.

    What if the plaintiff’s attorney states on websites and other fora that the purpose of the lawsuit is political? Is that not an abuse of the legal system? What about the rights of defendants? Why should you or I or Obama or anyone have to incur expenses to defend against law suits filed by defendants who target us for political, racial, personal or other animus? The knife cuts both ways, Doc.

    By the way, that script message that went away is back and the site runs slow as molasses again.

  44. avatar
    G July 6, 2012 at 11:02 am #

    It sounds like we’re misreading each other’s statements and jumping to conclusions.

    I am not advocating for discrimination. I am talking only about judges reviewing similar cases, mentioned by a defense, which are brought up as justification for dismissal in a MTD and realizing from those, that this same issue has been repeatedly brought up and always dismissed as without merit.

    I do not see that as prejudicial at all. I see that as simply becoming “aware” of what is really going on in front of their court room, by finding out that the same arguments and stunts have been tried and 100% shot down in numerous other venues. In this sense, it is not about each state being their own entity, but realizing that these litigants are merely “court shopping”…

    Again, at that point and that point only (when a judge is ready to making a ruling on the MTD anyways), I am merely arguing that, if their discretion allows, they could impose a threat of sanctions, in order to discourage further abuses of this same frivolous and failed argument.

    As I said, none of these cases is against a defendant that lives in those states. This is political theater abusing the courts, because it can get away with it. None of these cases are anything in which the judge came to a conclusion other than granting dismissal either.

    So NO, I do not see any “prejudice” here…because I’m not asking judges to toss out the case when it first comes to them. I’m merely talking about them taking a stiffer tone and harder line, when they dismiss them.

    I hope that makes it a bit clearer what I meant, because the conclusion you leapt to and got offended about, is NOT at all what I’m suggesting.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’m frankly shocked to find anyone here advocating that birthers be discriminated against as a class by the courts and the idea offends me to the core.