Main Menu

Voeltz v. Obama Take II dismissed

Thanks to commenter donna (who is not a birther) for the tip. 😉

Attorney Larry Klayman should have known better, since he already lost Voeltz v. Obama, The Journey Begins, and the sequel was a rehash of the original just introducing a new cause of action, declaratory judgment. Circuit Judge John C. Cooper issued his order today dismissing the case.

,

47 Responses to Voeltz v. Obama Take II dismissed

  1. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 6, 2012 at 8:25 pm #

    And you can be sure as shoot that he’ll having a scathing crybaby piece about it at WND.

  2. avatar
    misha September 6, 2012 at 9:13 pm #

    For the sound effect, I thought you would have the sad trombone:

    http://www.sadtrombone.com

  3. avatar
    donna September 6, 2012 at 9:35 pm #

    prego, doc and thanks for the giggle

    poor larry

    does this mean that children born by in vitro fertilization are NOT “OUT OF LUCK” as larry claimed?

    any day now ……

    btw, for those who say there has been no “trial” nor “evidence presented”, i found this on the ditz’s website (emphasis mine):

    “DVD of the historic TRIAL in GA and DVD of a historic TESTIMONY in NH, where EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number.”

  4. avatar
    john September 6, 2012 at 9:36 pm #

    The decision is frivolous for the most part and should definitely be tossed out on appeal. This because the judge goes through and cites a whole bunch of precident from past birther cases. This where the judge is clearly neglegent. Klyman argues that other cases should not be considered and the judge disagrees. The problem with this is that judge never cites any legal reason for rejecting Klayman’s argument. Judge says he disagrees but never addresses Klayman’s arguments. The judge simply ignores Kalyman’s arguments. (He offers no legal argument and proceeds forward.) Judges are suppose to address party arguments and either reject or affirm them with legal reasoning. As far as this decision goes regarding citing past president, the judge does none of that.

  5. avatar
    john September 6, 2012 at 9:40 pm #

    It is interesting that the judge does reject most of Klayman’s using legal reasoning. But the Judge can’t seem to cite any legal reasoning on why he should cite past precident birther case other than to Klayman, I disagree. Saying something doesn’t make it so. Perhaps the judge knows he couldn’t refute that argument but at the same time simply can’t let such a case go forward. So the judge’s legal reason for citing precident birther case is “I disagree”.

  6. avatar
    donna September 6, 2012 at 10:13 pm #

    and:

    4 Separately, President Obama served and filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes. This order expressly does not rule on that motion. However, the Court expressly reserves jurisdiction to determine the motion at a hearing to be subsequently scheduled by the parties.

    i can’t wait for poor larry to be hit with fees too

  7. avatar
    Thinker September 7, 2012 at 12:55 am #

    I hope that we see motions for sanctions for any birfer case brought by an attorney from now on. There is simply no way a licensed attorney can continue to claim in good faith that these frivolous cases have merit. Irion has a post on the Libery Legal Foundation web site where he says he might bring more cases now that the DNC is over. If he does this, and he gets through them unscathed financially, I’ll be pissed.

  8. avatar
    richCares September 7, 2012 at 12:58 am #

    I popped in to WND to get their take on this. Found nothing, in fact not a single Obama elegibility article on their main page. They did have an about the DNC wants to ban profits. Their taget audience appears to be 6 yrs old.

  9. avatar
    G September 7, 2012 at 1:14 am #

    Agreed!!!

    Thinker: I hope that we see motions for sanctions for any birfer case brought by an attorney from now on. There is simply no way a licensed attorney can continue to claim in good faith that these frivolous cases have merit. Irion has a post on the Libery Legal Foundation web site where he says he might bring more cases now that the DNC is over. If he does this, and he gets through them unscathed financially, I’ll be pissed.

  10. avatar
    Lupin September 7, 2012 at 2:41 am #

    Thinker: I hope that we see motions for sanctions for any birfer case brought by an attorney from now on. There is simply no way a licensed attorney can continue to claim in good faith that these frivolous cases have merit. Irion has a post on the Libery Legal Foundation web site where he says he might bring more cases now that the DNC is over. If he does this, and he gets through them unscathed financially, I’ll be pissed.

    Couldn’t agree more!

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 7, 2012 at 8:26 am #

    Under the rule of law, the courts try to present a consistent view of the law to everyone — not one court goes one way and another court goes another. This is why all of the courts are citing Ankeny and saying that they agree and generally not making an independent argument (although some go further). As the judge in New Jersey said, “It is not necessary to reinvent the wheel.” Given that birthers have lost their crank natural born citizen theories before 5 courts of appeal, I do not think Florida will be any different. And since the issue is already well-settled, the US Supreme Court will not get involved.

    john: It is interesting that the judge does reject most of Klayman’s using legal reasoning. But the Judge can’t seem to cite any legal reasoning on why he should cite past precident (sic) birther case other than to Klayman, I disagree

  12. avatar
    donna September 7, 2012 at 9:18 am #

    to quote Northland10 from NBC:

    John: The problem with this is that judge never cites any legal reason for rejecting Klayman’s argument.

    You apparently missed all of the citations of Florida law and cases. As for some of the “merit” items, he did provide arguments. When describing the 2 parent citizen issue, he pointed at the Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana and others and stated, “What they said.” He need not restate what another court already stated if he thinks their reasoning sound. I suppose he could have gone the birther route and cut and paste Ankeny and WKA into his ruling but the legal reasoning would still be the same.

    As was done in Mario’s New Jersey appeal, they do not really need to give reasoning to arguments that are frivolous. Quite simply, if there is a pile of poo in front of you, there is no need to define it. It is poo, and it remains poo, and no legal reasoning will change it. it is just poo.

    and NBC:

    The judge does not have to recite statutes to reject Klayman’s arguments. On appeal the court will accept the lack of standing and that will be the end of it. Poor John… another bubble burst… it’s getting close to elections and nothing is sticking

    Plaintiff argues that this case is a case of first impression for Florida courts and, as such, the Court should not consider the decisions and opinions of other courts that have been presented with allegations that a candidate for President of the United States is not qualified under Article II, Section 5, of the Constitution of the United States to hold the office of President of the United States.’ Contrary to the argument of the Plaintiff, it is appropriate for the Court to consider the decisions and opinions of other courts that have considered the question.

    Klayman and John are confusing ruling precedent and the Court accepting the rulings of other courts and accepting it as its own

    In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born within the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, 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.

    and MOI:

    after all of those ballot challenges, state birther bills and lawsuits, obama just accepted the nomination – can’t you hear the sound of birthers dropping dead?

  13. avatar
    Clestes September 7, 2012 at 9:51 am #

    Another one bites th dust….

    Ahhhh how satisfying it is. These people just continue to make fools of themselves and between the rethugs and their disastrous platform and the Birther and their craziness this election season has provided a whole spat of hilarious moments one after another

  14. avatar
    Bob September 7, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    john:
    cite any legal reasoning on why he should cite past precident . . .

    I’m no lawyer but I believe that citing legal precedent is a rather basic legal concept and doesn’t really need explaining.

  15. avatar
    bgansel9 September 7, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

    john: The decision is frivolous for the most part and should definitely be tossed out on appeal. This because the judge goes through and cites a whole bunch of precident from past birther cases.

    This is performance art, no?

  16. avatar
    JoZeppy September 7, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    bgansel9: This is performance art, no?

    You know, I’ve been wondering the same thing for some time…..Can a person really be this dense, and base every decision on the “if it’s bad for Obama, it’s true” even if it creates contradictions….but then again, our friend Tracey from MD is pretty close to that, so I suppose it is possible.

  17. avatar
    BillTheCat September 7, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

    I love how most of us don’t even bother responding to John anymore 😀

  18. avatar
    predicto September 7, 2012 at 2:45 pm #

    john:
    The decision is frivolous for the most part and should definitely be tossed out on appeal. This because the judge goes through and cites a whole bunch of precident from past birther cases. This where the judge is clearly neglegent. Klyman argues that other cases should not be considered and the judge disagrees. The problem with this is that judge never cites any legal reason for rejecting Klayman’s argument. Judge says he disagrees but never addresses Klayman’s arguments. The judge simply ignores Kalyman’s arguments. (He offers no legal argument and proceeds forward.) Judges are suppose to address party arguments and either reject or affirm them with legal reasoning. As far as this decision goes regarding citing past president, the judge does none of that.

    John, you appear to have no clue how judges operate or how the law is applied. Kind of sad, really.

  19. avatar
    Thomas Brown September 7, 2012 at 3:45 pm #

    BillTheCat:
    I love how most of us don’t even bother responding to John anymore

    John who?

  20. avatar
    donna September 7, 2012 at 4:06 pm #

    Thomas Brown:

    i am not a birther donna here

    seriously, how much longer can the birthers exist?

    i hear the death rate spiked last night after obama said: Madam Chairwoman, delegates, I accept your nomination for President of the United States.

    and after all of those (FAILED) state birther bills, ballot challenges and lawsuits (which piled on more NBC precedent), he accepted the nomination?

    what hubris!!!!!

  21. avatar
    misha September 7, 2012 at 4:24 pm #

    bgansel9: This is performance art, no?

    I was about to say the same thing. “John” should go to an improv club on open mike night.

    Years ago, Letterman had a heckler. He replied, “Is that your wife, or are you here on a business trip?”

  22. avatar
    misha September 7, 2012 at 4:26 pm #

    Thomas Brown: John who?

    I have to go to the john. I’ll be right back.

  23. avatar
    Arthur September 7, 2012 at 9:33 pm #

    Thomas Brown: John who?

    John’s some birther than I used to know.

  24. avatar
    Thomas Brown September 7, 2012 at 10:53 pm #

    donna:
    Thomas Brown:

    i am not a birther donna here.

    Don’t fret. I wasn’t kidding about the tatoo.

    A couple days ago I had to add “Ellen is not a Bither either.”

  25. avatar
    Keith September 8, 2012 at 4:43 am #

    donna: seriously, how much longer can the birthers exist?

    So now you’re saying that Birtherism is just existential angst?

  26. avatar
    JD Reed September 8, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

    I don’t spend a whole lot of time at Free Republic, although I do get a bit of sardonic pleasure when I do. Looking at their postings, they look like the essays of students on a high school registrar’s list of those “who failed civics and need to repeat the course at the earliest opportunity.” I mean, so many of them fail to demonstrate even a rudimentary understanding of how our government functions, or is supposed to funcation.
    This is a post several months old, but is illustrative:
    Seizethecarp:
    I would love to hear Mittens respond with:
    “I understand Donald Trump’s concern for the U.S. Constitution. I’m also concerned about it as well as the legacy of the Obama Presidency. When I move into the White House the new attorney general will initiate a thorough and complete investigation in order to clarify to the American people that Barack Obama was indeed eligible and was the legitimate President of these United States. However, if by some chance the accusations turn out to be correct, there is a promise that anybody in Congress whether they be republican or democrat will be legally held accountable and justice will be served for any wrong doing and illegal activity. Let that be a warning to the leaders of Congress who have taken the oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.”

    First, it’s self-contradictory. If Romney is unsure of the facts, how can members of Congress have been expected to have known these same facts four years earlier, and acted in defiance thereof? None of these “facts” have been presented to members of Congress in any official form, but only in (mainly Internet) forums aimed at the public at large, including Mitt Romney.
    Second, of course, none of these “facts” Seizethecarp hints at have been proven in a court of law. Presumably the crime that Seizethecarp infers is the failure to reject the results of the 2008 election and thus bar Mr. Obama from the White House, even though there was not a shred of controlling legal authority to do so.
    Third, if that’s the crime that this person infers, would not the statute of limitations have tolled?
    Fourth, whatever else you might say about Mitt Romney, he is a very smart guy who wouldn’t consider for a moment making such a statement, because it would assure that he would never move into the White House. Undecided voters would instantly decide he’s a nutcase and lay aisde any consideration of voting for him.
    One of the Freepers who replied to this was sure such a pronouncement would raise the hair on the back of Congress members’ necks. Maybe for some Republican lawmakers, who would recognize the nightmare it would create for their party. Democrats, not so much. They’d see it as a heaven-sent opporunity to make political hay.

  27. avatar
    ARNOLD CARL TAPP September 12, 2012 at 9:55 pm #

    YOU CAN ALL BE CERTAIN THAT LARRY KLAYMAN IS EXTREMELY CAPABLE , EXPERIENCED AND SUCCESSFUL AT FILING LAWSUITS AGAINST PERSIDENTS AND OTHER WRONGDOERS . HE IS THE LAWYER WHO SUCCESSFULLY FILED CHARGES AGAINST ” SLICK WILLIE ” CLINTON AND ALMOST HAD HIM IMPEACHED . KLAYMAN IS THE ORIGINATOR OF ” JUDICIAL WATCH ‘ AND ” FREEDOM WATCH ” ~ TWO VERY IMPORTANT ORGANIZATIONS WHICH HAVE EXPOSED VOTER FRAUD & ROLLS THAT INCLUDE THOUSANDS OF DEAD OR ILLEGAL PEOPLE , PLUS MANY OTHER ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS .

    KLAYMAN IS A VERY PERSISTENT ‘ BULLDOG TYPE ‘ WHO WILL NOT GIVE UP JUST BECAUSE SOME LIBERAL JUDGE REFUSES TO HONOR THE OATH . HE WILL FILE THE LAWSUIT IN EVERY VENUE UNTIL HE GETS A HEARING DATE . LARRY KLAYMAN IS OUR BEST HOPE TO FORCE THE RULE OF LAW AND REMOVE obummer FROM
    OUR OVAL OFFICE AND WHITEHOUSE .

  28. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 12, 2012 at 10:33 pm #

    Birther rants are so over the top, that you cannot tell the genuine ones from someone posting a parody.

  29. avatar
    misha September 12, 2012 at 10:53 pm #

    ARNOLD CARL TAPP: YOU CAN ALL BE CERTAIN THAT LARRY KLAYMAN IS EXTREMELY CAPABLE

    ALL CAPS is used by the semi-literate and the insane.

    Speaking of insane, Klayman actually sued his own mother, and took it to trial. At one point, he owed $70K in child support, so I’m not surprised he is grifting from WND readers.

    Also, WND is investigating if Romney has unicorn DNA:
    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2012/09/wnd-romney-has-unicorn-dna.html

  30. avatar
    G September 12, 2012 at 11:10 pm #

    Yeah, good luck with that… how’s that working out for you goofballs so far?

    Also, as mentioned, the ALL CAPS nonsense just pre-warns all the rest of us that you are mentally INSANE… so yeah, time to up your meds, freak.

    ARNOLD CARL TAPP: KLAYMAN IS A VERY PERSISTENT ‘ BULLDOG TYPE ‘ WHO WILL NOT GIVE UP JUST BECAUSE SOME LIBERAL JUDGE REFUSES TO HONOR THE OATH . HE WILL FILE THE LAWSUIT IN EVERY VENUE UNTIL HE GETS A HEARING DATE . LARRY KLAYMAN IS OUR BEST HOPE TO FORCE THE RULE OF LAW AND REMOVE obummer FROM
    OUR OVAL OFFICE AND WHITEHOUSE .

  31. avatar
    Daniel September 13, 2012 at 12:50 am #

    ARNOLD CARL TAPP:
    YOU CAN ALL BE CERTAIN THAT LARRY KLAYMAN IS EXTREMELY CAPABLE , EXPERIENCED AND SUCCESSFUL AT FILING LAWSUITS AGAINST PERSIDENTS

    Yes he certainly is successful at filing lawsuits.

    Winning lawsuits? Not so much.

  32. avatar
    Lupin September 13, 2012 at 2:39 am #

    ARNOLD CARL TAPP: OU CAN ALL BE CERTAIN THAT LARRY KLAYMAN IS EXTREMELY CAPABLE , EXPERIENCED AND SUCCESSFUL AT FILING LAWSUITS AGAINST PERSIDENTS

    Klayman is a fool and a scoundrel, widely ridiculed in virtually every quarter.

  33. avatar
    The Magic M September 13, 2012 at 4:44 am #

    ARNOLD CARL TAPP: LAWSUITS AGAINST PERSIDENTS AND OTHER WRONGDOERS

    Hilarious stuff like this is what first made birtherism an issue worth watching for me. 🙂

    It’s as funny as saying “lawsuits against wimmin and other nearly human beings”.

  34. avatar
    The Magic M September 13, 2012 at 4:45 am #

    > ARNOLD CARL TAPP

    Anagram: PANDA CRAP TROLL

    I said it first. 😉

  35. avatar
    Scientist September 13, 2012 at 6:36 am #

    ARNOLD CARL TAPP: LARRY KLAYMAN IS OUR BEST HOPE TO FORCE THE RULE OF LAW AND REMOVE obummer FROM
    OUR OVAL OFFICE AND WHITEHOUSE

    Well, it’s starting to look as though Romney’s chances of beating Obama are similar to Klayman’s.

  36. avatar
    Majority Will September 13, 2012 at 6:40 am #

    The Magic M:
    > ARNOLD CARL TAPP

    Anagram: PANDA CRAP TROLL

    I said it first.

    Jerome Robert Corsi

    Anagram: Terror! Mob’s rejoice!

    Coincidence?

  37. avatar
    Scientist September 13, 2012 at 6:53 am #

    JD Reed: Fourth, whatever else you might say about Mitt Romney, he is a very smart guy who wouldn’t consider for a moment making such a statement, because it would assure that he would never move into the White House. Undecided voters would instantly decide he’s a nutcase and lay aisde any consideration of voting for him.

    Isn’t that sort of what Mitt has done regarding the tragedy in Libya?

  38. avatar
    Northland10 September 13, 2012 at 7:27 am #

    ARNOLD CARL TAPP: HE WILL FILE THE LAWSUIT IN EVERY VENUE UNTIL HE GETS A HEARING DATE . LARRY KLAYMAN IS OUR BEST HOPE TO FORCE THE RULE OF LAW AND REMOVE obummer FROM
    OUR OVAL OFFICE AND WHITEHOUSE .

    Here is your best hope.

    From Klayman v. Judicial Watch

    For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the requested sanction is appropriate under the unique circumstances presented in this case—most notably, Klayman’s consistent pattern of engaging in dilatory tactics, his disobedience of Court-ordered deadlines, and his disregard for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court, coupled with the patent failure of the Court’s use of lesser sanctions in the past to have any discernible effect on Klayman’s conduct in this litigation. Accordingly, upon a searching review of the parties’ submissions, the relevant authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Strike.

    He has been sanctioned by the court, disciplined by the Florida Bar, and cannot even win a case against the group he created, and is left with bullying and delaying tactics to keep the dead case alive. You guys can really pick them.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 13, 2012 at 8:50 am #

    Well, Obi Wan, if that’s your best hope, you might want to consider going over to the dark side. That way, you stay out of the FEMA coffins. By the way, how come the chemtrails aren’t working on you?

    ARNOLD CARL TAPP: LARRY KLAYMAN IS OUR BEST HOPE TO FORCE THE RULE OF LAW AND REMOVE obummer FROM
    OUR OVAL OFFICE AND WHITEHOUSE .

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 13, 2012 at 8:58 am #

    Apparently, Mr. Tapp doesn’t reserve his all caps just for us:

    http://wramsite.com/profile/ARNOLDCARLTAPP

    misha: ALL CAPS is used by the semi-literate and the insane.

  41. avatar
    G September 13, 2012 at 9:24 am #

    Yeah, this particular crazy person seems to always post in all caps. He used to frequent over at Lucas Smith’s site too – all caps there as usual. I think we have a serious mental patient on our hands here…

    Dr. Conspiracy: Apparently, Mr. Tapp doesn’t reserve his all caps just for us:http://wramsite.com/profile/ARNOLDCARLTAPP

  42. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 13, 2012 at 10:01 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Well, Obi Wan, if that’s your best hope, you might want to consider going over to the dark side.

    And working for the Galactic Empire really isn’t so bad! They give you much cooler stuff for joining, and they have niceties that you won’t find with the rebel alliance, like showers, and secret bases that aren’t located in antarctic locales! Just NEVER make the rank of “Admiral” and you’re golden! My only gripe is the helmets. They’re all fish-eyed, and you can’t hit a damned thing you’re aiming at!

  43. avatar
    G September 13, 2012 at 10:25 am #

    LMAO!

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: And working for the Galactic Empire really isn’t so bad! They give you much cooler stuff for joining, and they have niceties that you won’t find with the rebel alliance, like showers, and secret bases that aren’t located in antarctic locales! Just NEVER make the rank of “Admiral” and you’re golden! My only gripe is the helmets. They’re all fish-eyed, and you can’t hit a damned thing you’re aiming at!

  44. avatar
    Walt Tuttle September 13, 2012 at 10:30 am #

    ARNOLD CARL TAPP: …SUCCESSFULLY FILED CHARGES AGAINST ” SLICK WILLIE ” CLINTON AND ALMOST HAD HIM IMPEACHED…

    “Almost”. Yeah, because we grade on a curve.

  45. avatar
    misha September 13, 2012 at 10:43 am #

    ARNOLD CARL TAPP:SUCCESSFULLY FILED CHARGES AGAINST ” SLICK WILLIE ” CLINTON AND ALMOST HAD HIM IMPEACHED

    1 – Clinton was impeached. The Senate voted to acquit.
    2 – Klayman did not file charges against Clinton. The charges were brought by the Judiciary Committee.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

  46. avatar
    The Magic M September 13, 2012 at 10:59 am #

    ARNOLD CARL TAPP: HE IS THE LAWYER WHO SUCCESSFULLY FILED CHARGES AGAINST ” SLICK WILLIE ” CLINTON AND ALMOST HAD HIM IMPEACHED

    Doesn’t that somehow refute the whole “nobody does anything against a Democrat President” blabber?

    ARNOLD CARL TAPP: HE WILL FILE THE LAWSUIT IN EVERY VENUE UNTIL HE GETS A HEARING DATE .

    You misspelled “UNTIL HE HAS MILKED THE BIRTHERS OFF THEIR LAST DIME”.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: And working for the Galactic Empire really isn’t so bad!

    You get an army of clones, a leader who thinks nuking an entire planet just for kicks is “serious politics” and spend the entire military budget on a weapon that has the same design deficits as version 1.0 which failed miserably.
    Sounds a bit like the GOP to me.

    When you choose the light side, you can haz Princess Leia, have many furry friends and can use the Chewbacca defense every single day!

    I know what my choice would be…

  47. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG September 13, 2012 at 12:30 pm #

    Well, if getting to pilot a craft that will fly apart if you sneeze inside of it is wrong, then I don’t wanna be right.