Main Menu

Klayman: off to the Supreme Court

why?

According to a new article at WorldNetDaily, attorney Larry Klayman says that he will likely appeal his recent 7-2 loss before the all-Republican Supreme Court of Alabama to the United States Supreme Court. Klayman wrote:

imageOver the last five years, many court challenges have been filed concerning Obama’s eligibility. Indeed, I have filed three in Florida and one in Alabama. In every instance, and I am not just referencing the cases that I filed, these court challenges have been dismissed. (They are currently on appeal.) But what is more troubling than the dismissals is that the judges presiding over these cases have generally refused to even explain the reasons for their dismissals. Apparently, they are so afraid of taking on this issue that they don’t want to go on record for their actions. That is because these dismissals are not legally justified.

That is not true; for example, the Farrar v. Obama case in Georgia was not dismissed, but rather had a hearing with witnesses. While I have not reviewed every case, a great many have detailed explanations of why they were dismissed. I remember one of the first cases, Berg v. Obama et al., accompanied by a lengthy and highly-educational opinion by judge Surrick and I have listed  almost a dozen cases where judges addressed the merits of to the argument that US Presidents most have citizen parents.

It is ironic that Klayman holds up for praise Judge Royce C. Lamberth, saying:

Few other judges in this nation have the courage of Chief Justice Moore. The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, who held the Clintons to account in the late ’90s and early 2000s and ruled that Bill Clinton had committed a crime1….

Lamberth dismissed several birther cases (and explained why!):

Klayman wrote:

The imposter in the White House must be held accountable, and he should indeed be told to get up off his knees and come out with his hands up.

Klayman seems to be confusing civil and criminal cases.


1Lamberth ruled that Clinton had “committed a criminal violation” of the Privacy Act when he released letters from Kathleen Willey. (CNN Article)

Print Friendly

, ,

29 Responses to Klayman: off to the Supreme Court

  1. avatar
    The European March 24, 2014 at 10:52 am #

    KKKlayman needs the money ……..

  2. avatar
    gorefan March 24, 2014 at 11:05 am #

    Didn’t the judges in all three of his Florida cases (or at least two of them) explain that they were dismissing the cases because President Obama was a natural born citizen under the precedent of Wong Kim Ark?

  3. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 24, 2014 at 11:50 am #

    Me thinks KKKlayman is being either a bit disingenuous or just flat out lying, since none of the district court cases I am familiar with didn’t give good and valid reasons for dismissal/failure/rejection, and as far as I can remember the appellate cases have been pretty clear as well about why the birfers lost. So why he thinks he is going to fare any better at the Supreme Court. I suspect all he’ll get from that quarter is a rejected filing.

  4. avatar
    The Magic M March 24, 2014 at 12:02 pm #

    Apparently, they are so afraid of taking on this issue that they don’t want to go on record for their actions.

    Since SCOTUS has denied cert on each and every birther case brought before it (encompassing “forged BC” and “two citizen parents”), it’s a bit dishonest for him to not include SCOTUS in his “bad bad judges” claims.

    The only reason he keeps insinuating he’s got any chance with SCOTUS must therefore be the desire to keep receiving donations.

    I’m only surprised he doesn’t claim Moore’s dissent somehow increases his chances with SCOTUS. Now having read his entire diatribe, of course he did. *sigh*

  5. avatar
    JPotter March 24, 2014 at 12:16 pm #

    “The imposter in the White House must be held accountable, and he should indeed be told to get up off his knees and come out with his hands up.”

    I have not followed the AL case closely, but I do believe that Klayman desired result would in no way be achieved even if he won this case.

    The case was about whether the AL SoS had an obligation to ‘vet’ Presidential candidates, right?

    So, 1. SCOTUS giving direction directly to State Secretary seems … odd, 2) SCOTUS giving direction to only 1 SoS out of 50 seems really odd (is Klayman dreaming that this appeal could result in a ‘win’ in all 50 states?), and 3) even if SCOTUS did decide* that such was the case, AL would not go back in time to undo its 2012 election process. much less the other 50 states.**

    Any new direction would only affect future elections.

    And Obama’s not running again.

    Dumbasses.
    __________________

    * Wrongly; I mean, what would the standards of such vetting be? They would have to be consistent from state-to-state, and thus federally- mandated, and hmmm …. we already have the FEC, with its own req’ts for registering as a candidate …. and each state already has its own filing req’ts….duhhhhhh.

    ** As always, IANAL. please correct and upbraid as needed.

  6. avatar
    Joey March 24, 2014 at 12:23 pm #

    Larry Klayman’s hero, Ronald Reagan appointed Judge Royce C. Lamberth wrote one of my favorite birther dismissal lines in Orly Taitz’s quo warranto attempt in 2010:
    “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”

  7. avatar
    Rickey March 24, 2014 at 1:54 pm #

    I had forgotten that Klayman has another petition before the Supreme Court:

    No. 13-931
    Title:
    Larry Klayman, et al., Petitioners
    v.
    Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
    Docketed: February 5, 2014
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    Case Nos.: (14-5016)
    Discretionary Court
    Decision Date: December 16, 2013
    Rule 11

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Feb 3 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due March 7, 2014)
    Mar 7 2014 Waiver of right of respondents Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. to respond filed.
    Mar 19 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 4, 2014.

    As can be seen, it has been distributed for conference without a call for a response, so it has been dead filed. This means that we will get to see Laity’s petition denied on March 31 and Klayman’s will be denied on April 7. Shortly thereafter the petition of Brooke Paige will be distributed for conference and it too will be denied.

    I wish it were as easy to pick the winners of football games.

  8. avatar
    BatGuano March 24, 2014 at 2:40 pm #

    i find the lack of comments on the WND article to be interesting. could it be that the birthers actually comprehend the reality of the situation and realize that klayman is simply blowing smoke?

  9. avatar
    CarlOrcas March 24, 2014 at 2:42 pm #

    JPotter: Dumbasses.

    I believe you’ve gotten to the heart of the matter. There really isn’t much else to say.

  10. avatar
    bgansel9 March 24, 2014 at 4:16 pm #

    Notorial Dissent: Me thinks KKKlayman is being either a bit disingenuous or just flat out lying,

    But the birther flying monkeys will never look up the facts and will believe him right out of the box.

  11. avatar
    bgansel9 March 24, 2014 at 4:18 pm #

    Rickey: I wish it were as easy to pick the winners of football games

    Betting against birthers is the easiest game in town, hence I can find no bookies to place bets with.

  12. avatar
    Notorial Dissent March 24, 2014 at 7:07 pm #

    Of course they will, and I was being facetious. Any more than most of them actually know what the case was really about.

    bgansel9: But the birther flying monkeys will never look up the facts and will believe him right out of the box.

  13. avatar
    nbc March 24, 2014 at 8:06 pm #

    Klayman loses Voeltz v Obama in Florida

    Ruling http://opinions.1dca.org/pc_pdf/13-0083.pdf

    Opinion filed March 13, 2014.

    PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.

    So does Klayman know and if yes, why has he not shared this excellent news as he can now file another Supreme Court case?…

  14. avatar
    Dave March 24, 2014 at 9:08 pm #

    If he takes this to the Supremes I just hope he posts his petition. There’s a lot of entertainment in seeing what birthers think constitutes a cert petition.

  15. avatar
    Thinker March 24, 2014 at 9:23 pm #

    This is typical Klayman overreach. He was trying to do some sort of maneuver to bypass the appeals court and go directly to SCOTUS with the district court ruling in his NSA case. #FAIL

    Rickey:
    I had forgotten that Klayman has another petition before the Supreme Court:

    No. 13-931
    Title:
    Larry Klayman, et al., Petitioners
    v.
    Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
    Docketed:February 5, 2014
    Lower Ct:United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Case Nos.:(14-5016)
    Discretionary Court Decision Date:December 16, 2013Rule 11

  16. avatar
    Jim March 24, 2014 at 10:45 pm #

    Don’t the courts have a “nutcase” list they keep for the crazies?

  17. avatar
    bgansel9 March 24, 2014 at 11:41 pm #

    nbc: Klayman loses Voeltz v Obama in Florida

    No opinions included. This will just feed his outrage that no judges seek to explain their positions at all.

  18. avatar
    CCB March 24, 2014 at 11:55 pm #

    I only scanned the opinions but it seems to me that the Supreme Court of the United States only hears appeals from the supreme courts of the states where there is a federal issue. If, as it seems here, the issues concern the duties of a secretary of state of a state under the constitution and laws of that state, where is the federal issue?

    I’ve heard the claim that it’s not over until the United States Supreme Court sings after other adverse decisions. I don’t think it represents any expectation that the United States Supreme Court will hear the case much less render a decision favorable to the losers. It sounds to me like just a way for losers to avoid having to admit they lost – again.

  19. avatar
    Benji Franklin March 25, 2014 at 12:55 am #

    bgansel9: This will just feed his outrage that no judges seek to explain their positions at all.

    The presence or absence of oxygen feeds Klayman’s outrage.

  20. avatar
    The Magic M March 25, 2014 at 5:10 am #

    CCB: It sounds to me like just a way for losers to avoid having to admit they lost – again.

    They will alternatively claim that they need “one honest judge” at the lower level (because SCOTUS is obviously “in on it”) and that they need SCOTUS to decide (because only a SCOTUS ruling would have any discernible consequences). As usual, whatever the day requires.

    In my country, people who unsuccessfully brought a case before our Supreme Court (which only hears constitutional issues, i.e. violations of constitutional rights, not “ordinary” cases) still have one more place to go, the European Court of Human Rights. So our cranks’ MO is the same, just with one more court on top.

  21. avatar
    Reality Check March 25, 2014 at 7:54 am #

    I think the title should be truncated to “Klayman: off”

  22. avatar
    alg March 25, 2014 at 8:50 am #

    Here’s to Larry Klayman keeping us all entertained. This is more fun to watch than old “I Love Lucy” reruns.

  23. avatar
    Dave March 25, 2014 at 9:50 am #

    One of the funny things about birthers is that they think the only purpose of any appellate court is to give them an answer they like better than the one they got from the lower court. Like with so many things, they don’t understand what the Supreme Court does, and they don’t want to understand. So on top of the complete meritlessness of their cases, their cert petitions invariably ask the Court to re-decide issues the Court has no interest in, and for relief of a nature the Court does not under any circumstances grant.

    CCB:
    I only scanned the opinions but it seems to me that the Supreme Court of the United States only hears appeals from the supreme courts of the states where there is a federal issue.

  24. avatar
    Rickey March 25, 2014 at 10:49 am #

    Dave:
    One of the funny things about birthers is that they think the only purpose of any appellate court is to give them an answer they like better than the one they got from the lower court. Like with so many things, they don’t understand what the Supreme Court does, and they don’t want to understand. So on top of the complete meritlessness of their cases, their cert petitions invariably ask the Court to re-decide issues the Court has no interest in, and for relief of a nature the Court does not under any circumstances grant.

    The birthers don’t realize it, but the vast majority of all cases are decided correctly by the lower courts.

  25. avatar
    Rickey March 25, 2014 at 10:53 am #

    bgansel9:

    No opinions included. This will just feed his outrage that no judges seek to explain their positions at all.

    But it will be phony outrage, because no opinion means that the Court of Appeals agrees with the lower court decision, and Klayman obviously knows the lower court’s reasoning.

  26. avatar
    bgansel9 March 25, 2014 at 11:09 am #

    Rickey: But it will be phony outrage, because no opinion means that the Court of Appeals agrees with the lower court decision, and Klayman obviously knows the lower court’s reasoning.

    True, but he’s citing the idea that judges are afraid to explain their reasoning because it’s indefensible. LOL

  27. avatar
    Rickey March 25, 2014 at 11:18 pm #

    bgansel9: True, but he’s citing the idea that judges are afraid to explain their reasoning because it’s indefensible. LOL

    Years ago I handled litigation files for an insurance company which had a very good policy – if they lost a case, they never allowed the attorney who handled the case at the trial court to handle the appeal. The reasoning was that an attorney who loses a case has a personal interest in it and they preferred to have fresh eyes take a look at it and give an unbiased assessment of whether there was reasonable chance of prevailing on appeal.

    The danger of an appeal is that it can come back to bite you, because if you lose the court’s opinion can be used against you in similar cases, as has happened to Orly.

  28. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 26, 2014 at 11:33 am #

    The Magic M: In my country, people who unsuccessfully brought a case before our Supreme Court (which only hears constitutional issues, i.e. violations of constitutional rights, not “ordinary” cases) still have one more place to go, the European Court of Human Rights. So our cranks’ MO is the same, just with one more court on top.

    I do wonder whether the bunch who wanted the German High Court to rule the bailout of Greece to be unconstitutional, are going to have the chutzpah to take that to the European (hint, hint) Court of Human Rights. That would be very ironical.

    Of course, Orly Taitz would not have any inhibitions on that point. She has been sending copies of her filings to the International Criminal Court in The Hague for years now. Considering that she sent them to the wrong address for almost a year, it is not too difficult to imagine what the impact of those mailings was.

  29. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 26, 2014 at 11:50 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: I do wonder whether the bunch who wanted the German High Court to rule the bailout of Greece to be unconstitutional, are going to have the chutzpah to take that to the European (hint, hint) Court of Human Rights.

    Not really. First, (most of) these guys weren’t loons. Second, it’s not a question for the ECHR, just very maybe for the European Court of Justice.

    Paul Pieniezny: She has been sending copies of her filings to the International Criminal Court in The Hague for years now.

    Amusing since the US don’t recognize the authority of that court. And since it’s virtually a UN institution, or, in other wingnuts’ words, part of the evil NWO that Orly doesn’t want anything to do with.