Larry Klayman filed three lawsuits against Barack Obama in Florida on behalf on an alleged Democrat, Michael Voeltz. Klayman (right) in his briefs indicates a certain frustration with having his cases dismissed because they were filed at the wrong stage in the election process. His response was to keep filing, I guess in hopes that he will find that magic time when some law exists to give him standing to challenge the eligibility of President Obama to office. What Klayman and Voeltz did not understand from their first two attempts in Florida is that the Courts have said that even if they had standing to challenge Obama, they are wrong on the law when they assert that US Presidents must have two US citizen parents.
Whether it was to shock Plaintiffs with what the real world looks like, or express the Courts displeasure at seeing the same lawsuit three times, or just to put a little seasonal cheer into an otherwise drab legal decision, Circuit Court Judge Kevin J. Carroll wrote this remarkable statement in dismissing the case:
This Court notes that President Obama lives in the White House. He flies on Air Force One. He has appeared before Congress, delivered States of the Union addresses, and meets with Congressional leaders on a regular basis. He has appointed countless ambassadors to represent the interests of the United States throughout the world. President Obama’s recent appointment of The Honorable Mark Walker, formerly a member of this Court, has been confirmed by the United States Senates. Judge Walker has been sworn in as a United States District Court Judge and currently works at the Federal Courthouse down the street. The Electoral College has recently done its work and elected Mr. Obama to be President once again. As this matter has come before the Court at this time of year it seems only appropriate to paraphrase the ruling rendered by the fictional Judge Henry X. Harper from New York in open court in the classic holiday film Miracle on 34th St. “Since the United States Government declares this man to be President, this Court will not dispute it. Case dismissed.”
I am reminded of an early Obama eligibility case where a judge injected a little humor into a decision: Judge James Robertson of the US District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in Hollister v. Soetoro:
The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.
The birthers didn’t take that well. Rather than respond to the legal analysis presented by Judge Robertson, they focused on that single sentence to claim the dismissal was based on what the Judge found on the Internet. I can imagine that in the Voeltz case, they will say the case was dismissed wholly based on a fictional precedent from a fictional judge in a movie and not for the actual reason, lack of jurisdiction.