Two items from Florida for you today. First, Jerry Collette has completed his “Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss” today in Collette v. Obama. Because we have so many documents, I’ll link rather than embed. Jerry cites the Florida rules that say “…it has been stated that the law “guarantees” every person a remedy when he or she has been wronged.” Be that as it may, Jerry’s problem has always been showing that he has been wronged. Hey, I think I have been “wronged” by birthers telling lies on my blog, but I don’t think I could convince a judge of it. He further argues that courts recognize “implied rights.” The problem is that Jerry doesn’t connect the dots that lead to his implied right. He says:
The federal eligibility requirements were clearly passed to protect the citizens who are not part of a usurpation from anyone taking office who does not meet them.
The problem is that no one is taking office. The Congress certified the 2008 election and that determination of eligibility is as firm as the Constitution itself. The main thrust of the suit is to keep anyone in Florida from being able to vote for Obama in 2012, but voting and taking office are two different things.
Anyway, much more in the document and you can read it in its full and uncommented upon state.
I have only had time to speed read Jerry’s document, and the following not at all yet.
New documents are available in the Voeltz case. The hearing transcript in Voeltz v. Obama is available now courtesy of the Jack Ryan project. Many of us have watched the video, but this will be a way to quickly refer back to exactly what was said. Also, we see a joint motion from the attorneys representing the Secretary of State and the Florida Election Canvassing commission, arguing that the “Second Amended Complaint” from Larry Klayman be struck. As you may recall, Judge Lewis requested proposed orders from both sides today. We have Mr. Klayman’s submission, and I will embed that 26-pager below.
Question to the lawyers:
Usually I see really short proposed orders and not lengthy memoranda like this one from Klayman. Is this unusual?
IANAL, but you’d be hard pressed to find one much shorter than mine. It’s on page 8 of my supplemental brief at http://personal.crocodoc.com/mtMGBpP.
With respect to Klayman’s, the judge wanted more than just an order. He wanted input for an opinion, so the appellate courts would have something more than just a naked order to work with on appeal. I expect you’ll see similarly long ones from the defense, too.
Doc, Jerry is right, Judge Lewis asked for suggested analysis and statutory citations. And that leads me to another edition of holy cow! all these birthers really are from the same pod! They tapdance last tiny thing! Witness thes discussion of when the orders should be due (my emphasis):
Klayman: We would ask for additional time, Your Honor. We don’t have the resources of Obama. How about seven business days?
Herron: Seven business days is next Wednesday. That’s ten days from now.
Klayman: I would like to put some analysis in there.
Court: It would be pretty much what you’ve put in there. It shouldn’t take that long. How about Monday? Let’s do it one week from today.
Klayman: That would be fine. I was suggesting calendar days.
In my experience, a great majority of what lawyers and judges discuss is not substantive law or the facts, but procedure. Procedure is a huge part of the MTD’s in Voeltz’s case, and certainly consumed a lot of the discussion. If you add in the election procedure, there was even more discussion about procedure. Hopefully, we’ll get to the substantive issues soon.
klayman: would you like an order which contains legal analysis as well? or do you write your own memorandum opinion on this?
court: whatever you think would stand up on appeal, and the grounds of what you’ve argued and what you think should go into an order.
Jerry, thanks for the observation, believe me, I know. And you missed my point.
IANAL, but is citing some English translation of Vattel even appropriate when it’s clear the Founders couldn’t have possibly relied on that specific wording (as it wasn’t the way Klayman cites it until 10 years after the Constitution)?
Further, isn’t this akin to pointing to an uncertified translation of an affidavit originally given in French? How can “some” translation even be evidence?
It’s not evidence. It’s argument that it’s evidence.
The substantive issue on the MtDs is procedure, the procedure outlined in the election law.
The only other “discussion” there may be is if the judge holds a hearing on the motion to strike. There’s a hearing set, the details of which are not yet known, as the document is not available for download yet.
Following that, at some point (and most likely quickly) the judge will issue his ruling.
a) what are we to make of this entry to the voeltz docket?: 6/26/2012 NOTICE OF HEARING
b) why is nothing docketed for the proposed orders from the fl SOS and obama?
c) also docketed: 6/26/2012 PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS JOINT MOTION TO STRIKE UNAUTHORIZED (SIC!) AMENDED COMPLAINT
well here we go
6/26/2012 NOTICE OF HEARING Event: NOTICE OF HEARING Date: 06/29/2012 Time: 9:00 am Judge: LEWIS, TERRY P Location: COURTROOM 3G
sorry doc, i had meant to post these on the florida post but made a mistook
Hawaii Spelled Huwaii on Obama’s Birth Certificate http://networkedblogs.com/zk5w9
This is like the images of the Virgin Mary on a slice of toast. If you really believe, you will see her. If you don’t then the Holy Mom is just specks of browned cereal product.
To be honest, a spelling error would actually be more dispositive of a legitimate document than of a forgery. Who is more likely to triple-check their spelling, a state flunky typing their 43rd birth certificate of the day or a forger producing a document that will be seen by millions? Of course, sadly, there is no spelling error at all, just an out-of-focus image.
Scientist, your toast is out of focus. Mary appears on every slice, as promised by The Lord in remembrance of his covenant. “This is my body … toast it often … butter and eat it with the sugary condiment of your choice.”
It doesn’t actually spell out “Huwaii”. It’s more like “Auwaii”.
Is this really the best they’ve got? That a low res pic is hard to read when blown up? Especially one that was recorded at relatively low res and further reduced for size. I’ve been going about this the wrong way.
Come to think of it, 2 has his sex as “Malo” (anyone knows what that means in Hawaiian?), 5a has his Date of Birth as Augoat 4, 1961, and 13 lists Age of Mother as 1g.