Birth Cert Case Belongs in Judicial Branch & Eligibility Issues CAN be Decided AFTER Election!

Arkansas Supreme Court ^ | October 11, 2007 | Arkansas Supreme Court

[CJacobs]

GARY ZOLLIECOFFER, APPELLANT, VS. VERONICA POST, APPELLEE

[CJacobs]

If someone has contacts with Orly Taitz, they might want to use this cited case as an example. This is from my home town of Altus, Arkansas (where they filmed "The Simple Life" with Paris Hilton).

Some background on the case:

Gary Zolliecoffer won the election. After the election, it was found that Zolliecoffer had (as a juvenile) been convicted of a minor felony, which would have made Zolliecoffer not eligible to serve as Mayor. Zolliecoffer had thought that the record had been expunged, but it had not. Veronica Post challenged the case in COURT.... AFTER the elections. The case went all the way to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Ultimately, it was ruled that Zolliecoffer WAS ineligible to serve as Altus Mayor.

Points to make:

1) This illustrates that the case belongs in the JUDICIAL branch, NOT the executive.

2) Even AFTER elections, eligibility issues CAN and DO arise and ARE taken to court!

Read the case for yourself.

[Glenn]

where they filmed "The Simple Life" with Paris Hilton

That does not help your credibility.

[doug from upland]

Local, not federal election, but a good idea.

[Faith]

Ping

[Danae]

Beats the beck out of zero precedent at all!

[roaddog727]

“If someone has contacts with Orly Taitz, they might want to use this cited case as an example.”

Forwarded.

[OafOfOffice]

Thanks! I don’t have personal contacts with Orly but I want to read the case.

Do you remember what the state supreme court based their decision on?

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

Tag

[CJacobs]

This is the KEY sentence in this ruling (note how this was all “AFTER THE ELECTION”):

Likewise, the circuit court in this case lacked jurisdiction to consider a pre-election challenge filed post election, and this case must be reversed and dismissed for a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We note that neither party raised the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction; however, subject-matter jurisdiction is always open, cannot be waived, can be questioned for the first time on appeal, and can be raised by this court.

[bvw]

Nice.

[CJacobs]

Furthermore on the ruling, the Arkansas Supreme Court states:

As we already noted, Post attempted in her petition to additionally rely on Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-801, but she alleged a right to a post-election challenge of Zolliecoffer’s eligibility. An election contest under section 7-5-801 “is an adversarial proceeding between a successful and an unsuccessful candidate.” Rubens v. Hodges, 310 Ark. 451, 454, 837 S.W.2d 465, 467 (1992). The parties stipulated that Zolliecoffer obtained the most votes. The petition filed by Post did not institute a post-election contest under section 7-5-801. As we noted in Pederson, supra, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to hear a post-election challenge to eligibility, and the remedy for usurpation of office lies with the state under quo warranto.

[Tennessee Nana]

PING

[STARWISE]

Interesting ... ping !

[zipper]

Just to play devil’s advocate here — this is a state case not a federal case. How can this be cited as precedent in a federal election?

[OafOfOffice]

Overview: In an election contest in which a candidate contested the certification of an electoral winner Ark. Code Ann. § 7-5-801

This is the way it should be Federally also. It's crazy we don't have a law like this for congress and POTUS. Or do we? Keyes would be the candidate contesting. McCain would not.

[NonValueAdded]

This happened to a mayor in Palm Bay, Florida. When info turned up that he served time on a drug conviction in the 70's, he was removed from the voter roll and then suspended by Jeb Bush. Subsequently his voting rights were restored and he ran and was elected mayor again.

There is another precedent that when a person was found to not meet eligibility requirements, he was removed from office.

[VC42]

Isn’t a significant part of the problem the precident caused by the federal cases, including those involving Cheney and the issue of his Texas residency around 2000, holding that individuals lack standing to challenge a candidate’s qualifications to run for office?

I’m not sure this state case helps at all.

[OafOfOffice]

Hee! Just read this and needed a place to put it.

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/10/06/random_thoughts

Upon learning that the Constitution requires a president to be a natural born citizen, a college student said: “What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified than one born by C-section?”

[Genflag]

maybe you should have said about Altus being Arkansas’ wine production area, instead of bringing up the Simple Life.

[seekthetruth]

There are very interesting developments in Hawaii also. I believe it is just a matter of time and documents will be made public.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

[novemberslady]

bkmk

[CJacobs]

True, Altus DOES have great wines. Last count I took, Altus has five wineries. My preference is the Post wines, although Wiederkehr is probably the most well known.

Nationally, though, Altus isn’t known for the wines as much as the TV show.

[Trillian]

LOL

[American Constitutionalist]

Well, it smacks down the argument that the courts have said about all the cases so far are thrown out because there is not precedent cases for them to rely on.

[American Constitutionalist]

" Upon learning that the Constitution requires a president to be a natural born citizen, a college student said: “What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified than one born by C-section?” "

Yup, the quality of our present liberal educational system keeps on giving ... SARCASM ...

[Lucky Dog]

Not to justify the ignorance of the person you cited, but you might want to read Shakespeare's MacBeth, particularly Act V. In this portion of the play, MacDuff uses not being natural born to his advantage and MacBeth's distinct disadvantage...

While such is not particularly germane to the point you were making vis-a-vis the definition of the term in the US Constitution, it is still an interesting thought... A usurper to national power destroyed by someone who was not natural born.

In the current situation, might not we potentially wind up with a usurper to national power who was not natural born being destroyed by one who was natural born?... Perhaps, Keyes?...

[Frantzie]

Didn't "marine" Judge Carter say there is "no precedent" to the Orly/Kreep case yesterday? Any legal beagles here besides any stinking O ZOT trolls who know nothing about the law? I would think you can use state law in a Fed case if there is "no precendent." Particularly when it when to the state supreme court. Nice find. Someone needs to send it to Leo Donofrio on his blog and Gary Kreep. Also Mario Apuzzo and Berg on their web sites. Great great find.

[Frantzie]

I like Allan Keyes. It would be wonderful if his case took the usurper down.

[thecraw]

If I'm understanding this correctly, the action we need to file against the Kenyan Clown is "quo warranto", and the case MUST be filed in Washington, DC:

Chapter 35§ 16-3501 Persons against whom issued; civil action.

A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

I am not a lawyer by any means, but I would imagine that the "rub" here is that the plaintiffs have the burden of proof, and unless discovery is granted there basically is no (with the exception of Lucas Smith's Kenyan BC) proof to back up the contention of usurpation. We can only hope and pray that discovery is ordered at some point, somewhere, so that this can move forward.

[afraidfortherepublic]

I hope this can be used, but what is a minor felony?

[OafOfOffice]

I will make it my duty to read that part of MacBeth.

Keyes willing to stand up against Obama and demand he proves eligibility has endeared him to me. My husband voted for Keyes. I thought silly, you threw your vote away. Now I see Keyes as my husband does. He is admirable in the face of what I see as corruption. Keyes had my husbands values. I hate to admit it when my husband is right.

So yeah, who better to have standing than someone who ran opposing Obama on a senate seat and POTUS? If Obama is proven to have filed fraudulently, his senate seat is on the block too.

[CJacobs]

What I meant by a “minor” felony, was that it wasn’t something that couldn’t have been expunged from the record. I don’t remember what the crime was off hand. It was something like larceny. If I recall correctly, Zolliecoffer was with a couple of other guys who committed the crime. Zolliecoffer was a willing participant, but not the major player in the crime. It was a juvenile offense that COULD have (and most likely would have) been expunged from the record.

[Red Steel]

It’s precedent OK when there is no Federal precedent.

[mlo]

This is about a Mayor in Arkansas.

It’s got nothing to do with the election of a US President, which operates under unique rules specified in the US Constitution itself.

[Frantzie]

It mentiosn quo warranto!

Get this to Orly, Kreep, Leo, Berg, Apuzzo and any other attorneys.

Orly was right when she said they could do quo in CA.

Great find!!

Ping this one far and wide.

[Lucky Dog]

I could not help but make the connection after you mentioned the natural born phrase (in Shakespeare's MacDuff case, not born of woman) and the Caesarian confusion.

However, I would not have you think me ignorant of the term, natural born, as it was intended in the Constitution. I do know the founders never meant for that term to have anything to do with the way Shakespeare was using not born of woman and its opposite (being natural born). Nonetheless, the contrasting parallel struck me as a novelty tickling the mind on which to comment.

Should Keyes prevail against the odds and get Obama unseated as being unqualified, the irony would be rich.

[thecodont]

Very excellent find!

[thecodont]

PLEASE send this to Leo Donofrio at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com. He will be very interested.

[Frantzie]

Wrong. Wow you really do not know your law.

[Red Steel]

It mentions quo warranto!

-snip-

The parties stipulated that Zolliecoffer obtained the most votes. The petition filed by Post did not institute a post-election contest under section 7-5-801. As we noted in Pederson, supra, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to hear a post-election challenge to eligibility, and the remedy for usurpation of office lies with the state under quo warranto. See Pederson, supra.

IMBER, J., not participating.

[OafOfOffice]

Fully understood where you were coming from and I thank you for your literary prowess. I am impressed with it actually.

[Frantzie]

Orly argued that it does not have to be just in DC. It could be in a Fed Court in CA.

Leo says he knows a way to bring it in the DC Circuit.

[CJacobs]

Went to the web site you referenced, but I did not find where to submit this, nor did I find any “Contact us” link. If you know the email address, please feel free to forward this on your own.

[thecraw]

Leo says he knows a way to bring it in the DC Circuit.

Well then what are we waiting for? Quo warranto in DC!

[SeaHawkFan]

Quo Warranto has always been the correct type of action to remove Pbama once he took office.

It really has nothing to do with standing since once the petitioner has provided some evidence that the de facto officer is not qualified to hold office, the burden shifts to that alleged de facto holder of the office.

Since jurisdiction lies in the District of Columbia, that is where a quo warranto action needs to be filed. If the government refuses to take action, it seems to me that the Declaration of Independence authorizes “the people” to take whatever action necessary to remove Obama, by force if necessary, if he is unwilling to prove his eligibility.

[mlo]

"Wrong. Wow you really do not know your law."

LOL. And you base that on my realization that a case involving some Mayor in Arkansas isn't a precedent for a presidential election? You guys are too much. :-)

[thecraw]

Since jurisdiction lies in the District of Columbia, that is where a quo warranto action needs to be filed. If the government refuses to take action, it seems to me that the Declaration of Independence authorizes “the people” to take whatever action necessary to remove Obama, by force if necessary, if he is unwilling to prove his eligibility.

I found this on the web that explains things pretty well: http://www.statute3501.com/Is%20Obama%20a%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen%20flyer.doc

The last paragraph in this doc indicates that there are only two individuals that can bring quo warranto:

Two individuals have authority to bring quo warranto action: Attorney General Eric Holder, and US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Jeffrey Taylor.


Well Holder is obviously not an option so that leaves us Taylor.

[Frantzie]

Once again you are clueless about the law. It went to a state supreme court. Does not matter if he was the dog catcher.

[RegulatorCountry]

You're one to talk, having at one point dredged up Lynch v. Clarke from New York, wherein the Hon. Lewis H. Sandford stated that he had no authority to render any decision regarding natural-born citizenship.

[Frantzie]

I believe Leo said if the DC court does not take action that public may petition a special prosecutor. He said Holder and the U.S. attorney for that district already stiffed him so the public could ask for a special prosecutor on a process he described.