Posted on 01/05/2013 7:34:59 PM PST by Smokeyblue
Florida Circuit Judge Kevin Carroll, who previously cited the fictitious judge in “Miracle on 34th Street” in a ruling, now says he’s done with arguments over Barack Obama’s eligibility.
Carroll released an order today refusing to hear a request for a hearing that is allowed under state law when there are doubts about a candidate’s eligibility. And let that be the last, the judge said.
“No petitions for clarification or further rehearing will be entertained by the court,” he said in his ruling that refused to respond to a request for the state-allowed hearing in a case brought by Michael Voeltz.
“The court … finds no factual or legal cause to recede from its prior ruling that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction,” he wrote.
The attorney handling the case for Voeltz, Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch, told WND if the judge doesn’t want to address the dispute, then he’ll take it to the appellate level, and that filing could occur as early as this weekend.
He noted that the judge had promised the plaintiffs time to respond to an Obama motion to dismiss the case but then dismissed it without allowing the time frame to expire.
The judge already had decided he would not hold an evidentiary hearing, which is allowed under state law in such a case. A hearing is supposed to be held when candidates’ qualifications are challenged, according a state law that allows Florida residents to challenge the eligibility of election candidates, Klayman said.
Carroll earlier had given the plaintiffs until Dec. 23 to respond to Obama’s motion to dismiss the case but then changed his mind and abruptly ordered the case dismissed several days before the deadline.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
It's way more than the second time.
I'd have more respect for this judge if he danced around in a tutu while kissing a photo of the usurping cake-boy. Since it would amount to the same thing as his farcical ruling without all the pretense.
I think it is obvious, after all these judges refuse to even allow an Obama Eligibility case to be properly presented in court, that Barack Hussein Obama is not Eligibile to be President of the United States. Thesse judges and officials know it
If Obama truly was Eligible to be President, his attorneys would have allowed just one of these cases to go to trial without any challenge...to blow it out of court during a trial....which would permanently end any further Eligibility challenges.
They can’t do that. He is not Eligible
Still...the most disturbing thing in this whole Eligibility issue is that we have so called “Conservatives” who outright attack Eligibility people, directly aiding Obama. Unless you have the legitimate copy of Obama’s Hawaii Birth Certificate...you have no proof he is Eligible
You are so right on both points.
Concur.
Thanks for linking to the printer friendly version of the article. Wish more FReepers would do that.
And when legally required to verify any information submitted for verification that could be certified as the way the event actually happened, HI state registrar Alvin Onaka’s letter of verification did not verify to AZ SOS Ken Bennett his claims (submitted specifically for verification) that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama. Onaka refused to verify ANY of those facts.
He refused to verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file.”
And he refused to verify to KS SOS Kris Kobach that the information contained in the WH image is “identical to” the information contained in the original record.
The AZ request and response can be seen at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/bennett-request-and-response.pdf and the KS request and response can be seen at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/kansas-verification.pdf
Onaka did verify that the claims on the WH image are also claimed on the record at the HDOH. The only lawful reason not to verify those claims as true is if they are claimed on a record that is legally non-valid.
IOW, Onaka has indirectly confirmed that he cannot verify any birth facts for Obama because Obama’s HI BC is legally non-valid, which is the reason why Obama’s people had to forge both the shorr-form and the long-form: to hide the non-validity of the record, since the original and any BC copy (including the short-forms/abbreviated copies) has to be stamped with LATE and/or ALTERED stamps.
This judge knew darn good and well that he couldn’t allow any kind of evidentiary hearing because Klayman knows what Onaka confirmed. The judge has to silence Klayman before that legal fact is admitted to any court.
The question is what this judge was threatened with, to throw the rule of law overboard like this.
All very good points. The Onaka comments and actions are so telling
And, what threat or bribe was made to this judge for him to rule in such a way in this Florida case....especially when his latest ruling conflicted with his first ruling?
As these judge’s rulings become more and more bizarre....I am beginning to think that it is bribery, and not threats, that are making these judges act this way.
In my own few and far between criticisms I have never "outright attacked" people themselves but their poorly supported arguments.
But I have also attacked so-called conservatives on the previous thread who claim that eligibility is the last chance to stop gun control and amnesty. That is the most damaging kind of BS put forth because our chances to stop amnesty, gun control and other attacks on America are through strengthening the political position of conservative and somewhat conservative politicians and not by litmus testing or pressuring them on this decidedly fringe issue.
CHALLENGES TO THE COURT BEFORE PROCEEDINGS CAN START
1. A. Your Honor and the prosecutor have taken oaths of office to support and uphold the Constitution of the united States of America and that of this state. Is that correct?
B. Pursuant to your oaths, you are required to abide by those oaths, in the performance of your official duties, including those before this Honorable Court. Is that correct?
2. I, YOUR NAME HERE, hereby notify this Honorable Court that I am a living, breathing, natural-born American Citizen, with, and claiming, all Rights guaranteed to me in the federal and state Constitutions, and with my name properly spelled in upper and lower case letters, not as it appears on the court documents.
Is there any objection to what I just stated?
3. This court abides by all the powers of and Rights guaranteed to American Citizens in the federal and state Constitutions, including due process of law. Is that correct?
4. I am presumed innocent of all aspects of the alleged charges, presumptions and assumptions in, by and of this court, unless proven guilty by a well-informed jury of my peers, beyond a reasonable doubt, based solely on verified evidence and proof. Is that correct?
5. A. “Proof” consists of verified and demonstrated evidence, and not opinion, especially opinion unsupported by fact, law and evidence. Is that correct?
B. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” consists solely of decisions and verdicts from a well-informed jury of my peers based entirely on proof that absolutely and conclusively confirms guilt, without any reservations or questions, whatsoever, from the jury. Is that correct?
6. Opinion from any witness or prosecuting attorney unsupported and unverified by fact, law and proven evidence is simply opinion, and opinion, as previously established, is not proof or factual evidence. Is that correct?
7. A. Since I am guaranteed a fair and impartial trial, how is that possible when you, the presiding judge, the prosecuting attorney and all the witnesses against me work for and are paid by the state that is the plaintiff in this case, and my opponent? In this situation, it is impossible for me to have a fair trial. Is that correct?
B. Further, any data used against me is obtained from sources who, are also paid by the state, the same plaintiff against me. At minimum, conflict of interest takes place.
8. Since I am presumed innocent of the charges and all aspects, presumptions and assumptions of those charges and this court, I have challenged the jurisdiction of this court, which this court has not proven, on the public record. Therefore, since I am presumed innocent of all aspects of the charges and presumptions of the court, and since jurisdiction has not been proven, jurisdiction is simply a presumption of this court, of which I am presumed innocent. Furthermore, no official Oath of Office can be located anywhere, nor has one been put on the public record. Therefore, I move for dismissal of all charges and/or warrants for lack of jurisdiction. Pursuant to the foregoing, and to numerous federal and Supreme Court rulings, this case must be dismissed and any warrant recalled, with full prejudice, and I hereby move for dismissal of all charges and this case, with full prejudice.
Failure to respond to this formal written notice, dated January 23, 2007, within 30 days in written format with Proof of Service to the undersigned, constitutes and validates your fraud and failure to honor your Oath of Office. Furthermore, all said charges, judgments, warrants and/or claims against YOUR NAME HERE, is null and void, without force or effect or lawful power. Any further harassment of YOUR NAME HERE by this court or any of its officers will be construed as intentional harm, with malice and the conscious intent of inflicting both physical and mental harm to the defendant-in-error in this matter. Copies of this document along with the attached documents will be sent to the Office of Judicial Administrations, Washington DC in the event that justice is not reached.
Respectfully submitted,
All Rights Reserved
________________________________
YOUR NAME HERE, American Citizen
A freeper or Tea Party member needs to become a legal judge somewhere, accept the case and then wait and see just exactly what the threat is, by who and to be exposed publicly.
......”Still...the most disturbing thing in this whole Eligibility issue is that we have so called “Conservatives” who outright attack Eligibility people, directly aiding Obama. Unless you have the legitimate copy of Obama’s Hawaii Birth Certificate...you have no proof he is Eligible”.....right you are. because they won’t make the argument, it takes away our ability to tell people on the street. it’s the one thing that could reverse all this, eligibility, but we’re left high & dry until the 2,500 assault vehicles with the 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, come for us.
Now we know why 0bama has spent so much money defending his eligibility.. He bribes judges like this one.
Besides the BC problem discovery would unseal Barry’s college records, selective service and passport records which I’m sure would reveal his ineligiblity. Otherwise he would not have sealed his records.
How sad is it when the hospital you were supposedly born in will not admit it because they have no record of him or his mother ever being there?
to date... NO documentation proving eligibility for 0bama has EVER been OFFICIALLY submitted anywhere
if they’re so convinced he’s eligible... HAVE THEM REQUIRE HIM TO SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTATION OFFICIALLY
we all know he will never do it
tell them if they won’t even have the documents submitted... their statements are meaningless
” - - - then he’ll take it to the appellate level - - - “
Go Klayman! Keep the legal pressure on as no one has ever deserved to thrown out of office more so than B. Hussein Obama, the Foreign Impostor.
Is Gary Kreep a judge now? I know there was one eligibility lawyer who was elected to a position, and I thought it was judge.
The reply in the Onaka verification letters states: "3. The information contained in the "Certificate of Live Birth" published at [WH web address 2] and reviewed by me on the date of this verification, a copy of which is attached to your request, matches the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health."
i have bolded one difference in the request for verification and the verification reply. In the request the KS SoS asks if the information is "identical" and the verification reply says it "matches". The second difference is that the KS SoS gives the web address of http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf and the HI reply gives the address of http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate which is a web page containing two links to the web address given by the KS SoS along with a flash program which appears to show the same image as the PDF but impossible for me to know because I can't save the image within the flash program to compare byte by byte.
My question for you is where does this quoted text come from? He refused to verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file.”
Never mind. I see that text you quoted is from the Bennett letter.
It’s obvious he is not eligible. He has spent so much money inventing these lies and keeping them from the public.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.