Posted on 07/08/2012 2:45:27 PM PDT by IbJensen
A Circuit Court has decided that Florida election law applies to everyone but Barack Hussein Obama. In response to a suit brought by Florida resident and Democrat Party member Michael Voeltz challenging Obama’s eligibility to the Florida ballot, Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis ruled that Florida election law “…is not applicable to the nomination of a candidate for Office of President of the United States.” This means that the Florida Statute which says, “the… nomination of any person to office…may be contested in the circuit court…by any elector or any taxpayer…” is null and void when it comes to Mr. Obama’s nomination to the presidency.
“If the plaintiff was challenging the candidate’s eligibility for any other office, his analysis would be correct and [the law] would apply,” said Lewis of Voeltz’s suit. However, according to the Judge, “…Political parties determine their [presidential] nominee at a national convention pursuant to rules that the parties draft and approve…” In short, Mr. Voeltz’s contest of Barack Obama’s eligibility will NEVER be permitted in a Florida court; for voters do not nominate the president, political parties do in balloon filled convention halls! With this ruling, Lewis has spared Barack Obama the necessity of having to prove his eligibility for office as no Florida voter will have the right to question it, the language of the state’s election law notwithstanding!
Lewis also passed judgment on the natural born citizen challenge of plaintiff Voeltz, ruling that as Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States, he is also a NATURAL BORN citizen and therefore meets that constitutional requirement. “The judge equated being a ‘citizen’ with a ‘natural born citizen’ and cited no authority to conclude the two terms are the same,” exclaimed a stunned Larry Klayman, the attorney who handled the suit for Mr. Voeltz.
Perhaps the most remarkable of Lewis’ contentions was his statement that “it is the plaintiff’s burden…to allege and prove that a candidate is not eligible.” For the judge did not allow Klayman the right of discovery–the right to subpoena Obama for proof of his eligibility! “How can you say we have the burden of proof, then not allow discovery?” Klayman asked. “He says we have burden, but doesn’t allow us to meet it.”
Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch, went on to say “The decision issued today by Judge Terry Lewis was poorly reasoned and written.” “It goes against prior Florida Supreme Court precedent in particular, thus making our chances on appeal great.”
The bias and lack of honor displayed during the past year by the American legal system represents not only a threat to the Constitution, but to the continued existence of the Republic. When citizens mistrust the integrity of the court, they lose faith in their right to expect and receive justice. Klayman said “…if the Florida courts ultimately decide to obey their own election law, we will prevail in the end.”
Unfortunately, ignoring both the law and the Constitution has become standard fare for the nation’s judges. Mr. Klayman may need a miracle if he expects the law to be fairly applied in his client’s appeal.
can you put that in plain terms that i could understand—i’m a oil field worker and i’m not much of knowing (law) -thanks.. ha ha..
your right — sorry
“Importantly, the judge did err on at least one count, equating any citizenship with “natural born” citizenship.”
Actually, he said that someone born a US citizen at birth was a NBC. He did NOT claim every citizen is a natural born citizen.
I thought if (2) witnesses stand up in court and testify (under the treason law) that the BC is a forgery you will be proven correct. and the opposing party will have to prove you wrong.. i didnt think a treason case could be dimissed under 2 witnesses.. but maybe i got it all wrong
Must belong to the Robert’s School of Making Sh*t Up.
Sure.
The Constitution defines Treason as: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Further it says: "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.", which means that we need at least two witnesses or a confession in court.
Interestingly, it may be possible to use multiple signatured documents to 'witness' the "overt act." This is because the signature on the legal document is bearing witness to the document. (When you have something notarized, that is taking a person to officially recognize the document, that is one witness, and then you yourself presenting the document is a second witness. The "two witness" requirement can be traced back into the ancient law of the Israelites in the Mosaic Law.)
Previously I said it was easy to show the fulfilling of the "aid and comfort" portion of the definition for Treason. [S]how[ing] how putting someone who cannot legally be President is placed in the President's role of Commander In Chief destroys the legitimacy of the Chain of Command for the military rendering all orders not directly stemming from the Constitution to be invalid (due to the properties of authority).
Perhaps a better way to explain this is to imagine yourself a Private, the lowest of the low, militarily speaking. Imagine that you've just received an order from your platoon's Lt; where does he get the authority to command you? It's actually not from his position, if it were anyone could forge a set of orders assigning him to that position and then you would be bound to follow all those orders; no, it is from his commander, the company Cpt.
The Company Captain, likewise, receives his authority from the Battalion's commander the Col. And this goes on and on until it reaches the Army's General, and the Army's General receives his authority from the President. The President, in turn, receives his authority form the Constitution, which places the President as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces (Army & Navy; the Marines are part of the navy, and the Air Force is an extra-constitutional organization spun out from the Army Air Corps).
So then, if the person who is claiming to be the President does not meet the Constitution's restrictions on qualification, then that person cannot be the President and therefore cannot be the Commander in Chief; if he is placed as CIC then the Army's General has no legitimate authority because he cannot derive any from the person acting as President because the President has no legitimate authority himself. So the entire chain of command is literally null and void, it is like cutting the hook off of a chain and then expecting the chain to pull the hook: it can't because the whole thing is no longer anchored.
Thus the entire structure of the military is compromised and thus virtually any action can be challenged as illegitimate. Remember, "I was only following orders" has been soundly discarded as an allowable defense, but this situation is even more insidious because even if you, the private, are following orders those orders are likely to be invalid precisely because of that broken chain of command; i.e. even what would otherwise be legitimate orders are not legitimate.
That's why putting an ineligible President into position would be treason.
...doesn't that belong in humor writing, like Good Omens or somesuch?
“No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”, which means that we need at least two witnesses or a confession in court.
you have mike zullu and sheriff joe has said openly in the news it is a forgery.. they are the 2 witnesses
I'm pretty sure that's incorrect; if someone is born a US Citizen via the 14th Amendment then are they not statutory citizens and therefore not natural born citizens?
Though this may have to do with the fact that the 14th Amendment is a fraud. (Never properly proposed/passed.)
But not in court. This is where things get difficult; every time someone tries to bring something up regarding eligibility itself they are denied standing.
In fact, I've become convinced that 'standing' is a method they [government] use in order to keep you from being able to challenge them.
I disagree- the court cannot dismiss or deny a treason case with (2) WITNESSES under the treason law.. they will hear it.. and the opposing side cannot put up documents proving it wrong, cause there docs are forged
Are you, or do you know a lawyer that could do this for me?
Not a lawyer. Somewhat tempted to go that route; though terrified that everything I said or did would be thrown out precisely because I try to take things (read: laws) as they're written... this would be higly uncomfortable for the judiciary as there are several laws which, if applied as written, would make them into felons.
But I do believe that the line of reasoning I gave was valid. It might be easier to go after Nancy Pelosi, who certified Obama's eligibility, first. (Look up that certification and the questions around it regarding what text was removed and what was submitted; quite intriguing that.)
I agree - Nancy Pelosi would be the one because she certified Barry.. Im from a small town and there wonldnt be that kind of lawyer here.. maybe one here on freerepublic somewhere.. the key is mike zullu and sheriff joe, but im sure they have no problem with it—lol
“...the Marines are part of the navy...”
An Act of Congress in 1947 and Public Law 416, signed by President Truman on June 20, 1952, says otherwise. The Marine Corps is a separate military branch serving with the Navy under direction of the Secretary of the Navy. While both service branch heads co-operate willingly, the Chief of Naval Operations is not in the Marine Corps Chain of Command, and vice versa. The Commandant of the Marine Corps reports directly to the Sec. of the Navy, not to the CNO.
any lawyers on FR that would like to do this ?
George Soro’s Secretary of State program went well beyond SecState positions...for at least a decade and a half, the Soros ilk have gone after replacing judges as well...
Then when I'm President I'll have to dissolve them in addition to the Air Force and NASA. The only Constitutional authorized military agencies are the Army and Navy.
The Marine Corps is a separate military branch serving with the Navy under direction of the Secretary of the Navy.
They are either a part of the navy or they are not; if the former then I could keep them on with good conscience, if the latter then my oath to uphold the Constitution would demand its dissolution (or roll-up into the Navy).
The Congress cannot create separate/new military branches and then fund them Constitutionally. To say "well, but" is precisely the reason that we're in the mess with ObamaCare, too much is deemed to be a-ok with respect to the Constitution when it is fairly questionable, or even when plainly not.
The same applies to other governmental agencies: EPA, DEA, Dept of Agriculture, DOE, other DOE, and so forth.
True enough. Why then isn't the elector's name on the ballot? Why this pretend game?
perhaps you should challenge the eligibility of the electors as being obviously insane to have their names on the ballot for obama in the first instance.
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.