Judge decides law doesn’t apply to Obama

by Doug Book,  staff writer

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. (1)

“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! (1)

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.” (2)

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.” (2)

The bias and lack of honor displayed during the past year by the American legal system represent 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.

Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach

To reach your Congressional representative, use this link:

http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

 To read more use these links:

(1) http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/03/attorney-larry-klayman-jumping-into.html

(2) http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/judge-issues-ruling-in-obama-eligibility-case/

This day in history July 5th

1775: The Continental Congress presents King George III with the Olive Branch Petition, expressing hope for a reconciliation between Britain and the colonies.

Get your copy of Coach’s new book  Crooks Thugs and bigots: the lost hidden and changed history of the Democratic Party available at: http://crooksthugsandbigots.com 

In this world you may have knowledge or you may have repose, but you may not have both. 

What have you done today to deserve to live in America?

Comments on this or any other coachisright.com essay can be sent by following the posting instructions below

 

Be Sociable, Share!

22 thoughts on “Judge decides law doesn’t apply to Obama”

  1. Obama is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN as described in a Supreme Court ruling years ago, and neither is Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, but the press is pushing both of them as Romney's V.P. Hope he has enough sense to pick someone else or it will derail his candidacy for President.

  2. Can you have a judge recused from any future judicial reviews on the basis that he is a FREAKING IDIOT!!!

    1. If you could there would be one heck of a lot of empty courtrooms in the country.

  3. Col. Lakin, who refused to deploy until Obama proved his eligibility, and who wanted a court martial so that he could demand discovery, all of sudden took a plea deal, got jail time, and lost his benefits. A witness at the hearing said Col. Lakin was pointedly reminded of the effect on his family.
    Two men who were rumored to be sexually involved with Obama at Rev. Wright's church, were murdered. A third died of an infectious disease. A witness to the passport file snooping was murdered. Andrew Breitbart, who was going to reveal information about Obama, died suddenly of a "heart attack". A witness who saw him fall, and who reported a strange white marking around Breitbart's forehead, and a red face, has disappeared. A mortuary photography technician died shortly before a report was due.
    There have been at least twenty cases where judges have dismissed in favor of Obama. on frivolous grounds.
    Apparently the word is out that to oppose Obama puts one in grave danger of being killed.
    The Clintons also left a trail of death behind them. Do an internet search. It is all there.
    The very fact that no one dares to rule against Obama, in fear for their life, proves we have a would-be dictator in the Oval Office. Even if he gets defeated in November, he will not want to give up power, so we had better be prepared to defend the new president-elect and keep him alive until after January 20, 2013.

  4. This judge has no right to make that decision-it is law and everyone obeyed it-this judge needs to be fired and his law license rovoked-Obama is a traitor so what does that make this judge ?

  5. If you actually read the decision, which I doubt any of the commentators have, the Judge correctly interpreted Florida law, nothing more, and nothing less. This is not a decision crafted for Obama, it applies to any candidate for the office of the president of the United States (it would apply equally to Mitt Romney, if anyone ever questioned the birthplace of white presidential candidates…), because the ability to challenge a nomination is part-and-parcel of the State of Florida's regulation of OTHER primary elections. Presidential primaries do not function like primaries for other offices, and therefore regulations regarding those primaries cannot be applied to presidential primaries. It would be impossible; they are formally different. Under Florida law, a presidential candidate is considered to be nominated by his or her party alone, the popular vote is merely a part of the mechanism by which the party nominates its candidate (anyone here remember "super delegates, for example?"). The other major problem with this suit is that it tried to put the cart before the horse. The plaintiff assumes that Obama is the nominee (because he is running unopposed) but Obama will not be formally nominated until the DNC convenes in North Carolina later this year. Even if the primary regulations that the plaintiff sued under applied to presidential primaries, he couldn't dispute the nomination until it actually happened.

    1. Nicholas: The suit "assumed" nothing. Rather, plaintiff, counsel and some third parties researched and properly interpreted the statutes. I suggest that you actually read the complaints/motions before pronouncing on them. Reading the ruling, which I did, is insufficient, without reading the rest of the case, which I also did and which you seem not to have done.

      It is clear that the power structure seems to want AKA "Obama" retained at any cost, That cost may be far higher than they could ever dream. Judicial interpretations this year have insisted that anchor babies can be President (but we have no proof he was even born in the USA). that they have corrupted the judicial system with nonsensical, unconstitutional, even illegal rulings, is an unfortunate byproduct of this goal, which is destroying all credibility of the rule of law and bringing down the remnants of our Constitutional Republic.

    2. NONSENSE:_The judge ignored every Lawyer 101 rule of statutory construction, and I can destroy his "legal" reasoning on appeal (but I am under no illusion that there is any law- except for us). _1) He read into the statutes something that is not there (the idea that a Presidential Primary is any different in the statutes as it relates to ss. 102.168 and 101.252) _2) No statute by its operation can make moot or inoperable any other _3) Plain words of the statute require no more statutory interpretation. _4) The Election statutes operate as a harmonious whole— But Lewis tires to make the Presidential Primary some parallel universe that doesn't exist in the statutes. _ _Here is ss. 101.252, which Lewis says does not apply to a Presidential Primary: _"101.252 Candidates entitled to have names printed on certain ballots

    3. Nicholas,

      The Judge also rescued Obama from another very clear and specific Florida statute which states "When there is only one candidate of any political partry qualified for an office, the name of the candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot and such candidate SHALL BE DECLARED NOMINATED FOR THE OFFICE." So Voletz did NOT "assume" Obama was the nominee. Florida statute DECLARED him the nominee. Unfortuntely, Terry ignored this law as well. He also ignored the US Constitution and the clear rules concerning burden of proof. OTHER THAN THAT, his ruling was swell.

  6. "101.252 Candidates entitled to have names printed on certain ballots; exception.— (1) Any candidate for nomination who has qualified as prescribed by law is entitled to have his or her name printed on the official primary election ballot. However, when there is only one candidate of any political party qualified for an office, the name of the candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot, and such candidate shall be declared nominated for the office."
    He said that "POTUS candidates "qualify in a different manner (by ss. 103.101)., but notice that the statute says, "ANY candidate for nomination who has "qualified as prescribed by law".– which covers HOWEVER they qualify. I am appealing. This decision is very poorly reasoned.
    Today, 1:58:01 PM
    – Like – Reply – Delete

  7. In his ruling Lewis states Ankeny v Governor of Indiana ..

    “(citing Wong Kim Ark and HOLDING that both President Obama and John McCain were natural born citizens.”

    Did he even read Ankeny ? The HOLDING of case was :

    “The sole issue is whether the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiff’s complaint. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the claim, not the facts supporting it.”

    In other words, they were upholding the lower courts decision to dismiss – nothing more.

    NOWHERE in the Ankeny case did the court hold or even say that McCain and Obama were natural born citizens. They said in dicta ( wrongly ) that “persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens”

    However, Lewis seems to take it upon himself (or more likely reading from a script provided to him, for it is obvious that he didn’t read the case ) that Ankeny court held that Obama and McCain were natural born citizens. They never did. Maybe because there was never any evidence before the court of place of birth for either. So Lewis, if you were to TRULY follow Ankeny, you would have to say that ONLY persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens”. You CANNOT say – as you do – that Obama is natural born WITHOUT proof supplied to the court of Obamas place of birth. In future motions that come before you, perhaps you should reconsider your previous ruling and in order to satisfy Ankeny, ORDER the defense to submit legally certifiable proof of birth and open discovery for the plaintiffs to challenge that “proof”

    1. Exactly omad. Ankeny is "manufactured Precedent"— meaning it's not precedent. The criminals are now trying to do the same with this case— so obviously it's a script. After "plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action" it's all dicta, and means nothing. As if a state court case could overrule SCOTUS precedent (Minor)!!! WKA was actually decided on the law of nations principle of "inhabitance" explained in The Venus (12 US 253, 278). Domiciled aliens subject themselves to the jurisdiction of their non native country, while domiciled there, and their children are born subject to that jurisdiction also, "and that child said Binney is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen". WKA 169 US 649, 693. Gray specifically said that WKA was NOT a nbC by using the Binney quote.

      1. dualer,

        What most people don't realize is that the Ankeny court actually threw out the plaintiff's case, ruling they did not have standing. Everything the court actually said during the case is pure "dicta", that is merely opinion which has no legal bearing as precedent. Those who bring up the Ankeny decision as "case law" of any kind are full of it!

  8. The braying of several presidentially -appointed Judicial Jackasses does Not constitute a choir.

  9. I see we have another would be Hitler in the W. House A Muslin that hates
    my Nation. I went to war to fight for our Freedom. I will fight again
    for my counry just to get obama out of power. I would hope obama would pass
    away

  10. To Mr. Ray Wallis…..Good for you Ray, we’re going to need ALL the trained fighters we can get !!
    You DO realize, don’t you, that by simply writing that comment you boosted the faith of many, and that too is part of the fight!
    I especially agree with your last sentence.

Comments are closed.