Tweet
Klayman Case: FL Democrat Mike Voeltz's Obama Eligibility Challenge Continues
Birther Report
1/3/2014
Excerpt:
New Year Present: Voeltz v Obama Case Still alive and Kicking
Florida Democrat Mike Voeltz's eligibility challenge to Obama continues
George Miller | Constitutional Reset
In Mike's own words:
This is my reply to the Florida ECC and SOS reply to my appeal brief in the First District Court of Appeals. Obama did not reply, but the ECC and SOS say that he believes the "contest window" (section 2 of 3 US Code 5) has already passed. More on that in a minute. This is the Appeal of the second case (2012 CA 3489), filed after the General Election, where Judge Carroll cited "Miracle on 47th St." The defendants are claiming that 1) It is a political question. 2) that Obama was not "elected", his electors were. 3) that I failed to "ask" for a hearing.
In this reply I thoroughly defeat any thought that this is a "political question" (one reserved to the Constitutional function of a political body--- Congress). NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say anything about Congress vetting a Presidential candidate, and they are SPECIFICALLY barred from deciding who should be President. The ECC's own certificate of Election PLAINLY states that "Barack H. Obama was elected President of the United States". As for Obama, his lack of response subjects him to Fl. SS. 102.168(6):
"(6) A copy of the complaint shall be served upon the defendant and any other person named therein in the same manner as in other civil cases under the laws of this state. Within 10 days after the complaint has been served, the defendant must file an answer admitting or denying the allegations on which the contestant relies or stating that the defendant has no knowledge or information concerning the allegations, which shall be deemed a denial of the allegations, and must state any other defenses, in law or fact, on which the defendant relies. If an answer is not filed within the time prescribed, the defendant may not be granted a hearing in court to assert any claim or objection that is required by this subsection to be stated in an answer".
Before he replies in the future, he will now have to ask the court if he can reply. Of course he thinks he is above all of this "eligibility" talk.
The fact that the court failed to rule on my case before the section 2 window closed on December 11, 2012 (6 days before the meeting of electors) cannot create the defense that the window expired (see the citation of Osborne v. Bank). [...] - Continued @ Constitutional Reset. Full Reply Brief ....: pdf or Scribd [...].
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/01...crat-mike.html
Birther Report
1/3/2014
Excerpt:
New Year Present: Voeltz v Obama Case Still alive and Kicking
Florida Democrat Mike Voeltz's eligibility challenge to Obama continues
George Miller | Constitutional Reset
In Mike's own words:
This is my reply to the Florida ECC and SOS reply to my appeal brief in the First District Court of Appeals. Obama did not reply, but the ECC and SOS say that he believes the "contest window" (section 2 of 3 US Code 5) has already passed. More on that in a minute. This is the Appeal of the second case (2012 CA 3489), filed after the General Election, where Judge Carroll cited "Miracle on 47th St." The defendants are claiming that 1) It is a political question. 2) that Obama was not "elected", his electors were. 3) that I failed to "ask" for a hearing.
In this reply I thoroughly defeat any thought that this is a "political question" (one reserved to the Constitutional function of a political body--- Congress). NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say anything about Congress vetting a Presidential candidate, and they are SPECIFICALLY barred from deciding who should be President. The ECC's own certificate of Election PLAINLY states that "Barack H. Obama was elected President of the United States". As for Obama, his lack of response subjects him to Fl. SS. 102.168(6):
"(6) A copy of the complaint shall be served upon the defendant and any other person named therein in the same manner as in other civil cases under the laws of this state. Within 10 days after the complaint has been served, the defendant must file an answer admitting or denying the allegations on which the contestant relies or stating that the defendant has no knowledge or information concerning the allegations, which shall be deemed a denial of the allegations, and must state any other defenses, in law or fact, on which the defendant relies. If an answer is not filed within the time prescribed, the defendant may not be granted a hearing in court to assert any claim or objection that is required by this subsection to be stated in an answer".
Before he replies in the future, he will now have to ask the court if he can reply. Of course he thinks he is above all of this "eligibility" talk.
The fact that the court failed to rule on my case before the section 2 window closed on December 11, 2012 (6 days before the meeting of electors) cannot create the defense that the window expired (see the citation of Osborne v. Bank). [...] - Continued @ Constitutional Reset. Full Reply Brief ....: pdf or Scribd [...].
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/01...crat-mike.html