Newly Found Case Authority; FL Court Has Jurisdiction To Rule On Obama's Eligibility

[bsteadman]

Filed: Newly Found Case Authority; Florida Court Has Jurisdiction To Rule On Obama's Eligibility

Birther Report
1/2/2013

Excerpt:

Newly Found Case Authority Filed In Florida Electoral Challenge: Florida Court Has Jurisdiction To Rule On Obama's Eligibility & Fraud

As reported here Attorney Larry Klayman filed a motion seeking an emergency rehearing in the Florida electoral challenge. The case was originally dismissed last month by Judge Kevin Carroll. On Monday Klayman filed a notice of newly discovered case authority that shows the Florida court has jurisdiction to rule on Obama's eligibility and fraud. EXCERPT:

NOTICE OF NEWLY FOUND CASE AUTHORITY AND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR REHEARING

Plaintiff Michael Voeltz, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this Notice of Newly Found Case Authority and Supplement to Motion For Rehearing.

In conducting further research, Plaintiff has come across the case of Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v. Harris, 772 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 2000) (Exhibit 1), legal authority that was somehow overlooked by the court and the parties.

At issue here is the applicability of Florida Election law to the presidential election. In considering the presidential election, the Florida Supreme Court ruled:

"It is important, perhaps, to remind ourselves that the Florida Legislature has expressly vested in the voters of Florida the authority to elect the presidential electors who will ultimately participate in choosing a president:

Electors of President and Vice President, known as presidential electors, shall be elected on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each year the number of which is a multiple of 4. Votes cast for the actual candidates for President and Vice President shall be counted as votes cast for the presidential electors supporting such candidates. The Department of State shall certify as elected the presidential electors of the candidates for President and Vice President who receive the highest number of votes.

§ 103.011, Fla. Stat. (2000). By providing for the popular election of presidential electors, Florida’s Legislature has also placed that election under Florida’s general statutory election scheme. Hence, there is essentially only one statutory election scheme for all elections whether the elections be for local and state officials or for presidential electors. The Legislature has not chosen to have a separate set of election laws for elections for presidential electors. The Legislature has chosen to have a single election code control all elections. So, we must interpret and apply that single election code here." Id. at 1290-1291.

The Florida Supreme Court then concluded, "... sum, Florida’s statutory scheme simply makes no provision for applying its rules one way for presidential elector elections and another way for all other elections. " Id. at 1291.

The Supreme Court of Florida has thus conclusively already ruled that this court has jurisdiction to consider and rule upon Plaintiff Voeltz’s election challenge on eligibility and fraud. This court must respectfully grant an evidentiary hearing. There should logically be no need for Plaintiff to notice up a hearing, as this court had already committed itself to provide a hearing before it incorrectly and precipitously dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint. Given the requirement under Florida law that election disputes be adjudicated quickly, this court must respectfully set an evidentiary hearing and adjudicate the issues at the earliest time practicable. Moreover, the case is not moot. Indeed, in the now famous 2000 Bush/Gore election challenge cases, this Court proceeded to adjudicate the parties’ dispute long after the Florida Electors had met.

Plaintiff is available January 2 or 3, 2013 for a telephonic status conference to set the date for a specially set evidentiary hearing on the merits, as the law is now clear that one is required and that the prior dismissal order should be immediately vacated and set aside, as it was legally in error. [...] ... continued below... - Klayman's Notice via the Obots @ BR and Jack Ryan.

NOTICE W/EXHIBITS CONTINUED BELOW OR HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/118730291

View the complete Birther Report presentation at:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...challenge.html

[bsteadman]

Free Republic is running a thread titled, 'Filed: Newly Found Case Authority; Florida Court Has Jurisdiction To Rule On Obama's Eligibility', which was started 1/2/2013 by 'Seizethecarp'

The thread references a 1/2/2013 Birther Report post - http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...challenge.html

View the complete Free Republic thread at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2974423/posts


The following is COMMENT #34, by 'butterdezillion' in the thread:

Onaka’s verification is actually legal certification that Obama’s HI BC is legally non-valid, since Onaka would not verify ANY of the actual birth facts submitted for verification (male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama), even though required to verify every submitted fact that he can.

Because Onaka did not verify Oahu as the birth island - though required by law to do so if he can - his use of the word “Honolulu” is known to not be verification that Obama actually WAS born in Honolulu, but only that the BC (whose existence is all that Onaka actually verifies, given the syntax of his sentence) “indicates”/CLAIMS a Honolulu birth. That would be just as true for a non-valid BC as for a valid one. But if it was a valid one, he would have to verify ALL the stuff that was submitted, and he didn’t. It’s what Onaka DIDN’T have in that verification that reveals everything. The media hid that by failing to mention or publish the actual application that Bennett submitted, which requested the basic birth facts to be verified as true. It’s published on my blog, in the letter that Larry Klayman sent to DNC Counsel Bob Bauer 4 days before the DNC Convention began, at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpre...r-to-bauer.pdf

Full faith and credit at this point means that HI statutes have to be obeyed, which require the non-valid BC to be presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative body in order for the document to have ANY legal value whatsoever. Unless and until that happens, Obama has no legally-established birth facts and can never have qualified to be President.


The following is COMMENT #36, by 'Seizethecarp' in the thread. It was entered in reply to COMMENT #34, by 'butterdezillion', which is reproduced above.

“Full faith and credit at this point means that HI statutes have to be obeyed, which require the non-valid BC to be presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative body in order for the document to have ANY legal value whatsoever.”

I disagree. All three branches of gov’t in HI have doubled down on giving the appearance that whatever is in their vital records affirms an HI birth for Barry. All other US states and the US gov’t are constitutionally required to honor that corrupt firewall under our federal system until and unless a criminal conspiracy can be successfully prosecuted to rebut that presumption of HI birth. That is what full faith and credit means here.

You have deduced that HI law has not been followed and that is your opinion, but until the SCOHI agrees with you, your opinion has no weight, especially against the mirage of the certification by HI of the forged WH BC. Appearance is reality.

Remember that Judge Carter wrote in dicta that even if the Kenyan authorities declared Barry to have been Kenyan born, Carter would be duty bound to give priority to any HI state certification of their vital records. Judge Carter would take the word of HI over the word of Kenya...actually a pretty sound stance given that Kenyan corruption likely far exceeds HI corruption.

The current FL case, in part, is different. It involves the NBC definition first, but also invites an investigation of apparent forgery (certified by Arpaio) through a discovery process that could penetrate the HI firewall.

The State of FL judge in any discovery hearing worst case for Barry would likely allow the HI custodian of records to affirm the same thing they have said all along and would accept it at face value. All Onaka has to affirm under oath is that the WH forgery is a true and correct copy of the “original” 1961 HI vault record.

As to the NBC issue, this is beyond the constitutional rights of any state and resides in either the federal court or Congress, depending on what SCOTUS would ultimately rule, but we don’t know yet for sure as SCOTUS is still “evading” the issue.

(bold emphasis added in two paragraphs above)


The following is COMMENT #37, by 'butterdezillion', in the thread:

You’re not understanding what I am saying. The responsible Hawaii official has certified that Obama’s HI birth certificate is not legally valid. That trumps anything anybody else in Hawaii has said. The legal presumption is that Onaka’s verification was done according to normal protocols and in accordance with the law.

HRS 338-14.3 says that he SHALL verify ANY information that is submitted for verification, given that a verification is certification that the event really happened that way. When asked by a qualified requestor, Onaka refused to verify “male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann dunham, Barack Hussein Obama” - IOW EVERY BIRTH FACT he was asked to verify.

Onaka has given the final legal word, and it is that Obama’s birth facts CANNOT be verified because his HI record is non-valid.

According to everything you said, this trumps everything. If all these courts and critters are obeying Full Faith and Credit, then they have to accept what Onaka has CERTIFIED: that Obama’s record is non-valid and he cannot verify any birth facts for Obama. That is the ONLY certification we have from the State of Hawaii.