7 Responses to “Order of dismissal in Klayman’s case”

1. Helpful
   July 2nd, 2012 @ 3:33 pm

   Klayman had a weak case, given the oddities of Florida election law and the case Klayman chose to make. The judge was right to dismiss it, but he distorted Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark to arrive at the wrong (actually ridiculous) conclusion that anyone born in the USA and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a natural born citizen. I think he stated this mainly because Klayman wanted a declaration regarding the meaning of “natural born citizen”.

   Orly is clearly the better lawyer.

   I think the case Jerry Collette is making pro se (he is a paralegal), is more likely to be successful than Klayman’s. His is based on the Florida constitution which says the courts are open to “every person” to resolve “any injury”. One injury that would be done to him is that he would be governed by an unqualified individual. Among his recommended remedies is that Obama’s name not be printed on Florida ballots nor allowed as a write-in.

2. winnybar
   July 2nd, 2012 @ 6:30 pm

   Klayman is in Obomba’s pocket. He claimed Obomba had a Kenya father and a US white mother. A document listing Kenya students in foreign countries that surfaced in the UK with the BARRACK spelling rules out Barack Obama as the father. Documents from the state department were altered to place Barrack in Hawaii. High school signatures of white mother Stanley Ann Dunham made most of the Obomba documents forged including the White House birth certificate. Obomba with the purple lips and Asian eyes and Dumbo ears never created in America. Try Thailand where Dumbo ears and Asian eyes the rule. Google ObamaAfricanRootsHoax1

3. Veritas
   July 2nd, 2012 @ 7:22 pm

   “that anyone born in the USA and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a natural born citizen”………………….

   this seems to be the position of the NYS Board of Elections which states that to be president one needs only to be “born a citizen.”

   Our national sloppiness in all things pertaining to the Constitution is part of many of the problems in the USA.

   Today an “expert” on Fox mentioned Jindal and Rubio as possible VP candidates….Perhaps if one uses the NYS Reader’s Digest Version of the Constitution………… What a MESS!

4. Terence Brennan
   July 2nd, 2012 @ 7:49 pm

   It is unfortunate that Voeltz did not present the case himself, as he originally wrote it. It is available (for a fee) on SCRIBD as:

   https://www.scribd.com/doc/81520616/Voeltz-Contest-of-Election-pleading-17

   In his dismissal order Judge Lewis concludes, in one over-simplified paragraph, that anyone born in the US is qualified to be President. Voeltz, in his original complaint, went into great detail to show why this is not correct. I wish he had been able to argue this himself. He spent several years researching and preparing his arguments. Klayman proceeded in a much different way. And lost.

   I think Judge Lewis was way wrong in this part of his order.

   But it might not matter much because of the way Presidential elections are structured.

   Many voters may think they are voting for a Presidential candidate, but in fact they are voting for unnamed “electors”. The candidate’s name is on the ballot, but votes are not for the candidate but for the “electors”. This scheme is OK when the people involved have honor, but it is a loophole to tyranny when actual candidate is a lying fraud and enemy of the Constitution like Barack Obama. He is exploits and hides behind this protective screen.

   I suggest anyone interested should compare Voeltz’s original brief with the one presented by Klayman to the court.

5. Jim Fields
   July 3rd, 2012 @ 5:04 am

   It is a shame that a judge beklieve that any one born in the United States can be president.
   It says in the Constitution,”it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents, who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

   Notice that word parents, and the word citizens isn’t single, which means that both parents, Father & Mother must be a American citizens, in order to have a off spring that is a “Natural Born Citizen”

   Why can’t people to understand this, unless they are trying to over throw the Constitution of the United States.

6. DaddyBeerest
   July 3rd, 2012 @ 9:54 am

   Where does it say that in the Constitution Jim?

   Funny comment considering the irony.

7. Jim Fields
   July 4th, 2012 @ 7:34 am

   Back in 1875, the United States Supreme Court, in Minor v, Happersett, ruled that
   “Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born U.S. citizens- regardless of the location of the birth. It found: “THE constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to Ascertain that.At common-law, with the nonenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents, who were its citizens became theirselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

Leave a Reply