THE LAW OF THE LAND
Obama: Eligible only to defraud
Exclusive: Larry Klayman calls to account judge sitting on electoral challenge
by
Barack Hussein Obama is “eligible” for only one thing: to
deceive the American people and the world community into believing he
is a legitimate president of the United States. In practice, that is
according to all of the judges who thus far have ruled in lawsuits
concerning his lack of legal status under the U.S. Constitution as a
“natural born citizen.”
As you know, to qualify for the office of president, the law, plain and simple, requires that a person be born in the United States or one of its territories, to two American citizen parents. In watching the HBO miniseries “John Adams” on DVD over the holidays, after many years since it was first shown on television, I was starkly reminded why the framers of the U.S. Constitution inserted this special requirement for the highest offices in the land – president and vice president – into our body politic. This was because there were those persons around them, such as John Dickinson, the colonial delegate and a Tory from Pennsylvania, who to the end advocated against independence from King George III and had remained loyal to the British crown, even when it was clear that the crown was no longer “loyal” to the colonies. These types of individuals clearly were a risk to the new nation. Thus, all foreign influences were designed to be removed in the future from even getting close to the presidency.
By contrast to Barack Hussein Obama, whose Kenyan British-subject father was not only anti-American, but a vehement anti-Semite, anti-Christian Muslim Marxist, John Dickinson was an icon of virtue. Not so virtuous is our illegitimate president, senior’s son, who is a chip off the old block. The Founding Fathers would be outraged to learn that the system of checks and balances they devised, and in particular the judicial branch of government, had broken down after only 236 years following the Declaration of Independence, allowing someone like junior to run for and win the presidency through fraudulent acts that presented him as a natural born citizen. In this way, Obama could illegally seize control of the fate of the nation as a type of “Manchurian candidate” for interests hostile to the United States and all it stands for.
In the face of clear-cut law, the judges in the various states where eligibility challenges have been filed have dodged and weaved to avoid finding Obama ineligible – or, for that matter, even allow for a full evidentiary hearing on the issue. That is because in today’s world to take on the powerful establishment forces is a death knell to appointment to a higher government position.
In a recently filed case in Florida, which I timely filed for Democrat Michael Voeltz, following Obama’s latest fraudulent caper in the Nov. 6, 2012, presidential election, the Leon County Circuit Court judge, the Honorable (sic) Kevin Carroll, even said as much in his week-old, two and a half page, hastily written order dismissing the case – where he made reference to his former Circuit Court “judicial buddy” having been recently nominated and sworn in by Obama as a federal court judge to preside in a courthouse down the street. Carroll obviously hopes that his largesse toward Obama will someday similarly reward him with a federal judgeship as well.
In throwing out my client’s eligibility complaint without even so much as the hearing Judge Carroll had promised him (which amounts to a denial of due process), this intellectually dishonest jurist conveniently sought to justify his actions by declaring, as two other compromised judges in Florida before him, that our state lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. The bogus basis for this was that the federal election scheme, which in practice does not exist but for the Electoral College tally on Jan. 4, 2013, to simply install Obama as president, takes precedence over Florida law, which allows for a voter to challenge a state or federal candidate’s legitimacy and thus, according to Carroll, nullifies Florida law when it comes to presidential elections.
Indeed, in the landmark case of County of Palm Beach Canvassing Board v. Harris decided by the Florida Supreme Court during the 2000 presidential Gore v. Bush election contest, their “eminences” had already settled this newly and conveniently contrived non-issue and ruled: “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 only one statutory election scheme for all elections whether the elections be for local or state officials or for presidential electors. The Legislature has not chosen to have a separate set of election laws for elections for presidential electors. … In sum, Florida’s statutory scheme simply makes no provision for applying the rules one way for presidential elector elections and another way for all other elections.”
One would hope and pray that whenever Judge Carroll gets around to deciding my recently filed motion for rehearing on his having illegally and unethically dismissed my client’s complaint without as much as a hearing, he will take the time to read this case and follow it. His superiors have spoken, and no matter how this jurist seeks to bob and weave, this is the unquestionable law of the Sunshine State.
As of last Friday, despite the urgency of resolving Voeltz’s presidential election challenge, Judge Carroll was still sitting on our motion for rehearing, despite our renewed emergency request to grant us a hearing, vacate his dismissal order and allow my client Voeltz due process of law. According to his assistant, with whom I spoke late that day, the judge was indeed in his office all week, perhaps now hiding under his desk for cover. Unfortunately for Judge Carroll, it’s only a matter of time when he can no longer run and hide from the law or, if that doesn’t work, the wrath of those patriotic Americans who will call him to legal account in an appropriate, peaceful way.
The time for revolution is upon us, and Judge Carroll’s and his colleagues’ deceitful if not traitorous actions remind us why our Founding Fathers and, ironically, their “sunshine patriots” were also forced to take action when the “legal system” of King George III continued to feather its own nest at the expense of the people and behaved similarly.
As you know, to qualify for the office of president, the law, plain and simple, requires that a person be born in the United States or one of its territories, to two American citizen parents. In watching the HBO miniseries “John Adams” on DVD over the holidays, after many years since it was first shown on television, I was starkly reminded why the framers of the U.S. Constitution inserted this special requirement for the highest offices in the land – president and vice president – into our body politic. This was because there were those persons around them, such as John Dickinson, the colonial delegate and a Tory from Pennsylvania, who to the end advocated against independence from King George III and had remained loyal to the British crown, even when it was clear that the crown was no longer “loyal” to the colonies. These types of individuals clearly were a risk to the new nation. Thus, all foreign influences were designed to be removed in the future from even getting close to the presidency.
By contrast to Barack Hussein Obama, whose Kenyan British-subject father was not only anti-American, but a vehement anti-Semite, anti-Christian Muslim Marxist, John Dickinson was an icon of virtue. Not so virtuous is our illegitimate president, senior’s son, who is a chip off the old block. The Founding Fathers would be outraged to learn that the system of checks and balances they devised, and in particular the judicial branch of government, had broken down after only 236 years following the Declaration of Independence, allowing someone like junior to run for and win the presidency through fraudulent acts that presented him as a natural born citizen. In this way, Obama could illegally seize control of the fate of the nation as a type of “Manchurian candidate” for interests hostile to the United States and all it stands for.
In the face of clear-cut law, the judges in the various states where eligibility challenges have been filed have dodged and weaved to avoid finding Obama ineligible – or, for that matter, even allow for a full evidentiary hearing on the issue. That is because in today’s world to take on the powerful establishment forces is a death knell to appointment to a higher government position.
In a recently filed case in Florida, which I timely filed for Democrat Michael Voeltz, following Obama’s latest fraudulent caper in the Nov. 6, 2012, presidential election, the Leon County Circuit Court judge, the Honorable (sic) Kevin Carroll, even said as much in his week-old, two and a half page, hastily written order dismissing the case – where he made reference to his former Circuit Court “judicial buddy” having been recently nominated and sworn in by Obama as a federal court judge to preside in a courthouse down the street. Carroll obviously hopes that his largesse toward Obama will someday similarly reward him with a federal judgeship as well.
In throwing out my client’s eligibility complaint without even so much as the hearing Judge Carroll had promised him (which amounts to a denial of due process), this intellectually dishonest jurist conveniently sought to justify his actions by declaring, as two other compromised judges in Florida before him, that our state lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. The bogus basis for this was that the federal election scheme, which in practice does not exist but for the Electoral College tally on Jan. 4, 2013, to simply install Obama as president, takes precedence over Florida law, which allows for a voter to challenge a state or federal candidate’s legitimacy and thus, according to Carroll, nullifies Florida law when it comes to presidential elections.
Indeed, in the landmark case of County of Palm Beach Canvassing Board v. Harris decided by the Florida Supreme Court during the 2000 presidential Gore v. Bush election contest, their “eminences” had already settled this newly and conveniently contrived non-issue and ruled: “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 only one statutory election scheme for all elections whether the elections be for local or state officials or for presidential electors. The Legislature has not chosen to have a separate set of election laws for elections for presidential electors. … In sum, Florida’s statutory scheme simply makes no provision for applying the rules one way for presidential elector elections and another way for all other elections.”
One would hope and pray that whenever Judge Carroll gets around to deciding my recently filed motion for rehearing on his having illegally and unethically dismissed my client’s complaint without as much as a hearing, he will take the time to read this case and follow it. His superiors have spoken, and no matter how this jurist seeks to bob and weave, this is the unquestionable law of the Sunshine State.
As of last Friday, despite the urgency of resolving Voeltz’s presidential election challenge, Judge Carroll was still sitting on our motion for rehearing, despite our renewed emergency request to grant us a hearing, vacate his dismissal order and allow my client Voeltz due process of law. According to his assistant, with whom I spoke late that day, the judge was indeed in his office all week, perhaps now hiding under his desk for cover. Unfortunately for Judge Carroll, it’s only a matter of time when he can no longer run and hide from the law or, if that doesn’t work, the wrath of those patriotic Americans who will call him to legal account in an appropriate, peaceful way.
The time for revolution is upon us, and Judge Carroll’s and his colleagues’ deceitful if not traitorous actions remind us why our Founding Fathers and, ironically, their “sunshine patriots” were also forced to take action when the “legal system” of King George III continued to feather its own nest at the expense of the people and behaved similarly.
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
So,Mr. Klayman Why is it you haven't got the interviews that were done with Ann Dunham from 1958-1961? I'm sure it was a reporter from CBS that interviewed her/possibly Edward Murrow---Find those interviews,you'll find the Proof of his ineligibility!
ReplyDelete