Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓Less ↑
Carroll released an order today refusing to hear a request for a hearing that is allowed under state law when there are doubts about a candidate’s eligibility. And let that be the last, the judge said.
“No petitions for clarification or further rehearing will be entertained by the court,” he said in his ruling that refused to respond to a request for the state-allowed hearing in a case brought by Michael Voeltz.
“The court … finds no factual or legal cause to recede from its prior ruling that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction,” he wrote.
The attorney handling the case for Voeltz, Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch, told WND if the judge doesn’t want to address the dispute, then he’ll take it to the appellate level, and that filing could occur as early as this weekend.
He noted that the judge had promised the plaintiffs time to respond to an Obama motion to dismiss the case but then dismissed it without allowing the time frame to expire.
The judge already had decided he would not hold an evidentiary hearing, which is allowed under state law in such a case. A hearing is supposed to be held when candidates’ qualifications are challenged, according a state law that allows Florida residents to challenge the eligibility of election candidates, Klayman said.
Carroll earlier had given the plaintiffs until Dec. 23 to respond to Obama’s motion to dismiss the case but then changed his mind and abruptly ordered the case dismissed several days before the deadline.
He explained that the fact the government says Obama is qualified to be president is more than enough for him.
“This court notes that President Obama lives in the White House. He flies on Air Force One. He has appeared before Congress, delivered State of the Union addresses and meets with congressional leaders on a regular basis. He has appointed countless ambassadors to represent the interests of the United States throughout the world,” Carroll wrote.
“As this matter has come before the court at this time of the year it seems only appropriate to paraphrase the ruling rendered by the fictional Judge Henry X. Harper from New York in open court in the classic holiday film ‘Miracle on 34th St.’ ‘Since the United States Government declares this man to be president, this court will not dispute it. Case dismissed.’”
It was the second time in eligibility cases that a judge appears to have abandoned legal fundamentals and simply ruled for Obama on no legal basis.
Several years ago it was Judge James Robertson in Washington who dismissed a case because, he wrote, “The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year campaign for the presidency.”
Significantly, it was two years later that Obama released a computer-generated image of a Hawaii birth document, still trying to provide information that would answer the questions.
Klayman told WND that Carroll had refused to scheduled the hearing or even respond to inquiries to the court and suggested he was “waiting for Groundhog Day to come out.”
“The process now is we will take this to the appellate level,” he said.
Attorneys for Obama endorsed Carroll’s ruling that cited the “Santa” decision from the fictional movie “Miracle on 34th Street.”
The dispute pending in court is over a challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be president and the plaintiff, Voeltz, is a Democrat from Florida who demanding the evidentiary hearing allowed under state law.
Obama’s attorney, Florida Bar member Mark Herron, submitted a “response” to the hearing petition that the judge’s original decision to dismiss the case had been correct.
Klayman said the dispute “is an election issue and it needed to be fully appealed and the issues needed to be decided in time for both the general election and/or post election, since Florida electors were to vote on Dec. 17, 2012, and the Electoral College will be casting their votes on Jan. 6, 2013.”
He said the lower court refused his requests to move the case quickly, such as advancing directly to the state Supreme Court. So, like the Bush v. Gore contest in 2000, it probably will end up being litigated after the election process is completed.
Klayman had argued the issue of holding a hearing wasn’t optional for the judge.
“This court had a statutory duty under the Florida Election laws, the Florida and U.S. Constitutions, and 3 U.S.C. Section 5, to adjudicate defendant Obama’s eligibility and his alleged fraudulent acts expeditiously, timely, and before the electors met on Dec. 17, 2012, and before the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, 2013,” Klayman explained. “Thus, this court also violated these law is dismissing the complaint summarily.”
Klayman suggested to the court its order “at a minimum creates an appearance that it simply jettisoned this case not only on the extrajudicial and non-legal premise that President Obama was president during the prior four year term, and has already performed many ‘presidential’ acts but also because this court did not want to be ‘inconvenienced’ by holding an evidentiary hearing.”
He said the remarks about fictional judge Henry X. Harper in “Miracle on 34th St.” were “inappropriate” and showed “a mindset simply to rid the court of this case.”
“This court seems to want to sidestep having to reach these serious and important matters before it,” Klayman said.
Klayman has submitted evidence by way of a sworn statement from Investigator Mike Zullo of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse in Arizona that there probably were two crimes committed in the creation and display of Obama’s long-form birth certificate, which was released by the White House and posted online.
Zullo’s testimony is that forgery was committed to create the document, and fraud was committed in “presenting to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery the White House represents as ‘proof positive’ of President Obama’s” birth documentation.
Arpaio’s affidavit also was presented to the judge.
The sheriff said: “My investigators and I believe that President Obama’s long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated document, was manufactured electronically, and that it did not originate in a paper format, as claimed by the White House. … There is probable cause that the document is a forgery.”
Klayman has argued that Obama “has never established his eligibility for the presidency of the United States … the only evidence of defendant Obama’s alleged birth within the United States has come in the form of a belatedly filed electronic version of a claimed long-form birth certificate posted on the Internet.”
He told the judge that the evidence suggests, however, the document is fraudulent.
The case claims that should the judge not address the facts, the plaintiff “can never be made whole again.”
“If defendant Obama is found to be ineligible, which is likely to happen since there is no evidence … Obama was born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents, the plaintiff’s vote in the 2012 presidential election will be nullified.”
He said state law calls for an expedited hearing in such cases.
In the case, Klayman argued: “On Nov. 6, 2012, the state of Florida held its 2012 general election. On Nov. 10, 2012, defendant Barack Hussein Obama was declared the official winner of the Florida general election. Yet defendant Obama has never established his eligibility for the presidency of the United States.
“Indeed, neither defendant Obama, nor the Democratic Party of Florida, has even stated that defendant Obama is a ‘natural born citizen,’” the filing said. “The only evidence of defendant Obama’s alleged birth within the United States has come in the form of an electronic version posted on the Internet. However, there has been evidence to show that this ‘birth certificate’ has either been altered or is entirely fraudulent.”
The original case sought to exclude Obama from the 2012 ballot. Klayman and Voeltz claimed that Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, because he was born a British subject.
“Plaintiff Michael C. Voeltz has standing as a Florida voter, and taxpayer, to challenge the ‘nomination or election of any person to office’ based on the winning candidates’ eligibility for the office sought. … The state of Florida has chosen, by popular election, the electors for Defendant Barack Hussein Obama to be president … Plaintiff has fulfilled all aspects of the Florida election statutes for this challenge of eligibility, as to timing, venue, and indispensable parties.”
Klayman has argued that since Obama, by his own admission, was not born to two citizen parents, he is not a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, is ineligible to be a candidate on the state’s election ballot.
The filing also explained the judiciary “has the power to determine eligibility. The contest of election statute specifically created a cause of action to enable plaintiff, a registered elector and taxpayer, to bring this lawsuit in order for this court to determine the eligibility of defendant Obama.”