Breaking: Democrat Files Ballot Challenge/Objection Against Obama In Florida

Spock here. It looks like these ballot challenges/objections are popping up everywhere. I don't think I have ever seen this done to a sitting president before. Have you? Never the less a democrat has done it against Obama in Florida and the attorney representing is named Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch.


Fascinating isn't it?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81755445/...cial-Circuit-in-Leon-County-Florida-2-15-2012

 

judicial watch is a rw group....but the founder is a democrat?

 

yah...hes a republican....worked for Reagan, sued Clinton 18 times....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Klayman

 

Desperate Times ... Desperate Measures.

 

[Kirk]Spock......no....I......haventseenitdone...myself either.....but Im only 43. [/Kirk]

I think last time there was this much controversy was with Chester Arthur, IIRC, and I wasnt around for him.

 

Somebody didn't read. Oh, well, when you have faith you don't need facts. Now, go back and read the legal documents. And, whatever you do, don't say, "Ooops."

 

wow according to that lawsuit....the following republicans may not be eligible to be president

Mitt romney (maybe)

rick Santorum (maybe)

bobby Jindal (definitely doesnt meet the NBC defintion int he lawsuit)

Marco Rubio (see Jindal)

 

Based on what evidence?

 

where is the evidence Mitt Romney or Santorum are NBCs? both their fathers were born in foreign lands....

 

Spock,

Repeating Idiocy "N" times does not make it more logical.

 

ROTFL… Klayman is now suddenly the latest hope of the birthers… Expect no evidence of fraud to be presented and the Courts to, once again, reiterate the findings in US v Wong Kim Ark.

Klayman… Of all people… Well at least he can use the money…

$25,000 needs to be raised in the next 96 hours. Why you may ask?…

Well, for starters, that's how much he owes a client he has apparently defrauded. The Florida Bar has issued a public reprimand of Klayman for taking a $25,000 payment to represent a woman in a high-profile criminal case and then allegedly failing to, y’know, do any lawyerin’.

When he was ordered to pay the client back, Klayman missed payments, whining in court documents that he’s so broke he can’t afford a bankruptcy lawyer.

Klayman wrote:

In other news

Yes, please send the money… The kids need it…

 

Well I don't have copious amounts of time on my hands so even if it did happen I wouldn't notice.

 

Hard to believe there are still people out there who actually believe this. I say we fine all of these suits and make them pay for wasting the courts time and money!

 

Then, the Left is finally going to abandon democratic socialism?

_

 

What is U.S. v Wong Kim Ark?

 

Just what i've read here and there.

Heres a link for you to browse on Arthur if interested.

http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblo...ester-a-arthur-and-the-birthers-1880’s-style/

 

Wow... not just a sock puppet. But a sock puppet who actively pretends to be stupid.

Fascinating.

 

the current legal precident regarding natural born citizenship.

 

So now were going to have a thread every time some right-wing hack files a bogus lawsuit?

Seriously, who at this point is stupid enough to send these hack lawyers money?

I mean the last "team" of birther attorneys deliberately passed on a default judgement in their favor.

You birthers don't get the distinct impression that they are just using your gullibility as a gravy train?

By all means, please continue sending these snake-oil salesmen your hard-earned dollars. You certainly don't deserve the money.

If you're going to willingly be sheep, you deserved to get fleeced.

 

That's precedent...and Minor v. Happersett is better as precedent. This needs to be discussed and argued at the SC. Too bad Obamites are afraid of that.

 

Where did this information on Klayman come from? One merely wants a credible source other than an alias on a forum.

 

What do we have to be afraid of?

The voters already expressed their opinion on the matter, and so has Congress. And every court that has looked at it has laughed at your interpretation of Minor.

So I repeat- what on earth would we be afraid of? That the Supreme Court would all simultaniously have a seizure and reverse the will of the voters and our understanding of the definition of the Natural Born Citizen for the last 200 years?

I would be fine with the Supreme Court looking at it, if they ever chose to- so far they have shown no interest.

 

Counter it with your own then. If you have some information showing otherwise, please provide it.

And welcome to the forums. Are you a new Birther to the forums, or just a returning one with a different name?

 

Hey, claims are made about Larry Klayman without attribution. Where did this information come from? Or was it completely made up?

 

Minor v Happersett isn't precedent. it wasn't a citizenship case. Wong kim ark was a SC case that is the current precedent regarding natural born citizenship.