BY LINDA BENTLEY | JANUARY 2, 2013
Expedited motion for rehearing filed in Obama eligibility case
To interpret the law differently would leave the state of Florida ‘defenseless’ against a candidate ‘who is intent on defrauding …’
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – The day after Christmas, Attorney Larry Klayman (r), on behalf of his client Michael Voeltz, filed an expedited motion for rehearing after Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge Kevin J. Carroll dismissed their complaint challenging President Obama’s eligibility based on a ruling by a fictional judge in the 1947 Christmas film classic “Miracle on 34th Street.”
Carroll wrote, “As this matter has come before the court at this time of 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.’”
In support of his expedited motion for rehearing on an emergency basis, Klayman pointed out “time is extremely short before the electoral college votes on January 6, 2013.”
Calling Obama’s argument that Voeltz didn’t request a hearing both absurd and frivolous, Klayman points out in his emergency response to the court’s Dec. 13, 2012 order that gave Voeltz until Dec. 23 to file a reply, it plainly stated Voeltz requested a hearing and, once he filed the motion for a temporary injunction, an evidentiary one as well.
Klayman said Carroll’s “hastily crafted precipitous Order Dismissing Complaint was an obvious
attempt to extinguish plaintiff’s right to any hearing, evidentiary or otherwise.”
Second, he argued, contrary to whatever politically motivated decisions of three judges of the Second Judicial Circuit Court for Leon County, Fla., Section 102.168 of Florida statutes “plainly provides that plaintiff does have a right to contest eligibility and candidate fraud in this court.”
The third point Klayman made is that the role of the Electoral College is not in lieu of Florida law but complimentary to Florida law, and that states have constitutionally sacred rights, which he said should come as no surprise to anyone who has read the Florida and U.S. constitutions, particularly the 10th Amendment.
Klayman stated, “The state obviously has a right and a duty to police candidacy fraud and eligibility before its voters are lead down the primrose path to voter nullification by dishonest candidates for either state or federal office.”
In Voeltz’s case involving Obama, he said federal law does not take precedence over clear-cut, unambiguous, black-letter Florida law.
According to Klayman, to interpret the law differently than as it is written would leave the state of Florida “defenseless” against a federal candidate “who is intent on defrauding as well as maintaining eligibility when there’s no eligibility with regard to voters of the state.”
“Fourth, two judges of this court have abdicated this responsibility and we respectfully trust that this judge will follow his responsibility and “the rule of law” under Florida statutory law and the state’s and U.S. Constitutions, and reconsider – despite what two other judges of this Court decided to do – based on their apparent politically motivated decision-making,” wrote Klayman.
Klayman requested the court rehear its Dec. 20 Order Dismissing Complaint and immediately set a date to hear arguments regarding the court’s jurisdiction as well as an evidentiary hearing, which Klayman said is required to properly and fully adjudicate Voeltz’s motion for a temporary injunction.
