Do not fear and never despair!
Another case is pending in Florida and scheduled for a hearing on July 10, 2012 on
an entirely different legal theory, that has nothing to do with the Florida
Election Code
"If I were dropped out of a plane into the ocean and told the nearest land was a thousand miles away, I'd still swim. And I'd despise the one who gave up."
Abraham Maslow
The case is Collette v. Obama, case number: 512012CA 2041WS. The next hearing is scheduled for July 10, 2012, at 3:30 pm at the West Pasco Judicial Center in New Port Richey FL.
Voeltz v Obama Florida Obama Ballot Access Challenge Dismissed With Prejudice
Voeltz v Obama - Order of Dismissal - Florida Obama Ballot Challenge - DISMISSAL ORDER HERE, AND BELOW.
Previous reports on the Florida ballot challenge here, here, and here. Hat tip Anon.
Voeltz v Obama - Order of Dismissal - Florida Obama Ballot Challenge - 6/29/2012
WATCH THE COMPLETE SHERIFF JOE PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT OBAMA'S FORGED IDENTITY DOCUMENTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/joe.html
SHERIFF JOE TEA-PARTY PRESENTATION VIDEO HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/arizonavideo.html
-ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
Here’s to the crazy ones! The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.
1 comment:
The grounds for appeal is found on page 4 where it is said that it is the Plaintiff's burden to PROVE ineligibility and not the State, SOS, Political Party, etc........
...the Appeal need only ask the questions;
1] "Does the lack of an acknowledged "legal", (enforceable) definition of 'natural born Citizen' by the various State and Federal election laws render the Statutory Constitutional provision of "...no person except ... shall be eligible.." to be without effect ... contrary to Marbury v Madison ...?"
2] "Can the Constitutionally 'legal' definition of 'natural born Citizen' be correctly construed within the words that say so and what the words require within the 1790 & '95 "Act's" ..."to establish an uniform Rule of naturalization throughout the States...?"
Post a Comment