FL – Voeltz v SOS III – Per Curiam Affirmed

I looked at Voeltz III and the docket mentions: 03/13/2014 Affirmed – Per Curiam Affirmed

Did I miss something?

Ruling http://opinions.1dca.org/pc_pdf/13-0083.pdf

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

MICHAEL C. VOELTZ ,
Appellant,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA,
Florida Democratic Party nominee
for President to the 2012
Democratic National Convention;
KEN DETZNER, Secretary of State of Florida;
FLORIDA ELECTIONS CANVASSING COMMISSION,
Appellee .
CASE NO. 1D 13 – 83

Opinion filed March 13, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County . Kevin Carroll , Judge .

Larry Klayman, Washington, D.C. , for Appellant.

Mark Herron, Joseph Brennan Donnelly, and Robert J. Telfer III of Messer Caparello, P.A., Tallahassee; Stephen F. Rosenthal of Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Miami , and Richard B. Rosenthal of The Law Offices of Richard B. Rosenthal, P.A., Miami, for Appellee

President Barack Obama; J. Andrew Atkinson, General Counsel, and Ashley E. Davis, Assistant General Counsel for Appellees Florida Secretary of State Kenneth W. Detzner and The Florida Elections Canvassing Commission.

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.

FL – Voeltz v Obama – Sigh…

So clueless…

Case Docket
Case Number: 1D13-83
Final Civil Other Notice from Leon County
Michael C. Voeltz vs. Barack Hussein Obama, et al.

10/04/2013 Initial Brf – 20-Day SC or Dismiss-163 10/24/2013

Appellant has failed to timely file the initial brief. Appellant shall either file the initial brief within 20 days from the date of this order or show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to obey the rules and orders of this Court. If appellant fails to file the brief or a response within the time allowed, this appeal shall be dismissed without further notice or opportunity to be heard. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410.

10/14/2013 Received Records 2 vols scanned ftp

10/23/2013 Initial Brief on Merits  Larry Klayman 246220

10/25/2013 Notice of Bad Brief-Initial Brief-167A 11/04/2013

FL – Voeltz v Obama – Denied

Klayman still is looking for a success in his foolish quest. He is not taking the news too well…

09/27/2013 DISP-MANDAMUS DY Because petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to the relief requested, he is not entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby denied. See Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000).

Source

FL – Voeltz v Obama – FL Supreme Court – Docket

Case Number: SC13-560 – Active
MICHAEL VOELTZ vs. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ETC., ET AL.
Lower Tribunal Case(s): 1D12-3489, 2012-CA-00467

Date Docketed
Description
Filed By
Notes
03/12/2013 PETITION-MANDAMUS PT Michael Voeltz BY: PT Larry Elliot Klayman 246220 FILED AS “NOTICE-APPEAL” & TREATED AS PETITION-MANDAMUS
03/25/2013 REQUEST-JUDICIAL NOTICE DA1 Scott Rille BY: DA1 Scott Rille FILED AS “LETTER DATED 03/18/2013″ ***STRICKEN. SEE ORDER DATED 05/02/2013***
04/08/2013 Fee Due $300, but not billed DCA FORWARDING FILING FEE
04/08/2013 ORDER-PROPER PETITION Petitioner’s notice, filed in this Court on March 12, 2013, has been treated as a petition for writ of mandamus seeking reinstatement of the proceedings in the district court of appeal below. Petitioner is allowed to and including April 29, 2013, in which to file a proper petition for writ of mandamus; that complies with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100, addressing why the proceedings in the district court of appeal should not have been dismissed. The failure to file a proper petition with this Court within the time provided could result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this case. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410. Please understand that once this case is dismissed, it may not be subject to reinstatement.
04/08/2013 ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER-NEW CASE Supreme Court Florida FSC BY: Supreme Court Florida FSC
04/29/2013 PROPER PETITION PT Michael Voeltz BY: PT Larry Elliot Klayman 246220
05/02/2013 ORDER-OTHER SUBSTANTIVE Scott Rille’s letter dated March 18, 2013, has been treated as a Motion to Take Judicial Notice, and said motion is stricken without prejudice to re-file after a proper motion for amicus curiae has been filed with this Court.
05/09/2013 PETITION-AMENDMENT/SUPPLEMENT PT Michael Voeltz BY: PT Larry Elliot Klayman 246220 FILED AS “NOTICE-APPEAL”
05/17/2013 MOTION-AMICUS CURIAE DA1 Scott Rille BY: DA1 Scott Rille O&7
06/14/2013 ORDER-AMICUS CURIAE DY The “Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae” filed in the above cause by Scott Rille on behalf of petitioner is hereby denied.

FL – Removal of ineligible candidates

Florida

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE

RICK SCOTT

Governor

KURT S. BROWNING

Secretary of State

July 27, 2011

Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.

RE: DE 11-03 Presidential Elections; Candidates­ Ballot access. § 1 03.021, Florida Statutes

Dear Mr. Hassan:

This letter responds to your request for an advisory opinion. As a declared presidential candidate  for 2012 and a person engaged in political activity, you desire to know if your name would be placed on the ballot for President of the United States if you met all of Florida’s requirements for placement on the ballot as a no-party-affiliated candidate or as a nominee of a political party for President of the United States even though you do not satisfy the requirement in Article II, § 1, U.S. Constitution, of being a natural born citizen of the United States. Instead, you state you are a naturalized U.S. citizen and you have ongoing litigation in federal court regarding the citizenship requirements of President. Because you have questions about the provisions of Florida’s election laws, the Division of Elections has the authority to issue you an opinion pursuant to section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes (2010).

 

Continue reading

AL – McInnish v Chapman – AL Supreme Court – False hopes?

[Update: Changed to McInnish v  Chapman. Oops, so many Klayman failures to keep track of.]

At OBC, a smart contributor explains why Arpaio’s work will have little relevance to the issue before the Court which is straightforward. First of all President Obama is not even a party to the case, second of all, the issue is limited to a single issue question. There have been rumors that Arpaio will be completely collaborating with the AL court, however I doubt that Arpaio himself will involve himself in these matters as it is not even an official investigation. Furthermore, the affidavits have already been submitted in the case, and have no relevance. And finally, I doubt that they are even ready to share all this ‘new evidence’ they have been speculating about. I understand that Zullo and Gallups had another love fest of much of the same. Any updates on what they discussed?

This is an appeal of the lower court ruling. The only appellee is Alabama SoS Chapman, President Obama isn’t even involved. There will be no witness, no trial and no new evidence will be allowed. The only question will be did the lower court err when it said that the SoS has no duty to investigate the eligibility of Presidential candidates? It is only a question of the interpretation of Alabama law. Seems to me there is very little assistance the Zullo can provide to the appellants.

IMO, they are just raising a bunch of false hopes.

Source: william Rawle at OBC

The MCSO Cold Case Posse surely is making a lot of noise but so far we only hear about how VIP’s are dropping :-)

I expect that this will be going until until well after the next Obama lives in the Whitehouse :-)

Others at OBC are similarly unimpressed

So now we have breaking news that actually is old news. Klayman as I understand it, has been using Arpaio’s and Zullo’s affidavits in Florida & Alabama. This is nothing new. The whole premise for requesting the Arpaio investigation was for the purpose of determining whether the Obama Certificate of Live Birth is a criminal forgery. The main thrust of the request was to bring criminal charges to the forefront. We still are waiting for Arpaio & Co. to seek criminal charges. When that happens it will indeed be worthy of the phrase “breaking news.”

Source: Brian Reilly

AL – McInnish v Chapman – AL Supreme Court – False hopes?

[Update: Changed to McInnish v  Chapman. Oops, so many Klayman failures to keep track of.]

At OBC, a smart contributor explains why Arpaio’s work will have little relevance to the issue before the Court which is straightforward. First of all President Obama is not even a party to the case, second of all, the issue is limited to a single issue question. There have been rumors that Arpaio will be completely collaborating with the AL court, however I doubt that Arpaio himself will involve himself in these matters as it is not even an official investigation. Furthermore, the affidavits have already been submitted in the case, and have no relevance. And finally, I doubt that they are even ready to share all this ‘new evidence’ they have been speculating about. I understand that Zullo and Gallups had another love fest of much of the same. Any updates on what they discussed?

This is an appeal of the lower court ruling. The only appellee is Alabama SoS Chapman, President Obama isn’t even involved. There will be no witness, no trial and no new evidence will be allowed. The only question will be did the lower court err when it said that the SoS has no duty to investigate the eligibility of Presidential candidates? It is only a question of the interpretation of Alabama law. Seems to me there is very little assistance the Zullo can provide to the appellants.

IMO, they are just raising a bunch of false hopes.

Source: william Rawle at OBC

The MCSO Cold Case Posse surely is making a lot of noise but so far we only hear about how VIP’s are dropping :-)

I expect that this will be going until until well after the next Obama lives in the Whitehouse :-)

Others at OBC are similarly unimpressed

So now we have breaking news that actually is old news. Klayman as I understand it, has been using Arpaio’s and Zullo’s affidavits in Florida & Alabama. This is nothing new. The whole premise for requesting the Arpaio investigation was for the purpose of determining whether the Obama Certificate of Live Birth is a criminal forgery. The main thrust of the request was to bring criminal charges to the forefront. We still are waiting for Arpaio & Co. to seek criminal charges. When that happens it will indeed be worthy of the phrase “breaking news.”

Source: Brian Reilly

AL – McInnish v Chapman – AL Supreme Court – False hopes?

[Update: Changed to McInnish v  Chapman. Oops, so many Klayman failures to keep track of.]

At OBC, a smart contributor explains why Arpaio’s work will have little relevance to the issue before the Court which is straightforward. First of all President Obama is not even a party to the case, second of all, the issue is limited to a single issue question. There have been rumors that Arpaio will be completely collaborating with the AL court, however I doubt that Arpaio himself will involve himself in these matters as it is not even an official investigation. Furthermore, the affidavits have already been submitted in the case, and have no relevance. And finally, I doubt that they are even ready to share all this ‘new evidence’ they have been speculating about. I understand that Zullo and Gallups had another love fest of much of the same. Any updates on what they discussed?

This is an appeal of the lower court ruling. The only appellee is Alabama SoS Chapman, President Obama isn’t even involved. There will be no witness, no trial and no new evidence will be allowed. The only question will be did the lower court err when it said that the SoS has no duty to investigate the eligibility of Presidential candidates? It is only a question of the interpretation of Alabama law. Seems to me there is very little assistance the Zullo can provide to the appellants.

IMO, they are just raising a bunch of false hopes.

Source: william Rawle at OBC

The MCSO Cold Case Posse surely is making a lot of noise but so far we only hear about how VIP’s are dropping :-)

I expect that this will be going until until well after the next Obama lives in the Whitehouse :-)

Others at OBC are similarly unimpressed

So now we have breaking news that actually is old news. Klayman as I understand it, has been using Arpaio’s and Zullo’s affidavits in Florida & Alabama. This is nothing new. The whole premise for requesting the Arpaio investigation was for the purpose of determining whether the Obama Certificate of Live Birth is a criminal forgery. The main thrust of the request was to bring criminal charges to the forefront. We still are waiting for Arpaio & Co. to seek criminal charges. When that happens it will indeed be worthy of the phrase “breaking news.”

Source: Brian Reilly

AL – McInnish v Chapman – AL Supreme Court – False hopes?

[Update: Changed to McInnish v  Chapman. Oops, so many Klayman failures to keep track of.]

At OBC, a smart contributor explains why Arpaio’s work will have little relevance to the issue before the Court which is straightforward. First of all President Obama is not even a party to the case, second of all, the issue is limited to a single issue question. There have been rumors that Arpaio will be completely collaborating with the AL court, however I doubt that Arpaio himself will involve himself in these matters as it is not even an official investigation. Furthermore, the affidavits have already been submitted in the case, and have no relevance. And finally, I doubt that they are even ready to share all this ‘new evidence’ they have been speculating about. I understand that Zullo and Gallups had another love fest of much of the same. Any updates on what they discussed?

This is an appeal of the lower court ruling. The only appellee is Alabama SoS Chapman, President Obama isn’t even involved. There will be no witness, no trial and no new evidence will be allowed. The only question will be did the lower court err when it said that the SoS has no duty to investigate the eligibility of Presidential candidates? It is only a question of the interpretation of Alabama law. Seems to me there is very little assistance the Zullo can provide to the appellants.

IMO, they are just raising a bunch of false hopes.

Source: william Rawle at OBC

The MCSO Cold Case Posse surely is making a lot of noise but so far we only hear about how VIP’s are dropping :-)

I expect that this will be going until until well after the next Obama lives in the Whitehouse :-)

Others at OBC are similarly unimpressed

So now we have breaking news that actually is old news. Klayman as I understand it, has been using Arpaio’s and Zullo’s affidavits in Florida & Alabama. This is nothing new. The whole premise for requesting the Arpaio investigation was for the purpose of determining whether the Obama Certificate of Live Birth is a criminal forgery. The main thrust of the request was to bring criminal charges to the forefront. We still are waiting for Arpaio & Co. to seek criminal charges. When that happens it will indeed be worthy of the phrase “breaking news.”

Source: Brian Reilly

FL – Voeltz v Obama – Appealed to Supreme Court

Realist has provided additional documents relevant to the lower Court case which Klayman has appealed to the Supreme Court to instruct the lower Court to issue a written opinion. The Florida Supreme Court has given Kayman until 04/29/13 to properly file his briefs..

Rule 2-514 - Which apparently Klayman misread to allow for 5 additional days. It seems to me straightforward English which Klayman somehow failed to appreciate properly.

(b) Additional Time after Service by Mail or E-mail. When a party may or must act within a specified time after service and service is made by mail or email, 5 days are added after the period that would otherwise expire under subdivision (a).

 The deadline was not relative to a specified time after service… So sad…

From the documents, it appears that Klayman failed to timely file his brief for a written opinion. Yes my friends, Klayman strikes again… Fascinating…

2/08/2013 Dismissed – Per Curiam Opinion

02/08/2013 SS Restyle of Case-General-186

This Court sua sponte changes the style of this case to Michael Voeltz v. Barack Hussein Obama, Florida Democratic Party Nominee for President to the 2012 Democratic National Convention; Ken Detzner, Secretary of State of Florida; and Florida Elections Canvassing Commission.02/08/2013 Deny Expediting-77A

Motion to expedite, filed December 26, 2012, is denied. Amended motion for leave to file brief of amicus curiae, filed December 26, 2012, is denied.

02/28/2013 Motion for Written Opinion

Larry Klayman 246220

03/11/2013 RESPONSE

Mark Herron 0199737

in opposition to mot for written opinion ******NOTED******

03/11/2013 Notice of Appeal to Supreme Court

Larry Klayman 246220

03/11/2013 RESPONSE

Ashley E. Davis, A. G. C. 48032

in opposition to mot for written opinion ******NOTED******

03/11/2013 REPLY

Larry Klayman 246220

in support of mot for written opinion ******NOTED******

03/12/2013 NOTICE OF DISCRETN. JURISDICTN

NOTICE OF DISCRETN. JURISDICTN

03/12/2013 Review Sent to Supreme Court

NOTICE OF DISCRETN. JURISDICTN

03/22/2013 Deny Miscellaneous Motion-79A [Motion for Written Opinion]

Klayman on Gallup’s Freedom Friday

Listen

Now compare to the order by the Florida Supreme Court and notice how Larry’s description appears to be at odds with the actual order. Klayman is not taking it too well why courts have rejected his and the countless other cases and looks for ‘explanations’ that somehow these judges were corrupted… Fascinating and quite educational…

FL – Voeltz III –

Gorefan asked about Voeltz III, it’s in the Florida First District Court of Appeal. The lower court had dismissed that case stating that it is too late to change the outcome of the Florida electoral college votes

Case Number: 1D13-83

Michael C. Voeltz vs. Barack Hussein Obama, et al.

Lower Tribunal Case(s): 2012 CA 03857

02/05/2013 Electronic Docketing Statement-109a

Appellant has failed to timely efile a completed electronic docketing statement via eDCA as required by the Court. In re Electronic Filing of the Docketing Statement/Notice of Appearance of Counsel, 46 So.3d. 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Failure to efile such completed docketing statement within 10 days from the date hereof may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the appeal without further opportunity to be heard. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410.

02/14/2013 Docketing Statement AA Larry Klayman 246220

FL – Voeltz III –

Gorefan asked about Voeltz III, it’s in the Florida First District Court of Appeal. The lower court had dismissed that case stating that it is too late to change the outcome of the Florida electoral college votes

Case Number: 1D13-83

Michael C. Voeltz vs. Barack Hussein Obama, et al.

Lower Tribunal Case(s): 2012 CA 03857

02/05/2013 Electronic Docketing Statement-109a

Appellant has failed to timely efile a completed electronic docketing statement via eDCA as required by the Court. In re Electronic Filing of the Docketing Statement/Notice of Appearance of Counsel, 46 So.3d. 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Failure to efile such completed docketing statement within 10 days from the date hereof may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the appeal without further opportunity to be heard. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410.

02/14/2013 Docketing Statement AA Larry Klayman 246220

FL – Voeltz III –

Gorefan asked about Voeltz III, it’s in the Florida First District Court of Appeal. The lower court had dismissed that case stating that it is too late to change the outcome of the Florida electoral college votes

Case Number: 1D13-83

Michael C. Voeltz vs. Barack Hussein Obama, et al.

Lower Tribunal Case(s): 2012 CA 03857

02/05/2013 Electronic Docketing Statement-109a

Appellant has failed to timely efile a completed electronic docketing statement via eDCA as required by the Court. In re Electronic Filing of the Docketing Statement/Notice of Appearance of Counsel, 46 So.3d. 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Failure to efile such completed docketing statement within 10 days from the date hereof may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the appeal without further opportunity to be heard. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410.

02/14/2013 Docketing Statement AA Larry Klayman 246220

FL – Voeltz III –

Gorefan asked about Voeltz III, it’s in the Florida First District Court of Appeal. The lower court had dismissed that case stating that it is too late to change the outcome of the Florida electoral college votes

Case Number: 1D13-83

Michael C. Voeltz vs. Barack Hussein Obama, et al.

Lower Tribunal Case(s): 2012 CA 03857

02/05/2013 Electronic Docketing Statement-109a

Appellant has failed to timely efile a completed electronic docketing statement via eDCA as required by the Court. In re Electronic Filing of the Docketing Statement/Notice of Appearance of Counsel, 46 So.3d. 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Failure to efile such completed docketing statement within 10 days from the date hereof may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the appeal without further opportunity to be heard. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410.

02/14/2013 Docketing Statement AA Larry Klayman 246220

FL – Voeltz III –

Gorefan asked about Voeltz III, it’s in the Florida First District Court of Appeal. The lower court had dismissed that case stating that it is too late to change the outcome of the Florida electoral college votes

Case Number: 1D13-83

Michael C. Voeltz vs. Barack Hussein Obama, et al.

Lower Tribunal Case(s): 2012 CA 03857

02/05/2013 Electronic Docketing Statement-109a

Appellant has failed to timely efile a completed electronic docketing statement via eDCA as required by the Court. In re Electronic Filing of the Docketing Statement/Notice of Appearance of Counsel, 46 So.3d. 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Failure to efile such completed docketing statement within 10 days from the date hereof may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the appeal without further opportunity to be heard. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410.

02/14/2013 Docketing Statement AA Larry Klayman 246220

FL – Voeltz v Obama – FL Supreme Court – Another fine mess…

The lower Appeal’s Court refused to provide a written ruling, Klayman appealed but his notice is now interpreted as a petition for writ of mandamus… Of course, Klayman’s filings failed to meet the requirements for such a petition.

Petitioner’s notice [of appeal], filed in this Court on March 12, 2013, has been treated as a petition for writ of mandamus seeking reinstatement of the proceedings in the district court of appeal below [1D12-3489]. Petitioner is allowed to and including April 29, 2013, in which to file a proper petition for writ of mandamus; that complies with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100, addressing why the proceedings in the district court of appeal should not have been dismissed. The failure to file a proper petition with this Court within the time provided could result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this case. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410. Please understand that once this case is dismissed, it may not be subject to reinstatement.

Source

Since Klayman has filed various cases in Florida, it’s time to unravel which one is which:

The supreme court case: Case Number:  SC13-560  Lower Tribunal Case(s): 1D12-3489, 2012-CA-00467

Klayman was of course ‘outraged’ by the lower Court’s affirmance and pulled out ‘all stops’

Continue reading

FL – Voeltz v Obama – Final Opposition

Voeltz explains why it will fail

Under either scenario, it is clear that Defendant Obama has not established eligibility for the Office of the President of the United States, and it is evident that he may not, under any circumstance, establish his eligibility.

Final Opposition

First of all Obama has no legal requirement to establish his eligibility, that’s an issue for Congress. Furthermore, the suggestion that his birth to a foreign father, even though on native soil, renders him ineligible has been rejected by various courts based on the precedent of US v Wong Kim Ark.

It’s too late, and lacks in anything that would convince a court that they have standing. Still, it’s quite readable, has relevant precedential rulings.

As to the citations:

State ex rel. Shevin v. Stone, 279 So. 2d 17

State ex rel. Cherry v. Stone, 265 So. 2d 56, 58

None of them address the issue of a Presidential election since the eligibility requirements are for the electors not the President, whose eligibility is determined by Congress.