The Florida Courts Say that If Anyone Can Be Santa Claus, Barack Obama Can Be President
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
December 22, 2012
Circuit Judge, Kevin J. Carroll, of the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County, Florida, has abruptly dismissed the state Obama eligibility case of Michael C. Voeltz v. Barack Hussein Obama (Case No. 2012-CA-3857). Judge Carroll had given the plaintiffs until December 23, 2012 to respond to Obama’s motion to dismiss the case. But he then changed his mind and on Thursday issued an order dismissing the case.
After stating that the same case was already decided by the Florida courts and that the Florida courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide the case because it raised a political question, Judge Carroll said that the court was now presented with “Voeltz III.” He then said:
“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.” President Obama’s recent appointment of The Honorable Mark Walker, formerly a member of this Court, has been confirmed by the United States Senate. Judge Walker has been sworn in as a United States District Court Judge and currently works at the Federal Courthouse down the street. The Electoral College has recently done its work and elected Mr. Obama to be President once again.”
Judge Carroll then added:
“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.’”
Judge Carroll’s order and decision can be read at http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/12/12CA3857.pdf
Again, our judiciary is disappointing. Judge Carroll could have just said that the matter was moot (the matter no longer presents a justiciable controversy in that the controversy no longer presents any practical consequences to be remedied by the court), res judicata (the matter has already been decided among the same parties and that decision is binding on those same parties in a later action raising the same issues), or the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction (power over the specific matter presented for judicial decision) because the case presented a political question (the Constitution specifically assigns the question of presidential eligibility only to Congress), and that would have ended the case with the appearance of having been decided judiciously. But the judge felt compelled to go further and inject mockery into a judicial decision. I will now only address that part of the decision because that is the part that, despite what might appear to be or passed off as humor of some sort, in a subtle way goes to the merits of the question of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” and is most damaging and prejudicial to the judicial process and the rule of law.
I have shown in my article entitled, Logic and Defining the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause, accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11/logic-and-defining-natural-born-citizen.html how a handful of courts that have reached the merits of the question of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and whether Obama meets that definition have engaged in tautological reasoning (by concluding that a “natural born Citizen is any “born citizen”) and committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent (by arguing that a “natural born Citizen” is a “born Citizen” or anyone who becomes at once a citizen of the United States. Obama is a “born Citizen” or someone who became at once a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Obama is a “natural born Citizen”) to reach their conclusion that Barack Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Now we have the Florida court committing more logical fallacies. First, plaintiff Michael C. Voeltz’s constitutional challenge is that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Mr. Voeltz is correct. Among the briefs that I have filed with various courts and the many articles that I have written on the subject at my blog http://puzo1.blogspot.com , see Mario Apuzzo, Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/10/barack-obama-is-ineligible-to-be.html (demonstrates based on historical, U.S. Supreme Court, and Congressional sources that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country and that Obama does not meet that definition). Judge Carroll’s logic and reasoning would have us accept that by Obama acting presidential and the “United States Government” simply saying he is eligible, Obama somehow magically becomes and proves that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Anyone who engages in sound critical thinking should know that things do not become something else by simply acting like something else (cowbirds in other birds’ nests which act like the species of birds they have invaded do not thereby become those other species) or that something is so merely because someone says it is so. (“Unlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so.” U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land in Rhodes v. MacDonald, 4:09-cv-106 (CDL) (U.S. Dist. Ct. of Georgia, Middle Dist., Columbus Div., Sept. 16, 2009). Coincidently, the novel was written by Lewis Carroll). After all, did not the United States Government in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), say that Wong was not a U.S. "citizen," but the Court nevertheless ruled that he was.
Second, Judge Carroll should study what a de facto officer is because that is exactly what he has used to conclude that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” Following Judge Carroll’s logic, a de facto president, a president who is not constitutionally legitimate but who has usurped the office and its powers and who because of practical reasons is tolerated for the time he occupies and exercises the powers of the office but who can be legally removed through a prescribed legal process, would automatically be converted into a de jure president, a president who is constitutionally legitimate. Needless to say, such a result renders Article II’s presidential eligibility requirement meaningless and flouts the rule of law.
Third, Judge Carroll’s reliance on Miracle on 34th St. Judge Henry X. Harper is not only misplaced, but actually contradicts his own point. Judge Harper ruled that since the United States Government says that God exists (“In God We Trust”) without there being any evidence of God’s existence, defendant Santa Claus could publicly say he was Santa Claus even though he did not have any evidence to prove that he was in fact Santa Claus. Hence, he dismissed the charges brought against Santa Claus. Is Judge Carroll telling us that Obama can be President even though there does not exist any evidence of his being an Article II “natural born Citizen” just like Judge Harper found, the United States Government can say God exists even though there is no evidence of His existence or Santa Claus can say he is Santa Claus even though he does not have any evidence to prove that he is in fact Santa Claus? In this connection, I am reminded how New Jersey Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, ruled in election ballot challenge, Purpura v. Obama, that Obama did not have to demonstrate who he is or where he was born to get on the New Jersey election ballot, for even Mickey Mouse can run for President, and who ruled that Obama was a “natural born Citizen” even after admitting that there was absolutely no evidence before him as to who Obama is, where he was born, or who his parents are. See, Mario Apuzzo, Update on the Purpura and Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Access Objection, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/04/update-on-purpura-and-moran-new-jersey.html . Or how about federal Judge James Robertson, who dismissed an Obama eligibility case, Hollister v. Soetoro, 08-2254 (JR), (U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. of Columbia, March 5, 2009), because as he said Obama’s eligibility to be President had been adequately proven through evidence on the internet and 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.” What is ironic is that Judge Carroll, Judge Masin, and Judge Robertson have actually described the state of affairs as they presently exist regarding Obama’s eligibility to be President without intending to do so.
The American people should expect from our courts logical and well-reasoned decisions, based on adherence to due process and well-established legal principles and real evidence. A judge is supposed to be a neutral arbiter who is guided only by the applicable rules of law and equity and whose purpose is to do justice based on those rules and the evidence before him or her for not only the parties in the case but also for society as a whole. In fulfilling that moral and legal duty, he or she must find the facts and the applicable law, apply that law to those facts, and render a reasoned decision, all done without any bias or prejudice. In a constitutional republic such as the United States, merely saying that someone acts presidential or merely saying that someone is presidential cannot take the place of demonstrating based on real law and evidence that someone truly is presidential. Apart from failing to decide the question of whether Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President based strictly on the Constitution, the rule of law, and real evidence, such mockery and illogical reasoning as we have seen from Judge Carroll and other courts bring only contempt upon our courts and is a mar upon the integrity and professionalism of the American judiciary.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
December 22, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####
Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
December 22, 2012
After stating that the same case was already decided by the Florida courts and that the Florida courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide the case because it raised a political question, Judge Carroll said that the court was now presented with “Voeltz III.” He then said:
“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.” President Obama’s recent appointment of The Honorable Mark Walker, formerly a member of this Court, has been confirmed by the United States Senate. Judge Walker has been sworn in as a United States District Court Judge and currently works at the Federal Courthouse down the street. The Electoral College has recently done its work and elected Mr. Obama to be President once again.”
Judge Carroll then added:
“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.’”
Judge Carroll’s order and decision can be read at http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/12/12CA3857.pdf
Again, our judiciary is disappointing. Judge Carroll could have just said that the matter was moot (the matter no longer presents a justiciable controversy in that the controversy no longer presents any practical consequences to be remedied by the court), res judicata (the matter has already been decided among the same parties and that decision is binding on those same parties in a later action raising the same issues), or the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction (power over the specific matter presented for judicial decision) because the case presented a political question (the Constitution specifically assigns the question of presidential eligibility only to Congress), and that would have ended the case with the appearance of having been decided judiciously. But the judge felt compelled to go further and inject mockery into a judicial decision. I will now only address that part of the decision because that is the part that, despite what might appear to be or passed off as humor of some sort, in a subtle way goes to the merits of the question of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” and is most damaging and prejudicial to the judicial process and the rule of law.
I have shown in my article entitled, Logic and Defining the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause, accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11/logic-and-defining-natural-born-citizen.html how a handful of courts that have reached the merits of the question of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and whether Obama meets that definition have engaged in tautological reasoning (by concluding that a “natural born Citizen is any “born citizen”) and committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent (by arguing that a “natural born Citizen” is a “born Citizen” or anyone who becomes at once a citizen of the United States. Obama is a “born Citizen” or someone who became at once a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Obama is a “natural born Citizen”) to reach their conclusion that Barack Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Now we have the Florida court committing more logical fallacies. First, plaintiff Michael C. Voeltz’s constitutional challenge is that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Mr. Voeltz is correct. Among the briefs that I have filed with various courts and the many articles that I have written on the subject at my blog http://puzo1.blogspot.com , see Mario Apuzzo, Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/10/barack-obama-is-ineligible-to-be.html (demonstrates based on historical, U.S. Supreme Court, and Congressional sources that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country and that Obama does not meet that definition). Judge Carroll’s logic and reasoning would have us accept that by Obama acting presidential and the “United States Government” simply saying he is eligible, Obama somehow magically becomes and proves that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Anyone who engages in sound critical thinking should know that things do not become something else by simply acting like something else (cowbirds in other birds’ nests which act like the species of birds they have invaded do not thereby become those other species) or that something is so merely because someone says it is so. (“Unlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so.” U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land in Rhodes v. MacDonald, 4:09-cv-106 (CDL) (U.S. Dist. Ct. of Georgia, Middle Dist., Columbus Div., Sept. 16, 2009). Coincidently, the novel was written by Lewis Carroll). After all, did not the United States Government in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), say that Wong was not a U.S. "citizen," but the Court nevertheless ruled that he was.
Second, Judge Carroll should study what a de facto officer is because that is exactly what he has used to conclude that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” Following Judge Carroll’s logic, a de facto president, a president who is not constitutionally legitimate but who has usurped the office and its powers and who because of practical reasons is tolerated for the time he occupies and exercises the powers of the office but who can be legally removed through a prescribed legal process, would automatically be converted into a de jure president, a president who is constitutionally legitimate. Needless to say, such a result renders Article II’s presidential eligibility requirement meaningless and flouts the rule of law.
Third, Judge Carroll’s reliance on Miracle on 34th St. Judge Henry X. Harper is not only misplaced, but actually contradicts his own point. Judge Harper ruled that since the United States Government says that God exists (“In God We Trust”) without there being any evidence of God’s existence, defendant Santa Claus could publicly say he was Santa Claus even though he did not have any evidence to prove that he was in fact Santa Claus. Hence, he dismissed the charges brought against Santa Claus. Is Judge Carroll telling us that Obama can be President even though there does not exist any evidence of his being an Article II “natural born Citizen” just like Judge Harper found, the United States Government can say God exists even though there is no evidence of His existence or Santa Claus can say he is Santa Claus even though he does not have any evidence to prove that he is in fact Santa Claus? In this connection, I am reminded how New Jersey Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, ruled in election ballot challenge, Purpura v. Obama, that Obama did not have to demonstrate who he is or where he was born to get on the New Jersey election ballot, for even Mickey Mouse can run for President, and who ruled that Obama was a “natural born Citizen” even after admitting that there was absolutely no evidence before him as to who Obama is, where he was born, or who his parents are. See, Mario Apuzzo, Update on the Purpura and Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Access Objection, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/04/update-on-purpura-and-moran-new-jersey.html . Or how about federal Judge James Robertson, who dismissed an Obama eligibility case, Hollister v. Soetoro, 08-2254 (JR), (U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. of Columbia, March 5, 2009), because as he said Obama’s eligibility to be President had been adequately proven through evidence on the internet and 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.” What is ironic is that Judge Carroll, Judge Masin, and Judge Robertson have actually described the state of affairs as they presently exist regarding Obama’s eligibility to be President without intending to do so.
The American people should expect from our courts logical and well-reasoned decisions, based on adherence to due process and well-established legal principles and real evidence. A judge is supposed to be a neutral arbiter who is guided only by the applicable rules of law and equity and whose purpose is to do justice based on those rules and the evidence before him or her for not only the parties in the case but also for society as a whole. In fulfilling that moral and legal duty, he or she must find the facts and the applicable law, apply that law to those facts, and render a reasoned decision, all done without any bias or prejudice. In a constitutional republic such as the United States, merely saying that someone acts presidential or merely saying that someone is presidential cannot take the place of demonstrating based on real law and evidence that someone truly is presidential. Apart from failing to decide the question of whether Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President based strictly on the Constitution, the rule of law, and real evidence, such mockery and illogical reasoning as we have seen from Judge Carroll and other courts bring only contempt upon our courts and is a mar upon the integrity and professionalism of the American judiciary.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
December 22, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####
Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
0 Comments