Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

User avatar
bob
Posts: 23783
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#1

Post by bob » Fri Dec 18, 2015 7:50 pm

A commenter at Doc C.'s posted this (draft?) complaint, which purports to be Michael Voeltz's pro se challenge against Cruz and Rubio. SoSoFL and the republican executive committe (of Florida) are also named as defendants. No indication that it has been filed, or where.

Nb.: Voeltz claims he is a registered republican. He claimed he was a democrat when he sued Obama.
Edit: Filed in Boward County Superior Court on December 17. Case No. CACE15022044.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43447
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#2

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Dec 18, 2015 7:57 pm

Junk pro se complaint by a voter who claims his vote will be diluted for real candidates if ineligible candidates are allowed to run. In other words, no standing. Nevertheless, it is better than anything ever done by Orly Taitz.

This was about as good as this glop ever got (and the remainder is Apuzzo nonsense):
Chancery is clearly required here, as the Florida Legislature,the Republican political party and the Secretary of State, Ken Detzner, have violated the right to vote of the citizens of Florida in a valid election free from fraud. There is no other remedy available prior to the event of the election to assure that no person who is not a natural born citizen is made capable of being elected President other than declaratory judgment and injunction.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34371
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#3

Post by realist » Fri Dec 18, 2015 10:27 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Junk pro se complaint by a voter who claims his vote will be diluted for real candidates if ineligible candidates are allowed to run. In other words, no standing. Nevertheless, it is better than anything ever done by Orly Taitz.

This was about as good as this glop ever got (and the remainder is Apuzzo nonsense):
Chancery is clearly required here, as the Florida Legislature,the Republican political party and the Secretary of State, Ken Detzner, have violated the right to vote of the citizens of Florida in a valid election free from fraud. There is no other remedy available prior to the event of the election to assure that no person who is not a natural born citizen is made capable of being elected President other than declaratory judgment and injunction.
Setting aside the lack of standing... Didn't Klayman set some precedent in Florida in this regard? :blink:


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 23783
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#4

Post by bob » Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:45 pm

Anchor post updated to reflect that Voeltz filed his case in Boward County on Thursday. The court's docket is searchable here.

:popcorn:


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
gatsby
Posts: 18444
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:29 pm
Location: West Egg, Long Island

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#5

Post by gatsby » Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:45 pm

He's dropped $451 so far on court fees.
12/18/2015 Summons Issued Attorney General Pam Bondi/ hb plaintiff
Party: Defendant Senator Ted Cruz Defendant Senator Marco Rubio Defendant Secretary of State of Florida Ken Detzner Defendant Republican Party of Florida Executive Committee

12/18/2015 Summons Issued Fee Payor: MICHAEL VOELTZ ; Userid: CTS-rfischer ; Receipt: 20151YE1B001198;
Amount: $50.00

12/17/2015 Filing Fee Payor: MICHAEL VOELTZ ; Userid: CTS-rfischer ; Receipt: 20151YE1B001196;
Amount: $401.00



User avatar
gatsby
Posts: 18444
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:29 pm
Location: West Egg, Long Island

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#6

Post by gatsby » Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:49 pm

Voeltz should warn Judge Bowman that dismissing this case would be an act of treason.



User avatar
gatsby
Posts: 18444
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:29 pm
Location: West Egg, Long Island

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#7

Post by gatsby » Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:52 pm

Couldn't he establish standing by registering as a Republican presidential candidate in Florida?



User avatar
bob
Posts: 23783
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#8

Post by bob » Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:58 pm

gatsby wrote:Couldn't he establish standing by registering as a Republican presidential candidate in Florida?
It is like the birthers have learned nothingfrom 2008. Or 2012.

(FIFY for myself.)


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
gatsby
Posts: 18444
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:29 pm
Location: West Egg, Long Island

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#9

Post by gatsby » Sat Dec 19, 2015 5:09 pm

gatsby wrote:Couldn't he establish standing by registering as a Republican presidential candidate in Florida?
Whoops! The deadline was Nov. 30.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 23783
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#10

Post by bob » Sat Dec 19, 2015 5:58 pm

gatsby wrote:Whoops! The deadline was Nov. 30.
And cost ten large.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Ben-Prime
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:05 pm
Location: South Florida
Occupation: Wizard (according to my CEO)

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#11

Post by Ben-Prime » Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:28 pm

Emerging from lurkerdom to note that I live in Broward County (as I noted on Doc's site), about a dozen miles from the courthouse in question. On the off chance that this goes anywhere, I'll take a day (or, if possible, a half-day, since I work even closer to the courthouse) off with sufficient notice and try to give a whack at BOTG status. I can't see how it will happen, but I'll put it out there, just in case.


"With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion. With me, it is merely good manners. You may judge which motive is the more reliable." - Sir Alec Guinness, as Prince Feisal, Lawrence of Arabia

User avatar
gatsby
Posts: 18444
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:29 pm
Location: West Egg, Long Island

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#12

Post by gatsby » Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:45 pm

Ben-Prime wrote:Emerging from lurkerdom to note that I live in Broward County (as I noted on Doc's site), about a dozen miles from the courthouse in question. On the off chance that this goes anywhere, I'll take a day (or, if possible, a half-day, since I work even closer to the courthouse) off with sufficient notice and try to give a whack at BOTG status. I can't see how it will happen, but I'll put it out there, just in case.
Anthony Williams' case is in Broward County, too. :-D



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34371
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#13

Post by realist » Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:29 am

Ben-Prime wrote:Emerging from lurkerdom to note that I live in Broward County (as I noted on Doc's site), about a dozen miles from the courthouse in question. On the off chance that this goes anywhere, I'll take a day (or, if possible, a half-day, since I work even closer to the courthouse) off with sufficient notice and try to give a whack at BOTG status. I can't see how it will happen, but I'll put it out there, just in case.
:thumbs:


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 23783
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#14

Post by bob » Mon Dec 21, 2015 4:28 pm

ORYR/BR comment:
dualer wrote:Obama conspiracies already picked up on this case filed 12/17/15 in Fla.. They immediately go into overdrive to discredit, even though it is HISTORICAL FACT that Ted Cruz would not have been even a citizen if born under the same circumstance in 1933 (therefore he cannot be a natural born Citizen today); and Marco Rubio would not have been considered a US Citizen until his parents naturalized according to NA 1790, 1795, 1802 (therefore he cannot be a natural born Citizen today).

Baker v. Carr holds that I do not have to be the only one affected by a voting rights violation to have standing (suing for violation of right to vote by dilution and degradation of the vote because ineligible candidates will consume 20-30% of the votes). Of course Dr. Con uses the typical "lack of reading comprehension" OBOT smear. Afroyim v. Rusk holds that those born or naturalized and deemed subject to the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment are "conferred citizenship by the 14th Amendment" (i.e naturalized, by definition) and that the conferred citizenship cannot be taken away; including Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the same circumstance as Rubio.

Neither Cruz nor Rubio would have been considered US citizens without Congressional power to enact uniform naturalization statutes. OBOTs continue to spread the disinfo that the 14th Amendment is not a vehicle of naturalization. If you are not a natural born Citizen (born in the US of US citizen parents) then you are naturalized, either passively by statute or by oath ("any means whatsoever"-- INS 1952 (23)) by operation of the 14th Amendment--- Afroyim v. Rusk confirms this, and despite WKA dicta saying that those born in the US "need no naturalization", Afroyim says that WKA was naturalized (conferred citizenship) by the 14th Amendment itself (Afroyim was in 1967, WKA 1898). "At birth" means "after birth", it doesn't mean "before birth" or "during birth." Logic kills the lie.

"Eligible" means "capable of being elected" (Black's Law). The SOS of Fla (Detzner) has made Cruz and Rubio "capable of being elected" by ministerially placing them on the ballot. Ministerial duty is judicially reviewable.
Is "dualer" actually Voeltz? (I think so.)


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34371
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#15

Post by realist » Mon Dec 21, 2015 4:37 pm

Is "dualer" actually Voeltz? (I think so.)
Yes, I think so too. Also.

And he still has the best standing in the nation, as he had then...
[highlight]I am the plaintiff in the Florida case, in the Fl. Supreme Ct[/highlight]. It has the best standing and cause of action, given by Fla. statute, in the nation, :lol:
:P


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
wavey davey
Posts: 1473
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:01 pm

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#16

Post by wavey davey » Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:43 pm

He might have the best standing, but does he have perfect standing?



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 9692
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#17

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Dec 21, 2015 10:15 pm

Voeltz seems to be basing his fantasy on a serious misreading of what Afroyim does and does not say and misconstruing WKA, all out of reality as far as I can see, badly misconstrues "those born or naturalized and deemed subject to the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment", and that it does something it doesn't. Seems to have a real thing for the 1933 Naturalization Act???? Maybe one of the legal types can parse this better than I can.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 23783
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#18

Post by bob » Mon Dec 21, 2015 10:23 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:Seems to have a real thing for the 1933 Naturalization Act????
Voeltz makes the unexciting obervation that, if Cruz had been born before 1933, then he would not be a U.S. citizen at all. However accurate that hypothetical might be, Cruz was, in fact, born well after 1933.

It is just a variation on the theme that natural-born citizen means (to birthers) anyone whose citizenship is acquired "automatically" at birth without the need for a clarifying law, i.e., those born in the country to two citizen parents. I actually don't know if every country claims as citizens those born there with two citizen parents; it might not be a "universal" (or "natural") rule.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 9692
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#19

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Dec 21, 2015 11:19 pm

That was pretty much my take on it once I finally figured out what he was nattering on about, still hasn't learned that brevity and clarity go further than bloviation and BS. While historically it might be of interest, it has no bearing on what the law and interpretation was when Cruz and Rubio were born. Still doesn't understand what WKA actually said, or Afroyim for that matter, and is just pretty much making it up as he goes along, again.

I am also of the opinion that Baker v. Carr doesn't say what he thinks it says.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 23783
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#20

Post by bob » Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:24 pm

Voeltz is playing in Doc's comments section.

Too much to carry over, but also nothing worth carrying over.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 7405
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#21

Post by Orlylicious » Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:14 pm

Voeltz is upset he isn't getting love from the Big BR! :(
dualer
73p · 33 minutes ago

Still ignoring BR?

Action filed in Fla.
http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/01/sl ... 1009328595



User avatar
bob
Posts: 23783
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#22

Post by bob » Thu Jan 14, 2016 3:54 pm

Tampa Bay Times: Marco Rubio seeks to dismiss court challenge to his eligibility to be president:
This week Rubio sought to have a court complaint in Florida against him thrown out, saying the argument “would jeopardize centuries of precedent and deem at least six former presidents ineligible for office.” (Last week he told reporters of Cruz, "I don't think that's an issue.")

* * *

A Fort Lauderdale man, Michael Voeltz, filed a complaint against Rubio and Cruz in December, arguing they are “naturalized citizens, or at the very least, simply fail to comply with the common law Supreme Court established definition of natural born citizen …”

Rubio filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 11. The 34-page filing, heretofore unknown, shows that Rubio’s legal team spent considerable time researching the issue. “Senator Rubio is a natural born citizen of the United States and he is eligible to be President of the United States,” it concludes.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14645
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#23

Post by Reality Check » Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:13 pm

bob wrote:Rubio filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 11. The 34-page filing, heretofore unknown, shows that Rubio’s legal team spent considerable time researching the issue.“Senator Rubio is a natural born citizen of the United States and he is eligible to be President of the United States,” it concludes.
What's the over/under on the number of loser cases filed against Obama (including Voeltz v Obama) that were cited? Rubio should send Obama a thank you note.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34371
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#24

Post by realist » Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:15 pm

bob wrote:Tampa Bay Times: Marco Rubio seeks to dismiss court challenge to his eligibility to be president:
This week Rubio sought to have a court complaint in Florida against him thrown out, saying the argument “would jeopardize centuries of precedent and deem at least six former presidents ineligible for office.” (Last week he told reporters of Cruz, "I don't think that's an issue.")

* * *

A Fort Lauderdale man, Michael Voeltz, filed a complaint against Rubio and Cruz in December, arguing they are “naturalized citizens, or at the very least, simply fail to comply with the common law Supreme Court established definition of natural born citizen …”

Rubio filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 11. The 34-page filing, heretofore unknown, shows that Rubio’s legal team spent considerable time researching the issue. “Senator Rubio is a natural born citizen of the United States and he is eligible to be President of the United States,” it concludes.
"It's nothing to do with him personally. But you can't change the rules because you like a certain person. Then you have no rules," New Jersey lawyerMario Apuzzotold the Tampa Bay Times in 2011.
And the birthers and Vatellists are all over the comments. :brickwallsmall:


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14645
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Voeltz v. Cruz, et al. (2016 Fla. ballot challenge)

#25

Post by Reality Check » Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:18 pm

Yeah and Chuckles Kerchner showed up in the comments. :lol:


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

Post Reply

Return to “State Ballot Challenges”