Saturday, December 22, 2012

The Florida Courts Say that If Anyone Can Be Santa Claus, Barack Obama Can Be President

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

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 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 , 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 (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 . 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

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved


bdwilcox said...

Sickening, though I must admit the ruling is profoundly fitting: Barack Hussein Obama and Miracle on 34th St are both equally works of fiction.

vrajavala said...

Brianroy said...

It is only getting worse. Next they will be citing something they saw on some cartoon to render a legal decision. When we got the admission earlier this year in



v. ) No. 12-2143-STA

of the USA, Inc., DEMOCRATIC

that the glaring admission by the attorneys for the Chairperson of the DNC and the Tennessee Democratic Party was that the [Page 3] " Defendants assert that the Tennessee Democratic Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not
[Page 4:] qualified for the office"; it appears that it was only bound to get worse. It has.

With Florida, a Circuit Judge has dismissed a case with prejudice now using the "Santa Claus" excuse: which goes, "Because Santa Claus is real, therefore Barack Obama is a real President."

Excuse me? Because a fictional movie declared a fictional character to be Santa Claus, Judge Carroll says we can use the Law to apply the same to Barack Obama? In the movie, the fictional Judge declared Kris Kringle to be Santa Claus, NOT "President." Judge Carroll, though resorting to FICTION to justify his rulings, could not even get that point of order correct. Good grief!

Reid. v. Colvert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) @ 14 says: ""The concept that...constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperative when they become inconvenient...would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our Government. ...we have no authority, or inclination, to read exceptions into it which are not there."

With that in mind, in reading any work of fiction he might have a mind to to circumvent the operation of proper jurisprudence, it is my strong opinion that Judge Carroll is a disgrace to the legal profession!

Button Knows Best said...

This does not give me a whole lot of faith in the judicial system, if judges go by popularity laws, will there by no more Rule Of Law? One would think that Judges are there to UPHOLD the law and PROTECT the Constitution.

Keep up the good work. We need more lawyers like you!

Kanbun said...


I wonder your feelings on Klayman's approach to challenge the certification of the election based on Florida law. Obama enablers cite that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the Constitution specifically assigns the question of presidential eligibility only to Congress. I am confused - if Congress is the sole arbiter of presidential eligibility, how would any of the ballot challenges, or in this instance the certification challenge ever make any sense?

Keep up the good work. Merry Christmas.

Stan said...

Reblogged at With all due respect.

Mick said...

Thankyou Mr. Apuzzo. Maybe the judge was threatened to the point that he purposefully made a nonsense decision.
Or is the reference to his friend that was promoted by the Usurper a veilled quid pro quo request?
When nonsense like this comes down the pike, based on no law, there can be no doubt that Obama is not eligible--- and the criminals in Congress and the judiciary all know it.
I press on. The truth sets me free.

Mick said...

To Kanbun,

Eligibility for the office of POTUS is NOT the sole purview of Congress. 3 US Code 5 stipulates that ALL election contests in the states be adjudicated by 6 days prior to the meeting of electors. A look at Florida's election contest statute (102.168) reveals that eligibility of the candidate for the offfice sought (102.168(1)(3)(b) is a valid grounds for contesting an election.

Therefore I am given standing by the statutes, and need not prove any direct harm, to challenge the ELIGIBILITY of "ANY PERSON" nominated or elected to office. There is no exception made for POTUS. As a matter of fact Gore used these same election contest statutes to challenge the 2000 election.
3 US Code 5's specific purpose in fact is to keep election contests out of the Joint Session of Congress, held on January 6, and have them decided beforehand. In fact Ray v. Blair 343 US 214, 223 (1952), SCOTUS agreed with the Alabama Supreme Court that a candidate "may have become disqualified" prior to the meeting of electors. The SCOTUS held that that fact still does not prevent the political parties from making their electors pledge to vote for their party candidate.
The vote of the electors is not a political question because electors, by operation of Article 2, and well held by the SCOTUS (Mcpherson v. Blacker, In re Green, Ray v. Blair)are NOT members of the government, and are under control of the states. Therefore the validity of their vote, and the ascertainment of the electors by the governor of the states is not a political question, but a judicial one (So says 3 US Code 5).

The "Counting of Votes" by the Joint Congress (3 US Code 15)is meant to be ministerial, and only becomes political and discretionary when an objection is made, and the Joint Congress separates to consider it.

Mick said...

The Contest of election statutes of Florida (102.168) were totally violated by Carroll. The statutes stipulate that the action CANNOT BE DISMISSED for "want of form".

"102.168(5): (5) A statement of the grounds of contest may not be rejected, nor the proceedings dismissed, by the court for any want of form if the grounds of contest provided in the statement are sufficient to clearly inform the defendant of the particular proceeding or cause for which the nomination or election is contested.

The statutes also afford the plaintiff and IMMEDIATE HEARING:

"(102.168(7):(7) Any candidate, qualified elector, or taxpayer presenting such a contest to a circuit judge is entitled to an immediate hearing. However, the court in its discretion may limit the time to be consumed in taking testimony, with a view therein to the circumstances of the matter and to the proximity of any succeeding election."

Carroll violated the law by dismissing my case w/ no hearing.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Unknown has left a new comment on your post "The Florida Courts Say that If Anyone Can Be Santa...":

Case dismissed! That is a very unwise decision Judge Carroll, [editor's deletion] for your ineptitude/unwillingness to bring justice to America and find the "illegal alien" guilty!

jayjay said...


Altogether a childish and irrelevant "decision" which is really not a real decision at all despite having "pronounced" by a judge from court high enough to know better.

A sad self-commentary on the Judicial system showing one of the reasons this country is rapidly decaying.

James said...

ATTENTION BIRTHERS!!! It's still not too late to get to your Senators and Congressmen and have them file a WRITTEN OBJECTION with the Joint Session of Congress. It only takes 1 senator and 1 Congressman to get a hearing or debate on Obama's Eligibility. The issue MUST be heard and the issue MUST be resolved before Obama can win the 2012 Election. IT'S THE LAW!! Please Contact Your Senators and Congressmen today and tell them to object, object, object.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


The question of what is the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” and whether Obama satisfies that definition is not a political question. On the contrary, only the judicial branch of government in our tripartite federal government has the constitutional power and role to definitively answer these questions. Once it answers these two questions, with the U.S. Supreme Court being the final arbiter, its answers can then be provided to Congress who will be meeting in joint session on Sunday, January 6, 2013, to decide whether or not to confirm his election to the Office of President.

This is how Congress will proceed:

January 6, 2013

The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes on January 6, 2013. Congress may pass a law to change this date.

The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.

If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State on the Certificate of Ascertainment would be counted in Congress.

If no Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the House of Representatives to decide the Presidential election. If necessary the House would elect the President by majority vote, choosing from the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each state having one vote.

If no Vice Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment provides for the Senate to elect the Vice President. If necessary, the Senate would elect the Vice President by majority vote, choosing from the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each Senator having one vote.

If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.

January 20, 2013 at Noon—Inauguration Day

The President-elect takes the Oath of Office and becomes the President of the United States.

Kanbun said...

Mario (and Mick),

Thanks for the reply. My confusion was borne from your parenthetic comment in this writing ...(the Constitution specifically assigns the question of presidential eligibility only to Congress)...

Perhaps I missed some context. Thanks again.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


Judge John Cooper in Voeltz II found that the question of Obama's eligibility to be President is nonjusticiable (not a question for the courts to decide) because it is a political question. In my article, I mentioned the political question doctrine as a way for the courts to get out of having to decide a case in which they do not want to be involved. As you can see, it is not my position that the issue is a political question. On the contrary, my position is that it is absurd to find that it is.

Kanbun said...

Thanks again Mario. You are to be admired for you tireless work on this issue. After all that has gone before, I sometimes amaze that you persist, and I look forward to visiting your blog to find a new writing. Here's hoping the new year will bring some sanity from some judge, somewhere.

Merry Christmas.

Larry said...

I'm completely fed up with Congress AND the equally corrupt and inept judiciary. Cornered animals a quarter the size of an adversary will fight to the death to protect themselves and their territory, yet cornered Americans only cower in fear. Not ONE "conservative", such as Congressman Allen West, has EVER stood tall and questioned Obama's qualifications. Anyone who trusts any member of Congress is a fool. In America, trivia is front page news, while nothing of true importance is mentioned. The nation has been looted and brutally murdered before our very eyes. From this instant forward, I absolutely refuse to recognize or abide by any power or authority claimed by the courts or any other branch of government. As far as I am concerned, they no longer operate as legal entities, they have become the largest group of "in your face" organized criminals in the world. Other than their campaign promises, which are never kept, there is no true difference between "conservatives" and "liberals." Both are working hand in hand to enrich themselves while destroying America. Voting third party will not change anything, anyone who believes otherwise has lost their mind. I KNOW first hand that former Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr is a life-long CIA employee and I strongly suspect many other candidates are similarly situated - Get a clue, America, the fix is in!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The date for Congress in joint session to count the electoral votes is fixed by law. Under 3 U.S.C. § 15, that date is January 6. Because January
6, 2013 falls on a Sunday, Congress passed a Joint Resolution on December 18, 2012, moving the joint session date to January 4, 2013. See H.J. Res. 122, 112th Cong. (2012).

Normally, when a legal deadline date falls on a weekend or legal holiday, the time is extended to the next business day. That would have made the Joint Session meeting date Monday, January 7, 2013. I'm sure that Congress felt that when it comes to Obama's eligibility to be President, sooner was better than later and so made the date Friday, January 4, 2013, rather than Monday, January 7, 2013.

Robert said...

Every one of them knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama is not eligible.

Too bad they can't put it off until Good Friday. Then they could at least betray us with a kiss.

Anonymous said...

@Robert -- I wrote, e-mailed, and faxed 88 congressmen, twice explaining Obama was not a natural born citizen.

One congressman wanted more information. Another, Thaddeus McCotter wrote a very long letter supporting Surrick's decision (Berg) and concluded that if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was a natural born citizen.

Of course, under both U.S. and British laws, Obama born in the first 100 years of U.S. history would not have even been a citizen!

Unknown said...

Thanks again mario for another good article. I have zero respect for these judges, they sound like political hacks. I wish more americans knew about these ballot challenge farces and blatant violation of Article 2.