President Trump Scores HUGE Court Victory In Election Ballot Case!


You can file as many FAKE and FLIMSY cases as you want….eventually the truth wins out.

And that’s what we just got in the bogus case filed in Florida attempting to keep President Trump off the ballot under the guise of the 14th Amendment.


Score one for truth and justice:

Laura Loomer explains the theory of the case in this Tweet from a few days ago:

JUST IN: An individual by the name of Lawrence Caplan has filed in federal court to attempt to have President
REMOVED AND DISQUALIFIED from the 2024 Presidential Election and barred from the ballot in the state of Florida under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Caplan, who has publicly said he resides in South Florida, is arguing that President Trump cannot legally be on the 2024 election ballot as a candidate for US President because he “engaged in an insurrection”.

Ultimately, a Judge did not agree with Mr. Lawrence Caplan and tossed the case!

The Palm Beach Post was first to report the news:

A federal court judge in Fort Lauderdale on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit challenging Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential candidacy under the 14th Amendment.

The lawsuit, filed a week ago, questioned Trump’s ability to appear on the Florida presidential primary ballot next year, owing to his alleged role in the Jan. 6 violence at the U.S. Capitol.

In her swift dismissal of the case, Judge Robin Rosenberg, who was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama, did not determine the 14th Amendment’s applicability in Trump’s case. Instead, Rosenberg ruled that the plaintiffs, Boynton Beach attorney Lawrence Caplan and two others, lacked “standing” to bring the challenge.

Donald Trump has entered a plea of not guilty to charges leveled against him in Georgia.
“Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Defendant’s qualifications for seeking the Presidency,” Rosenberg wrote, adding that “the injuries alleged” from the insurrection on Capitol Hill more than two years ago “are not cognizable and not particular to them.”

Rosenberg also added that “an individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individualis qualified to hold public office.” She noted two prior court rulings against plaintiffs trying to keep candidates off the ballot because they participated in the Jan. 6 violence in Washington, D.C.

Former President Donald Trump walks to speak with reporters before departure from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Thursday, Aug. 24, 2023, in Atlanta.
Caplan did not comment on the judge’s ruling Thursday. But in an Aug. 25 interview with the USA TODAY-Florida network, Caplan said he believed his lawsuit would most likely be challenged on the issue of standing, perhaps because he was not, say, a candidate who could argue direct harm.

The Western Journal had more:

Palm Beach-based attorney Lawrence Caplan — who filed the lawsuit, along with two other individuals — didn’t comment after the ruling, although he had previously said that standing might be the biggest hurdle his lawsuit would face. Nevertheless, he had previously claimed the Constitution prohibited Trump from running again.

“The 14th Amendment is very clear that you do not need a conviction. You need to be accused and obviously there has to be a rationale for the accusation,” Caplan said. “I read the amendment and I read the facts of the indictment, and they match very closely.”

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
The theory that the 14th Amendment provides a legal remedy to keep certain candidates who wished to challenge the results of the 2020 election off the ballot isn’t a new one. It’s also one that hasn’t gotten very far in court.

The amendment, ratified in the wake of the Civil War, states: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

The intent was, quite obviously, to bar previously elected officials who supported the Confederacy from running for high office unless Congress, by a two-thirds vote, reinstated their ability to do so.

Congrats to President Trump on the big win!

Right call, but still a big win.

Laura Loomer had written about Caplan on her Substack a few days ago:

Democrat Political operative and South Florida Tax Attorney Lawrence Caplan has filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s ability to run for President in 2024, citing the 14th Amendment.  Caplan cites Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and is alleging that Trump’s “involvement” in January 6th, 2021 as his logic. It is worth noting that the 14th Amendment’s “disqualification clause” was created in response to the Civil War, and it was only established as a means to bar individuals who joined the Confederacy from ever serving in state or federal office. Caplan’s suit was filed on August 24th, 2023, just one day before President Trump’s arrest in Fulton County, Georgia, and contains a lot of misinformation and several spelling and grammatical errors, including the misspelling of his own address. According to the 14th Amendment, those who “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the government cannot hold office.

In the lawsuit, Caplan stated,

“The bottom line here is that President Trump both engaged in an insurrection and also gave aid and comfort to other individuals who were engaging in such actions, within the clear meaning of those terms as defined in Section Three of the 14th Amendment. Assuming that the public record to date is accurate, and we have no evidence to the contrary, Trump is no longer eligible to seek the office of the President of the United States, or of any other state of the Union.”

In response to the lawsuit, a spokesperson from President Trump’s campaign said,

“We look forward to its prompt dismissal, to an award of legal sanctions against the plaintiff and to receiving full payment from him of all of our legal fees responding to this meritless, bad faith case.”

Caplan has a history of filing litigation in an attempt to impact American Presidential elections. In 2000, Caplan went to court over Dick Cheney’s last-minute registration as a Wyoming voter when Cheney was on the ballot as George W. Bush’s Vice Presidential pick.  Caplan argued that as a longtime Dallas taxpayer and voter, Dick Cheney was ineligible to vote in Wyoming.  A Dallas federal judge eventually threw out Caplan’s lawsuit.

Perhaps feeling slighted from his legal defeat, Caplan launched a new initiative in order to influence future presidential elections.  After the 2000 Presidential election, he founded an internet based election effort called “Operation Snowbird” in an effort to encourage out of state voters form blue states to vote in Florida as a way to try to get more Democrats elected in Florida. The since-removed website encouraged part-time Florida residents (snowbirds) from traditionally Democrat states such as New York and New Jersey to change their voter registration to Florida in order to entertain Caplan’s theory that the presidential election of 2000 would have been Al Gore’s to win if Snowbird northerners who temporarily reside in Florida would have instead voted in Florida.  The Bush/Cheney ticket won the state of Florida in 2000 during the Presidential election by a mere 537 votes.  Regarding Operation Snowbird, Caplan previously stated, “If we could get 10,000 votes to switch, it would be worth it”.  

Caplan’s current suit is viewed as a long shot by legal analysts, as no precedent has been set for a case of this type. None of the January 6th defendants have been charged with participating in an insurrection, and President Trump has not been convicted of inciting or participating in an insurrection. Caplan’s suit appears to be more of a political stunt and an attempt to get media attention, as opposed to a valid legal challenge.

In addition to his legal work, Caplan also works as the President of the Sequoia Group, which describes itself as a Florida Offshore and Domestic Asset Protection Specialist Company, located in Boca Raton. Sequoia Group lists its specialties as offshore investing and limiting tax liability.  Caplan’s history as an attorney appears to be quite limited to offshore trusts.  While he is currently licensed to practice law in Florida, he recently lost his license to practice law in California after it was suspended for his failure to pay fees.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button