Florida Dem asks for 'discovery' into Obama
eligibility
By Bob Unruh
WND.com
September 23, 2012
A Florida Democrat who went to court to determine whether Barack Obama is
qualified for the office of president is asking the First District Court of
Appeal there to order legal “discovery” in the case, a process in which each
side examines evidence held by the other.
“Appellant submitted multiple sworn affidavits setting forth the fraudulent
nature of Appellee Obama’s birth certificate and other identifying documents,”
said the appeal of a decision by Judge Terry Lewis, who said Obama is eligible
and the case shouldn’t go forward.
The arguments were filed by attorney Larry Klayman, founder of both
Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch. The case is on behalf of Michael Voeltz, a
registered member of the Democratic Party of Florida.
“Appellee Obama conspicuously offered no evidence to the contrary and
instead asked for a stay of discovery in order to avoid a proper determination
of his citizenship. With only appellant’s affidavits in front of him as no
contra-affidavits were put forth by appellee Obama, Judge Lewis ignored this
sworn evidence and incorrectly determined that appellee Obama was a natural born
citizen,” the filing explains.
It continues: “A question of fact such as this cannot be determined without
the parties having been given the opportunity to take discovery. Appellant was
not permitted to investigate through discovery or even observe the underlying
documents that allegedly establish appellee Obama’s natural born
citizenship.
“If appellee Obama was born outside of the United States then he is not a
natural born citizen, or even a citizen. In addition to being born within the
United States, as noted above, a natural born citizen must be born to two U.S.
citizen parents. If it is shown through discovery that Barack H. Obama Sr.,
appellee Obama’s father, was not a U.S. citizen at the time of appellee Obama’s
birth, then appellee Obama is clearly not a natural born citizen as required by
the U.S. Constitution.”
The case seeks to exclude Obama from the 2012 ballot. Klayman and Voeltz
claim that Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Article 2, Section
1 of the U.S. Constitution, because he was born a British subject.
The case cited the evidence produced by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s
special investigative unit, which has asserted that the birth documentation from
Hawaii that Obama claimed was “proof positive” of his Hawaiian birth is not
real.
As WND reported, Voeltz, a voter and
taxpayer in Broward County, challenged Obama’s eligibility, arguing that the
“natural born citizen” clause was rightly understood in historical context to
mean a child not only born in the U.S., but born to two American-citizen
parents, so as not to have divided loyalties. Obama, however, readily admits to
being born a dual citizen because of his father’s British citizenship.
But Lewis rejected the evidence before him and ruled that Obama is
eligible.
“The United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘every person born in
the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a
citizen of the United States,’” Lewis wrote.
Not exactly, Klayman explained.
“The judge equated being a ‘citizen’ with a ‘natural born citizen’ and
cited no authority to conclude the two terms are the same,” Klayman said. “He
quotes other state’s cases, where judges reached that conclusion, but that’s not
precedent for him. What other courts said in lower cases means nothing to
him.”
Lewis also said the case had to be dismissed because Obama, the only
candidate offered by the Democratic Party, actually was not “nominated” as a
candidate for president because at that time the nominating convention had not
been held.
Lewis also said his court lacked jurisdiction in the case.
Klayman argued in the appeal brief that Lewis is wrong on several
counts.
“Lewis’ ruling bars any elector contest of eligibility in a presidential
primary, or in any unopposed primary, and is clearly contrary to the plain
wording of the well crafted and crystal clear Florida statutes,” he wrote.
“Appellant rightfully has standing, and the judiciary is obliged to make a
determination as to eligibility of ‘any candidate,’ including presidential
candidates.”
He continued: “By his own birth story, well told, he is not an eligible
natural born citizen, due to foreign citizenship at birth. Appellant also asks
for a determination of current citizenship that would require examination of all
of Mr. Obama’s passport and other relevant records.
“If it is found that Barack Obama Sr. is indeed the father of Barack H.
Obama II, then appellant also seeks an injunction, preventing the placement of
the name Barack H. Obama on the Florida General Election Ballot by order of the
Florida judiciary, since he would not be an eligible natural born
citizen.”
For an interview with Mr. Klayman, contact
310 595 5317 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 
FREE 310 595 5317end_of_the_skype_highlighting or email leklayman@yahoo.com. See
also www.freedomwatchusa.org.
FREE 310 595 5317end_of_the_skype_highlighting or email leklayman@yahoo.com. See
also www.freedomwatchusa.org.
If you wish not to receive future
e-mails, click here:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.