Florida Dem asks for 'discovery' into Obama eligibility
President 'conspicuously offered no evidence' of status
by Bob Unruh / WND
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, who is being assisted in the case by
a special Constitution Action fund. 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.”