Sheriff Arpaio Submits Obama Investigation Affidavit In Obama FL Election Challenge

[bsteadman]

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Submits Obama Investigation Affidavit In Obama Florida Election Challenge

Birther Report
12/13/2012

Excerpt:

Update: Attorney Larry Klayman Files Final Opposition To Obama's Motion To Dismiss Florida Election Challenge; Sheriff Joe Arpaio Affidavit Included

Excerpt Via: Voeltz v. Obama - Final Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss - Florida Election Challenge - 12/13/2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On or about April 2011, only after years into his presidency, and under media and political pressure, Defendant Obama published on the internet an electronic version of a purported birth certificate alleging his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 to American citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Kenyan British subject father, Barack Obama, Sr.

No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been produced in order to definitively establish Defendant Obama's birth within the United States. Instead, there is credible evidence that the "birth certificate" published on the internet was altered or otherwise fraudulent. Exhibit 1.

Even if this birth certificate is authentic, it would only establish that Defendant Obama was born to a U.S. citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and a father who was a British subject. In fact, Barack Hussein Obama Sr, Defendant Obama's father, was never a citizen of the United States, was only in the United States on a student visa, and was later deported from the United States.

ARGUMENT

The judiciary has the power to determine eligibility. See State ex rel. Cherry v. Stone, 265 So. 2d 56, 58 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1972); Shevin v. Stone 279 So. 2d. 17, 22 (1972). The Contest of Election statute specifically created a cause of action to enable Plaintiff, a registered elector and taxpayer, to bring this lawsuit in order for this Court to determine the eligibility of Defendant Obama.

Under Florida Election Code section 102.168(1), "the certification of election or nomination of any person to office... may be contested in the circuit court... by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively." Under Section 97.021(14), Florida Statutes (2011), "Elector" is defined as "synonymous with the word 'voter' or 'qualified elector or voter". Plaintiff is a registered voter in the State of Florida, having met the qualifications of Section 97.041(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2011); a member of the Democratic Party; and a taxpayer. Compl. ¶3. Thus, Plaintiff has standing under Section 102.168(1) to contest the certification of a nomination of a person to office.

Under Section 102.168(3), the Plaintiff "must set forth the grounds" on which the contest challenge is based upon. Section 102.168(3), Florida Statutes (2011). The statute goes on provide the grounds on which a challenge may occur: a) misconduct, fraud, or corruption; b) ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute; c) receipt of a number of illegal votes; or d) proof that any elector, official, etc. was given or offered a bribe. Section 102.168(3)(a)-(d), Florida Statutes (2011). Plaintiff's complaint alleged that Defendant Obama is ineligible for the office of the presidency of the United States. Compl. ¶ 27.

Judge Terry Lewis' decision in Voeltz v. Obama, et. al, No. 2012-CA-00467 (June 29, 2012), currently on appeal, was simply that there was no cause of action prior to the 2012 Florida General Election. No other issues were resolved as a result of his decision, and none of the issues to be decided in this case were resolved previously. Judge Lewis even stated in his decision that he was not deciding whether Plaintiff would have a lawsuit after the 2012 Florida General Election.

There Is Credible Evidence That Defendant Barack Obama is Not Eligible For the Office of President of the United States.

Plaintiff has pled that Defendant Barack Obama is not eligible for the Office of President of the United States. Plaintiff's allegations are substantiated by the sworn affidavits of Sheriff Joseph Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, and his investigative team, the Cold Case Posse. Exhibit 1.

CONTINUED BELOW OR HERE(w/exhibits): http://www.scribd.com/doc/116782611/...nge-12-13-2012

View the complete Birther Report presentation at:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...ge-update.html

[bsteadman]

Free Republic is running a thread titled, 'Sheriff Joe Arpaio Submits Obama Investigation Affidavit In Obama Florida Election Challenge', which was started 12/14/2012 by 'Seizethecarp'

The thread references the 12/13/2012 Birther Report article - http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...ge-update.html

View the complete Free Republic thread at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2968899/posts


The following is COMMENT #4, by 'Godebert', in the thread:

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.


The following is COMMENT #14, by 'Spaulding' in the thread:

Excellent Summary Godebert. Most citizens haven't the patience, and/or haven't studied the facts enough to feel they won't be ridiculed if they ask the question.

Most remarkably, while I think the constitutional evidence is overwhelming, and the behavior of Obama’s campaign committee, Clair McCaskill/Obama when they filed Senate Bill 2678 in Feb 2008, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’, and when that failed to pass to make McCain eligible, Senate Resolution 511, in which every US Senator agreed with the testimony of Judge Michael Chertoff in April 2008, “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.” They all knew. A fix had been agreed to, involving both major parties.

Most remarkable is that Obama himself told us he was not a natural born citizen, knowing no politician would engage, nor would the press. Obama said in Fightthesmears.com, his website, “I am a native born citizen of the US.” That is the legal terminology for a naturalized citizen, the language of the 14th Amendment, which is the Naturalization Amendment. Obama has never had to lie about his status, knowing than no one would be allowed to ask. He has never claimed to be a natural born citizen, and our chief justice Roberts, who certainly knows both what Chief Justice Marshall clarified in The Venus, and what Chief Justice Morrison Waite defined in Minor v. Happersett, and Justice Gray confirmed as precedent in Wong Kim Ark. Obama has the same citizenship status as Wong Kim Ark. He is a naturalized, “Native-born citizen of the US”, like Wong Kim, and legally not eligible to hold the presidency. CJ Roberts decided that it was time to ignore a provision of the constitution, which most certainly suggests that Article II Section 1 will not be the last ignored. We see opportunities all around us.

If opportunities to suppress our Constitution don't happen incidentally, we should expect them to be manufactured such as giving Al-Qaeda and The Muslim Brotherhood the arms produced as the product of our labor with which to complete the domination of The Middle East, and annihilate Israel as they have promised to do again and again - before they attack and destroy the United States. Then Obama and company will have the rationale for martial law, and the complete restructuring of our society, whether under Sharia or progressive socialism. We are not defending our freedoms, and just as surely, losing them.


The following is COMMENT #15, by 'Godebert', in the thread:

"They all knew. A fix had been agreed to, involving both major parties."

Don't forget the military. The treason of the officer corps serving the Usurper is sickening. If just a handful of field grade officers had spoken up and upheld their sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution, Obama would never have been installed into office.