Tweet
Florida Dem asks for 'discovery' into Obama eligibility
President 'conspicuously offered no evidence' of status
WND
Bob Unruh
9/21/2012
Excerpt:
"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.”
Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? Here’s WND’s complete archive of news reports on the issue
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."
..........................................
View the complete article at:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/florida-d...a-eligibility/
President 'conspicuously offered no evidence' of status
WND
Bob Unruh
9/21/2012
Excerpt:
"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.”
Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? Here’s WND’s complete archive of news reports on the issue
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."
..........................................
View the complete article at:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/florida-d...a-eligibility/