Another lawsuit has been filed asking state officials to remove Barack Obama’s name from the 2012 election ballot because he has not documented that he is eligible for the office, but this case in Florida has a twist: It was brought by a Democrat.
The case was filed by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch USA on behalf of Democrat Michael Voeltz, “a registered member of the Democrat Party, voter, and taxpayer in Broward County, who was an eligible elector for the Florida Primary of Jan. 31, 2012.”
As part of his responsibilities, the lawsuit explains, Voeltz took “an oath to ‘protect and defend’ the U.S. Constitution.”
The complaint cites widely reported suspicions that Obama might not have been born in the United States and the fact that his father never was a U.S. citizen. It contends that because of those circumstances, Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” as the Constitution demands of the president.
Named as defendants are Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner and the state Elections Canvassing Commission.
“The requirement for natural-born citizenship, which is found in the U.S. Constitution, was intended to prevent foreign influences from ‘influencing’ an American president,” Klayman said as the action was being filed. “These ‘influences’ have regrettably been witnessed by the American people during President Obama’s term in office. It is clear the Founding Fathers intended to avoid such a situation, where an American president seems to frequently sympathize with and take actions benefiting foreign interests.”
Klayman explained that the U.S. Constitution mandates a president must be a “natural born citizen” – born to two U.S. citizens. Neither Obama nor the Democratic Party of Florida nor any other group has confirmed that Obama is a “natural born citizen” since his father was a British subject born in Kenya and not a citizen of the United States, Klayman said.
The Florida Election Code allows any voter or taxpayer to challenge any candidate who is ineligible for public office in the Leon County courts. If the secretary of state cannot confirm Obama’s eligibility, then Klayman is demanding the court grant an injunction preventing Obama’s name from appearing on the Florida General Election Ballot in 2012.
Klayman was a U.S. Senate candidate in Florida in 2004. He formerly headed Judicial Watch and in that capacity appeared in Florida courts in the famous case of Gore v. Bush before Judge N. Sanders Sauls in Leon County.
The new case raises a number of issues:
On or about April 2011, only after years into his presidency, and under media and political pressure, Barack Hussein 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 Senior,” the complaint explains.
There is credible evidence indicating that this electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered. No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been produced in order to definitively establish Barack Hussein Obama’s birth within the United States.”
The action follows by only weeks the release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s antecedents. The six-month-long investigation done by professional law enforcement officers working on a volunteer basis for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found that there is probable cause to believe there was forgery involved in the production of Obama’s birth certificate, and fraud in presenting that document as a genuine document.
Even if Barack Hussein Obama was born within the United Sates, he is still not a ‘natural-born citizen’ as required by the U.S. Constitution,” the lawsuit states. “Barack Obama Sr. was born in the British Colony of Kenya on June 18, 1936. Birth in Kenya made Barack Obama Sr. a British subject, according to and governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
The lawsuit notes that state officials in Florida never have tried to ascertain Obama’s eligibility even though they are under oath to “support the U.S. Constitution.”
“Defendant Barack Hussein Obama has not established the eligibility requirements set forth by the U.S. Constitution of being a natural born citizen, or even a citizen, of the United States,” the case states.
It seeks a determination that the state must following the U.S. Constitution and verify Obama’s eligibility or make a determination itself of Obama’s eligibility.
The new case follows about a dozen others that already have been filed on similar grounds in other states. While most of the cases have been dismissed, some now are on appeal.
In Georgia, for example, the state Supreme Court has rejected a petition for an injunction, but still must hear the underlying case.
The comment comes from Van Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation, one of several attorneys who started out several weeks ago with a challenge to Obama’s candidacy based on a state law that allows residents to require candidates to prove their eligibility for the office they seek.
At the hearing level, an administrative law judge simply threw out all of the evidence and ruled in favor of Obama, who, along with his lawyer, snubbed the hearing and refused to appear.
An intermediate court followed suit and now the state Supreme Court has issued a terse denial of the injunction request.
“Upon consideration of applicant’s ‘Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction,’ the motion is hereby denied,” the court said in a one-line refusal.
Irion had asked the court to halt the certification of the primary election results that included Obama’s name until the court case could be argued.
“I believe that this latest ruling proves that Georgia law does not apply to the powerful,” Irion said in a statement to supporters and others. “Put another way, Georgia laws are enforced against the powerless by the powerful, but when the powerless try to have the laws applied to the powerful the courts protect the powerful.
“This is worse than anarchy. With total anarchy everyone knows that the powerful rule. With anarchy everyone understands that the only rules are the rules that the powerful want to enforce, when the powerful want to enforce them. What we have in Georgia is a system of laws and courts that appear to be fair and claim to be impartial, but in reality the purpose of the laws and courts is to deceive the people into thinking that justice is possible. The laws and courts are a sham. The courts serve to disguise the one-sided enforcement of the law.”
In Georgia, the challenges to Obama were raised by several individuals represented by different attorneys. They brought the arguments under a state law that allows any citizen to challenge the qualifications of a candidate.
The plaintiffs argued several points before administrative law judge Michael Malihi, including Obama’s alleged failure to qualify as a “natural-born citizen.”
Citizens raising concerns include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.