Attorneys for Barack Obama have endorsed a Florida judge’s ruling that cited the “Santa” decision from the fictional movie “Miracle on 34th Street.”

The actual dispute pending in court is over a challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be president and the plaintiff, Michael C. Voeltz, is a Democrat from Florida who demanding an evidentiary hearing which is allowed under state law.

Obama’s attorney, Florida Bar member Mark Herron, submitted a “response” to the hearing petition that the judge’s original decision to dismiss the case had been correct.

That decision, from Kevin Carroll of the Florida circuit court for Leon County, dismissed the Voeltz case even though he had raised the issue of Obama’s qualifications under a state law that allows voters to challenge candidates’ eligibility.

Carroll, who had given the plaintiffs until Dec. 23 to respond to Obama’s motion to dismiss the case, changed his mind and abruptly ordered the case dismissed several days before the deadline.

He explained that the fact the government says Obama is qualified to be president is more than enough for him.

“This court notes that President Obama lives in the White House. He flies on Air Force One. He has appeared before Congress, delivered State of the Union addresses and meets with congressional leaders on a regular basis. He has appointed countless ambassadors to represent the interests of the United States throughout the world,” Carroll wrote.

“As this matter has come before the court at this time of the year it seems only appropriate to paraphrase the ruling rendered by the fictional Judge Henry X. Harper from New York in open court in the classic holiday film ‘Miracle on 34th St.’ ‘Since the United States Government declares this man to be president, this court will not dispute it. Case dismissed.'”

It was the second time in eligibility cases that a judge appears to have abandoned legal fundamentals and simply ruled for Obama on no particular basis.

Several years ago it was Judge James Robertson in Washington who dismissed a case because, he wrote, “The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year campaign for the presidency.”

It was this reasoning with which Herron agreed.

But attorney Larry Klayman, founder of FreedomWatchUSA, and counsel for Voeltz in the Florida case, submitted an emergency motion to expedite the decision concerning the appeal as well as a reply in support of expedited motion for rehearing.

He told WND he is pulling out all the stops in an effort to obtain the evidentiary hearing that is supposed to be held when candidates’ qualifications are challenged.

He said the dispute “is an election issue and it needed to be fully appealed and the issues needed to be decided in time for both the general election and/or post election, since Florida electors were to vote on Dec. 17, 2012, and the Electoral College will be casting their votes on Jan. 6, 2013.”

But he said the lower court has refused his requests to move the case quickly, such as advancing directly to the state Supreme Court.

Citing the 2000 ruling that resolved a disputed election in favor of George W. Bush, the Gore v. Harris case, he wrote, “Election law is clear that election challenges must be litigated by Florida courts on an expedited basis to avoid vote nullification.

“Plaintiff respectfully requests that this court rehear its Order Dismissing Complaint of Dec. 20, 2012, and immediately set down a hearing not only to hear argument with regard to this court’s jurisdiction, but also an evidentiary hearing which is required to properly and fully adjudicate Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Injunction,” he wrote.

WND previously reported that Carroll, the judge, had given the plaintiffs until Dec. 23 to respond to Obama’s motion to dismiss the case. But then he changed his mind and abruptly ordered the case dismissed days short of the deadline he set.

Carroll’s ruling also did not address the fact that in the movie, the judge was determining that a resident of a nursing home hired to play Santa Claus at a Macy’s store was, in fact, Santa Claus. His ‘proof” was a pile of mail addressed to Santa Claus that the post office delivered to him, confirming his identity.

Klayman’s motion for rehearing contended the judge “prematurely and precipitously” dismissed the complaint without a hearing as outlined under state law.

“This act also flies in the face of this court’s own order of Dec. 13, 2012, which was law of the case,” noted Klayman.

“This court had a statutory duty under the Florida Election laws, the Florida and U.S. Constitutions, and 3 U.S.C. Section 5, to adjudicate defendant Obama’s eligibility and his alleged fraudulent acts expeditiously, timely, and before the electors met on Dec. 17, 2012, and before the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, 2013,” Klayman explained. “Thus, this court also violated these law is dismissing the complaint summarily.”

Klayman suggested to the court its order “at a minimum creates an appearance that it simply jettisoned this case not only on the extrajudicial and non-legal premise that President Obama was president during the prior four year term, and has already performed many ‘presidential’ acts but also because this court did not want to be ‘inconvenienced’ by holding an evidentiary hearing.”

He said the remarks about fictional judge Henry X. Harper in “Miracle on 34th St.” were “inappropriate” and showed “a mindset simply to rid the court of this case.”

“This court seems to want to sidestep having to reach these serious and important matters before it,” Klayman said.

Klayman is seeking a rehearing and an evidentiary hearing in the dispute. He’s also seeking a temporary restraining order to halt the delivery of the Florida electoral votes to Obama until the court case is resolved.

He has submitted evidence by way of a sworn statement from Investigator Mike Zullo of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse in Arizona that there probably were two crimes committed in the creation and display of Obama’s long-form birth certificate, which was released by the White House and posted online.

Zullo’s testimony is that forgery was used to create the document, and fraud was used in “presenting to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery the White House represents as “proof positive” of President Obama’s” birth documentation.

Arpaio’s affidavit also was presented to the judge.

The sheriff said: “My investigators and I believe that President Obama’s long-form birth certificate is a computer-generated document, was manufactured electronically, and that it did not originate in a paper format, as claimed by the White House. … There is probable cause that the document is a forgery.”

Klayman has argued that Obama “has never established his eligibility for the presidency of the United States … the only evidence of defendant Obama’s alleged birth within the United States has come in the form of a belatedly filed electronic version of a claimed long-form birth certificate posted on the Internet.”

He told the judge that the evidence suggests, however, the document is fraudulent.

The case claims that should the judge not address the facts, the plaintiff “can never be made whole again.”

“If defendant Obama is found to be ineligible, which is likely to happen since there is no evidence … Obama was born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents, the plaintiff’s vote in the 2012 presidential election will be nullified.”

He said state law calls for an expedited hearing in such cases.

In the case, Klayman argued: “On Nov. 6, 2012, the state of Florida held its 2012 general election. On Nov. 10, 2012, defendant Barack Hussein Obama was declared the official winner of the Florida general election. Yet defendant Obama has never established his eligibility for the presidency of the United States.

“Indeed, neither defendant Obama, nor the Democratic Party of Florida, has even stated that defendant Obama is a ‘natural born citizen,'” the filing said. “The only evidence of defendant Obama’s alleged birth within the United States has come in the form of an electronic version posted on the Internet. However, there has been evidence to show that this ‘birth certificate’ has either been altered or is entirely fraudulent.”

As WND reported, Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County,” has 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.

Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? Here’s WND’s complete archive of news reports on the issue

The original case sought to exclude Obama from the 2012 ballot. Klayman and Voeltz claimed 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.

“Plaintiff Michael C. Voeltz has standing as a Florida voter, and taxpayer, to challenge the ‘nomination or election of any person to office’ based on the winning candidates’ eligibility for the office sought. … The state of Florida has chosen, by popular election, the electors for Defendant Barack Hussein Obama to be president … Plaintiff has fulfilled all aspects of the Florida election statutes for this challenge of eligibility, as to timing, venue, and indispensable parties.”

Klayman has argued that since Obama, by his own admission, was not born to two citizen parents, he is not a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, is ineligible to be a candidate on the state’s election ballot.

The filing also explained the judiciary “has the power to determine eligibility. 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.”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.