Attorney asks judge to have Obama vetted

By WND Staff

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Just make sure Barack Obama meets the requirements of the Constitution to be president.

That’s essentially what a lawsuit pending before a Florida judge is seeking, according to attorney Larry Klayman, who has proposed to Judge Terry Lewis an order the judge could adopt, excerpt or reject.

Lewis is best known for presiding over the 2000 Bush v. Gore election dispute and is credited with making crucial rulings in that case.

Klayman filed the current challenge to Obama’s eligibility for the Florida ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself in the complaint as a registered member of the Democratic Party, a voter and a taxpayer in Broward County.

A video of the most recent hearing in the case, when Obama’s attorneys argued he’s not the Democratic nominee for president yet, is available online.

In a proposed memorandum opinion and order Klayman has just submitted to the judge, he asks for a determination that Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner “has an affirmative duty to determine the eligibility of defendant Obama before his name is placed on the Florida primary or general election ballots, or before the presidential electors for the state of Florida cast their votes after the 2012 general election should he ‘win’ the Florida presidential election.”

Klayman suggests that the court issue “preliminary and permanent injunctions
preventing the certification, by the Florida Election Canvassing Commission, of defendant Obama as Democratic Party nominee for the 2012 presidential primary and Florida general elections, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the placement of defendant Obama’s name on the 2012 Florida presidential primary and general election ballots and with regard to the presidential electors voting for defendant Obama should he ‘win’ the Florida general election for the office of the president of the United States.”

The court should “issue a writ of mandamus requiring that the Florida Secretary of State adhere to the Florida and U.S. Constitutions and verify the eligibility of defendant Obama for the office of the president of the United States, or rule that the failure to do so is an abuse of discretion, arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law,” the proposal recommends.

Klayman argues there is reasonable doubt as to whether Obama was born in the United States, which could cast doubt on his citizenship. Klayman says “even if he was born within the United States, plaintiff seeks to have this court declare that defendant Obama is not a natural born citizen as described by the U.S. Constitution because he was not born in the United States and to two U.S. citizen parents.”

Klayman suggests that the court has jurisdiction, since a Florida law provides that anyone qualified to vote in the election may challenge a candidate based on “ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”

The complaint alleges Obama’s birth certificate is “altered or otherwise forged,” a claim supported by investigators for Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz. Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse has concluded there is probable cause that the document is forged and it was fraudulently presented as an official document.

“The Cold Case Posse was commissioned by Sheriff Joseph Arpaio in
October 2011 and is comprised of former law enforcement investigators and practicing attorneys. Mr. Michael Zullo was the lead investigator for the Cold Case Posse and was charged with the task of determining whether the electronic document released by the White House as Barack Obama’s birth certificate was, in fact, authentic. In February 2012, the Cold Case Posse informed Sheriff Arpaio that there was likely forgery involved with the documents,” the proposed order states.

“Mr. Zullo’s conclusions, under oath, were also supported by the sworn, filed, and timely served affidavit of Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., a journalist and author currently employed as a senior staff reporter by Dr. Corsi holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University and has extensively researched defendant Obama and his past. Dr. Corsi utilized his extensive research to publish his book ‘Where’s the Birth Certificate: The Case That Barack Obama is Not Eligible to Be President.’ Dr. Corsi’s book provides further sworn corroboration, under oath, of allegations of falsities and forgeries within defendant Obama’s records.”

Klayman further argues that even if evidence eventually shows Obama was born within the United States, “he is not a ‘natural born citizen,’ a term that requires birth to two U.S. citizen parents.”

Klayman argues that “the statute clearly states that if there is only one candidate at the close of qualification, that candidate is automatically nominated for office.”

‎It was that provision that attorneys for Obama argued about at a recent hearing in which the judge asked attorneys to document the definition of “natural born citizen.”

Klayman had cited the U.S. Supreme Court Minor v. Happersett decision to support his contention that a “natural born citizen” is the offspring of two citizen parents. But Obama’s attorneys had not submitted any citation for their contention that “natural born citizen” essentially was the same as “citizen.”

The arguments were raised by attorney Mark Herron on behalf of Obama in the earlier hearing. The attorneys alleged that listing Obama as the only Democrat nominee at the Florida presidential preference primary didn’t make him the nominee.

Herron argued Florida law affirms only that Obama is the choice in the state’s presidential preference primary but is not necessarily the party’s nominee for president.

“This language clearly indicates the winner of the president preference primary, not the nominee of the party,” he said in the hearing.

But the judge noted that the party wrote to Florida’s secretary of state a letter indicating Obama’s name was the only one submitted, and he thought the state’s electors were bound to vote for him.

“Wasn’t there a letter [that said] this is the only candidate whose name will appear?” Lewis asked.

Obama’s attorneys said such a decision “has not been triggered yet.”

A decision is expected soon in the case.

Klayman has accused the Obama attorneys of playing a “shell game” and trying to put off the issue, as numerous courts did in 2008 until the election was over and Obama was inaugurated.

The judge could remove Obama’s name from the November ballot in Florida, a crucial swing state, should he determine that the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen” can be applied at the primary level.

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

Klayman told WND that during an earlier hearing on discovery issues in the case, Lewis noted that the plaintiff’s brief cited U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875 defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, while the Obama campaign’s arguments provided no citations.

Defining the term is critical. Such a step has not been reached in any of the more than 100 legal cases that have been brought over Obama’s eligibility.

The U.S. Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement is not imposed on other federal officials. The writings of the Founders indicate the requirement was meant to ensure that no person who had divided loyalties would serve as commander in chief.

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.

Florida’s election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of the laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking.

WND earlier reported on the case, which raises some of the same issues that have been raised in other state ballot challenges. Specifically it alleges:

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.

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 weeks the release of Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s eligibility. The investigation by professional law enforcement officers working on a volunteer basis for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found probable cause that Obama’s birth certificate was forged and fraudulently presented as a genuine document.

Klayman argues the term “natural born citizen” was well established at the time the U.S. Constitution was drafted and enacted, coming from the law of nations as compiled and set forth in the historic treatise the “Law of Nations,” crafted by the renowned Emmerich de Vattel, and which the Framers consulted and relied upon in crafting and enacting the U.S. Constitution. In a section titled “Of the Citizens and Natives” Vattel distinguished between citizens and natural born citizens as follows:

“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.”

Vattel went on to clarify and confirm, the “country of the father is the country of the son.”



Leave a Comment