Unexpected turn in eligibility case: ‘Put it on record!’
The attorney in a publicized challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president told WND the Florida case took an unexpected turn in court yesterday, one he says “pulled the rug out” from Obama’s lawyers and should force a quick answer from the judge.
Attorney Larry Klayman told WND he had expected an “uneventful” hearing in the ongoing case, which returned before Judge Terry Lewis yesterday, but instead found a legal tangle that he believes means Lewis will “have to make a decision, have to put it on record.”
Klayman originally filed the challenge to Obama’s eligibility for the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County.”
As WND reported, however, attorneys representing Obama at the case’s main hearing, which was livestreamed by WND, argued that the Florida presidential preference primary, which listed Obama as the only Democrat nominee, didn’t make him the party’s nominee for president. They urged Lewis to decide that Obama is not yet the Democratic nominee for president and therefore ignore evidence challenging his eligibility.
A video recording of the hearing is available for viewing online at WND.
But Klayman told WND yesterday that Florida law is unique in that it gives the average voter “much greater freedom to challenge eligibility and fraud than most other states.”
Florida law permits filing for “declaratory relief” at any time, Klayman said, a move that would force a judge to rule on the facts of the case even before a decision on whether to compel some legal action. In other words, in the Voeltz case, instead of waiting until the nominating convention – which Klayman called a “shell game” Obama attorneys are playing to put off the issue –Lewis would be pushed to make a declaration on Obama’s eligibility “whether nominated or not.”
“Lewis would have to reach a decision; he would have to put it on record,” Klayman said. “By amending for declaratory relief, we’re pulling the rug right out from Obama and the Florida secretary of state.”
Klayman told WND Obama’s lawyers immediately went into a tailspin and filed to have the amendment for declaratory relief stricken, which the judge granted, arguing he wanted to wait to issue a formal decision in the case.
But Klayman said his team is willing to file a stand-alone complaint for declaratory relief with Lewis as soon as next week and “pull the rug out from under him, too.”
“This judge can’t get out from under his legal requirement,” Klayman said. “If he screws around, he’s violating law.”
In hundreds of cases filed challenging Obama’s eligibility, the full range of questions – from Obama’s birth records, charged by some as fraudulent, to the Constitution’s meaning of “natural born citizen” – have never been ruled upon, dismissed typically on questions of who has “standing” to bring the challenge.
Klayman, however, told WND, “It doesn’t matter how Lewis rules, the losing side will appeal, and this case is going up, maybe all the way to the Supreme Court.”
Still, he said, “I want Lewis to address the issue of eligibility and create a record, so we can take it up before the election. I’m still confident, hopeful that will happen.”
Following the case’s first hearing, the judge said he would review the law, but he had pointed questions for both sides.
For example, When Klayman noted the Founding Fathers established the natural-born citizen requirement because they wanted to avoid foreign influence on a president from a non-citizen parent, Lewis countered by posing a hypothetical situation in which a candidate’s two U.S.-citizen parents later emigrate to Israel.
Klayman said the Founding Fathers’ attempt to avoid a conflict of interest in the Oval Office did not include every possible scenario.
The judge asked whether the Democratic Party, as a private group, had a right to choose a nominee, even if that person was ineligible.
Lewis questioned a citation by Obama’s attorneys of a Florida law that suggests when only one person is on the ballot, that person automatically becomes the nominee. He told the attorneys he would review the details of the law.
The arguments by Obama’s attorneys reflected their request that the judge simply dismiss the case because they claim a sitting president chosen by his party at multiple levels is not yet officially the nominee.
Klayman accused the Obama attorneys trying to delay 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.
Klayman told WND that during a hearing last month 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 Sheriff Joe 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.
The plaintiff has submitted affidavits from Arpaio and others to support the claim.
The complaint explains that even if Obama was born within the United States, he is still not a “natural-born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution. That’s because his father was born in the British Colony of Kenya on June 18, 1936, making him a British subject, according to the British Nationality Act of 1948.
A case filing explains: “No physical, paper copy of defendant Obama’s birth certificate has been presented to establish his eligibility. … Defendant Obama has electronically produced a copy of what he purports to be his ‘birth certificate.’ Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered.”
When asked by Judge Lewis, Klayman confirmed he could add to the complaint details of the evidence Obama was not born in the U.S.
Obama’s attorneys told the judge that other courts have decided that courts should not make such decisions and the process is better handled by Congress. They said state courts especially are not suited to making a decision on the eligibility of Obama.
“They are precluded from judging the qualifications of candidates for president of the United States,” the Obama attorneys said.
But Klayman pleaded with the judge to decide the issue, because a determination made after the election could negate Florida’s vote.
“Florida has a special duty not just on behalf of the citizens of Florida but on behalf of the United States,” he said.
Klayman referred to a recent Obama order to underscore the significance of the Founders’ desire that the president not have divided loyalties or “not even a hint of foreign influence.”
“Just a few days ago, he issued an executive order … which in effect allows illegal alien students who came into this country … to remain in this country. … The president’s own father was in fact here on a student visa and ultimately was deported because that visa expired.”
Klayman reiterated the Supreme Court’s Minor v. Happersett definition of “natural born citizen” as a person born in the country of two citizen parents.
“The point is this, your honor,” said Klayman. “The president is not like everybody else. If that was the case the framers would have said ‘citizens’ [can be president.]”
He accused Obama’s attorneys of trying to “push the issue down the road” until the legal process would fail due to lack of time.
“It’s a shell game,” Klayman said. ” … Neither the Florida Constitution nor the federal Constitution … would ever sanction what they are saying.”
Thank you for posting this. People don’t want to think about it. They claim that it’s not important. But it is vitally important to the survival of America as a Nation under Law. Law is the only thing standing between the citizen and “Might is right Thuggery”. We are seeing what three years of that has done for the entire World. God forgive America for electing a “Man of Lawlessness”.
If that were true, there would be democracy and the rule of law in America. I doubt that this will happen. Ordinary citizens do not have real rights, against political machines.
The law of the land of the United States of America is that ANYONE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A CITIZEN. Whatever this natural born citizen thing is, it is not the law of the land.
The great surprise when the Supreme Court ruled that the health care bill was legal has made so many sick individuals happy. One thing I really like about Obama is he makes sure that government largess is spent on the average person as well as on the bankers who drove our country into the sewer. The Republicans deserve to have all the cow pies thrown in their faces. This decision made me feel there is justice to be had in our great country.
BTW J.P. Morgan may lose as much as $9 billion on their bad trades…
@ Catarin:
Catarin, I would strongly recommend that you read these two short essays by Ann Barnhardt
http://barnhardt.biz/
While I do not think it would be of any value to you, as deduced from all your other posts defending the bastard, nonetheless, it might be of value / interest to some other poster.
@ the phoenix:
phoenix, great article.
Forget Catarin she is beyond repair.
She over dosed on the liberal left media and obama kool-aid.
For some who didn’t drink too much, there is hope.
For Catarin, if you look at a picture of obama bowing to the Saudi prince, you just might get a glimpse of Catarin behind obama planting a kiss on his ass as he bows.
Catarin Said:
and yet it is written in the constitution which is the HIGHEST law of the land and all other law is subject to the constitution. If the constitution is violated by the president, the congress, the political parties and the judiciary then there is no law whatsoever. I agree with you regarding cow pies in republican, and corporate, faces, but many more deserve cow pies, especially ignorant lazy voters who cannot take the trouble to read one sentence in the constitution. If you believe the democrats are actually any better and more liberal then why are they cutting medicare? Regardless of whether you desire a candidate are you not curious as to how the media, the govt, both parties of congress, the republican presidential candidate and especially the judiciary are all conspiring to keep the facts from the american people. This is a crime even if it puts your candidate in power. You can be sure there will be no dealing with the facts on this case because the facts are damaging and all the conspirators, for varying reasons, want it to pass away. Romney and the republicans want it to pass away because it would highlight their own ignorance, incompetence and dereliction of duty in the progression of events. Also, they realize that the incompetence shown in allowing an ineligible candidate to ascend to the presidency would put many of them out of office. Many want to cover it up because they are now afraid that an impeached black president would cause very serious civil strife. Many citizens would not believe the ineligibility, and fraud, at this late date because they would say how was he allowed to be candidate to start with and that the fraud issues were just cooked up to get rid of the first black president. The media is complicit because many are paid shills for soros and the others are ignorant incompetents who partook in ridiculing those seeking facts. The judiciary does not want to deal with it, read comments by clarence thomas, and is applying any possible technical issue in order to avoid disclosing facts. The democratic party, like the Republican is just out for itself to maintain power and feed at the trough. The democratic voter, like you, just wants their man to be in power, regardless of facts and truth, and even in spite of facts and truth. Those who have taken the trouble to look into the facts realize that there is a serious issue that should have the complete light shone upon it. The american people deserve to know the truth, however if they are lazy and corrupt, they deserve what they get. The behavior of those in power at this time illustrates the extent of corruption of the nation not only in those in positions of power. The nation reeks of corruption in most of its institutions and this is only the tip of the iceberg(and the top) Ethics is not considered important enough to expose to children when young and therefore it is absent from the affairs of most US institutions. Ethics is just another hook to sell E.G. social investment funds who pretend to make ethical investments so as to sell more stocks. The heart is empty there is only the shell of appearance. This issue is one of important principle regardless of the outcome. However, it is probably too late as the civil strife issue is too big: riots in the streets.
@ Catarin:
Catarin, your ignorance is hanging out:
@ Catarin:
@ Catarin:
Catarin, your ignorance is hanging out:
@ Catarin:
My comment has been zapped, Ted. I will try to fragmentize it:
@ Catarin:
Catarin, your ignorance is hanging out:
@ Catarin: By the way, I just want to make it clear, that my argument is not partisan. I do not believe that the future lies in the charity of billionaires creating jobs as they are the ones who shipped all the jobs, and their capital, to asia. As a matter of fact I believe the Chinese have the right solution to corporate theft as they execute their corporate thieves. Those stealing billions do more damage than a murderer.
@ Catarin:
Catarin, your ignorance is hanging out:
Ted, I have been repeatedly blocked from reploying to Catarin. I will try again:
“Sec tion 1 of Arti cle Two of the Un ited Sta tes Constitu tion sets forth the elig ibility require ments for serv ing as pres ident of the Uni ted Sta tes:
“No pers on exce pt a natu ral born Ci tizen, or a Ci tizen of the Unit ed Sta tes, at the time of the Adopt ion of this Const itution, shall be eligi ble to the Offi ce of Pr esident; neither shall any Pe rson be e igible to that Offi ce who shall not have at tained to the Age of th irty-five Years, and been fou rteen Years a Re sident within the Uni ted Stat es.”
TED, I HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY BLOCKED FROM REPLYING TO CATARIN WITH A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE US CONSTITUTION. SINCE WHEN HAS THIS DOCUMENT BEEN TABOO ON ISRAPUNDIT?
@ Bernard Ross:
Excellent post Bernard!
We are watching a play called “rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic”…
What an insult to the intelligence!
the phoenix Said:
Dear Phoenix, thank you for your approval. I read your link and I must frankly state that I thought I was reading a leftist blogger because it was mainly composed of name calling insults and ridicule and devoted very little space to actual arguments with evidence. I found the arguments regarding “options to choose” to be superficial and the analogies weak: the first “option to choose is that one has the option to leave a community and a community has the right and option to decide what it values (without violating the constitution which can also be changed by amendment) I am not a consistent rightist or leftist. I believe profoundly that free enterprise is the vehicle to drive an economy because the creative forces that issue from it produce a successful economy. However, I do not believe in the god of money to be worshiped over all else: capital can be created from intangible such as creative thought. I do not believe, or put my trust in, the idea of trickling down benefits from billionairres. I believe that it is a privilege, not a right to be allowed to do business within a community and that the privilege goes along with being an asset to the community in terms of improvement. The billionairres and corporations prove that they cannot be the only way of distributing gains from production. EG, they have shipped the jobs and capital to Asia for the past 20 years and left america an empty shell, and why not, the representatives of the american people gave them the continued right to do business in the american community while driving it down. Regarding the entire medical issue I believe that a developed civilized community has little reason to exist if it does not consider the health of its citizens to be of the greatest importance. I do not agree that the main driving force of a medical system should be that the insurance companies and private interests should maintain their profits therefrom(which obtains now). They have not come up with any solutions that improve the position of the majority of americans and therefore it should now be taken out of their hands. I am sure that they could have come up with something real but greed is the driving force. Let us not confuse the god of money with the creative force of free enterprise. Money has its place as long as it is successful at reaching goals. Even Cuba is able to produce a surplus of doctors and a health system that everyone can participate in plus 100% literacy, so why cant the US come up with something better. It is scandalous that the US puts people in bankruptcy to maintain health. Both parties will continue to be driven by those who FUND campaigns and media. The american people will continue to be fed misinformation. In the end the french revolution shows what happens when the mass of people continue to be swindled. There will be no real revival of the the economy as it has emigrated for good, there will be few jobs for anyone to deliver. America boomed as a result of its dominance in world trade since WWII, that is gone. The left will increase its influence because private interests will not deliver. I have seen this process first hand in other countries.
@ the phoenix: By the way, although I believe the left will increase its power I would prefer to see the private sector come up with real solutions rather than stalling tactics. Just as insurance companies bought the notion of preventative medicine reducing total costs creative thought by private enterprise can evolve REAL not sham solutions. This is if the can see beyond their immediate profits at the feeding trough. The Chinese are able to think long term and see the forest from the trees. A healthy society will be successful.
@ the phoenix:
phoenix, I believe Bernard did not read the article.
Bernard said:
Maybe he should go back and read what he wrote, talk about misinformation.
bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla
A hint of Antisemitism in posing this hypothetical situation. The canard of Jews having dual loyaly. The judge could have chosen any country to make his point.
Bernard Ross Said:
dear bernard,
you previous post, which i thought to be excellent,tied in very well with ann barnhardt’s premise that the republic is dead.
treason by all. democrats AND republicans…
if you merely stop to judge the contents by virtue of its strong/in your face/no appologies type of delivery…and that does not fit too well with your choice of delivery…i sadly say that you are missing on a powerful presentation.
we are facing a HUGE struggle, and must gladly accept those that seem to share our destination…
some may only be with us for a short ride
but if we only accept those that are 100% like us…we might as well have long soliloquy in the mirror…
@ the phoenix: as a result of your admonition I decided to reread the Ann Barnhardt article. I am sorry to say that I am even more appalled. It is not her method of delivery it is that the actual content of the argument is miniscule when compared with extent of the useless ranting and raving. It appears to me that your summation:
the phoenix Said:
…is the actual totality of her content. I think you said it much better than she did. Her absurd name calling obscures her arguments but when you sift through to find her arguments you have to wonder whether she does it on purpose because her arguments are begging for a course in logic and language and her rants cover her inadequacy. Her lengthy omelette analogy is summed up by the “the obama recipe ruins the economy”. Her analogies on choice again are weak and unconvincing e.g “..I chose to work and generate income – not on my existence itself.”; this is a patently absurd statement. I am sure that if you took the actual arguments of her column it amounts to one sentence and you could do a much better job of expressing the arguments than she does. What is really weird is associating herself with g_d and prayers as her thoughts and behaviors are the antithesis(in my opinion of course) I think she actually does a disservice to the arguments against Obamacare. Sorry, I tried to look for something positive but could not find it.
@ the phoenix: By the way here is a link to Mark Steyn, conservative blogger with a take on SCOTUS decision and constitutionality. http://www.steynonline.com/
@ Bernard Ross:
as i said before bernard, i welcome those that share my views and common enemies (liberalism, islam and antisemitism)some deliver better than others…de gustibus non est disputandum…
mark steyn (as well as ezra levant) is a great canadian gift to conservatives world wide…
got ‘after america’.
the man deifinitely makes sense and speaks the truth!
@ Bernard Ross:
This is better
@ yamit82:
Ok yamit. Michael savage is delivering better than Barnhardt.
Schoyin.
I respectfully submit that the message is the same
And the message is that bastard illegally sitting in the w.h. Has managed to bring about the downfall of America as we know it, and , that being the epicenter, it will have tsunami-like political and economic implications world wide.
(I hope we agree on that)
Bernard Ross Said:
If you look at what is going on in Europe, the left won’t be in a position to run a country like it used to be. The election of BHO has become a blessing in disguise as it awakened many Americans to be involved in their countries political affairs. Many people have lost their trust in all branches of the federal government. USA has the second highest tax rates in the world. Private businesses go to other countries because of lower tax rates. If there is a genuine tax reform, there is highest possibility to have US private companies invest/reinvest in US more than in any other country. Because of overreach by the executive branch in piling up debts and deficits and activist judges who even overturned the will of the people (eg. proposition 8 in California); the supreme court’s rewriting of the individual health mandate as a tax etc. there is a growing hatred against incumbents which has a great potential to get rid of them come November 2012.
Bernard Ross Said:
The word “racism” is so frequently used over the last 3 1/2 years. It is gradually becoming meaningless as any comment made about BHO is being characterized as “racist”. I have found out that the leftists fight better than the conservatives on various issues but not lately. From my personal observation, conservatives are mobilizing their supporters better over the last 3 1/2 years. The issue of eligibility has a potential to end the presidency of BHO. There are pending court cases through out the country regarding the birth certificate; Social Security numbers; etc. If one courageous judge makes a decision in one state, the rest will do the same. Because of an increase in corruption at different levels of the government, without even an eligibility issue, there is highest possibility to see riots in the streets in different parts of USA sooner or later absent a miracle.
@ Bernard Ross
This woman is not my cup of tea. I scanned her articles and not one truth jumped out at me. The thing about the health care law is it can be changed and amended as we go a long. Just like any other law.
So waste time trying to refute Obama’s Hawaiian birth. Whatever it says in this amendment or that, the law of the land is, Anyone born in the United States is a citizen. Somehow this is just a great big waste of time, I opine.
What about the judge caving in!
Supreme court chief Roberts for some did just that!
Is a child born by caesarian section considered a natural-born
ctizen?
@ steven l:
It is Bush’s Fault!!!!
How about an in vitro birth.
Does that result in a “natural-born citizen?
Catarin Said:
Natural born citizen is a person born from a father and a mother who are US citizens. A person who is born in US or a naturalized citizen is a citizen and not a natural born citizen, which is required for a person to be a president according to US Constitution. BHO’s father is a Kenyan, who was a British citizen. By extension BHO is a British citizen. Besides this, some report shows BHO was adopted by his step father who was an Indonesian citizen.
These are some of the factors which have been presented to US courts for consideration.
you are nuts.
Anyone born in the United States is a citizen.
If a man from Mars and a woman from Venus have a child while visiting the U.S., that offspring is a U.S. citizen.
@ Catarin:
How many times do we have to repeat it for you before you understand. The US constitution provides that only “natural born citizens” are eligible for the position of President. The question is whether Obama is a natural born citizen or just a citizen. What the Courts have to determine is what was meant by the term “natural born citizen”. Most legal scholars agree, based on established rules for interpretation, that the probable meaning is that such a term means that both parents must be citizens. Were the Courts to so hold, Obama would be ineligible.
Ted Belman Said:
Please back up this quantitative claim.