Florida Democrat Still Pushing Courts to Prove Obama’s Eligibility

Earlier this year, a registered Democrat in the state of Florida filed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to appear on the November ballot.  Michael Voeltz claimed that he believed that Obama did not meet the legal qualification for President.

One of his arguments stemmed on the definition of natural born citizen.  The legal definition of natural born citizens was established in 1875 by the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor v Happersett.  The high court ruled that the definition of natural born citizen as applied by the authors and signers of the U.S. Constitution was that both parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of the person’s birth.  Since Obama’s father was a British citizen (Great Britain ruled Kenya at the time), that Obama was not a natural born citizen.

Secondly, Voeltz felt that there was sufficient evidence to question the legality of Obama’s birth certificate.  Evidence from the investigation conducted by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department was submitted in the case to show due concern about the possibility of those documents being forgeries.

However, Judge Terry Lewis ignored the evidence submitted by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation and ruled that Barack Obama was indeed a natural born citizen of the U.S. and that his name could appear on the November ballot.  Obama’s attorney’s never presented any evidence to prove he was a natural born citizen or to refute the evidence submitted by Sheriff Joe.  Lewis decision equated ‘citizen’ with ‘natural born citizen’ which is not what the 1875 Supreme Court said.  Lewis’ decision stated:

“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.”

Now, Voeltz’s attorney, Larry Klayman, who is the founder of Freedom Watch and Judicial Watch has filed a new motion with the courts in this case.  They have filed an order of legal discovery.  Legal discovery is the process where both sides of a case are allowed to examine all of the evidence held by opposing side.  In other words, Voeltz and his attorney are seeking a court order to allow them to see all of the evidence held by Obama’s attorneys in this case.  The motion reads in part:

“Appellant submitted multiple sworn affidavits setting forth the fraudulent nature of Appellee Obama’s birth certificate and other identifying documents.”

“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.”

“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.”

Basically, they are questioning Judge Lewis’ decision in the case and they are demanding to see the evidence, if any, that Obama’s attorney had at the time.  However, as dishonest as Obama’s people are, there is no telling what they will or will not provide nor will there be anyone able to trust its validity.  Unfortunately, it’s probably too little too late to make a difference in less than two months.