Voeltz v Obama - Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Obama Identity Fraud - Florida Supreme Court -...

7/30/2019 Voeltz v Obama - Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Obama Identity Fraud - Florida Supreme Court - 4/29/2013

1/23

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE STATE OF FLORIDA

MICHAEL C. VOELTZ,

Petitioner,

Case No.: SC13-560

vs.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, et. al.

Respondents.__________________________________________

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Petitioner, Michael C. Voeltz, pursuant to Fla. App. R. 9.100 B, files this

Petition for Writ of Mandamus to compel the District Court of Appeal, First

District ("Court of Appeal"), to reinstate the appeal ofVoeltz v. Obama, et al, case

no. 2012CA00467, 1D12- 3489, which was improperly dismissed by court order

dated February 8, 2013.

In the alternative, Petitioner files this Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to

direct Florida Secretary of State, Ken Detzner, to comply with Florida Statute

97.012(14), and direct the Court of Appeal to issue an opinion regarding the

eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as President of the United States.

That is, is Mr. Obama at least thirty-five years old, a resident of the United States


2/23

2

for fourteen years, and a natural born citizen, as required by Article II of the U.S.

Constitution?

Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of Florida

This Court has jurisdiction to reinstate a dismissed appeal. See Art. V,

3(b)(8), Fla. Const.; Sky Lake Garden Rec. v.Dist. Ct. of App., 511 So.2d 293

(Fla. 1987); In Re. Estate ofLafin, 569 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 1990); McFadden v.

Fourth Dist.Court of Appeal, 682 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 1996); Beatty v.Beuttenmuller,

654 So.2d 130 (Fla. 1995).

Petitioner also invokes Florida Supreme Court original jurisdiction (Rule

9.030(3)) to issue all writs. This Court has the authority to force public officers to

perform a duty that is a clear right of the Petitioner. [M]andamus may be used

only to enforce a clear and certain right; it may not be used to establish such a

right, but only to enforce a right already clearly and certainly established in the

law.Milanick v. Townof Beverly Beach, 820 So.2d 317, 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)

(citing Fla. League of Cities v. Smith, 607 So.2d 397, 400-01 (Fla.1992)).

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Petitioner Michael Voeltz, registered member of the Democratic Party of

Florida, having sworn an oath to "protect and defend" the U.S. and Florida

Constitutions as an elector of the state of Florida, brought forth a lawsuit to


3/23

3

challenge the election and nomination of Barack Hussein Obama as the

Democratic Party candidate for the 2012 presidential election. (R.110-116).

The Democratic Party of Florida has submitted the name of Respondent

Obama as the only candidate for the presidency of the United States. Under

Florida law, by submitting Respondent Obama's name as the only name for the

Florida Presidential Primary, the Democratic Party of Florida nominated

Respondent Obama for the office of the presidency of the United States.1 (R.112-

114). As with the presidential election of 2008, Respondent Obama has never

established his eligibility for the presidency of the United States. Indeed, neither

Respondent Obama, nor the Democratic Party of Florida has even stated that

Respondent Obama is a "natural born citizen" as required to run for president as set

forth in the Article II, section 1, clause 4, of the U.S. Constitution. (R.112-114).

The only so-called evidence of Respondent Obama's birth within the United States

has come in the form of an electronic version of a birth certificate posted on the

internet. (R.112). There is uncontroverted evidence, however, on the record, to

show that this "birth certificate" has either been altered or is entirely fraudulent.

(R.260-278). No physical, paper copy has ever been presented to firmly establish

that Respondent Obama was indeed born within the United States. (R.112).

1Respondent Obama was again nominated on September 6, 2012 at theDemocratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.


4/23

4

Yet even if his purported "birth certificate" is to be believed, Respondent

Obama was born to a mother who was a citizen of the United States, and a father

who was a British subject, having been born in Kenya, a British colony at the time.

(R.112). The U.S. Constitution requires that all who serve as President of the

United States must be "natural born citizen[s]." The U.S. Supreme Court has

defined this term to mean a child born to two citizen parents. (R.245-260). Since

Respondent Obama was not born to parents who were both citizens of the United

States, he is not a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution

(R.114) and therefore ineligible to be the President of the United States.

Under either scenario, it is clear that Respondent Obama has not established

eligibility for the Office of the President of the United States, and it is evident that

he may not, under any circumstance, establish his eligibility. (R. 114). Indeed,

neither Respondent Obama, nor the Democratic Party of Florida has ever made the

claim that Respondent Obama is a "natural born citizen." (R. 114). Petitioner has

properly challenged the nomination of Respondent Obama as the Democratic Party

nominee for the Florida general election of 2012 because he is not eligible for the

office in question. Petitioner set forth the grounds for the challenge and now seeks

relief from this Court. (R. 116)

The eligibility of Respondent Obama must be dealt with now. Petitioner

Voeltz, who is a registered Democrat, and the rest of the electors in the state of


5/23

5

Florida, had to be assured that if they cast their votes for Respondent Obama in the

general election that their votes would not have been in vain. The Democratic

Party, and much more the general Florida electorate, will have been led down the

primrose path, and will be effectively defrauded, if the issue had not settled now

but rather after the election.

Petitioner repeatedly attempted to expedite this lawsuit as Florida election

law requires an expedited procedure in any event. See Section 102.168(7), Florida

Statute ("Any candidate, qualified elector, or taxpayer presenting such a contest to

a circuit judge is entitled to an immediate hearing").

Petitioner previously asked the Court of Appeal for a suggestion for

certification to the Florida Supreme Court, pursuant to Article V, section 3(b)(5) of

the Florida Constitution and Rule 9.125 of the Florida Rules of Appellate

Procedure, because this 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 December 17, 2012 and the

Electoral College were to cast their votes on January 4, 2013. The Court of

Appeals denied that motion.

Petitioner then asked the Court of Appeal to expedite its decision for the

same reasons in his Praecipe filed on November 9, 2012. This Praecipe, which

was treated as a Motion to Expedite by this court, was also denied.


6/23

6

After months of inactivity, the Court of Appeal dismissed as moot the appeal on

February 8, 2013 without a written opinion, stating only: PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED as moot. BENTON, C.J., DAVIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR.

Petitioner then filed a Motion for Written Opinion on February 28, 2013.

Out of an abundance of caution, and fearing that the Court of Appeal would once

again delay the lawsuit for months only to dismiss it again, Petitioner filed his

Notice of Appeal to the Florida Supreme Court on March 11, 2013.

ARGUMENT

This Case Is Not Moot

Although the Court of Appeal has conveniently declared this case moot

after many months of inactivity, it is a paradigm of the exceptions to the mootness

doctrine. The issue of what is a natural born citizen and who checks to make sure

that presidential candidates are natural born citizens is an ongoing dispute.

Continuous election cycles assure that this issue will arise again.

Petitioner's claim, at a minimum, is not moot because this harm is "capable

of repetition, yet evading review." Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 125 (1973). In

Roe, the injury to the petitioner concerned her rights with regard to pregnancy.

TheRoe respondent raised the issue of standing because the petitioner was no

longer pregnant by the time her claims were adjudicated. The U.S. Supreme Court

found that when "pregnancy is a significant fact in the litigation, the normal 266-


7/23

7

day human gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before

the usual appellate process is complete." The Court thus held that "it truly could be

'capable of repetition, yet evading review.'" Id. (citing Southern Pacific Terminal

Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911)); See also Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S.

330, 405 U. S. 333 n. 2 (1972); Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 814, 394 U. S.

816(1969).

As is true by analogy in this case, every contest of an election would

similarly be mooted by the sheer length of a trial and appeals process. Yet elections

happen every year and the potential for harm is just as present in the next election

cycle. It has thus become the black letter law of the land that election laws will not

become moot simply because an election has passed. SeeAllen v. Bennett, 823 So.

2d 679(Alabama 2001)("Allen's appeal presents a moot question and that,

therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. However, because the outcome of this

case could impact future elections, we hold that... this case is not moot."). (Italics

added).

The exceptions to the mootness doctrine are recognized by most states, and

is stated with special clarity in Coady v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and

Parole, which reads in part as follows:

"This court will decide questions that have otherwise been rendered moot

when one or more of the following three exceptions apply: (1) the case


8/23

8

involves questions of great public importance; (2) the conduct

complained of is capable of repetition yet avoiding review; or (3) a party

to the controversy will suffer some detriment without the court's

decision." Coady v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 804

A.2d 121, 124 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002).

The present case falls under each of the three named exceptions established

in the Pennsylvania courts and is similarly not moot:

Exception 1: The present case involves a question of extreme public

importance. It goes to the question of whether the citizenry of an elected president

is to be protected against fraud and dishonesty in the conduct of their elections. It

goes to the very heart of our self government.

Exception 2: The complaint here is that the legitimacy of the candidates,

where the legitimacy of at least one has been determined to be in doubt, is without

any question a complaint can, and probably will recur. Moreover, we need look no

further than the present case to conclude that it is impracticable to adjudicate such

cases between the time names of candidates that are submitted to the Secretary of

State at the time the general election was held in November.

Exception 3: Without a decision of the court, Petitioner will suffer a

detriment. As citizens they will have been deprived of the assurance that their


9/23

9

election was conducted honestly, and that only votes of legitimate candidates were

counted and recorded.

Petitioner is capable of suffering the same harm in near future elections, as

many being touted as candidates for president and vice president are born of non-

U.S. citizen parents (one or both), and do not fit the precedent definition ofMinor

v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1874), including Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal,

Rick Santorum and Ted Cruz. The issue of who is a natural born citizen and who

decides who is a natural born citizen needs to be settled now.

This Lawsuit Is A Matter of Great Public Importance

Presidential elections involve the selection of a person that will lead the U.S.

military forces. His or her attachment and allegiance can never be questionable.

The President is vested with the executive power of the nation. The importance of

his election and the vital character of its relationship to and effect upon the welfare

and safety of the whole people cannot be too strongly stated.Burroughs and

Cannon v. U.S., 290 U.S. 534, 535 (1934).

It is paramount that the stated holding of the Circuit Court of the Second

Judicial Circuit In and For Leon County ("Circuit Court"), and cursory, vague, and

unexplained ruling of the District Court, not be made the law of Florida, as the

view that the contest statute 102.168 does not apply to presidential elections is

contrary to the stated will of the Florida Legislature, and the holding of this court.


10/23

10

The decisions of the District courts represent the law of this state unless

overturned by the Supreme Court of Florida. (seePardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665,

666 (Fla. 1992)).

This conundrum will cause an unequal application of the Florida statutes and

a degradation of confidence in the election system, which is the bedrock of the

republic. As recognized by the Florida House of Representatives Committee on

Election Reform 1997 Interim Project on Election Contests and Recounts: "[A]ll

election contests and recounts can be traced to either an actual failure in the

election system or a perception that the system has failed. Public confidence in the

election process is essential to our democracy. If the voter cannot be assured of an

accurate vote count, or an election unspoiled by fraud, they will not have faith in

other parts of the political process. Nonetheless, it is inevitable that legitimate

doubts of the validity and accuracy of election outcomes will arise. It is crucial,

therefore, to have clearly defined legal mechanisms for contesting or recounting

election results. Gore v.Harris, SC00-2431, 36, 37(2000). The states are

required to guarantee a republican government, one based on the U.S. Constitution,

yet Florida has failed to provide this constitutional right by allowing Barack

Hussein Obama, a man born of a foreigner, and likely not eligible for office, to

receive votes in the state of Florida. How can there be a republican form of


11/23

11

government, based on the rule of law, when the President, who is the executor of

the laws, is an illegal entity?

Mandamus Is Proper

One seeking a Writ of Mandamus must show a clear legal right to the

performance of a clear legal duty by a public officer, and that he has no other

available legal remedies. See Hatten v.State, 561 So. 2d 562, 563 (Fla. 1990);

Milanick v. Town ofBeverly Beach, 820 So.2d 317(Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Rights of Petitioner

Any Florida elector, eligible to vote in an election, has a statutory right,

given by Fl.ss. 102.168(1)(3)(b), to contest the eligibility for office of any person

elected or nominated to office. Petitioner filed his action (No. 2012CA00467)

properly in every way for timing, venue, indispensible parties and cause of action,

asking for declaratory judgment. (When the voters have done all that the statute

has required them to do, they will not be disfranchised solely on the basis of the

failure of the election officials to observe directory statutory instructions.

Boardman v. Esteva, 323 So. 2d 259, 268-69 (Fla. 1975)).

Basis Of The Court of Appeal's Duty

Petitioner, by statutory right, and legislative intent, is afforded an immediate

hearing and a judicial determination, on the merits, as to the contested candidates

eligibility for office. The Florida Supreme Court has held specifically that


12/23

12

eligibility for office is a judicial determination, made upon any contest of election

properly made. (Shevin v. Stone , 279 So.2d 17 (Fla.1972)). The Legislature has

directed in section 102.168 that an election contest shall be resolved in a judicial

forum. See Fl. ss. 102.168 (providing that election contests not pertaining to either

house of the Florida Legislature may be contested in the circuit court) Gore v.

Harris,No. SC00-2431 at 7 (2000).

Basis Of The Secretary of States Duty

Florida Statute 97.012(14) stipulates that the Secretary must [b]ring and

maintain such actions at law or in equity by mandamus or injunction to enforce the

performance of any duties of a county supervisor of elections or any official

performing duties with respect to chapters 97-102 and chapter 105 or to enforce

compliance with a rule of the Department of State adopted to interpret or

implement any of those chapters. 3 U.S.C. 5 mandates a ministerial duty, to be

carried out by the Secretary of State, to direct a final determination of any

controversy regarding the appointment of electors by six days prior to the meeting

of electors.

Credible Evidence That Respondent Obama's Birth Certificate Is Fraudulent

Petitioner also presented credible evidence from an official source, by

affidavit of Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, who conducted an

official government investigation that the birth certificate of BarackHussein


13/23

13

Obama, posted at the WhiteHouse.gov website is entirely fraudulent. No one on

the mainland has touched that document and felt the supposed raised seal, as it

only exists in cyberspace. If a raised seal, as required by Hawaiian law is

required to be deemed valid, then there is no validity to a picture of that document

on the computer. Petitioner cannot show the U.S. Post Office a picture of his birth

certificate on a laptop and receive a passport. As such, Barack Hussein Obama

cannot even prove that he is at least thirty-five years old, much less a natural born

citizen. If a baby-faced seventeen-year-old attempted to be on the presidential

ballot in Florida, claiming to be 35, would the Secretary demand his birth

certificate?

The Honorable Terry Lewis agreed with the Respondents that Petitioner had

no standing to seek a declaratory judgment, or that Petitioner even asked for a

declaratory judgment, claiming that no nomination or election occurred as a result

of theprimary, and that if the plaintiff was challenging the candidates eligibility

for any other office, his analysis would be correct, and these provisions would

apply. (Bk. 4388, pg. 62, No. 2012CA00467). The court further held that the

office of President of the United States is treated differently underFlorida law.Id.

This tribunal has specifically held that allof Florida statutes apply to

presidential elections. SeePalm BeachCanvassing Board v. Harris,Nos.SC00-

2346, SC00-2348 and SC00- 2349 ([I]n this case, the parties conceded that the


14/23

14

contest provisions contained in section 102.168 apply to presidential elections.)

(In sum, Floridas statutory scheme simply makes no provision for applying its

rules one way for presidential elector elections and another way for all other

elections.").Id. at 26, 33.

Since that time, the Florida legislature extensively revamped the Florida

election code (Chapter 2011-40, Laws of Florida) on May 19, 2011. If the

legislature disagreed withPalm Beach Canvassing v. Harris then it would have

changed the presidential preference primary and election contest statutes to reflect

that disagreement. [I]t can be strongly presumed that Congress will specifically

address language on the statute books that it wishes to change. United States v.

Fausto, 484U.S. 439, 453 (1988). Statutory construction demands that a statute

not be read in a way that invalidates anotherstatute. In carefully construing the

contest statute, no single statutory provision will be construed in such a way as to

render meaningless or absurd any other statutory provision. SeeAmente v.

Newman, 653 So. 2d 1030, 1032 (Fla. 1995).

In light of the holdings of this tribunal, noting footnote 20 in Harris, ([i]n

this case, the parties conceded that the contest provisions contained in section

102.168 apply topresidential elections), it must be concluded that extreme error

has occurred, or worse, especially since the Harris case was on appeal from Judge

Lewis court. Judge Lewis even deniedthat Obama was nominated after the


15/23

15

primaries despite the plain wording of the Florida Statutes: (Any candidate for

nomination who has qualified as prescribed by law is entitled to have his or her

name printed on the official primary election ballot. However, when there is only

one candidate of any political party qualified for an office, the name of the

candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot, and such candidate

shall be declared nominated for the office. (Fl. ss. 101.252(1)).

It seems that Judge Lewis went to great lengths to deny Petitioner of his

rightful cause of action, as stipulated by the plain words of Fl. ss. 102.168(1)(3)(b),

that an elector, eligible to vote in the election can challenge the eligibility for office

sought of any personnominated or elected. As the Florida Supreme Court has

ruled, [w]here the language of the Code is clear and amenable to a reasonable and

logical interpretation, courts are without power to diverge from the intent of the

Legislature as expressed in the plain language of the Code.SeeStarr Tyme,Inc. v.

Cohen, 659 So.2d 1064 (Fla.1995). Petitioner has presented clear and compelling

evidence that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the Office of President of

the United States, and plaintiff has met his or her burden of proof to establish that

the result of an election is in doubt Gore v. Harris, SC00-2431, 22 (2000). Fl. ss.

102.168(1)(3)(b) itself gives Petitioner standing to demand adeclaratory judgment

as to Barack Hussein Obamas eligibility.


16/23

16

After Judge Lewis denied standing and dismissed Petitionerscase with

prejudice, Petitioner filed an appeal, correctly and timely, in the Court of Appeal

in July of 2012 (No. 1D12-3489). That case languished there for many months,

despite the fact that the Secretary of State, Ken Detzner, knew of his duties with

respect to Fl. ss. 97.012(14), and 3 U.S.C. 5, and despite the fact that Petitioner

filed a motion to expedite, until February 8, 2013, a full 70 days after the safe

harbor provision of3 U.S.C. 5 had passed. Although unclear, the Court of

Appeal may have agreed with the Circuit Court, and issued a three word opinion:

(PER CURIAM. DISMISSED as moot. BENTON, C.J., DAVIS, and ROBERTS,

JJ., CONCUR (No. 1D12-3489)). ). Final determination should have been made

by the Court of Appeal by December 11, or the assumption of a non controversial

ascertainment of electors cannot be made, throwing the votes of the Florida

electorate into doubt. As such, the Court of Appeal has violated Article II of the

U.S. Constitution, and illegally made new law.

These court opinions have invalidated Floridas election contest statute

102.168 with respect to presidential elections. Secretary of State Ken Detzner has

failed to uphold his duty to expedite Petitioners action, and has failed to support

the will of the Legislature to conform to 3 U.S.C. 5. Indeed this tribunal has

stated, We consider these statutes cognizant of the federal grant of authority

derived from the United States Constitution and derived from 3 U.S.C. 5 (1994)."


17/23

17

The Actions Of The Secretary, And The Florida Judiciary Have Violated The

Due Process And Equal Protection Rights Of Petitioner

By allowing the judiciary to deny standing, and failing to timely shepherd a

judicial determination of the eligibility demanded by Florida state statute,

Secretary Detzner has violated Fl. ss. 97.012(1), which demands that he apply the

Florida election statutes equally. Petitioner used the same election statute

(102.168) as Al Gore did after the 2000 General Election, but with entirely

different results, as Gore was afforded expeditious adjudication all the way to the

Florida Supreme Court, prior to the safe harbor deadline, so as not to

disenfranchise Florida voters. It is absurd to rule that the contest statutes do not

apply, when they were used in high profile cases pertaining to a presidential

election only 13 years ago. Despite the fact that Article I, Section 1 ofFloridas

Constitution asserts that [A]ll political power is inherent in the people. The

enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others

retainedby the people, the Florida judiciary, and the Secretary ofState have

circumvented Petitioners sovereign right to choose his leader, and have allowed

that right to be hijacked by political parties.

That the president shall be a natural born citizen is a self- executing

constitutional provision relating to the security of the nation (see Federalist 68). As

this court has held, self executing constitutional provisions need no statute to be

enforced. [T]he modern doctrine favors the presumption that constitutional


18/23

18

provisions are intended to be self- operating. This is so because in the absence of

such presumption the legislature would have the power to nullify the will of the

people expressed in their constitution, the most sacrosanct of all expressions of the

people." Gray v. Bryant, 125 So. 2d at 851. Many are aware of the ineligibility of

Barack Hussein Obama, and that awareness is a festering sore on the body politic

that needs to be addressed. As the Supreme Court has clarified, ". . . the power and

jurisdiction of the State is exclusive, with the exception of the provisions as to the

number of electors and the ineligibility of certain persons, so framed that

Congressional and Federal influence might be excluded."McPherson v. Blacker,

146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892). One must recognize that those that are not natural born

citizens are excluded from the presidency by Article II, and the Florida legislature

is not at liberty to alter that requirement.

This Lawsuit Does Not Present A Political Question

The federal government has no discretion in the matter of who is eligible for

president. Article II specifically bars members or trustees of the federal

government from making that decision, and members of Congress are specifically

only responsible for the qualifications of its own members. Each House shall be

the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members (art. 1 s.

5). No other meaning or duty may be added by construction. (SeeCaminetti v.

United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485 (1917) (Where the language is plain and admits


19/23

19

of no more than one meaning, the duty of interpretation does not arise). This is

not a political question. This is a question of the Constitution of the United States.

That the president be a natural born citizen is a sovereign right of Petitioner.

Although Respondents claim that the issue of presidential candidate

eligibility is reserved to Congress through 3 U.S.C. 5, and the 20th Amendment,

no specific wording is in those statutes denotes a checking of qualifications. A

Congressional Research Service paper, prepared for members of Congress, makes

no mention of eligibility of the candidate as a basis of objection in the joint

session, only that the electoral vote must be regularly given, and focuses on the

qualification ofthe elector, and whether that electors vote is faithless.See

Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session,

Including Objections by Members of Congress Congressional Research Service,

p. 6-8, Nov. 30, 2012. In fact, the stated purpose of the electoral Count Act 1887

(now 3 U.S.C. 5) is to ensure that the counting of the electoral votes is a purely

ministerial exercise, and that all controversies be settled at the state level.The

President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of

Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;- -The

person having the greatest number of votes forPresident, shall be the President.

U.S. Cont. amend. XII. No discretion as to eligibility is described, and the word

shall denotes a simple and definite duty to count the votes. The 25th Amendment


20/23

20

provides for the case where the President is removed from office. Indeed

Federalist 68 informs that the Executive should be independent for his

continuance in office on all but the people themselves.

No Other Remedy Is Available

There is no remedy described in Fl. ss. 102.168 for an elector contesting an

election based on the eligibility for office. There is only a remedy described for

another candidates contest (Fl. ss. 102.168(2)). Likewise, there is no duty of the

circuit judge to investigate any evidence made by a contesting elector, only that an

elector present such contest to a circuit judge (102.168(7)). However, every right

must have a remedy.Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 163 (1803) (citing

Blackstones Commentaries). Petitioner has a clear legal right to challenge the

eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, given by Florida statute, and equity demands

a remedy.

A Writ of Mandamus by this court compelling the Court of Appeal to reopen

the Petitioners appeal of the Circuit Court decision would be a proper way of

finally obtaining a ruling on the merits in this case. In the alternative, Petitioner

prays for a Writ of Mandamus, issued to Secretary Detzner, compelling him to do

his required duty of Fl. ss. 97.012(14), and command the Appeal's Court and

Circuit Court to allow full discovery, and to comply with the election contest

statute 102.168(1)(3)(b), and rule on the record as to the eligibility of Barack


21/23

21

Hussein Obama, whom Petitioner credibly claims is not a natural born citizen, and

not eligible for the office of President of the United States.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that this Court issue a

Writ of Mandamus ordering the First District Court of Appeal to reinstate the

appeal and dispose of this issue on its merits or to issue a Writ of Mandamus

compelling Secretary of State Ken Detzner to investigate the eligibility of

Respondent Barack Hussein Obama for the Office of President of the United

States.

Dated: April 29, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Larry Klayman

Larry Klayman, Esq.Florida Bar No. 246220

2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20006

Tel: (310) 595-0800Email: [email protected]


22/23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandamus has been filed

electronically and thus served via email this 29th day of April, 2013 to the following:

Daniel NordyAshley E. DavisFlorida Department of State

R.A. Gray Building

500 South Bronough StreetTallahassee, FL 32399

Mark Herron

Joseph Brennan DonnellyRobert J. Telfer, III

Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A.

Post Office Box 15579Tallahassee, FL 32317

Stephen F. RosenthalPodhurst Orseck, P.A.

25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800

Miami, FL 33130-1720

Richard B. Rosenthal

The Law Offices of Richard B. Rosenthal,

P.A.169 East Flagler Street, Suite 1422

Miami, FL 33131

James A. Peters

Office of the Attorney General

FL-01, The Capital

Tallahassee, FL 32399-105

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Larry KlaymanLarry Klayman, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 246220

2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 800Washington, DC 20006

Tel: (310) 595-0800

Email: [email protected]


23/23

Voeltz v Obama - Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Obama Identity Fraud - Florida Supreme Court -...

Documents

Transcript of Voeltz v Obama - Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Obama Identity Fraud - Florida Supreme Court -...