Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
In the Supreme Court of Fla. Voeltz v. Obama, Secretary of State Ken Detzner, Florida ECC

In the Supreme Court of Fla. Voeltz v. Obama, Secretary of State Ken Detzner, Florida ECC

Ratings: (0)|Views: 51 |Likes:
Published by mivo68
Petition for Mandamus, asking the Fla.Supreme Court to order the Secretary of State to do his duty as described in Fl ss. 97.012(14)
Petition for Mandamus, asking the Fla.Supreme Court to order the Secretary of State to do his duty as described in Fl ss. 97.012(14)

More info:

Published by: mivo68 on May 02, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





IN THE SUPREME COURT OFTHE STATE OF FLORIDAMICHAEL C. VOELTZ,Petitioner,Case No.: SC13-560vs.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 of 
Voeltz v. Obama, et al 
, caseno. 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 todirect Florida Secretary of State, Ken Detzner, to comply with Florida Statute97.012(14), and direct the Court of Appeal to issue an opinion regarding theeligibility 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 States2for 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 of Lafin,
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 (Rule9.030(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 aright, but only to enforce a right already clearly and certainly established in the
 Milanick v. Town of 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)).
Petitioner Michael Voeltz, registered member of the Democratic Party of Florida, having sworn an oath to "protect and defend" the U.S. and FloridaConstitutions as an elector of the state of Florida, brought forth a lawsuit to
3challenge the election and nomination of Barack Hussein Obama as theDemocratic Party candidate for the 2012 presidential election. (R.110-116).The Democratic Party of Florida has submitted the name of RespondentObama 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 theFlorida Presidential Primary, the Democratic Party of Florida
Respondent Obama for the office of the presidency of the United States.
(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 thatRespondent Obama is a "natural born citizen" as required to run for president as setforth 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 Stateshas come in the form of an electronic version of a birth certificate posted on theinternet. (R.112). There is uncontroverted evidence, however, on the record, toshow 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 establishthat Respondent Obama was indeed born within the United States. (R.112).
Respondent Obama was
nominated on September 6, 2012 at theDemocratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.4Yet even if his purported "birth certificate" is to be believed, RespondentObama 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 theUnited States must be "natural born citizen[s]." The U.S. Supreme Court hasdefined this term to mean a child born to two citizen parents. (R.245-260). SinceRespondent Obama was not born to parents who were both citizens of the UnitedStates, 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 establishedeligibility for the Office of the President of the United States, and it is evident thathe may not, under any circumstance, establish his eligibility. (R. 114). Indeed,neither Respondent Obama, nor the Democratic Party of Florida has ever made theclaim that Respondent Obama is a "natural born citizen." (R. 114). Petitioner has properly challenged the nomination of Respondent Obama as the Democratic Partynominee for the Florida general election of 2012 because he is not eligible for theoffice in question. Petitioner set forth the grounds for the challenge and now seeksrelief 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 5Florida, had to be assured that if they cast their votes for Respondent Obama in thegeneral election that their votes would not have been in vain. The DemocraticParty, 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 electionlaw requires an expedited procedure in any event. See Section 102.168(7), FloridaStatute ("Any candidate, qualified elector, or taxpayer presenting such a contest toa 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 AppellateProcedure, because this is an election issue and it needed to be fully appealed andthe issues needed to be decided in time for both the general election and/or postelection, since Florida Electors were to vote on December 17, 2012 and theElectoral 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 thesame reasons in his Praecipe filed on November 9, 2012. This Praecipe, whichwas treated as a Motion to Expedite by this court, was also denied.6After months of inactivity, the Court of Appeal dismissed as moot the appeal on
February 8, 2013 without a written opinion, stating only: “PER CURIAM.
 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 onceagain 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.
ARGUMENTThis 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 mootnessdoctrine. The issue of what is a natural born citizen and who checks to make surethat 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 "capableof repetition, yet evading review."
 Roe v. Wade
, 410 U.S. 113, 125 (1973). In

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
Adrien Nash added this note
Does the appeal required the full court to decide on its response or can just one or two socialist judges dismiss it like the Appeals Court did? So seen in Georgia, judicial corruption reins at all levels.
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->