Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
FL 2-120-4-26 Collette v. Obama Amended Complaint

FL 2-120-4-26 Collette v. Obama Amended Complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 341 |Likes:
Published by Doctor Conspiracy

More info:

Published by: Doctor Conspiracy on Apr 27, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

06/15/2012

pdf

text

original

 
N THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH
 
JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA
Civil Division
Jerry Collette,
Plaintiff,vs.
Barack Obama,State Executive Committee of the FloridaDemocratic Party,
and
 
DOES 1 through 1000,
inclusive,Defendants.Case Number:
512012CA 2041WSFirst Amended ComplaintSummary of Complaint
Plaintiff is challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to be listed on Florida ballots as acandidate for President of the United States. This challenge is based upon twoalternative theories related to his not being a
natural born
 
citizen, as required by ArticleII, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, namely:1.That he was foreign born;
2.
No matter where he was born, he is not a
natural born
 
citizen because he wasborn of foreign paternity.Plaintiff brings this complaint as two causes of action:1.Violation of one of plaintiff’s rights derived from the United States Constitution;2.Negligence per se, for violation of Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of thatConstitution.
Parties, Jurisdiction, Standing, and Venue
Plaintiff alleges as follows:
1.
Plaintiff 
Jerry Collette
 
is an individual, citizen, taxpayer, and voter, and bringssuit in0 each of his respective capacities.2.Defendant
Barack Obama
is an individual, and is sued in that capacity.
3.
Defendant
State Executive Committee of the Florida Democratic Party
 
is thegoverning body of the Florida Democratic Party, and is sued in that capacity.
4.
Under the Florida Election Code, defendant
State Executive Committee of theFlorida Democratic Party
 
plays a key role in determining who is listed as a
Collette v. Obama – First Amended Complaint – Page 1 of 7
 
Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States on Florida Ballotsand, accordingly, is an indispensable party to the remedies sought, even if thecourt should find that it has no liability with respect to causes of action allegedbelow.5.Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities of the defendants sued asDOES 1 through 1000, inclusive, and will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.6.Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the defendants were the principal,agent, servant, employee, partner, and/or representative of each other and thateach of the defendants acted within the course and scope of such relationship incommitting the alleged acts and omissions.7.Plaintiff seeks equitable relief. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction under Fla.Stat. § 26.012(2)(c) (2011).8.Plaintiff has standing under Fla. Const. art. I, § 21 (2011).9.Causes of action alleged in this complaint accrued in, among other places, PascoCounty. Accordingly, under Fla. Stat. § 47.011 (2011), Pasco County is a proper venue for this case.
General Facts
10.Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the requirements(the “Eligibility Requirements”) for a person to be eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.
11.
 As set forth below, an actual, present, and justiciable controversy exists betweenthe parties in that:(a)Defendants appear to believe that:i.Defendant Obama meets the Eligibility Requirements;ii.He may disregard them and be on the ballot in Florida, whether hemeets them or not; and/or iii.They do not apply to him; andiv.Any failure of Defendant Obama to meet the EligibilityRequirements causes no justiciable damages to plaintiff;(b)Whereas plaintiff believes that:
i.
The Eligibility Requirements do apply to defendant Obama;ii.He does not meet them;iii.He may not disregard them; andiv.The failure of Defendant Obama to meet the EligibilityRequirements causes justiciable damages to plaintiff.
12.
 Among the Eligibility Requirements is the requirement that a President of theUnited States must be a
natural born
 
citizen.
13.
 As set forth below, plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant Obama is nota
natural born
 
citizen.14.Plaintiff is informed and believes, accordingly, that defendant Obama does notmeet the Eligibility Requirements.
Collette v. Obama – First Amended Complaint – Page 2 of 7
 
15.Nonetheless, defendants have worked and are continuing to work to have thename of defendant Obama appear on ballots in Florida as a Democratic Partycandidate for President of the United States, with the clear implication that hemeets the Eligibility Requirements.16.The President of the United States is not directly elected by the people, but,instead, is elected by the members of the Electoral College (“Electors”).17.Within reasonable and constitutional limits, each of the several states, includingFlorida, has broad authority and control over its election process, including, butnot limited to, how its Electors are chosen.18.In Florida, voters currently choose Electors by nominally voting, in the generalelection, for paired teams of Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates.19.Neither the U.S. Constitution, nor any federal statute enacted thereunder,provide for a procedure to assure that Presidents of the United States andcandidates for said office meet the Eligibility Requirements.20.Therefore, according to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the statesand the people retain the right to make such assurances.21.Florida does no background checks on Democratic Party Presidential or VicePresidential candidates to confirm whether or not they meet the EligibilityRequirements.22.Nonetheless, nothing prevents this court from adjudicating the issues presentedand granting the relief requested in this case.
First Challenge to Eligibility - Foreign Birth
23.Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant Obama was foreign born.24.Defendant Obama’s father was never a citizen of the United States.25.Defendant Obama’s mother, at the time of defendant Obama’s birth, was unableto convey U.S. citizenship to a foreign born offspring.
26.
 Accordingly, defendant Obama is not a
natural born
citizen of the United States.27.Accordingly, defendant Obama does not meet the Eligibility Requirements.
History of Public Disclosure on The Issue of Obama’s Birthplace
28.On or about June 12, 2008, defendant Obama publicly released, via third parties,an alleged copy of his Hawaii “Certificate of Live Birth,” also known as a shortform birth certificate.29.Plaintiff is informed and believes that said Certificate of Live Birth is not genuine.30.On or about April 27, 2011, defendant Obama had posted, on the Internet, analleged copy of his Hawaii long form birth certificate.31.Plaintiff is informed and believes that said long form birth certificate is notgenuine.32.No hospital records of defendant Obama’s birth, original or copies, have ever been released to the public.
Collette v. Obama – First Amended Complaint – Page 3 of 7

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
Jack Ryan liked this
silverbull8 liked this
silverbull8 liked this
silverbull8 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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