You are on page 1of 23

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

MICHAEL C. VOELTZ,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, et. al. ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) ____________________________________________ )

Case No.: 2012CA00467

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SECRETARY OF STATE AND DEFENDANT OBAMA'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND DEFENDANT SECRETARY OF STATE'S ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Michael Voeltz, registered member of the Democratic Party of Florida, having sworn an oath to "protect and defend" the U.S. Constitution as an elector of the state of Florida, brings forth this lawsuit to challenge the election and nomination of Barack Obama as the Democratic Party candidate for the 2012 presidential election. The Democratic Party of Florida has submitted the name of Defendant Barak Obama as the only candidate for the presidency of the United States. Under Florida law, by submitting Defendant Obama's name as the only name for the Florida Presidential Primary the Democratic Party of Florida nominated Defendant Obama for the office of the presidency of the United States. As with the presidential election of 2008, Defendant Obama has never established his eligibility for the presidency of the United States. Indeed, neither Defendant Obama, nor the

Democratic Party of Florida has even stated that Defendant Obama is a "natural born citizen." The only evidence of Defendant Obama's birth within the United States has come in the form of an electronic version posted on the internet. There has been evidence to show that this "birth certificate" has either been altered or is entirely fraudulent. No physical, paper copy has ever been presented to firmly establish that Defendant Obama was indeed born within the United States. Yet even if his purported "birth certificate" is to be believed, Defendant Obama was born to a mother who was a citizen of the United States, and a father who was a Kenyan citizen. The U.S. Constitution requires that all who serve as President of the United States must be "natural born citizen[s]." The Supreme Court has defined this term to mean a child born to two citizen parents. Since Defendant Obama was not born to both parents who were citizens of the United States, he is not a "natural born citizen" as required by the Constitution. Under either scenario, it is clear that Defendant 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. Indeed, neither Defendant Obama, nor the Democratic Party of Florida has ever made the claim that Defendant Obama is a "natural born citizen." Plaintiff has properly challenged the nomination of Defendant Obama as the Democratic Party nominee for the Florida general election of 2012 because he is not eligible for the office in question. Plaintiff set forth the grounds for the challenge and now seeks relief from this Court. Defendant Secretary of State of Florida Ken Detzner has sworn an oath to "support, protect, and defend" the Florida Constitution, as well as the Constitution of the United States. Defendant Detzner is also designated the chief election officer for the state of Florida. As part of

his oath to uphold both constitutions, Defendant is duty bound to mete out the requirements of eligibility under the U.S. Constitution. The eligibility of Defendant Obama must be dealt with now. Plaintiff Voeltz, and the rest of the electors in the state of Florida, must be assured that if they cast their votes for Defendant Obama in the general election that their votes will not be 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 is not settled now but rather after the election. Moreover, if the Defendant Obama is declared ineligible, the Governor of Florida, under Section 100.111(3)(a), must call a special primary election to select a nominee for the Democratic party. If this happens after the 2012 Democratic National Convention, scheduled to be held between September 3-6, 2012, then it would not be possible for the state of Florida to hold a special primary election before the November 6, 2012 presidential election. This lawsuit is at the pleading stage and the factual and legal standards have been met. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, and alternative Motion for Summary Judgment must respectfully be denied and this case must then respectfully proceed to discovery to finally determine the eligibility of Defendant Obama. ARGUMENT I. Plaintiff Has A Cause Of Action Under Florida Law To Challenge Defendant Obama's Nomination To The Office Of President Of The United States On The Grounds That Defendant Obama Is Ineligible To Hold That Office Plaintiff's challenge to the nomination of Barack Obama as the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party has been properly pled and is ripe for judicial review. Under Florida's Election Code, Defendant Obama has been nominated for the office of President of the United

States, regardless of the fact that Florida declined to hold a Presidential Preference Primary for Defendant Obama's political party. See Section 101.252(1), Florida Statutes (2011). Plaintiff has a right to challenge this nomination on the grounds that Defendant Obama is ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States. See Sections 97.021(14), 97.041 and 102.168, Florida Statutes (2011); see also Am. Compl. p.2 1. A. Plaintiff's Challenge Is Ripe For Judicial Review Under Florida Election Code section 102.168(1), "the certification of election or nomination of any person to office... may be contested in the circuit court... by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively." Under Section 97.021(14), Florida Statutes (2011), "Elector" is defined as "synonymous with the word 'voter' or 'qualified elector or voter". Plaintiff is a registered voter in the State of Florida, having met the qualifications of Section 97.041(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2011); a member of the Democratic Party; and a taxpayer. See Compl. p.2, 1. Thus, Plaintiff has standing under Section 102.168(1) to contest the certification of a nomination of a person to office. Plaintiff is contesting Defendant Secretary of State's certification of the nomination of Defendant Obama as the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party in the Florida general election that is to be held on November 6, 2012. Under Florida law, "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." Section 101.252(1) (Emphasis added). Florida's Supreme Court has interpreted Section 101.25(1) to mean exactly what it says, "when only one candidate for a political party

qualifies, that candidate is the party's nominee." Republican State Exec. Comm. v. Graham, 388 So. 2d 556, 557 (1980). When the Florida Democratic Party submitted Defendant Obama's name, and his name alone, to Defendant Secretary of State for placement on the 2012 Presidential Preference Primary Ballot, it led down the path to Defendant Obama in fact being legally nominated. See Exhibit 1. Defendant Secretary of State certified Defendant Obama as the only candidate for the 2012 Presidential Primary on or about November 15, 2011. See Exhibit 2. Defendant Secretary of State and the Elections Canvassing Commission certified Defendant Obama's nomination on February 14, 2012. Based on these events, there has been a nomination that may be contested "by any elector qualified to vote in the election." Section 102.168(1). Defendants attempt to avoid the implications of this legal conclusion by alleging that the absence of a Democratic Presidential Preference Primary in Florida for the 2012 presidential election renders Plaintiff's cause of action premature. This disingenuous argument not only ignores the plain language of Section 101.252, a statute that clearly contemplates the scenario that has given rise to Plaintiff's cause of action, but also mirrors the losing argument in Graham. In Graham, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Governor to call a special primary election to fill a vacancy following the withdrawal of the lone Republican candidate for the Florida House of Representatives after the date for qualifying candidates had passed. Graham, at 557. The respondent, Governor Graham, argued that "no vacancy can occur prior to the first primary election," based on "the assertion that Section 101.252(1), Florida Statutes (1979), does not effectuate the nomination of an unopposed candidate on the day qualification closes." Id.

The Graham court dismissed this argument, noting "respondent's position ignores the unambiguous terms of Section 101.252(1), Florida Statutes (1979)." Id. 1 The court held that "the statute clearly states that if there is only one candidate at the close of qualification, that candidate is automatically nominated for office." Id. (Emphasis added). The court reached its conclusion for three reasons: "First, the rest of the election laws are silent both as to who shall declare an unopposed candidate to be a nominee and when this declaration is to be made." Id. at 558. (Emphasis in original.) "Second, if any meaning is to be given to the central import of section 101.252(1), i. e. unopposed, one can only look to the date that qualification closed, for it is only after this time that a contender can be called unopposed. This time is the focus of the statute, and its centrality implies an operative date from which an unopposed candidate is reclassified as a 'nominee.'" Id. "Finally, even assuming respondent's argument were reasonable, it is no more reasonable than the construction urged by petitioner. If two equally reasonable constructions might be found, this Court in the past has chosen the one which enhances the elective process by providing voters with the greater choice in exercising their democratic rights..." Graham, at 558. Like the petitioner in Graham, Plaintiff's cause of action is based on the fact that only one person was qualified as the Democratic Party's 2012 presidential candidate. Under the holding in Graham, this fact establishes the occurrence of a nomination. Although Defendants conspicuously make no reference to either Section 101.252 or Graham in their motions, Defendants' arguments are fundamentally identical to the failed argument put forth by the respondent in Graham. Like the respondent in Graham, Defendant Secretary of State alleges that no nomination has occurred because Florida did not hold a Presidential Preference Primary for the Democratic Party. See Defendant Secretary of State's
1

The court proceeded to quote the entire text of the statute, notably emphasizing the same statutory language as is found in the statutory quotation supra. Id. at 557, 558.
6

Motion at 4. Similarly, Defendant Obama argues "Plaintiff fails to allege, and cannot allege, that the certified results of the election being contested resulted in President Obama's 'election or nomination... to any office'" since "the Presidential Preference Primary did not result in President Obama's reelection as President of the United States, nor did it render him the Democratic Party's nominee for such office." Defendant Obama's Motion at 4. Defendants' arguments must fail in this case, just as they did in Graham. B. Complaint Has Set Forth The Grounds On Which To Contest The Nomination Under Section 102.168(3), the Plaintiff "must set forth the grounds" on which the contest challenge is based upon. Section 102.168(3), Florida Statutes (2011). The statute goes on provide the grounds on which a challenge may occur: a) misconduct, fraud, or corruption; b) ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute; c) receipt of a number of illegal votes; or d) proof that any elector, official, etc. was given or offered a bribe. Section 102.168(3)(a)-(d), Florida Statutes (2011). Plaintiff's complaint alleged that Defendant Obama is ineligible for the office of the presidency of the United States. Am. Compl. at 6. The eligibility requirements of the U.S. Constitution, that the president must be a "natural born citizen," aged 35 years or older, and a resident of the U.S. for 14 years. The definition of "citizen" was declared in the Fourteenth Amendment as "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." U.S. Cons. Amend. 14. "Citizen" was subsequently defined by The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett as "a member of the nation, and nothing more." Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 166 (1875).

Plaintiff believes, as set forth in the Amended Complaint, that Defendant Obama has not sufficiently established that he is eligible for the office of President of the United States by producing documentation that he was born in the United States. Am. Compl. 27. No physical, paper copy of Defendant Obama's birth certificate has been presented to establish his eligibility. Am. Compl. 8. Defendant Obama has electronically produced a copy of what he purports to be his "birth certificate." Am. Compl. 6. Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered. Am. Compl. 7. See also Exhibit 3.Without the physical, paper copy of the long-form birth certificate it is impossible for Defendant to establish that he is a citizen of the United States, and therefore eligible for the office of the Presidency of the United States. Yet even if Defendant Obama was born in the United States, and thus a citizen as he purports to be, his eligibility for the office of the President of the United States still has not been met. Defendant Obama's father was born in the British Colony of Kenya, and was thus a British subject at birth. In fact, Barack Obama Sr. was never a citizen of the United States, only visiting the United States on a student visa. The British Nationality Act of 1948, Part 2, Section 5, Clause 1, makes Defendant Obama, the son of a British Subject, also a British Subject at birth. At best, Defendant Obama was born a dual citizen of Britain and the United States. These facts make clear that Defendant Obama was not a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution requires a heightened requirement for eligibility as President of the United States, that of being a "natural born citizen." U.S. Const. Article I, Section 2. This requirement was put in place to prevent foreign influence into the office of the President and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, did not
8

alter, or in any way address the term "natural born citizen." It is clear that the two differing terms "citizen" and "natural born citizen" were two entirely different terms. Less than a decade after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court clarified that" all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens" were in turn "natural born citizens." Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875). Defendant Obama was born to a mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who was a U.S. citizen, and to a father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., who was a British Subject and never a U.S. Citizen. Barack Obama Sr. was born on the British colony of Kenya and was thus a British subject. Am. Compl. 10, 11. He entered the United States on student visa and was never a U.S. citizen or legal resident. In fact, he was later deported. Based on the definition of "natural born citizen," as provided in the Minor decision as "one who was born in a country of parents who were its citizens," it is clear that Defendant Obama is not a "natural born citizen" and thus ineligible for the office of the presidency. It is for exactly these reasons that Plaintiff has brought this challenge based on the "ineligibility of the successful candidate for the office in dispute." Section 102.168(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2011). Moreover, Section 102.168(5) states that: "A statement of the grounds of contest may not be rejected, nor the proceedings dismissed, by the court for any want of form if the grounds of contest provided in the statement are sufficient to clearly inform the defendant of the particular proceeding or cause for which the nomination or election is contested." Section 102.168(5), Florida Statutes (2011). This statute provides that even if this court determines that the grounds were not set forth correctly, which they were, that his Court, respectfully, may not dismiss this action. Finally, Plaintiff, under Florida statute 102.168(7) is entitled to an immediate hearing. Specifically, this section provides, "[a]ny candidate, qualified elector, or taxpayer presenting
9

such a contest to a circuit judge is entitled to an immediate hearing." Section 102.168(7), Florida Statutes (2011). C. Court Has the Proper Authority To Determine Or Declare Eligibility The judiciary has the power to determine eligibility. See State ex rel. Cherry v. Stone, 265 So. 2d 56, 58 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1972); Shevin v. Stone 279 So. 2d. 17, 22 (1972). The Contest of Election statute specifically created a cause of action to enable Plaintiff, a registered elector and taxpayer, to bring this lawsuit in order for this Court to determine the eligibility of Defendant Obama. Moreover, this court retains additional power to declare the eligibility of Defendant Obama. Florida Statute 86.111 specifically states: Existence of another adequate remedy; effect.The existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief. The court may order a speedy hearing of an action for a declaratory judgment and may advance it on the calendar. Section 86.111, Florida Statutes (2011). There are then two specific remedies that Florida statutes provide in order to determine or declare the eligibility of Defendant Obama. Plaintiff is simply at the pleading stage of the lawsuit and has met the factual and legal threshold for this case to move forward. This lawsuit must, respectfully, now proceed to the discovery phase in order to continue with that determination. II. Elements Of Mandamus Have Sufficiently Been Pled The Contest of Election statutes provide a cause of action for the judicial system to administer and determine of the result of an election challenge. Plaintiff pled for relief asking for a mandamus to be issued, by the Court, which is empowered to determine eligibility,
10

directing Defendant Secretary of State to determine the eligibility of Defendant Obama for the office of the President of the United States. It is clear that Plaintiff, as a registered elector, has a right to vote in the general election of 2012. Defendant Secretary of State, as the chief elections official, has an indisputable ministerial duty to ensure that Plaintiff's right to vote is not infringed upon, and must do so in a manner not inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. "Mandamus is a common law remedy used to enforce an established legal right by compelling a person in an official capacity to perform an indisputable ministerial duty required by law. Puckett v. Gentry, 577 So. 2d 965, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). It is clear that Defendant Secretary of State, the chief elections official of the state of Florida, must perform his duty of carrying out the Florida elections. Yet this manner must also be done in accordance with the laws of both the Florida and U.S. Constitution that Defendant Secretary of State has sworn an oath to support. "To state a cause of action for mandamus, a party must allege a clear legal right to performance of the act requested, an indisputable legal duty, and the lack of an adequate remedy at law. Radford v. Brock, 914 So. 2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)" A. Plaintiff Has A Right To Performance Plaintiff has a fundamental right, as an elector, to cast his vote in the county in which he has registered. Florida Constitution Article VI, Section 2. Specifically, the Florida Constitution provides that: "Every citizen who is at least eighteen years of age and who is a permanent resident of the state, if registered as provided by law, shall be an elector of the country where registered." Florida Constitution Article VI, Section 2. "Elector" is defined as "synonymous with the word 'voter' or 'qualified elector or voter."

11

The right to vote is one of the most cherished and fundamental rights in the United States. Plaintiff is properly registered within the county of his residence, and is therefore a proper elector. Am. Compl. at 2. Inherent with the right to vote, Plaintiff has a right to have his vote counted, and not diluted, by the inclusion of a candidate who is ineligible for the office. If Defendant Obama is found at any time to be ineligible for the office of the President of the United States, it will effectively nullify any vote cast by Plaintiff Voeltz, or any other resident of Florida, for Defendant Obama. B. Secretary Of State Has A Legal Duty The oath of office is the common root from which the three branches of government spring forth. It is so vital to our form of government that Justice Marshall cited the Supreme Court Justices' oath as the grounds for establishing judicial review. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137. The Secretary of State swears an oath to "support, protect, and defend" both the Florida Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. Am. Compl. at 2, 3. Florida Const. Article II, Section 5(b). He is also designated as the chief election officer under the Florida Constitution. There can be no clearer or higher duty that to ensure that his obligations as the chief election officer than to make sure that any candidate for office in the state of Florida or for the United States, is eligible for the office that he/she is running for. The office of President of the United States is a federal office. The Florida general election is simply a federal election that is administered by Florida and the other 49 states, and must be bound by the eligibility requirements set forth by the U.S. Constitution. Defendant Secretary of State, as the chief election officer for the state of Florida, is thus duty bound to uphold the eligibility requirements as set forth in the U.S. Constitution.
12

The eligibility requirements of the U.S. Constitution, that the president must be a "natural born citizen," aged 35 years or older, and a resident of the United States for 14 years, supersede and transcend any Florida election statutes, or lack thereof. 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). The states may not in any way alter the eligibility requirements mandated by the Constitution. Defendant Secretary of State, acting on behalf of the state of Florida, may not merely circumvent his duties to support the U.S. Constitution by simply stating that no express Florida statute requires him to establish eligibility. It is inherent to his duties as the chief election officer that any candidate that is nominated or elected by his state of Florida must be verified as eligible for that office. To hold otherwise would create a massive loophole that would enable any person to run amuck of the Constitution and nullify the eligibility requirements. C. Absence Of Adequate Legal Remedy Plaintiff sufficiently pled the absence of an adequate legal remedy. The prayer for relief specifically asks for the mandamus as an alternative for the Court's determining of Defendant Obama's eligibility. Am. Compl. at 6. If there is no statutory cause of action to contest the nomination of Barack Obama to the Florida ballot, as Defendants' allege, then there would be no legal remedy at law. To dismiss the action based on the Defendants' premise would mean that any candidate, regardless of any eligibility-- age, citizenship, residency-- would be able to be nominated, and even elected illegally in office. With this logic even Justin Bieber, the 18-yearold, Canadian-born entertainer, could become President of the United States without so much as one person being able to challenge his eligibility. This would render the U.S. Constitution's
13

requirements for eligibility to the office of president, as well as any other eligibility requirements, useless. Such a large loophole must not be allowed. If Plaintiff intended on voting for this candidate and this candidate was determined later to be ineligible, especially after the general election, Plaintiff would have effectively been denied the opportunity to vote for president of the United States. D. Must Be Done Consistent With The U.S. Constitution As established, Defendant Secretary of State has sworn an oath to both the Florida Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. There is no indication that verifying the eligibility of a candidate for office would be inconsistent with the laws of Florida. Where inconsistent, if anywhere, the U.S. Constitution would take precedent because of the Supremacy Clause. U.S. Const. Article VI, Clause 2. As the Supreme Court has clarified, preemption exists even "where the state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution" of federal law. Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (U.S. 2000)(holding that a Massachusetts law barring state entities from buying goods from companies doing business with Burma was unconstitutional as preempted by Congress' mandatory and conditional sanctions on Burma). Here, it is clear that the U.S. Constitution, in placing the heightened eligibility requirements for the office of president, takes precedent, and preempts any Florida law, or lack thereof, that would allow Defendant Secretary of State to place an ineligible candidate on the Florida ballots. Any state law, whether statutorily or judicially created, must yield to the constitutional eligibility requirements.

14

III. If This Decision Is Dismissed It Must Be Without Prejudice Even in the unlikely event the court does not rule in our favor now, the matter will clearly be ripe for review after the 2012 Democratic National Convention. It is at this time that there can be no argument that Defendant Obama is not the nominee for the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, it makes sense to reach this matter now to avoid fraud on the people of Florida. Plaintiff does not wish, nor should any party, to put off this contest until after the general election, with the prospect that Defendant Obama, if he wins, might have his election nullified. In effect, we don't need another Bush v. Gore. CONCLUSION It is clear that Florida law has provided Plaintiff with the undeniable right to challenge the nomination of Defendant Obama in open court. Defendants' attempt to deny Plaintiff of that right is disingenuous and based on a wrong interpretation of law. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, and their alternative Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. Dated: May 14, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Larry Klayman Larry Klayman, Esq. F.L. Bar No. 246220 Klayman Law Firm 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (310) 595-0800 Email: leklayman@gmail.com

15

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

5/14/12

Sheriff Joe Arpaio suggests Obama's birth certificate is a forgery - - CBS News

March 1, 2012 4:35 PM

Sheriff Joe Arpaio suggests Obama's birth certificate is a forgery


By Brian Montopoli Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, announced Thursday that his six-month investigation had found that "probable cause exists indicating that forgery and fraud may have been committed" in the release of President Obama's long-form birth certificate. The publicity-hungry Arpaio, a strong opponent of illegal immigration who calls himself "America's Toughest Sheriff," said the evidence gathered by his investigators suggests Mr. Obama's birth certificate and selective service registration card are fakes. "Based on all of the evidence, I cannot in good faith report to you these documents are authentic," Arpaio said at a press conference in Phoenix, adding that his "investigators believe that the long form birth certificate was manufactured electronically and that it did not originate in the paper format as presented by the White House." The 79-year-old Arpaio, who has been accused by the Justice Department of racial profiling and who is being probed by a federal grand jury over potential abuse of power, said he told his investigators to examine the president's documents with "no preconceived notions," adding that he "felt that this investigation could clear President Obama's name and put people's minds at ease." Arpaio became Maricopa County sheriff in 1993, and has been elected five times. He said the investigation, undertaken by his five-member volunteer "Cold Case Posse" at the request of an Arizona Tea Party group, did not involve any cost to taxpayers. Arpaio's press conference puts him in league with the "birthers," the conspiracy theorists who claim - against overwhelming evidence - that Mr. Obama was not born in the United States and thus is not eligible to be president. (Many "birthers" believe the president was born in Kenya.) The White House's decision to release the president's long-form birth certificate in April has quieted such claims, though it did not extinguished them. "We're not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers," Mr. Obama said at the time. "We've got some enormous challenges out there. There are
www.cbsnews.com/2102-503544_162-57388911.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody 1/2

5/14/12

Sheriff Joe Arpaio suggests Obama's birth certificate is a forgery - - CBS News

a lot of folks out there still looking for work...We do not have time for this kind of silliness." Mike Zullo, the lead investigator for Arpaio, on Thursday presented a series of videos that he said showed that the president's documents were likely forgeries. He suggested the investigation showed that Mr. Obama's long-form birth certificate, which was released electronically, "never existed in paper form," and said the evidence had led him to recommend to Arpaio "a full-blown criminal investigation."
(Credit: AP)

Zullo also said his team came to the conclusion that the Hawaii Department of Health and Hawaiian officials "may have intentionally obscured 1961 birth records and procedures" to keep them from being adequately examined. Arpaio said last month he had briefed GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum on his investigation, and that Santorum said he "had no problems with what I told him that I may be doing." Also present at the news conference was Jerome Corsi, author of the book Where's the Birth Certificate?, which was published last May. Corsi writes for the website WorldNetDaily, the farright website that has long pushed the notion that the president was not born in the United States. WorldNetDaily livestreamed Arpaio's press conference and teased it with a story that complained that mainstream media reporters have "mostly have giggled when talk turns to the serious question of just what the U.S. Constitution requires of presidents." "This was not a politically motivated inquiry," Corsi said Thursday. "It is an inquiry for truth." Arpaio's biography on the Maricopa County sheriff's website notes that he oversees chain gangs, "started the nation's largest Tent City for convicted inmates," makes all inmates wear pink underwear, posts mug shots of all those arrested in the county and has reduced crime using "hardhitting enforcement methods." "No wonder Sheriff Arpaio has been profiled in over 4500 U.S. and foreign newspapers, magazines, and TV news programs," the bio reads. The Justice Department said in December that Arpaio has engaged in "a pattern or practice of misconduct that violates the Constitution and federal law," and a federal grand jury is investigating his office for abuse of power over its anti-public corruption investigations. Arpaio has also been criticized for allegedly inadequately investigating hundreds of sex crimes cases. UPDATE: Here's a link to the report from Arpaio's investigation. UPDATE #2: On Friday, Corsi and Zullo announced the publication of the $9.99 eBook "A Question of Eligibility," subtitled "A Law Enforcement Investigation Into Barack Obama's Birth Certificate And His Eligibility To Be President." The introduction to the book is written by Arpaio.

www.cbsnews.com/2102-503544_162-57388911.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

2/2

CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. mail this 14th day of May, 2012 to the following:

Daniel Nordy Ashley E. Davis Florida Department of State R.A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 Mark Herron Joseph Brennan Donnelly Robert J. Telfer, III Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A. Post Office Box 15579 Tallahassee, FL 32317 Stephen F. Rosenthal Podhurst 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 Counsel for Defendants

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Larry Klayman Larry Klayman, Esq. F.L. Bar No. 246220 Klayman Law Firm 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (310) 595-0800 Email: leklayman@gmail.com