Voeltz v Obama hearing June 18, 2012, Natural Born Citizen definition to be decided, Judge Terry Lewis, Attorney Larry Klayman, Obama eligibility

Voeltz v Obama hearing June 18, 2012, Natural Born Citizen definition to be decided, Judge Terry Lewis, Attorney Larry Klayman, Obama eligibility

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“I do not know where Barack Obama was born. I do know that he has used taxpayer dollars to keep his records hidden.”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

From Obama Ballot Challenge May 31, 2012.


Judge Terry Lewis States “Natural Born Citizen” Definition Will Be Decided
May 31, 2012, Tallahassee, FL – Activist attorney Larry Klayman announced today that Judge Terry Lewis of Leon County, FL has set a hearing on June 18th, 2012 at 9:00am to hear arguments from both sides about whether the eligibility of President Barack Hussein Obama can be determined in open court. Judge Lewis made crucial rulings in the famous Bush v. Gore case in 2000.
Florida’s election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of such laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking. Plaintiff Michael Voeltz, a registered Democrat, challenged the eligibility of President Obama because he was not born to two citizen parents and thus not a “natural born citizen” as required by Article II the U.S. Constitution.
During the hearing over discovery issues, which Mr. Klayman wants to take the week of June 18, Judge Lewis noted that Mr. Klayman’s brief cited legal authority that a president, to be eligible, must have two (2) U.S. citizen parents, but President Obama and the other defendants cited no authority to the contrary. Mr. Klayman had cited the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Judge Lewis ordered further briefing on this issue prior to the hearing.

Klayman stressed that the eligibility is very important particularly with this president, Barack Hussein Obama. He added: “The framers were not stupid. They understood that a president with divided loyalties could present a security and other risks for our nation. Obama’s Muslim heritage, which emanates from his Kenyan father (who had to be deported from the U.S.), frankly explains why he frequently sides with and takes actions to further the interests of Muslim nations against the United States; specifically his refusal to take forceful action against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its leaders over nuclear armament and human rights violations and atrocities.”

In a CNN interview yesterday Donald Trump stated ‘Obama hates this subject’ meaning the eligibility issue. This is because he appears not to be a legitimate American president, but instead an imposter who has fooled many. Unfortunately, the American people are the victims. It’s time that Obama, despite his protestations in proving his eligibility, either put up or shut up by coming forward with real proof, not doctored, computer-generated “proof” that he is eligible. The courts should finally require this real proof as to whether he is eligible for office,” Klayman added.

Larry Klayman’s work on Voeltz v Obama is being supported by ConstitutionActionFund.org, a non-profit raising money for the legal challenge. PLEASE help.

The case is entitled Voeltz v. Obama, et. al. (No. 2012 CA 467) and is being heard in the Circuit Court Of The Second Judicial Circuit In And For Leon County, Florida. To request an interview please contact Adrienne Mazzone at (561) 750-9800.”



Thanks to commenter Starla.

49 responses to “Voeltz v Obama hearing June 18, 2012, Natural Born Citizen definition to be decided, Judge Terry Lewis, Attorney Larry Klayman, Obama eligibility

  1. nada noway will they take him off the ballot. if they admit to the lie and fruad the whole house of cards will collaspse along with the so called gop.there is waaay to much deception and fruad at the highest levels. thats why wink wink edwards got off. he knows to much dirt on everyone. theses folks a experts at lying and deceving. men of power will do anything to retain power

  2. Breaking: Republican Orly Taitz Poised to Clinch Party Nomination in California Senate Race


  3. Cabby - AZ

    Marine: Obama Claimed He Was Born in Mombasa>/b>

  4. Let’s keep the heat on the usurper. Win or lose the case, we will appeal if we lose, defend if we win. In the meantime, we are getting out the dirt about Obama, helping to ensure that he can’t win, possiblyy sabotaging his nomination and setting the stage for future nuillification or negotiation on the validity of his faux “presidency.” The publicity value of that alone is worth it. Also, Sheriff Joe, Trump and Lord Monckton are all helping our cause, along with the other eligibility and ballot-challenging plaintiffs and their attorneys.

    PLEASE help us:



    “Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” on Wednesday May 30, 2012 aired a scathing review of the first three years of President Barack Obama’s term in office, countering his “hope” and “change” motto with a series of “then and now” facts about the national debt, jobless rate, gas prices and more.”





    Uploaded by TheDrRJP on Oct 21, 2011

    “On April 26, 2011, CNN had two totally fraudulent reports that were so blatantly deceptive and false as to leave no doubt they were intentionally covering up Obama’s document fraud.”




    Uploaded by TheDrRJP on Oct 21, 2011

    “On April 26, 2011, CNN had two totally fraudulent reports that were so blatantly deceptive and false as to leave no doubt they were intentionally covering up Obama’s document fraud.”

  8. “Judge tosses WND’s suit against Esquire”

    “A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has dismissed WND’s case against Esquire magazine alleging damages for a false report that the WND Books expose “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President” by Jerome Corsi had been recalled and repudiated by the publisher.

    “The court’s decision is significantly flawed and intellectually dishonest,” said WND’s attorney in the case, Larry Klayman.

    Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the U.S. District Court in D.C. granted Esquire’s motion to dismiss based on D.C.’s anti-SLAPP law, which is designed to protect media and public figures from frivolous lawsuits.

    “The decision was so poorly reasoned it rises to a level of negligence, if not a desire to dump the case because it is not palatable to the Washington establishment,” Klayman said.”


  9. United Bases of America

    Good research…excellent graphic. Please share:

    Despite the pending troop withdrawals in Iraq and those in Afghanistan between now and 2014, the United States remains a superpower on a scale not seen since the days of the Caesars. With this in mind, the National Post’s Richard Johnson takes a look at the scale of America’s forces.


    Here is the graphic:

  10. GOD HELP US.

  11. Tom Woods Makes The Case Against Obama In Three Minutes

    More brilliance from Mr. Woods. Can’t wait to see the whole debate:

  12. Wonder if they’ll wear black leather and carry billy clubs!!:

    PICKET: DOJ to monitor Wisconsin recall election


  13. seaque | June 4, 2012 at 9:09 pm |

    Tom Woods Makes The Case Against Obama In Three Minutes
    Great video, thanks seaque

  14. seaque | June 4, 2012 at 9:09 pm |

    seaque, thanks for the Tom Woods link.

    I guess I have a new hero.

    I am posting a link where he talks about Mark Levin. I was a Mark Levin fan for a couple of years ( I bought his books). I had to put up with my wife telling me to turn it down or turn it off. She could not put up with his screeching. Over time, I finally got turned off by his coming down on the “birther” issue. I found the same thing coming out of Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck. Well, I guess “birtherism” is not suppose to sell.

    I just listened to another Tom Woods video on economics. It goes on for about an hour. It is great.

  15. Here is the link. I just had to post it. What a guy.

    BTW, I am a pretty hard core conservative, and I never have been a real Ron Paul supporter, but last week I proudly voted for him.

  16. Awesome Ray! I love Tom Woods….he is one of the Doc’s biggest cheerleaders! Thanks for posting those video’s! 🙂

  17. Sorry, this is the link that I meant to post. But the last one was in Houston. Sorry I missed it.

  18. Someone needs to let Klayman know that he can’t just rely on the legal precedent in Minor. He needs to cite U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark because all nine justices, both the majority and the dissent, affirmed Minor’s definition of NBC. And second, he needs to cite Luria v. United States, because that decision cites Minor and not Wong Kim Ark as the binding precedent on presidential eligibility. Luria is not worded well because it mentions a difference between naturalized and “native citizens.” But, Minor, when it defined natural-born citizens defined native in the same sentence, which was to use it to exclusively characterize birth to citizen parents. If Ark was binding because of how it defines native-born citizens, then it wouldn’t say that Minor’s holding was based on having citizen parents. Viriginia Minor argued she was a native born citizen through the 14th amendment, but the Supreme Court rejected that argument by essentially making her eligible to run for president as a natural-born citizen, born in the country to parents who were its citizens, even though they said she had no right to vote.

    27 Supreme Court justices agreed on an exclusive definition that precludes the Kenyan Coward™ from being Constitutionally eligible. There is no higher judicial authority, and even the flawed Ankeny decision admitted there was no legal precedent in Wong Kim Ark for its conclusion/phantom guidance about not needing to have citizen parents. The only legal precedent they cited was from Minor, which is what Ark and Luria both did too. All children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These are the natives, or natural-born citizens.

  19. ksdb, greetings. I left a comment for you a couple of days ago, wondering if you were the same ksdb from the Holdings, Dicta thread @ JT. I can see from your last comment that your are the same. Bravo.

    John Bingham in the Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session 1866, Who are natural born citizens?

  20. Interested Bystander

    Hey All,

    WAYYYY off topic but I can’t resist:

    29 years ago today, in a small church on the Southwest side of Indianapolis Indiana, I married the young woman of my dreams.

    We met when she was 15 and a “girlfirend” of one of the guys who hung out at the “bachelor pad” back in the day. I worked with the guy, who didn’t have a car, and I would take him up to pick her up to come back to our apartment on the weekends. As time passed, the guy would ask me to go pick her up so that she was already at the pad when he got off.

    The guy joined the Navy in 1981 and they broke up before he left, and she called me up on a Saturday night and told me that she was going to the drive in with her neighbors, and wanted to know if I wanted to meet them there (Silent Scream was playing). I had to call my roommate, who was off that Saturday, and he was kind enough to cover for me.

    We have been together ever since.

    She was 18 and I was 22 when we married.

    Oh there were some rocky times back in the late eighties and early ninties, but we sat down and discussed what we wanted, and decided that we still loved each other, and made it through the difficult times.

    She is the reason I breathe. She means the world to me.

    I am the LUCKIEST man in the world.

    Thank you Mrs IB for being the wonderful person that you are.


  21. Interested Bystander

    Hey All,

    I forgot, good morning everyone.

  22. Interested Bystander

    Hey All,

    I’ve not noticed before, but if you scroll down to the bottom of the page, all the way to the bottom, does anyone else see a smiley face in the bottom left hand corner of the page?

    Or is it just me?

  23. Interested Bystander

    Hey All,

    I’m not sure how to take “infowars”, but if this is true……………….


    I have advocated for ever that I think that these types of things are a Fourth Amendment violation.

    The Fourth Amendment simply does NOT apply anymore. You can be pulled over for driving what the officer feels is “too close to the center line”, and be subjected to all kinds of “searches”. If you have a feather hanging from your rear view mirror by an allegator clip, your car WILL be searched, without a search warrant because of “probable cause”.

    The same goes for the TSA. They ILLEGALLY search hundreds of thousands EVERY DAY without a search warrant.

    If airlines want to make that a requirement for boarding their plane, then so be it, but the Government has NO AUTHORITY within our Constitution to do this WITHOUT a search warrant signed by a judge.

    And now they’re flying over farms to see if the farmer’s cow dung is going in to water?

    My goodness people, I remember when we changed oil in our cars and dumped it along the side of the garage to keep grass from growing there.

    We are no longer FREE.

  24. Mr. Bill(ms. helga)

    Very nice sentiments IB. There is nothing better in life than a good marriage and a belief in God and nothing worse in life than a bad marriage and NO belief in God.
    Today will be a day we get a feeling of how the country is going by watching the results in Wisconsin.

  25. IB – They were talking about the drones over farms on ‘The Five’ on Fox a couple of nights ago. It’s true. Even Bob Bechle was disgusted by it. He wore sunglasses because he was ashamed to be associated.

  26. New Jersey’s primary is today. I guess you know who I’m casting my vote for.

  27. truefreedom

    I think the smiley used to be upper right of header a while back. i forgot I used to wonder about it too.

  28. Many of you here may recall the name Marty Didier, who would comment here from time to time in the past. Haven’t heard from him in quite a while. He comments other places, as well. I found this “conversation” between he and Helen over at the T-room back in Feb. 2011. Please read, as it is relevant today.


    I also found a video Marty made in August 2011, but he hasn’t made more, as he said he would. I hope he is okay. He has been trying to get the word out for a long time about his connections in Chicago.

    US Drug Lord System, 911 and White House Coup – P1

  29. IB – I think CW said the smiley was a counter for visitors to the site, but I could be wrong. It used to be centered at the bottom of the page.

  30. citizenwells

    Good morning Zach, et al.

  31. Political language is designed to make LIES sound TRUTHFUL and MURDER respectable.

    George Orwell

  32. bob strauss

    June 5, 2012
    What Is Obama Hiding?
    By Ed Lasky

    There has been plenty of conjecture regarding Obama’s biography. Clearly, he has a penchant for fiction and does not care to fact-check his own life. Nor does he care for others to fact-check or scrutinize what he has been doing as president. Has this been why he has been decimating the taxpayers’ best friends in Washington: the inspectors general?

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/what_is_obama_hiding.html#ixzz1wvVZX8uG

  33. bob strauss

    June 5, 2012
    The Morphing Obama Biography and the Skeptics
    By Cindy Simpson

    An odd taboo has been created on noticing that the president of the United States has a biography that can adapt itself to the needs of the moment. Go too far in raising an alarm, and be labeled “birther” and shunned in polite society.

    The credit for creating the “birther” label was claimed in 2008 by columnist David Weigel:

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/the_morphing_obama_biography_and_the_skeptics.html#ixzz1wvXGwse9

  34. Free Speech

    It is not enough to simply remove bo. We need 1000’s of Courageous Patriots to demand that their local Sheriffs do their jobs as Sheriff Joe has done and investigate bo and all of his local Criminal cohorts. Then bo and all of his criminal cohorts must be Indicted, Convicted and Imprisoned.

    bo is merely the tip of the iceberg of Criminal Corruption.

  35. bob strauss


  36. bob strauss



  37. @Ray, thanks for the comment. The Bingham quote is good, but unfortunately, the Ankeny appeals decision illustrated one way a court could duck original intent:

    “The bases of the Plaintiffs‟ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.”

    Original intent is now: “various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.”

    They used this same tactic later in their decision:

    “The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century.”

    If the courts want United States Supreme Court authority, we now have three decisions that all affirm the same definition of natural-born citizen, directly satisfying the meaning of Article II Section I: all children born in the country to citizen parents. These are the natural-born citizens. This is why Klayman really needs to focus on Supreme Court precedent, and to show how Ark affirmed Minor and created a separate definition of citizenship by birth, and how Luria pointed to Minor, not Ark in defining the citizenship that applies to presidential eligibility.

  38. Mr.Bill…………….
    Just think……If Walker wins he will become the ONLY governor ever to have been elected TWICE in the same term. That DOES seem to say something!

  39. Have any of you checked Drudge this morning? Dick Morris told Sean Hannity that Bill Clinton told a Conservative friend, “You have six months to save the country.” He doesn’t want Obama reelected.

  40. I am bonding to already established fact that even though the requirements of a POTUS candidate is are already CLEARLY specified in our Constitution,there are those who must compulsively pick at, and otherwise attempt to twist the Constitutional language by trying to make others believe that the Constitution needs to be INTERPRETED. I personally believe that is indeed one of the problems in our alleged society. I believe that if any of our elected leaders cannot read the Constitution, then he/she has no business trying to be elected to that office in the first place.

  41. Although the Constitution calls for a natural born citizen as President, it says nothing to define what one is. From reading other words of the founders, it must have seemed too obvious for them to even write it down in the Constitution. We do have court precedents and laws, but the opposition is attempting to confuse the issue. This summary might be helpful: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html. We pray that Larry and other attorneys helping him may be able to clarify all this on June 18.

    Then, there is still the matter of forged and missing documents, which alone should be cause for O’s immediate ejection and prosecution.

  42. Bob Strauss…………………
    Perhaps the footprint implies that the juices used in making the wine was produced by a number of people STOMPING the juice out of the various fruits. It is entirely possible that the WHITE wine which I occasionally sip ( Manischewitz Cream White Concord) is manufactured in the same manner. It does go well with PORK TENDERLOINS, CHICKEN,TURKEY,ETC. if you like white wines. Yes the footprint seems a bit MUCH. That particular wine is also available in a white wine which also has the same exact LOGO. How do I know you ask………my step daughter has a bottle of it in our ICEBOX. She recently moved back to the only place left. It has created an extremely tense situation, and I am personally MAD AS HELL. She is thirty years of age, recently divorced, and brought her two dogs with her,which has along with our two turned our home into a DOG KENNEL. I am at present considering moving out to a more peaceful setting. I guess even good things have an ending.

  43. George Miller……………..
    Do you believe that CASE LAW overrules Constitutional law? There are a number of practicing lawyers who think it should. They are largely the younger set of attorneys who have been practicing law for relatively short periods of time, but seem to think that ALL aspects of law MUST be INTERPRETED to fit a case at hand. I personally do NOT believe this. Constitutional law is JUST THAT, and was founded by some extremely intelligent people who knew for certain that UP IS UP,and DOWN IS DOWN. They scribed their choice of words into the laws for the express reason of the Constitution NOT NEEDING INTERPRETATION. Our Constitution has withstood REPEATED attempts to CHANGE IT. There are a number of a few overeducated (alleged) Constitutional Scholars who believe that the Constitution should undergo a major overhaul, or even be done away with completely. Most of these people are the RADICAL LIBERALS who roam among us. They believe that they are the SUPERIOR beings on earth and everybody else should kiss their feet. They are the SNOT NOSED OVER EDUCATED WORDSMITHS who think UP is DOWN, and there should be laws that so state. A few of these people are some of the most perverted people on earth

  44. I don’t think that at all, oldsalt, although, de facto, that happens frequently.

    The fact is that “natural born Citizen” is specified, but remains undefined in the Constitution, therefore defaulting to statutory or judicial definitions.

  45. George, the Supreme Court has already made sure to specify that natural born Citizen is not subject to statuory definitions, because they said the definition is found outside the Constitution. From Minor v. Happersett:

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    The idea that this is an extra-Constutitional definition was affirmeed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:

    “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.””

    If one construes the 14th amendment and finds that the Constitution does not define natural-born citizenship, then this means that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship. The definition used by the court, which relies on citizen parents is a verbatim match of the law of nations, not English common law. Second, the Minor court legally distinguished natural-born citizens from aliens or foreigners. The latter categories must rely on naturalization, so the court is saying is you are not born in the country to citizen parents (plural), then you are in effect an alien or foreigner who must be naturalized.

    Further, I would posit that NBC is consistent with the preamble to the Constitution which use the term “for ourselves and our posterity,” which means for the citizens of the new country and the children of those citizens. Similar terms were used in the original colonial charters, such as this charter for Connecticut in 1662:

    “every the Subjects of Us, Our Heirs, or Successors, which shall go to inhabit within the said Colony, and every of their Children, which shall happen to be born there, or on the Seas in going thither, or returning from thence, shall have and enjoy all Liberties and Immunities of free Did natural Subjects within any the Dominions of US, Our Heirs or Successors, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever, as if the they and every of them were born within the realm of England”

    Notice the right of being a natural-born subject isn’t established just for the persons born in the colony, but for every of “their Children” … the children of “every the Subjects of Us.” It doesn’t say for “every the Subjects of US and the children of visiting alien college students who happen to pop a local girl and and get her pregnant.”

  46. I’m quite familiar with Minor. I’m just telling you what’s actually happening. Now I hear that the Dems are trying to have Van Irion sanctioned fort having the gall to say that. If they succeed and quash our other challenges,. perhaps I will spend less time on such things and more time training with our local militia unit.

    We have done most things right, followed the law and only get back absurd decisions denying facts and law.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s