IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT

MICHAEL C. VOELTZ, Circuit Case No.: 2012CA00467 Appellant, vs. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, et. al. DCA Case No.: 1D12-3489 Appellees. ____________________________________________ /

MOTION FOR WRITTEN OPINION PURSUANT TO FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.330(a) INTRODUCTION Appellant Michael Voetlz seeks a written opinion of the First District Court of Appeals' dismissal of Florida Circuit Court case 2012CA00467 because it represents a question of great public importance, and a question of first impression involving the U.S. Constitution that should be reviewed by the Florida and U.S. Supreme Courts. This motion is timely pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 9.330(a) which allows for 15 days to file this motion and Rule 2.514 of the Rules of Judicial Administration which allows for 5 additional days after service my mail. Counsel respectfully asserts that based upon a reasoned and studied professional judgment that a written opinion will provide a scholarly complete and legitimate basis for both the Florida and U.S. Supreme Courts review because the ruling invalidates a state statute, the Florida Constitution, and involves eligibility requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

Existing law was modified by the ruling of Judge Terry Lewis, that Florida election contest statutes do not apply to Presidential Preference Primaries. This same issue is pending appellate review in the current case 2012CA03857. Judge Terry Lewis ruling that Florida election contest statutes 102.168, and 101.252(1) do not apply to Presidential Preference Primaries directly conflicts with an earlier Florida Supreme Court ruling from the 2000 general election controversy that holds that Florida election statutes all apply to presidential elections. The Florida election statute relating to the Presidential Preference Primary (Fl. ss.103.101(4)) specifically states that it shall be conducted in the same manner as other state elections. Questions to be ascertained by the Florida and U.S. Supreme Court: 1. Do Florida election laws allowing voters the ability to challenge the eligibility of any person nominated or elected to office (Fl. ss. 102.168(1)(3)(b)) apply to presidential preference primaries and general elections for the Office of President of the United States? 2. Did the state of Florida violate 3 U.S.C. 5 by not adjudicating with finality Appellants legally filed election contest by the safe harbor date of December 11, 2012, and did the governor by his ascertainment of electors, illegally claim section 2 status of the Elector Count Act 1887 (now US Code 3)? 3. Has the Secretary of State of Florida, Ken Detzner violated Fl. ss. 97.012, and unequally applied Florida election laws in violation of Appellants due process and equal protection rights and in violation of his oath of office? ARGUMENT Appellant has filed a legal and proper election contest action contesting the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as president of the United States, based on Barack Obamas

birth as a British subject, of a British subject father, whom was married to his mother on August 4, 1961, and was never a U.S. citizen and was not born within the United States. Florida election statutes, in plain words, stipulate that Florida electors (voters) may challenge the eligibility of any person, nominated of elected to office (Fl. ss. 102.168(1)(3)(b)). Any person certainly applies to Barack Hussein Obama. Mr. Obama was nominated according to the plain words of Florida election statute 101.252(1), by being the sole candidate for election chosen by the Democratic Party. The Florida statutes also stipulate that a Primary election means an election held preceding the general election for the purpose of nominating a party nominee to be voted for in the general election to fill a national, state, county, or district office. (Fl. ss. 97.021(28)). Thus by his position as the sole unchallenged candidate of the Democratic party, Barack Obama was considered nominated for the office of President of the United States by the Florida Democratic Party delegation (Fl. ss. 101.252(1)). The Florida statutes do not say the Presidential Preference Primary never occurred, only that the sole unchallenged candidates name shall not be printed on the ballot. Florida statute 103.101(4) proves that the delegates for of Barack Hussein Obama were being nominated, and that the Presidential Preference Primary shall be treated as any other election. (The names of candidates for political party nominations for President of the United States shall be printed on official ballots for the Presidential Preference Primary election and shall be marked, counted, canvassed, returned, and proclaimed in the same manner and under the same conditions, so far as they are applicable, as in other state elections. If party rule requires the delegates names to be printed on the official Presidential Preference Primary ballot, the name of the presidential candidates for that political party may not be printed separately, but the ballot may reflect the presidential candidate to whom the delegate

is pledged. If, however, a political party has only one presidential candidate, neither the name of the candidate nor the names of the candidates delegates shall be printed on the ballot.) Indeed the Florida Supreme Court has ruled directly opposite of the ruling of Judge Terry Lewis in his dismissal of 2012CA00467, when he asserted that the biggest problem, and one that cannot be fixed by amending the complaint, is that Section 102.168 Florida Statutes is not applicable to the nomination of a candidate for Office of President of the United states. (Bk. 4388, pg. 61). The Florida Supreme Court ruled explicitly that the Florida election contest statutes certainly do apply to presidential elections. (see Palm Beach Canvassing Board v. Harris, Nos.SC00-2346, SC00-2348 and SC00-2349, [I]n this case, the parties conceded that the contest provisions contained in section102.168 apply to presidential elections. Id. at 26 (footnote20);see also, 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 33. The Florida legislature could certainly have changed the Florida statutes if it disagreed with the Florida Supreme Courts holding that Fl. ss. 102.168 applies to Presidential elections, as it made a major overhaul of the Florida election statutes in 2011 (CHAPTER 2011-40 An act relating to elections), long after the 2000 general election. ([It] can be strongly presumed that Congress will specifically address language on the statute books that it wishes to change. United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 453 (1988)). See also Similarly, if Congress in enacting a new statute incorporates sections of an earlier one, Congress normally can be presumed to have had knowledge of the interpretation given to the incorporated law, at least insofar as it affects the new statute. Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 581 (1978)).

The plain language of the Florida Election Statutes lists eligibility for office (Fl. ss. 102.168(1)(3)(b) as a permissible cause of action for any Florida voter, eligible to vote in an election, to challenge any person nominated or elected to office, and by the plain words of the Florida statutes Barack Hussein Obama shall be declared nominated for the office by the Florida democratic party delegates (Fl. ss.101.252(1)) because he was the only candidate qualified by his party to be on the primary ballot. (See, e.g., Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485 (1917) (Where the language is plain and admits of no more than one meaning, the duty of interpretation does not arise . . . .). Appellant had filed a timely and proper election complaint as to cause of action, timing, venue and indispensible parties, yet was denied standing because the office of President of the United States is treated differently under Florida law. (Bk. 4388. Pg. 62), a holding diametrically opposed to Florida Supreme Court holding of a case appealed from his own court. In fact Judge Lewis implied that Appellant would have standing, and that Fl. ss. 101.252(1) and 102.168(1)(3)(b)would apply to Barack Hussein Obama as any person nominated for office, if the cause of action was not applied to a Presidential Primary. (See, 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). His ruling was opposite of the clear and manifest intention of the Florida legislature and holdings of the Supreme Court of Florida to apply ALL of the election codes to ALL elections, and is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine clearly stated in the Florida Constitution, (The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein. FLA. CONST. art.II, 3). Judge Lewis has clearly usurped the legislative intent of the Florida legislative, and has violated the due process

and equal protection rights of Appellant to file a contest of election action, based on eligibility of a Presidential candidate, nominated by a Presidential Preference Primary. Even further, the chief elections officer in the state of Florida, Ken Detzner, and the Florida First District Court of Appeals, have violated Federal law by not adjudicating a final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State. (3 U.S.C. 5 - Determination of Controversy as to Appointment of Electors) The First District Court of Appeals of Florida waited until two months after the December 11, 2012 deadline imposed by 3 U.S.C. 5 to dismiss Appellants complaint as moot, even though the appeal of 2012CA00467 was filed in July, 2012, and has not yet ruled on 2012CA03857. As such the Florida Governor Rick Scott has issued an ascertainment of electors certificate and attained fraudulent section 2 status of the Electoral Count Act (1887)(Now US Code 3). Al Gore and others used the same Florida election contest statutes after the 2000 General election in Florida, and the case was adjudicated all the way to the Supreme Court of the US (See Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)). The result of the Appellants effort has been a perversion of the law, which has been unequally applied, violating Appellants due process and equal protection rights. The Florida Supreme Court has held that eligibility for office is a judicial question upon the presentation of a legally filed election contest (see Shevin v. Stone, 279 So. 2d 17,22 (Fla. 1972)). Appellant has filed legally and properly, asking for declaratory and other relief, yet none was forthcoming. This is a case of great public importance, as the will of the people in choosing an eligible president is sacrosanct.

CONCLUSION For the forgoing reasons, Appellant respectfully requests that this Court issue a written opinion in the above styled case.

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Written Opinion has been filed electronically and thus served via email this 28th day of February, 2013 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 James A. Peters Office of the Attorney General FL-01, The Capital

Tallahassee, FL 32399-105

Respectfully submitted,

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