IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA MICHAEL C.

VOELTZ,

Petitioner, Case No.: SC13-560 vs.

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, case no. 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 to direct Florida Secretary of State, Ken Detzner, to comply with Florida Statute 97.012(14), and direct the Court of Appeal to issue an opinion regarding the eligibility 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 States

for 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 (Rule 9.030(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 a right, but only to enforce a right already clearly and certainly established in the law. 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)). STATEMENT OF FACTS Petitioner Michael Voeltz, registered member of the Democratic Party of Florida, having sworn an oath to "protect and defend" the U.S. and Florida Constitutions as an elector of the state of Florida, brought forth a lawsuit to

challenge the election and nomination of Barack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Party candidate for the 2012 presidential election. (R.110-116). The Democratic Party of Florida has submitted the name of Respondent Obama 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 the Florida Presidential Primary, the Democratic Party of Florida nominated Respondent Obama for the office of the presidency of the United States.1 (R.112114). 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 that Respondent Obama is a "natural born citizen" as required to run for president as set forth 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 States has come in the form of an electronic version of a birth certificate posted on the internet. (R.112). There is uncontroverted evidence, however, on the record, to show 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 establish that Respondent Obama was indeed born within the United States. (R.112).

Respondent Obama was again nominated on September 6, 2012 at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.
1

Yet even if his purported "birth certificate" is to be believed, Respondent Obama 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 the United States must be "natural born citizen[s]." The U.S. Supreme Court has defined this term to mean a child born to two citizen parents. (R.245-260). Since Respondent Obama was not born to parents who were both citizens of the United States, 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 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. (R. 114). Indeed, neither Respondent Obama, nor the Democratic Party of Florida has ever made the claim that Respondent Obama is a "natural born citizen." (R. 114). Petitioner has properly challenged the nomination of Respondent Obama as the Democratic Party nominee for the Florida general election of 2012 because he is not eligible for the office in question. Petitioner set forth the grounds for the challenge and now seeks relief 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

Florida, had to be assured that if they cast their votes for Respondent Obama in the general election that their votes would not have been 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 had not settled now but rather after the election. Petitioner repeatedly attempted to expedite this lawsuit as Florida election law requires an expedited procedure in any event. See Section 102.168(7), Florida Statute ("Any candidate, qualified elector, or taxpayer presenting such a contest to a 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 Appellate Procedure, because this is an election issue and it needed to be fully appealed and the issues needed to be decided in time for both the general election and/or post election, since Florida Electors were to vote on December 17, 2012 and the Electoral 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 the same reasons in his Praecipe filed on November 9, 2012. This Praecipe, which was treated as a Motion to Expedite by this court, was also denied.

After months of inactivity, the Court of Appeal dismissed as moot the appeal on February 8, 2013 without a written opinion, stating only: PER CURIAM. DISMISSED as moot. BENTON, C.J., DAVIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR. 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 once again 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. ARGUMENT This 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 mootness doctrine. The issue of what is a natural born citizen and who checks to make sure that 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 "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 125 (1973). In Roe, the injury to the petitioner concerned her rights with regard to pregnancy. The Roe respondent raised the issue of standing because the petitioner was no longer pregnant by the time her claims were adjudicated. The U.S. Supreme Court found that when "pregnancy is a significant fact in the litigation, the normal 2666

day human gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete." The Court thus held that "it truly could be 'capable of repetition, yet evading review.'" Id. (citing Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911)); See also Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 405 U. S. 333 n. 2 (1972); Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 814, 394 U. S. 816 (1969). As is true by analogy in this case, every contest of an election would similarly be mooted by the sheer length of a trial and appeals process. Yet elections happen every year and the potential for harm is just as present in the next election cycle. It has thus become the black letter law of the land that election laws will not become moot simply because an election has passed. See Allen v. Bennett, 823 So. 2d 679 (Alabama 2001) ("Allen's appeal presents a moot question and that, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. However, because the outcome of this case could impact future elections, we hold that... this case is not moot."). (Italics added). The exceptions to the mootness doctrine are recognized by most states, and is stated with special clarity in Coady v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, which reads in part as follows: "This court will decide questions that have otherwise been rendered moot when one or more of the following three exceptions apply: (1) the case 7

involves questions of great public importance; (2) the conduct complained of is capable of repetition yet avoiding review; or (3) a party to the controversy will suffer some detriment without the court's decision." Coady v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 804 A.2d 121, 124 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). The present case falls under each of the three named exceptions established in the Pennsylvania courts and is similarly not moot: Exception 1: The present case involves a question of extreme public importance. It goes to the question of whether the citizenry of an elected president is to be protected against fraud and dishonesty in the conduct of their elections. It goes to the very heart of our self government. Exception 2: The complaint here is that the legitimacy of the candidates, where the legitimacy of at least one has been determined to be in doubt, is without any question a complaint can, and probably will recur. Moreover, we need look no further than the present case to conclude that it is impracticable to adjudicate such cases between the time names of candidates that are submitted to the Secretary of State at the time the general election was held in November. Exception 3: Without a decision of the court, Petitioner will suffer a detriment. As citizens they will have been deprived of the assurance that their

election was conducted honestly, and that only votes of legitimate candidates were counted and recorded. Petitioner is capable of suffering the same harm in near future elections, as many being touted as candidates for president and vice president are born of nonU.S. citizen parents (one or both), and do not fit the precedent definition of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1874), including Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum and Ted Cruz. The issue of who is a natural born citizen and who decides who is a natural born citizen needs to be settled now. This Lawsuit Is A Matter of Great Public Importance Presidential elections involve the selection of a person that will lead the U.S. military forces. His or her attachment and allegiance can never be questionable. The President is vested with the executive power of the nation. The importance of his election and the vital character of its relationship to and effect upon the welfare and safety of the whole people cannot be too strongly stated. Burroughs and Cannon v. U.S., 290 U.S. 534, 535 (1934). It is paramount that the stated holding of the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit In and For Leon County ("Circuit Court"), and cursory, vague, and unexplained ruling of the District Court, not be made the law of Florida, as the view that the contest statute 102.168 does not apply to presidential elections is contrary to the stated will of the Florida Legislature, and the holding of this court.

The decisions of the District courts represent the law of this state unless overturned by the Supreme Court of Florida. (see Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665, 666 (Fla. 1992)). This conundrum will cause an unequal application of the Florida statutes and a degradation of confidence in the election system, which is the bedrock of the republic. As recognized by the Florida House of Representatives Committee on Election Reform 1997 Interim Project on Election Contests and Recounts: "[A]ll election contests and recounts can be traced to either an actual failure in the election system or a perception that the system has failed. Public confidence in the election process is essential to our democracy. If the voter cannot be assured of an accurate vote count, or an election unspoiled by fraud, they will not have faith in other parts of the political process. Nonetheless, it is inevitable that legitimate doubts of the validity and accuracy of election outcomes will arise. It is crucial, therefore, to have clearly defined legal mechanisms for contesting or recounting election results. Gore v. Harris, SC00-2431, 36, 37(2000). The states are required to guarantee a republican government, one based on the U.S. Constitution, yet Florida has failed to provide this constitutional right by allowing Barack Hussein Obama, a man born of a foreigner, and likely not eligible for office, to receive votes in the state of Florida. How can there be a republican form of

10

government, based on the rule of law, when the President, who is the executor of the laws, is an illegal entity? Mandamus Is Proper One seeking a Writ of Mandamus must show a clear legal right to the performance of a clear legal duty by a public officer, and that he has no other available legal remedies. See Hatten v. State, 561 So. 2d 562, 563 (Fla. 1990); Milanick v. Town of Beverly Beach, 820 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Rights of Petitioner Any Florida elector, eligible to vote in an election, has a statutory right, given by Fl.ss. 102.168(1)(3)(b), to contest the eligibility for office of any person elected or nominated to office. Petitioner filed his action (No. 2012CA00467) properly in every way for timing, venue, indispensible parties and cause of action, asking for declaratory judgment. (When the voters have done all that the statute has required them to do, they will not be disfranchised solely on the basis of the failure of the election officials to observe directory statutory instructions. Boardman v. Esteva, 323 So. 2d 259, 268-69 (Fla. 1975)). Basis Of The Court of Appeal's Duty Petitioner, by statutory right, and legislative intent, is afforded an immediate hearing and a judicial determination, on the merits, as to the contested candidates eligibility for office. The Florida Supreme Court has held specifically that

11

eligibility for office is a judicial determination, made upon any contest of election properly made. (Shevin v. Stone , 279 So.2d 17 (Fla.1972)). The Legislature has directed in section 102.168 that an election contest shall be resolved in a judicial forum. See Fl. ss. 102.168 (providing that election contests not pertaining to either house of the Florida Legislature may be contested in the circuit court) Gore v. Harris, No. SC00-2431 at 7 (2000). Basis Of The Secretary of States Duty Florida Statute 97.012(14) stipulates that the Secretary must [b]ring and maintain such actions at law or in equity by mandamus or injunction to enforce the performance of any duties of a county supervisor of elections or any official performing duties with respect to chapters 97-102 and chapter 105 or to enforce compliance with a rule of the Department of State adopted to interpret or implement any of those chapters. 3 U.S.C. 5 mandates a ministerial duty, to be carried out by the Secretary of State, to direct a final determination of any controversy regarding the appointment of electors by six days prior to the meeting of electors. Credible Evidence That Respondent Obama's Birth Certificate Is Fraudulent Petitioner also presented credible evidence from an official source, by affidavit of Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, who conducted an official government investigation that the birth certificate of Barack Hussein

12

Obama, posted at the WhiteHouse.gov website is entirely fraudulent. No one on the mainland has touched that document and felt the supposed raised seal, as it only exists in cyberspace. If a raised seal, as required by Hawaiian law is required to be deemed valid, then there is no validity to a picture of that document on the computer. Petitioner cannot show the U.S. Post Office a picture of his birth certificate on a laptop and receive a passport. As such, Barack Hussein Obama cannot even prove that he is at least thirty-five years old, much less a natural born citizen. If a baby-faced seventeen-year-old attempted to be on the presidential ballot in Florida, claiming to be 35, would the Secretary demand his birth certificate? The Honorable Terry Lewis agreed with the Respondents that Petitioner had no standing to seek a declaratory judgment, or that Petitioner even asked for a declaratory judgment, claiming that no nomination or election occurred as a result of the primary, and that 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, No. 2012CA00467). The court further held that the office of President of the United States is treated differently under Florida law. Id. This tribunal has specifically held that all of Florida statutes apply to presidential elections. See Palm Beach Canvassing Board v. Harris, Nos.SC002346, SC00-2348 and SC00- 2349 ([I]n this case, the parties conceded that the

13

contest provisions contained in section 102.168 apply to presidential elections.) (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 26, 33. Since that time, the Florida legislature extensively revamped the Florida election code (Chapter 2011-40, Laws of Florida) on May 19, 2011. If the legislature disagreed with Palm Beach Canvassing v. Harris then it would have changed the presidential preference primary and election contest statutes to reflect that disagreement. [I]t 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). Statutory construction demands that a statute not be read in a way that invalidates another statute. In carefully construing the contest statute, no single statutory provision will be construed in such a way as to render meaningless or absurd any other statutory provision. See Amente v. Newman, 653 So. 2d 1030, 1032 (Fla. 1995). In light of the holdings of this tribunal, noting footnote 20 in Harris, ([i]n this case, the parties conceded that the contest provisions contained in section 102.168 apply to presidential elections), it must be concluded that extreme error has occurred, or worse, especially since the Harris case was on appeal from Judge Lewis court. Judge Lewis even denied that Obama was nominated after the

14

primaries despite the plain wording of the Florida Statutes: (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. (Fl. ss. 101.252(1)). It seems that Judge Lewis went to great lengths to deny Petitioner of his rightful cause of action, as stipulated by the plain words of Fl. ss. 102.168(1)(3)(b), that an elector, eligible to vote in the election can challenge the eligibility for office sought of any person nominated or elected. As the Florida Supreme Court has ruled, [w]here the language of the Code is clear and amenable to a reasonable and logical interpretation, courts are without power to diverge from the intent of the Legislature as expressed in the plain language of the Code. See Starr Tyme, Inc. v. Cohen, 659 So.2d 1064 (Fla.1995). Petitioner has presented clear and compelling evidence that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the Office of President of the United States, and plaintiff has met his or her burden of proof to establish that the result of an election is in doubt Gore v. Harris, SC00-2431, 22 (2000). Fl. ss. 102.168(1)(3)(b) itself gives Petitioner standing to demand a declaratory judgment as to Barack Hussein Obamas eligibility.

15

After Judge Lewis denied standing and dismissed Petitioners case with prejudice, Petitioner filed an appeal, correctly and timely, in the Court of Appeal in July of 2012 (No. 1D12-3489). That case languished there for many months, despite the fact that the Secretary of State, Ken Detzner, knew of his duties with respect to Fl. ss. 97.012(14), and 3 U.S.C. 5, and despite the fact that Petitioner filed a motion to expedite, until February 8, 2013, a full 70 days after the safe harbor provision of 3 U.S.C. 5 had passed. Although unclear, the Court of Appeal may have agreed with the Circuit Court, and issued a three word opinion: (PER CURIAM. DISMISSED as moot. BENTON, C.J., DAVIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR (No. 1D12-3489)). ). Final determination should have been made by the Court of Appeal by December 11, or the assumption of a non controversial ascertainment of electors cannot be made, throwing the votes of the Florida electorate into doubt. As such, the Court of Appeal has violated Article II of the U.S. Constitution, and illegally made new law. These court opinions have invalidated Floridas election contest statute 102.168 with respect to presidential elections. Secretary of State Ken Detzner has failed to uphold his duty to expedite Petitioners action, and has failed to support the will of the Legislature to conform to 3 U.S.C. 5. Indeed this tribunal has stated, We consider these statutes cognizant of the federal grant of authority derived from the United States Constitution and derived from 3 U.S.C. 5 (1994)."

16

The Actions Of The Secretary, And The Florida Judiciary Have Violated The Due Process And Equal Protection Rights Of Petitioner By allowing the judiciary to deny standing, and failing to timely shepherd a judicial determination of the eligibility demanded by Florida state statute, Secretary Detzner has violated Fl. ss. 97.012(1), which demands that he apply the Florida election statutes equally. Petitioner used the same election statute (102.168) as Al Gore did after the 2000 General Election, but with entirely different results, as Gore was afforded expeditious adjudication all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, prior to the safe harbor deadline, so as not to disenfranchise Florida voters. It is absurd to rule that the contest statutes do not apply, when they were used in high profile cases pertaining to a presidential election only 13 years ago. Despite the fact that Article I, Section 1 of Floridas Constitution asserts that [A]ll political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people, the Florida judiciary, and the Secretary of State have circumvented Petitioners sovereign right to choose his leader, and have allowed that right to be hijacked by political parties. That the president shall be a natural born citizen is a self- executing constitutional provision relating to the security of the nation (see Federalist 68). As this court has held, self executing constitutional provisions need no statute to be enforced. [T]he modern doctrine favors the presumption that constitutional 17

provisions are intended to be self- operating. This is so because in the absence of such presumption the legislature would have the power to nullify the will of the people expressed in their constitution, the most sacrosanct of all expressions of the people." Gray v. Bryant, 125 So. 2d at 851. Many are aware of the ineligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, and that awareness is a festering sore on the body politic that needs to be addressed. 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). One must recognize that those that are not natural born citizens are excluded from the presidency by Article II, and the Florida legislature is not at liberty to alter that requirement. This Lawsuit Does Not Present A Political Question The federal government has no discretion in the matter of who is eligible for president. Article II specifically bars members or trustees of the federal government from making that decision, and members of Congress are specifically only responsible for the qualifications of its own members. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members (art. 1 s. 5). No other meaning or duty may be added by construction. (See Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485 (1917) (Where the language is plain and admits

18

of no more than one meaning, the duty of interpretation does not arise). This is not a political question. This is a question of the Constitution of the United States. That the president be a natural born citizen is a sovereign right of Petitioner. Although Respondents claim that the issue of presidential candidate eligibility is reserved to Congress through 3 U.S.C. 5, and the 20th Amendment, no specific wording is in those statutes denotes a checking of qualifications. A Congressional Research Service paper, prepared for members of Congress, makes no mention of eligibility of the candidate as a basis of objection in the joint session, only that the electoral vote must be regularly given, and focuses on the qualification of the elector, and whether that electors vote is faithless. See Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress Congressional Research Service, p. 6-8, Nov. 30, 2012. In fact, the stated purpose of the electoral Count Act 1887 (now 3 U.S.C. 5) is to ensure that the counting of the electoral votes is a purely ministerial exercise, and that all controversies be settled at the state level.The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;- -The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President. U.S. Cont. amend. XII. No discretion as to eligibility is described, and the word shall denotes a simple and definite duty to count the votes. The 25th Amendment

19

provides for the case where the President is removed from office. Indeed Federalist 68 informs that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. No Other Remedy Is Available There is no remedy described in Fl. ss. 102.168 for an elector contesting an election based on the eligibility for office. There is only a remedy described for another candidates contest (Fl. ss. 102.168(2)). Likewise, there is no duty of the circuit judge to investigate any evidence made by a contesting elector, only that an elector present such contest to a circuit judge (102.168(7)). However, every right must have a remedy. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 163 (1803) (citing Blackstones Commentaries). Petitioner has a clear legal right to challenge the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, given by Florida statute, and equity demands a remedy. A Writ of Mandamus by this court compelling the Court of Appeal to reopen the Petitioners appeal of the Circuit Court decision would be a proper way of finally obtaining a ruling on the merits in this case. In the alternative, Petitioner prays for a Writ of Mandamus, issued to Secretary Detzner, compelling him to do his required duty of Fl. ss. 97.012(14), and command the Appeal's Court and Circuit Court to allow full discovery, and to comply with the election contest statute 102.168(1)(3)(b), and rule on the record as to the eligibility of Barack

20

Hussein Obama, whom Petitioner credibly claims is not a natural born citizen, and not eligible for the office of President of the United States. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that this Court issue a Writ of Mandamus ordering the First District Court of Appeal to reinstate the appeal and dispose of this issue on its merits or to issue a Writ of Mandamus compelling Secretary of State Ken Detzner to investigate the eligibility of Respondent Barack Hussein Obama for the Office of President of the United States.

Dated: April 29, 2013

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

21

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandamus has been filed electronically and thus served via email this 29th day of April, 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