Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/138721156/Brief-to-Supreme-Court
Timestamp: 2017-03-26 20:07:25
Document Index: 360030427

Matched Legal Cases: ['§6', '§1', '§ 2', '§ 6', '§ 7', '§ 1', '§ 7', '§ 12', '§ 6', '§7', '§ 8', '§ 9', '§ 7', '§ 8', '§ 17', '§17', '§ 2', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§32', '§6', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§ 17', '§ 1716', '§ 17', '§ 3', '§ 36', '§ 17', '§ 17']

BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinE-Filed 03/26/2013 @ 03:57:59 P M Honorable Robert Esdale Clerk Of The CourtCase No. 1120465
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS L I S T OF APPENDICES STATEMENT OF J U R I S D I C T I O N TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF THE CASE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES STATEMENT OF FACTS STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ARGUMENT I. II. A. B. C. D. E. F. INTRODUCTION
i - i i iii-iv v vi vii-viii 1 4 5 7 8 9 9
ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS .... 10 This case i s n o t moot 11 13 17 18 19
Three e x c e p t i o n s t o mootness Attorney General's Sheriff opinion
Arpaio's a f f i d a v i t Secretary of State's l e t t e r not e x c l u s i v e t o
A u t h o r i t y t o adjudge c a n d i d a t e s Congress Court has s u b j e c t matter
jurisdiction parties too late
P l a i n t i f f s have j o i n e d n e c e s s a r y P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m was n o t f i l e d
J. K. L. M. N. 0. P.
C a s e s h o u l d be d e c i d e d on i t s m e r i t s C r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e o f f r a u d i n Obama b i r t h C o l d case posse Forgery i n b i r t h certificate likely
22 certificate23 23 23 23 26 certificate 27
Dr. Jerome C o r s i a i d e d c o l d case posse Where Obama was b o r n i n d i s p u t e Sheriff forged A r p a i o says p r o b a b l e cause b i r t h
A l l elements 1. 2. 3. A.
f o r w r i t o f mandamus a r e p r e s e n t right to order t o perform
Duty o f respondent
L a c k o f a n o t h e r remedy Properly invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e Court
.... 35 37 40
LIST OF APPENDICES Attorney Allen General's Opinion No. No. 1998-200 Appendix A Appendix B
C a l i f o r n i a S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e Jordan l e t t e r t o Jack Weinberg ( C h a i r m a n , P e a c e and Freedom P a r t y C e n t r a l C o m m i t t e e ) Appendix C Affidavit of Sheriff Arpaio Appendix D
STATEMENT OF This dismissal Court. This case i s before Circuit this case with i s a direct prejudice appeal entered
CASE of Circuit
from a judgment by t h e Montgomery
on a p p e a l
f r o m an
by t h e Montgomery Virgil Goode's
Court denying
Hugh M c l n n i s h ' s Other
f o r a Writ Relief.
o f Mandamus o r Such p e t i t i o n
Appropriate directed Alabama petition State
t o B e t h Chapman, Secretary requested
i n her o f f i c i a l The Prayer
c a p a c i t y as t h e i n the of
of State. that
t o demand t h a t
a l l candidates States
f o r the O f f i c e of copy of
President their bona
of the United fide birth
to cause a c e r t i f i e d
c e r t i f i c a t e t o be
d e l i v e r e d to the official i n charge a n d t o make being 2012
from the government i n which
i t i s stored, name 6,
r e c e i p t of such
a prerequisite to their ballot
placed general
on t h e Alabama election. To
f o r t h e November
i s s u e a p r e l i m i n a r y and the placement
injunction ballot
on t h e 2012
had been c o n c l u s i v e l y
below held, was
i n error,
Dismiss -the 2,
Timeline of February and others
Case 2012: the Mclnnish Office together the with his attorney State, State, State, at
visited Hon.
which the speaking
Deputy S e c r e t a r y of f o r the Secretary of
a b s e n c e o f and office
represented legitimacy under the
that her of any and
would not thus
i n v e s t i g a t e the her duties
U.S. 11,
Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n s . Mclnnish and Goode f i l e d This case suit in the
October Circuit to the Court
o f Montgomery County. Reese. and
H o n o r a b l e E u g e n e W. 12, 2012:
Goode f i l e d
a motion time to
summary j u d g m e n t a n d days, the as time was 6, 18, of
a motion to the essence
shorten to get
a d e c i s i o n before
2 012 2012:
election. State filed her opposed. for
Secretary of and
to dismiss, which Mclnnish 31, 2012: Mclnnish was and
Goode f u l l y
Goode f i l e d the essence,
a motion the
s i n c e time
u p c o m i n g on November
6, 2 0 1 2 a n d t h i s
resolved. November 10, 2012: this Mclnnish a n d Goode filed a as
lawsuit i s of great
Obama h a d " w o n " that this case vote
the election should
and law and e q u i t y at least before
be d e c i d e d
17, 2012. filed h e r renewed opposed. the Court.
2 0 , 2 0 1 0 : The S e c r e t a r y which Mclnnish
motion t o dismiss, December On t h e same dismissed dismissal 6,
a n d Goode a l s o was h e l d b e f o r e
2012: A h e a r i n g
day, Judge Reese,
i n a one-sentence No
order, f o r the
the case with was given.
17, 2013: A p p e l l a n t s Court.
a timely notice of
The 1. doctrine election 2.
issues f o r appeal Whether under the t h i s case i s ripe
follows: to the mootness the
exceptions for review,
i t revolves i s past. Secretary of S t a t e has a duty to
investigate evidence presented for and
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s when an official may
credible has been
i n f o r m a t i o n from the
source not be
On o r a b o u t A p r i l presidency,
2011,after
into h i s pressure, Barack
and under media and p o l i t i c a l
Obama p u b l i s h e d purported Hawaii Stanley birth
on t h e i n t e r n e t an e l e c t r o n i c v e r s i o n o f a certificate alleging h i sbirth citizen i n Honolulu,
4, 1 9 6 1 t o A m e r i c a n
mother, father, birth
A n n Dunham, a n d K e n y a n B r i t i s h Sr. This
B a r a c k Obama, certificate.
was t h e s o - c a l l e d " l o n g - f o r m " (C8) form
Compl. §6.
No p h y s i c a l , p a p e r certificate establish Compl.I the 8.
copy o f t h e a c t u a l long i n order to
has been produced birth
definitively States. Verified that
within the United there
(C8) I n s t e a d , certificate"
i s credible evidence
o n t h e i n t e r n e t was
fraudulent. together with h i s of
On F e b r u a r y attorney State,
2, 2 0 1 2 , M c l n n i s h , visited
and o t h e r s , time
the Office of the Secretary Thompson, Deputy
t h e Hon. E m i l y speaking
Secretary behalf that
i n t h e absence o f and on represented to Mclnnish of
would not i n v e s t i g a t e t h e e l i g i b i l i t y
duties Compl. § and
under the 13. (09)
Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n s . On the writ October 11, 2012
Verified Mclnnish
Goode f i l e d seeking
o f Montgomery County to the Alabama
t o have of
o f mandamus i s s u e d her to
State names in
compelling had
demand f r o m a l l c a n d i d a t e s to her for inclusion President of on the
been s u b m i t t e d f o r the birth
States, shall the
a bone f i d e be
certificate. Secretary who was
Such b i r t h of State
government o f f i c i a l depository i n which
i n charge stored.
STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW "Questions Republican 2004) . Party o f law a r e reviewed v. McGinley, de novo." Alabama (Ala.
893 So. 2 d 337, 342
Because resolution
the l e n g t h o f time matters
t o receive a
i n the c o u r t s f a r exceeds t o be h e l d ,
t h e amount o f t i m e results holder,
f o r an e l e c t i o n
t o tabulated, i t does
i n o f a new o f f i c e criteria for
not f a l l
under the t r a d i t i o n a l
mootness. more t h a n years. case
We i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s c h e r i s h anything andhold e l e c t i o n s matter
our r i g h t
t o vote
every two and this yet
i s n o t moot b e c a u s e review." addition, elections
i t i s "capable
evading In chief
the S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e o f Alabama, officer f o r the state,
hasan a f f i r m a t i v e the Alabama
duty under her oath a n d U.S.
t o support both
Constitutions t o have
t o investigate their
the e l i g i b i l i t y o f
t h o s e who w i s h presidential respectfully perform Alabama
names a p p e a r o n t h e A writ o f mandamus m u s t
election be i s s u e d
the Secretary o f State t o o f the State o f under both
owed t o t h e c i t i z e n s t o her oath
andt o her duties a n d U.S.
ARGUMENT INTRODUCTION A gnawing indeed question vexes t h e Alabama body p o l i t i c and Obama, t h e
the e n t i r e country:
I s Barack Hussein
man e n s c o n c e d our
i n t h e W h i t e House,
t h e Commander i n C h i e f o f leader o f t h e Free high World, Or
armed f o r c e s , t h e t r a d i t i o n a l qualified
constitutionally is his
t o occupy t h i s
he a " p r e t e n d e r high
t o the throne,"
o n e who h a s a r r i v e d a t i s compelling
p o s i t i o n by fraud that thetruth
and d e c e i t ? There with the latter. that
U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n r e q u i r e s citizen, Although
be a II,
"natural-born" Sec. 1, C l . 5.
U. S. C o n s t i t u t i o n , A r t i c l e
t h e U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n d o e s n o t i ti scertainly distinct from
a mere " c i t i z e n , " b o r n on A m e r i c a n citizens, The core
and i ti su s u a l l y taken soil of parents both
t o mean a p e r s o n
o f whom a r e a t l e a s t citizens themselves.
not necessarily natural-born question regarding That
Obama i s w h e t h e r h e i s a i s , whether he meets t h e o f President as
minimum r e q u i r e m e n t s mandated by A r t i c l e
f o rthe o f f i c e
I I , S e c . 1, C l . 5 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n .
an e f f o r t
Obama h a s p r o d u c e d birth the certificates,
and o f f e r e d
c a l l e d the short-form
c e r t i f i c a t e and
long-form c e r t i f i c a t e .
However d e t a i l e d e x a m i n a t i o n o f h a s shown g l a r i n g suspicion that both anomalies a r e computer-
these documents by experts which point generated This important Alabama to the strong
forgeries. suit asks this Court to resolve this critically
b y i s s u i n g a w r i t o f mandamus t o t h e of State d i r e c t i n g her to require a l l 2012 e l e c t i o n t o
presidential s u b m i t bona
candidates fide birth
i n the recent certificates
to her f o r
verification. The question, fact that the e l e c t i o n i s past infra does n o t o b v i a t e t h e i t moot.
n o r a s we e x p l a i n
does i t r e n d e r
Answers t o D e f e n d a n t ' s Renewed M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s The court below g a v e no h i n t o f i t s r a t i o n a l e f o r We, therefore, are left with the
dismissing assumption averments
t h e case. that
he c o n c u r r e d w i t h
some o r a l l o f t h e We will,
i n Chapman's m o t i o n address
to dismiss. i n turn.
Chapman f i r s t grounds In V. of
c a s e be
d i s m i s s e d on
mootness. she cited 42 the case of So, v. 3d 65, Barber 70-71 440 U.
support of her motion Cmty. Outreach, Of
Inc., Los
(Ala.2010), S. 625, In 631
q u o t i n g Cnty. (1979). the case
involved used
the seizure i n an
state illegal first
authorities gambling addressed had
allegedly The Court the
i n Lowndes County.
the q u e s t i o n of mootness, The Court observed t o use
t h e o p e r a t o r s had, seized,
a sense, but had had
to r e f r a i n and that,
from u s i n g further, not
the machines t h e r e was no
assurance new this
the o p e r a t o r s would T h e r e f o r e Barber was
p r o c u r e and n o t moot.
machines. was
a case o f non-mootness, that
i t does not
Chapman's c l a i m
the present case Bell v. Eagerton,
i s moot. 908 So 2d 204 was
Chapman a l s o (Ala. 2002). Bell as
disqualified County, The
a candidate for circuit judged
i n Lowndes Bell d i d not
c a s e was
t o be m o o t s i n c e
he f a i l e d he
seek an i n j u n c t i o n to it be a c a n d i d a t e , was h e l d .
to stop the e l e c t i o n and d i d not c o n t e s t d i d not involve and i s not
wished after
The s u i t
the would-be candidate, case. In the u n l i k e l y case moot, event
considers the under the
i t nevertheless f a l l s
exceptions recognized special and
t o t h e m o o t n e s s d o c t r i n e . The e x c e p t i o n s a r e b y many, i f n o t most s t a t e s , v. Pennsylvania i n p a r t as and i s s t a t e d w i t h Board of Probation
i n Coady reads
T h i s c o u r t w i l l d e c i d e q u e s t i o n s t h a t have o t h e r w i s e b e e n r e n d e r e d moot when one o r more o f t h e f o l l o w i n g t h r e e e x c e p t i o n s a p p l y : (1) t h e c a s e i n v o l v e s questions of great p u b l i c importance; (2) t h e c o n d u c t complained of i s capable of r e p e t i t i o n yet a v o i d i n g r e v i e w ; o r (3) a p a r t y t o t h e c o n t r o v e r s y w i l l s u f f e r some d e t r i m e n t w i t h o u t t h e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n . Coady v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, The C o m m o n w e a l t h C o u r t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a , No. 598 M. D. 2 0 0 1 , " a n u n r e p o r t e d s i n g l e - j u d g e 'Memorandum Opinion"'
The p r e s e n c e sufficient following
o f any one o f t h e s e
factors i s
to defeat examples:
a m o o t n e s s c l a i m , as shown i n t h e
E x c e p t i o n 1, Coady v. Pennsylvania
Questions of Board of of
great public Probation No. and 598 but
importance, Parole, D. 2001; review,
Commonwealth C o u r t E x c e p t i o n 2, Moore v. Ogilvie,
Capable of 394 U.S.
repetition 814.
E x c e p t i o n 3, Stephen No. J.,
A p a r t y would s u f f e r of
a detriment. Second
A p p e l l a t e Court
2-09-0472. The present and 1: case falls under each of moot: involves a question question of and of of the three named
t h e r e f o r e i s not The present case
Exception extreme p u b l i c whether the
importance. are
I t goes t o the t o be
citizenry in their
protected against fraud I t goes t o the very heart
dishonesty our self
government. The complaint here i s that the l e g i t i m a c y least one any has
E x c e p t i o n 2: of the candidates,
l e g i t i m a c y of at
been determined question Moreover, case such
i n s e r i o u s doubt, t h a t can, and
i s without will this
a complaint we need
probably than the
recur. present
l o o k no
to conclude cases
that i t i s impracticable to adjudicate the time names a r e submitted to the
Secretary As election trial and
o f S t a t e and t h e e l e c t i o n i n this
i sheld. case, every c o n t e s t o f an length of a year
i s t r u e by analogy would s i m i l a r l y
be mooted by t h e s h e e r Yet elections i s just
process. f o r harm Thus
the p o t e n t i a l cycle.
as p r e s e n t complained
i n t h e next o f i s capable
t h e conduct
repetition, Exception
y e t avoiding review. 3: W i t h o u t suffer will a decision of the court, Mclnnish i n t h a t as that
Goode w i l l they
have been d e p r i v e d o f t h e a s s u r a n c e and t h a t o n l y votes o f counted and recorded.
was h o n e s t ,
legitimate himself was
c a n d i d a t e s were
Goode, t h a t he
s h o u l d be a s s u r e d candidate.
n o t competing w i t h an i n e l i g i b l e The classic to reach and best known c a s e
a decision Justice
on nonmootnes
i s t h a t o f Roe v. f o r t h em a j o r i t y ,
Wade i n w h i c h said i n part:
Blackmun, w r i t i n g
The u s u a l r u l e i n f e d e r a l c a s e s i s t h a t a n a c t u a l c o n t r o v e r s y must e x i s t a t s t a g e s o f a p p e l l a t e o r c e r t i o r a r i review, and not simply a t t h e date the a c t i o n i s i n i t i a t e d . United States v, Munsingwear, Inc., 3 4 0 U.S. 36 1 9 5 0 ) ; Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 1 0 2 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ; SEC v. Medical committee for Human Rights, 404 U.S. 4 0 3 ( 1 9 7 2 ) .
B u t when, a s h e r e , p r e g n a n c y i s a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t i n the l i t i g a t i o n , t h e n o r m a l 2 6 6 - d a y human g e s t a t i o n p e r i o d i s s o s h o r t t h a t t h e p r e g n a n c y w i l l come t o term before the usual a p p e l l a t e process i s complete. I f t h a t t e r m i n a t i o n makes a c a s e moot, p r e g n a n c y litigation s e l d o m w i l l s u r v i v e much b e y o n d t h e t r i a l s t a g e and a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w w i l l be e f f e c t i v e l y d e n i e d . Our l a w s h o u l d n o t be t h a t r i g i d . Pregnancy often c o m e s m o r e t h a n o n c e t o t h e same woman, a n d i n t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n , i f man i s t o s u r v i v e , i t w i l l a l w a y s be w i t h u s . Pregnancy provides a c l a s s i c justification f o r a c o n c l u s i o n o f nonmootness. I t t r u l y c o u l d be " c a p a b l e o f r e p e t i t i o n , y e t e v a d i n g r e v i e w " Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 1 1 3 , 166 (1973). I n Roe Attorney to the pregnant J a n e Roe was suing the District right
o f D a l l a s County, the Texas
Texas c l a i m i n g law outlawing
an a b o r t i o n ,
abortion not the case case i t would to grant
Roe h a d h e r b a b y l o n g
r e a c h e d t h e Supreme C o u r t , be moot. her relief. I t was o b v i o u s l y B u t , as seen
and i n an o r d i n a r y too late above, the
and heard o f Allen
In Alabama, particularly of State
( A p p e n d i x B) i s Secretary that
i t involves the Allen
and an e l e c t i o n of State
i s past.
Secretary ballot
Jim Bennett judge
him o f f the general
i n t h e November that
election. election
I t was a r g u e d was o v e r .
t h e c a s e was m o o t b e c a u s e t h e disagreed and
B u t t h e Supreme C o u r t
said: H o w e v e r because the outcome of t h i s case could Impact future e l e c t i o n s , we h o l d t h a t . . . t h i s c a s e i s n o t m o o t . ( I t a l i c s a d d e d . ) Allen v. Bennett, 823 S o . 2 d 679 ( A l a b a m a 2001) As i s true would by analogy in this case, every contest of the sheer length an of year next a
election trial and and
be m o o t e d b y
appeals p r o c e s s . Yet
happen e v e r y
f o r harm i s j u s t I t has
as p r e s e n t i n t h e case law
t h u s become t h e
i n Alabama an
election has the
issues passed. reasons under
n o t become moot s i m p l y b e c a u s e
d i s c u s s e d supra, valid
i t qualifies
doctrine. Next, case in Chapman a r g u e d five We additional shall reasons each that of this these
s h o u l d be
turn: 1. The S e c r e t a r y of the S t a t e has a no l e g a l duty to
investigate The in
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of State i s the
candidate. elections for The not official
Secretary of and shall
provide uniform guidance 17-1-3 ( a ) ) . l a w do
activities" of
(Code o f A l a . § under
State's duties
an e x c u s e
f o r her inaction, i n the form
as she seems t o a r g u e . of "legal duty" were t h e
absolute compulsion criterion
f o r a person
her duty,
especially be halt.
o f an e l e c t e d
c o r r u p t i o n would grind to a
rampant, The fact
and o u r whole s o c i e t y t h a t s h e h a s "no l e g a l does n o t prevent thing
might w e l l duty"
t o do a a thing
thing when, as h e r e ,
i s the right
t o do. O p i n i o n No. 1998-200. argument, t h e need
Chapman c i t e d {Appendix this to
A) C o n t r a r y
to the Secretary of State's opinion strongly of at least supports one o f t h e
presidential been n o t i f i e d candidate's part:
c a n d i d a t e s when t h e S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e h a s that there i s a serious question of that foroffice. The o p i n i o n s t a t e s i n
I f t h e S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e has knowledge g a i n e d from an o f f i c i a l s o u r c e a r i s i n g f r o m t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f d u t i e s p r e s c r i b e d by law t h a t a candidate has not met a c e r t i f y i n g q u a l i f i c a t i o n , t h e S e c r e t a r y o f State should not c e r t i f y the candidate. Attorney G e n e r a l ' s O p i n i o n No. 1 9 9 8 - 2 0 0 , u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g o f CONCLUSION. The official S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e had gained source knowledge cause from an
t h a t t h e r e was p r o b a b l e
B a r a c k Obama h a d n o t m e t a c e r t i f y i n g Sheriff of Maricopa
J o s e p h M. A r p a i o , the request
County A r i z o n a , a t conducted a
o f a group o f A r i z o n a investigation into Obama p r e s e n t e d
months-long certificate" being
the legitimacy of the "birth of h i s
t o t h e p u b l i c as proof as r e q u i r e d by t h e
a "natural-born" t o serve
as P r e s i d e n t : D) S h e r i f f A r p a i o stated i n part
In an a f f i d a v i t as follows:
7. U p o n c l o s e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e , i t i s my b e l i e f t h a t f o r g e r y a n d f r a u d was l i k e l y c o m m i t t e d i n k e y i d e n t i t y d o c u m e n t s i n c l u d i n g P r e s i d e n t Obama's long-form b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e , h i s S e l e c t i v e Service R e g i s t r a t i o n c a r d , a n d h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y number. 8. My i n v e s t i g a t o r s a n d I b e l i e v e t h a t P r e s i d e n t Obama's l o n g - f o r m b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e i s a c o m p u t e r g e n e r a t e d d o c u m e n t , was m a n u f a c t u r e d e l e c t r o n i c a l l y , and t h a t i t d i d n o t o r i g i n a t e i n a p a p e r f o r m a t , a s c l a i m e d b y t h e W h i t e House. Most i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e " r e g i s t r a r ' s stamp" i n t h e computer g e n e r a t e d document r e l e a s e d b y t h e W h i t e House and p o s t e d on t h e W h i t e H o u s e w e b s i t e , may h a v e b e e n i m p o r t e d f r o m a n o t h e r unknown s o u r c e document. The e f f e c t o f t h e stamp n o t b e i n g p l a c e d on t h e document p u r s u a n t t o s t a t e a n d f e d e r a l l a w s m e a n s t h a t t h e r e i s probable cause that the document i s a forgery, and therefore, i t cannot be used as a v e r i f i c a t i o n , legal or otherwise, of the date, place or circumstances of Barack Obama's b i r t h . ( I t a l i c s added. A f f i d a v i t o f J o s e p h M. A r p a i o , C 1 9 ; a l s o E x h i b i t D) Further, Secretary i ti s not novel t o not only
n o r uncommon f o r a investigate the
candidates, forfailure
but to also t o meet t h e case
remove them f r o m t h e b a l l o t minimum r e q u i r e m e n t s occurred Secretary Eldridge since by his by
of e l i g i b i l i t y . where
i n 1968 i n C a l i f o r n i a , of State Cleaver
F r a n k M. J o r d a n
was i n e l i g i b l e t o s e r v e
as p r e s i d e n t set
he d i d n o t meet t h e minimum age r e q u i r e m e n t and refused
t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 35 y e a r s , name o n t h e C a l i f o r n i a , the Secretary of State
to put issued
In a l e t t e r
t o Jack
(Chairman, (Appendix
Peace and Freedom P a r t y C e n t r a l Committee) C) he s a i d i n part as f o l l o w s :
( P ) l e a s e be a d v i s e d t h a t t h i s o f f i c e w i l l n o t c e r t i f y E l d r i d g e C l e a v e r as t h e Peace and Freedom c a n d i d a t e f o r p r e s i d e n t o n t h e N o v e m b e r 5, 1 9 6 8 g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n ballot. I n f o r m a t i o n i n o u r p o s s e s s i o n i n d i c a t e s ... t h a t M r . C l e a v e r i s 33 a n d n o t 35 y e a r s o l d which is a requirement under our federal c o n s t i t u t i o n for president. ( I t a l i c s added. L e t t e r f r o m F r a n k M. J o r d a n t o Mr. J a c k W e i n b e r g , S e p t e m b e r 18, 1968, A p p e n d i x C.)
i n 2012, one P e t a
was s e l e c t e d b y t h e candidate of State on
Peace and Freedom P a r t y the 2012 C a l i f o r n i a
t o be i t s P r e s i d e n t i a l ballot. Secretary
Debra Bowen, h o w e v e r , place
r e j e c t e d Ms, L i n d s a y , because
and refused t o old,
h e r name o n t h e b a l l o t ,
s h e was 27 y e a r s
and §1,
Constitution, for
requires years of
2. In r e g a r d t o c a n d i d a t e s f o r P r e s i d e n t , judge q u a l i f i c a t i o n s r e s t s w i t h Congress. Contrary determine United to this assertion by Chapman, o f f i c e of
q u a l i f i c a t i o n f o r the does not direct a rest
exclusively or
Congress, of
w h i c h has
C o n s t i t u t i o n a l means or a Presidentenforcing of
challenging elect . United State States chief
P r e s i d e n t i a l Candidate, i s no bar to a state In
There States has
Constitution. an oath
Secretary the as
support duty to
Constitution. elections
Again, she well
i t i s her
officer, law as
i s required as the
enforce States and, as
Alabama E l e c t i o n Constitutional discussed a
elections, official to
certainly for a provision i s not of
enforce See
unprecedented. State's for letter President
C a l i f o r n i a Secretary the barring of
a candidate failing
California b a l l o t for
The C o u r t l a c k s s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n P l a i n t i f f s ' claims. contrary to Chapman's c o n t e n t i o n , jurisdiction. election The was the
Again, lack here
subject i s not the the
whether the votes
whether Instead,
were p r o p e r l y
c o u n t e d and
reported. the their fraud names was of
i s w h e t h e r one
o r more o f to have
Presidential placed on the
candidates ballot.
were q u a l i f i e d I f , as
appears probable, of has State and the
perpetrated Alabama,
Secretary certainly
jurisdiction. 4. Plaintiffs This State law. do is a her have f a i l e d suit merely to join necessary that the parties. of Alabama
under the that
i t i s true a
B a r a c k Obama was the Secretary
specifically of State the needed
m e n t i o n e d as to
investigate, of
P l a i n t i f f s contention duties to
a l l presidential Chairman in his merit. the
candidates. of the
for President sought to
Obama, t h e intervene approve
Democrat P a r t y but the lower
i s without
Plaintiffs' Since
f i l e d too their
late. writ before the 2012 filed that the the as
general timely.
p r e s i d e n t i a l e l e c t i o n took place, However, even i f t h i s untimely valid as Court were f o r the 2012 to
i t was hold
Plaintiffs' contentions 2012 well.
w r i t was are still
election, not only to
p r e s i d e n t i a l e l e c t i o n , but Plaintiffs of have d e a l t
a l l future this
elections in their
discussion Again, continue issue the
mootness, of
supra. eligibility i n future of candidates will and the
question an be of
needs to capable
O t h e r w i s e more s u i t s i n v o l v i n g avoiding this issue review is will
r e p e t i t i o n yet
Additional The case:
important p o i n t s of
argument are important to this
following additional points
1. T h i s Case Is merits. As discussed
D e c i d e d on
case meets each of one of which is
conditions to render
f o r nonmootness, i t nonmoot.
Plaintiffs, suit as move f o r w a r d
therefore, respectfully a n d be d e c i d e d
on i t s m e r i t s
i n Roe
v. Wade, a c r i t i c a l which i s presented answer
question of statewide here from i s certain this Court. t o r e c u r , and By acting
i n need o f a c l e a r Court
now t h i s
confusion i n future
w h e r e i t may o t h e r w i s e
2. There Is C r e d i b l e Evidence of Fraud In Candidate Obama's P u r p o r t e d " B i r t h C e r t i f i c a t e . " There birth i s strong technical submitted evidence of fraud i nthe Obama. This of Sheriff
allegation Arpaio cold
i s s u b s t a n t i a t e d by the a f f i d a v i t s
of Maricopa posse,
County A r i z o n a , and by t h e l e a d e r o f h i s Zullo. asked t o undertake birth an
Sheriff investigation August
A r p a i o was f i r s t into
Obama's l o n g - f o r m
certificate in Maricopa
o f 2011 upon p e t i t i o n
by 250 r e s i d e n t s o f
County. A r p a i o A f f i d a v i t ,
§ 2 (C38)
C o l d Case
P o s s e was c o m m i s s i o n e d b y S h e r i f f o f former law
2 0 1 1 , a n d was c o m p r i s e d investigators 5(C35)
enforcement Affidavit,§
and p r a c t i c i n g
was t h e l e a d i n v e s t i g a t o r
f o r the Cold
C a s e P o s s e a n d was c h a r g e d whether as the electronic Obama's b i r t h Zullo
with the task of determining House
document r e l e a s e d by t h e W h i t e certificate was, i n f a c t ,
Affidavit,§ 6.(C 35) 2 012, the Cold Case Posse informed Sheriff
In February Arpaio that there
was l i k e l y
forgery involved with the
documents. Zullo
§ 7. ( C 3 6 ) concluded that " t h e document p u b l i s h e d on t h e to the on as
White House w e b s i t e , public a legal
i s , a t minimum, m i s l e a d i n g import
a s i t h a s no l e g a l document v e r i f y i n g Obama's b i r t h . " conclusions
and cannot be r e l i e d place and
the date, § 1 1 . {C36)
Zullo's to, input
"were b a s e d upon,
but not limited of forensic as w e l l as,
f r o m numerous e x p e r t s computer generated
i n the areas documents,
document a n a l y s i s a n d Adobe computer programs, review of Hawaii s t a t e law, Hawaii
Department o f H e a l t h numerous
and comparisons w i t h
other b i r t h
r e c o r d s . " § 7. ( C 3 6 )
In t h e course investigators misleading officials what,
a l s o c h r o n i c l e d a s e r i e s o f i n c o n s i s t e n t and Hawaii years government regarding
representations that various h a v e made o v e r the past five
i fany, o r i g i n a l of Health."
a r e h e l d by the Hawaii
§ 12 were
(C37). by t h e sworn and author
Zullo's affidavit currently Dr.
o f Jerome
Ph.D., a j o u r n a l i s t Staff Reporter
employed as a S e n i o r
b y WND.com.
Corsi holds
a Ph.D. f r o m H a r v a r d
U n i v e r s i t y and has Dr. C o r s i
extensively utilized
OBAMA a n d h i s p a s t . research
h i sextensive
t o p u b l i s h h i s book The Case T h a t B a r a c k § Obama 9.(C41) by
"Where's t h e B i r t h is Not E l i g i b l e Dr. turning book,
t o Be P r e s i d e n t . " C o r s i A f f i d a v i t the Cold Case Posse's
Corsi aided over
investigation to write h i s § 6. ( C 4 0 )
a l l the research
he c o n d u c t e d research.
as w e l l as any subsequent
Zullo's request, the Cold
Dr. C o r s i f l e w
t o Phoenix,
t o meet w i t h
Posse and present
the evidence he
he h a d p r o d u c e d conducted
f o rt h e book
and r e l e v a n t r e s e a r c h
§7 I d .
Corsi's research,
both t h a t p u b l i s h e d and t h a t t h a t key i d e n t i t y including his
" r e v e a l s a n d shows a l i k e l i h o o d
p a p e r s f o r P r e s i d e n t Obama have b e e n f o r g e d , long-form April birth certificate
r e l e a s e d b y t h e W h i t e House on § 8Id.
27, 2 0 1 1 , a n d h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Number." Dr. Corsi similarly concluded that "there are
significant he was b o r n ,
issues of fact that are i n dispute
as t o where
H a w a i i a s he c l a i m s , o r o u t s i d e o f t h e U n i t e d § 9 (C41)
S t a t e s and i t s t e r r i t o r i e s " H a v i n g been p r e s e n t e d
t h e evidence by i n v e s t i g a t o r concluded that "forgery
Z u l l o and Dr. C o r s i , S h e r i f f A r p a i o and f r a u d was l i k e l y
committed i n key i d e n t i t y birth
i n c l u d i n g P r e s i d e n t Obama's l o n g - f o r m
h i s S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e Card, and h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Number." A r p a i o Affidavit, § 7 (C 39) on i n d i c a t i o n s i sa
S h e r i f f Arpaio that
based h i s conclusions
" P r e s i d e n t Obama's l o n g - f o r m
c o m p u t e r - g e n e r a t e d document, was m a n u f a c t u r e d electronically, as c l a i m e d and i t d i d n o t o r i g i n a t e i n a paper format,
b y The W h i t e House." § 8 I d .
In "there and
Sheriff cause
Arpaio that
unequivocally the
i s probable
document i s a
forgery, legal Barack or
i t c a n n o t be the date, Id.^
u s e d as or
a verification, of
Obama's b i r t h . "
With of in
fraud an
Sheriff provided certainly from
Maricopa the
County Arizona,
Alabama A t t o r n e y to require fide
Secretary certificate.
Obama a b o n a
3. A l l the e l e m e n t s n e c e s s a r y f o r o f mandamus a r e p r e s e n t .
Mandamus i s a d r a s t i c a n d e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , t o be i s s u e d o n l y w h e r e t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t to t h e o r d e r s o u g h t ; (2} a n i m p e r a t i v e d u t y u p o n t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d by a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d {4) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court. Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 So. 2 d 4 9 7 , 499 (Ala. 1995).
address each of
A p a r t from the q u e s t i o n o f the l e g i t i m a c y of Obama's b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e t h e r e i s a d i s t i n c t but r e l a t e d q u e s t i o n : Obama h i m s e l f acknowledges t h a t h i s f a t h e r i s Barack Obama, S r . , who was b o r n i n what i s today Kenya but a t the time was a p a r t of B r i t i s h E a s t A f r i c a , thus making Obama the e l d e r a B r i t i s h s u b j e c t . T h i s , then, would seem to mean t h a t Obama J r . was not a n a t u r a l - b o r n American, s i n c e he was not born t o two U. S. c i t i z e n p a r e n t s .
clear legal Appellants
sought: to the of order the United 2012 taxes
have a c l e a r l e g a l is a citizen
sought. M c l n n i s h States. general he He is a
o f Alabama and who voted a l l the
registered voter He pays
numerous real he is
owes, w h i c h and
typically taxes,
income t a x e s , Further, debt.^
among o t h e r s . the
burdened w i t h Mclnnish lawful, the He
h i s share of has a manifest
constitutional of has
i n that and
i t is vital his the
wellbeing certainly
h i s progeny, right
property. state's honest
a clear legal
to have duties a
elections officer i n furtherance
perform her
to ensure stable,
of m a i n t a i n i n g
government. of V i r g i n i a f o r the and of the United President of
Goode i s a c i t i z e n States. He was
^ The n a t i o n a l d e b t s t a n d s a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y $17.7 trillion. See h t t p : / / w w w . u s d e b t c l o c k . o r g / I n J u l y 2011, t h e C e n s u s B u r e a u r e p o r t e d t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s t o be 311.6 million. See http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cbll -215.html/ The a r i t h m e t i c y i e l d s a d e b t o f $53,719 f o r e v e r y man, woman, and c h i l d .
S t a t e s f o r t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n P a r t y i n t h e 2012 a n d had an i n t e r e s t i n a fair
presidential election, election contest States. Being candidates
f o r the o f f i c e of President of the United t o compete f o r s a i d o f f i c e f o r the o f f i c e qualified he against denies
who may n o t be e l i g i b l e
Mr. Goode h i s r i g h t t o r u n a g a i n s t o n l y candidates. still
E v e n t h o u g h t h e e l e c t i o n was c o n c l u d e d
s u f f e r e d i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y as a c a n d i d a t e
o f f i c e o f P r e s i d e n t s i n c e he was p r e v e n t e d on an e q u a l p l a y i n g f i e l d , personal interest i n having Should
a n d he a l s o h a s a d i r e c t and the h i s t o r i c a l the votes record ineligible
accurately recorded. candidates case. 2008)
be i n c l u d e d i n t h e t a l l y
t h a t w o u l d n o t be t h e (D.N.H.
See H o l l a n d e r v. McCain,
566 F.Supp,2d 63,68
(2) An I m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do so.
The S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r o v e r s e e i n g all e l e c t i o n s (Code o f A l a . § 17-1-3 ( a ) ) , and t h e p r i n t i n g
of b a l l o t s ,
i n t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a . Code o f A l a . 1975 §17of the Secretary of t h a t she
14-20, e t s e q . The i m p e r a t i v e d u t y
S t a t e o f Alabama stems from t h e o a t h o f o f f i c e took a t t h e time s h e assumed o f f i c e :
I, s o l e m n l y s w e a r ( o r a f f i r m , as t h e c a s e may be) t h a t I w i l l s u p p o r t t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , and the C o n s t i t u t i o n o f the S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , so l o n g as I c o n t i n u e a c i t i z e n t h e r e o f ; and t h a t I w i l l f a i t h f u l l y and h o n e s t l y discharge t h e d u t i e s o f t h e o f f i c e u p o n w h i c h I am a b o u t t o e n t e r , t o t h e b e s t o f my a b i l i t y . So h e l p me God." A l a . C o n s t , o f 1 9 0 1 , a r t . X V I , § 2 7 9 , c l . 1. Further, Secretary shall be of Ala. State C o d e 1975 as §17-9-3 i n s t r u c t s "(a) The the
following persons the they
entitled ballot
t o have t h e i r f o r the
names p r i n t e d on election, they are
appropriate are otherwise
provided seek...." listed,
q u a l i f i e d f o r the (Those so by
(Emphasis added.) e.g., those
respective parties.)
"[P]rovided surplusage included only added
i s not was
a t whim by law for a
L e g i s l a t u r e , but purpose. By
i n the who
t o a p p e a r on there will be
ballot, those who
statute clearly who
implies that not
seek o f f i c e not
persons names on
even p e r m i t t e d ,
p h r a s e makes c l e a r t h a t that names m i g h t be
were Secretary not not be
anticipating of State
which were de the facto,
l e g i t i m a t e prima and by that the such as
f a c i e , but these
legitimate allowed on
state's chief elections
The taken an
C o n s t i t u t i o n , which to uphold, f o r one the provides
State of of has is the
a specific f o r the the
requirements President clarified, exclusive, number o f persons, m i g h t be (1892). of
Supreme C o u r t of the State to
"...the with the
power and exception the
p r o v i s i o n s as of c e r t a i n Federal 146 alter U.S. the
e l e c t o r s and so framed that
ineligibility and
Congressional v.
influence 1, 35
excluded." The
McPherson not
Blacker, way
s t a t e s may
i n any
r e q u i r e m e n t s mandated by
the C o n s t i t u t i o n .
common r o o t
from which vital the to
government that as
I t i s so cited
form of Court
Justice Marshall the grounds
J u s t i c e s ' oath
judicial fidelity (or
review. to her
Marbury oath
Madison, supra,
137. she
In swore
of o f f i c e , would
a f f i r m e d ) t h a t she of the
"... s u p p o r t . . .
S t a t e o f Alabama...," and 19'?5
i n view §17-9-3,
instructions codified of
c o n t a i n e d i n A l a . Code i n law
under the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n , an imperative duty to determine
S t a t e has
whether the for the
c a n d i d a t e s meet t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l are eligible
P r e s i d e n c y and This
f o r placement case doubt of a
ballot. candidate
i s c e r t a i n l y t r u e i n the whom t h e r e f o r the i s credible sought.
The of "It
S e c r e t a r y of State, must, of course,
b e h a l f of the U.S.
Alabama, would be
Constitution. occasions on to the
superfluous to restate has
t h i s Court
imposed upon s t a t e of the
requirements of such of
Constitution, i t may 349 1
compelled refer (1955), Rico State of
performance to and Brown Cooper v.
duties; Education, 358 U.S.
suffice to U.S. 294
Board v.
Aaron, U.S.
V.Branstad, allows an
a t 228. person
I f the to run
President violation allowed. Yet with
i t w o u l d be This
2012, others,
Appellant visited
Mclnnish, the
his attorney of
O f f i c e of the Hon. in
Secretary Thompson, absence of her office
which meeting of State, of
Emily the that
speaking State,
represented any and
l e g i t i m a c y of under the U.S.
thus v i o l a t i n g
Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n s . State duty (3)
It i s clear that
i s u n l a w f u l l y r e f u s i n g to perform her and must t h e r e f o r e be ordered t o do so.
A n o t h e r A d e q u a t e Remedy s t a t u t e s , A l a . C o d e 1975 enumerated This list of §
Alabama's E l e c t i o n Contest 17-9-3 e t . offices seq, govern only be an
elected for those does not
t h a t may
statute allows as w e l l as statute
challenges elected not to
to a l l Alabama the any judiciary
state officers, i n the state. and of
federal office, President further
specifically the United
mention the Ala. Code §
O f f i c e of 17-16-44
No j u r i s d i c t i o n e x i s t s i n o r s h a l l be e x e r c i s e d any j u d g e o r c o u r t t o e n t e r t a i n any p r o c e e d i n g a s c e r t a i n i n g the l e g a l i t y , conduct, or r e s u l t s a n y e l e c t i o n , e x c e p t s o f a r a s a u t h o r i t y t o do s h a l l be s p e c i a l l y and s p e c i f i c a l l y e n u m e r a t e d s e t down b y s t a t u t e . Thus § it does not of 17-9-3 i s t h e provide the only election to the contest
by for of so and
statute, of the 1975
for a contest States.
A l a Code to
§17-16-44 s p e c i f i c a l l y other e l e c t i o n s . Thus, i s s u e of The who
eliminates jurisdiction these Alabama and of
challenge not other
s t a t u t e s do there i s no
eligibility Secretary
i s the to
sole the the
government o f f i c i a l name o f ballot. If it the an
is in a position candidate and
interdict i t from
to perform law
w o u l d mean s h e the U.S. the
this a namely
C o n s t i t u t i o n . I t w o u l d a l s o mean t h a t most serious s o r t would go unattended,
wrong of one
o r more p e r s o n s concerning of and the
a b o u t whom t h e r e their
were l e g i t i m a t e f o r the placed Office on the of
questions President ballot without --
eligibility w o u l d be
p o s s i b l y even e l e c t e d f o r t h a t eligible to hold i t .
But remedy.
equity In t h i s
demands t h a t
f o r every wrong
t h e r e be
i n s t a n c e the obvious s i m p l e one. what e v e r y permit.
remedy i s an each t o do fide to birth
extraordinarily candidate t o do
I t i s to require teenager
i s required a bona the
get a l e a r n e r ' s certificate, State i s the
I t i s to produce §32-6-8(b) a n d that to
A l a . C o d e 1975 official
(4) P r o p e r l y Invoked J u r i s d i c t i o n of the
Circuit c o u r t s have o r i g i n a l
to hear §6-6-640. cases See
ju r i s d i c t i o n
i n v o l v i n g mandamus p u r s u a n t e.g. Ex parte CollinSr 84
t o A l a . C o d e 1975 3d 48, 50
( A l a . 2010).
A l a . Code 1975
§17-16-44 Does Not
A l a . Code 1975,
§17-16-44 p r o v i d e s :
"No j u r i s d i c t i o n e x i s t s i n o r s h a l l b e e x e r c i s e d by any j u d g e o r c o u r t t o e n t e r t a i n any p r o c e e d i n g for a s c e r t a i n i n g the l e g a l i t y , conduct, or r e s u l t s o f a n y e l e c t i o n , e x c e p t s o f a r a s a u t h o r i t y t o do so s h a l l be s p e c i a l l y and s p e c i f i c a l l y e n u m e r a t e d a n d s e t down b y s t a t u t e . " In the case of Rice v. Chapman, 51 So. 3d 281(2010) the
Alabama Supreme C o u r t
i n v o k e d Code o f A l a . 1975
§17-16-44,
the s o - c a l l e d concluded In Rice, that
s t a t u t e , " and t o hear the lawsuit.
i t h a d no j u r i s d i c t i o n sought
the p l a i n t i f f
the Republican ineligible The
cast f o r a possibly not timely that qualified.
c a n d i d a t e who h a d a l l e g e d l y Alabama Supreme C o u r t from found
the prevention of a party the 'conduct'" of the
canvassing votes would Primary election, actions. §17-16-44
Republican prohibited found matter that
one o f t h e s p e c i f i c a l l y reason that the Court
I t was f o r t h i s stripped
having subject
j urisdiction. i t i s only the proceedings conduct, or results that entertain the t h a t §17-
"legality, 16-44
o f any e l e c t i o n " this lawsuit
U n l i k e Rice,
does n o t seek t o
the l e g a l i t y
of the election, n o r does this
n o r does i t impact i tcontest the i s about the i n the election
of the election, Rather
o f an e l e c t i o n . o f those
eligibility and the duty
of the Secretary of State t o determine the of those attempting to participate. Thus, none by
o f §17-16-44 a r e i m p l i c a t e d
l a w s u i t and
l a w s u i t i s not
statute. Further Constitution office of § 17-16-44 does not preempt the U. S. for the
i n i t s d e m a n d s made on of the United
CONCLUSION It w o u l d be of paradoxical the lies beyond measure the de of i f the facto our real and
grave question a question
l e g i t i m a c y of at the very
President, American f o r want As of
Constitutional the simplest of
Government, documents, a teenager an
were l e f t a birth
certificate. for a fide
explained license
applying bona
learner's birth he
certificate. joins any a troop. of
same i s t r u e any
f o r a Boy
Scout before any artful possibly
c l e v e r excuse, computer
sleight an
hand w i t h
honorable his birth
r a t i o n a l e f o r the certificate American has at
Commander-in-Chief view of Alabama
to withhold citizens, This to resolve
public? i t s fingertips By the power
monumental conundrum. for a Writ
granting be
o f Mandamus i t w i l l
resolved. simply exist. will
E i t h e r a bone
fide birth
be not t o
or i t w i l l this
n e c e s s a r i l y be a d m i t t e d important of l e g a l
E i t h e r way,
questions ballot stilled. State
have been answered, t h e p u r i t y o f Alabama's and t h e a n x i e t y o f Alabama supra, citizens of
As r e c o u n t e d explained means. that
the Deputy S e c r e t a r y was without
her office called
an i n v e s t i g a t i v e requires of no what
f o r here, requires a very
investigation. purportedly thing:
I t merely
the production ordinary,
commonplace no
I t requires
o r money b y t h e S e c r e t a r y holds that f o r every
State. there i s
A maxim o f e q u i t y a remedy. requested. w o u l d be to Should
the Court not issue
the w r i t
here o f Alabama, admitting
Petitioners, left without
as w e l l as t h e p e o p l e
f o r t h e wrong o f
the b a l l o t doubt. He
t h e name o f o n e w h o s e Nor i s i t a t y p i c a l
legitimacy i s i n candidate that i s in others
d o e s n o t s e e k t o be a l e g i s l a t o r Branch,
c o n s t i t u t e the L e g i s l a t i v e who
nor a judge No, he
among seeks to Branch,
c o n s t i t u t e the J u d i c i a l
b e t h e s i n g l e p e r s o n who
c o n s t i t u t e s the Executive
President of the United Uncorrected, this would
States. result, not without some that their
justification, their real
i n t h e i m p r e s s i o n among t h e c i t i z e n s
g o v e r n m e n t was d y s f u n c t i o n a l a n d h a s i g n o r e d concerns. A n d when t h e g o v e r n e d can s u f f e r to grant lose faith We
governors, this
grievously. this writ
u r g e n t l y ask
ordering the from the candidates which
to obtain birth
certificates States
f o r the election
was h e l d i n N o v e m b e r , candidates
2 0 1 2 , a n d d o t h e same f o r a l l elections. within I f such birth order
i n future presidential are not forthcoming the votes
certificates of t h i s
45 d a y s a f t e r
f o r any c a n d i d a t e not
l 7 D e a n . i ^ n s o n \ (JOH046} L. DEAN JOHNSON, P r C . 4030 B a l m o r a l D r , , S u i t e B H u n t s v i l l e , AL 35801 T e l : (256) 880-5177 Fax: (256) 880-5187 Email: J o h n s o n dean(?be 1 1 s o u t h . n e t
L a r r y Klayman, Esq. KLAYMAN LAW F I R M 2 0 2 0 P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e . NW, S u i t e 800 W a s h i n g t o n , DC 2 0 0 0 6 T e l : (310) 595-0800 Email: l e k l a y m a n ( 5 g m a i l . com Pro Hac V i c e
I HEREBY C E R T I F Y t h a t o n t h e 26 d a y o f M a r c h 2 0 1 3 , I e l e c t r o n i c a l l y f i l e d the foregoing with the Clerk of the Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a u s i n g t h e ACIS f i l i n g system, which w i l l send n o t i f i c a t i o n o f such f i l i n g t o t h e following: Hon. L u t h e r S t r a n g e , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f A l a b a m a M a r g a r e t L. F l e m i n g J a m e s W. D a v i s L a u r a E. H o w e l l O f f i c e o f t h e A t t o r n e y General o f Alabama 501 W a s h i n g t o n S t r e e t Montgomery, Alabama 36130
HUGH MCINNISH, e t a l . , Appellants
BETH CHAPMAN, SECRETARY OF STATE Appellee.
APPENDICES TO BRIEF OF THE APPELLANTS
L. Dean Johnson L. DEAN JOHNSON, P.C. 4030 Balmoral Dr., S u i t e B H u n t s v i l l e , AL 35801 T e l : (256) 880-5177 L a r r y Klayman KLAYMZ^ LAW FIRM 2020 P e n n s y l v a n i a Ave, NW S u i t e 800 Washington, D.C. 20006 T e l : (310) 595-0800 Attorneys f o r Appellants
C a l i f o r n i a S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e Jordan l e t t e r t o Jack Weinberg ( C h a i r m a n , P e a c e a n d Freedom P a r t y C e n t r a l C o m m i t t e e ) Appendix 0 Affidavit of S h e r i f f Arpaio Appendix D
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY t h a t on t h e 26 d a y o f M a r c h 2 0 1 3 , I e l e c t r o n i c a l l y f i l e d a t r u e and c o r r e c t copy o f t h e Appendices to B r i e f o f t h e A p p e l l a n t s w i t h t h e C l e r k o f t h e Supreme C o u r t of Alabama u s i n g t h e ACIS f i l i n g system, which w i l l send n o t i f i c a t i o n o f such f i l i n g t o t h e f o l l o w i n g : Hon. L u t h e r S t r a n g e , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f A l a b a m a M a r g a r e t L. F l e m i n g James W. D a v i s L a u r a E. H o w e l l O f f i c e o f t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f Alabama 501 W a s h i n g t o n S t r e e t Montgomery, A l a b a m a 36130
A G O 1998-200. Alabama Attorney General Opinions 1998. A G O 1998-200. 1998-200 A u g u s t 12, 1 9 9 8 H o n o r a b l e J i m Bennett S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e P.O. Box 5616 Montgomery, A l a b a m a 36103 Secretary of S t a t e - C a n d i d a t e s - Ballots - Political Parties T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e d o e s not h a v e a n obligation to e v a l u a t e all of the qualifications of the n o m i n e e s of political parties a n d i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s for state offices prior to certifying s u c h n o m i n e e s a n d c a n d i d a t e s to the probate j u d g e s pursuant to s e c t i o n s 17-7-1 a n d 17-16-40 of the C o d e of A l a b a m a . If the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s k n o w l e d g e g a i n e d from a n official s o u r c e arising from the p e r f o r m a n c e of duties p r e s c r i b e d by law, that a c a n d i d a t e h a s not met a certifying qualification, the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h o u l d not certify the c a n d i d a t e . T h e law d o e s not prohibit the S e c r e t a r y of State from informing the probate j u d g e s of his or her r e a s o n for non-certification.
D e a r Mr. Bennett; T h i s opinion of the Attorney G e n e r a l is i s s u e d in r e s p o n s e to y o u r request. QUESTION 1 D o e s the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a v e the obligation to e v a l u a t e a n y qualifications of the n o m i n e e s of political parties a n d i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s for state offices prior to certifying s u c h n o m i n e e s a n d candidates to the probate j u d g e s pursuant to s e c t i o n s 17-7-1 a n d 1 7 - 1 6 - 4 0 of the C o d e of Alabama? FACTS AND ANALYSIS S e c t i o n 1 7 - 1 6 - 4 0 of the C o d e of A l a b a m a provides: T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h a l l , within 4 5 d a y s after the s e c o n d primary election, certify to the probate judge of e a c h county in the state a
Appendix A 1 of 4
s e p a r a t e list of n o m i n e e s of e a c h party for office a n d for e a c h candidate w h o h a s r e q u e s t e d to be an independent c a n d i d a t e a n d h a s filed a written petition in a c c o r d a n c e with S e c t i o n 17-7-1 (a)(3), e x c e p t n o m i n e e s for c o u n t y offices, to be voted for by the voters of s u c h county. A L A . C O D E § 1716- 4 0 (1995). S e c t i o n 17-7-1 provides in pertinent part: (c) T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e must, not later than 4 5 d a y s after the s e c o n d primary, certify to the probate judge of e a c h county in the state, in the c a s e of an officer to be voted for by the electors of the w h o l e state, a n d to the probate j u d g e s of the counties c o m p o s i n g the circuit or district in c a s e of an officer to be voted for by the electors of a circuit or district, upon suitable b l a n k s to be p r e p a r e d by him or her for that p u r p o s e , the fact of nomination or independent c a n d i d a c y of e a c h n o m i n e e or i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e or c a n d i d a t e of a party w h o did not receive more than 2 0 p e r c e n t of the entire vote c a s t in the last g e n e r a l election preceding the primary w h o h a s qualified to a p p e a r o n the g e n e r a l election b a l l o t . . . . A L A . C O D E § 17-7-1 (c) (1995). Y o u r question c o n c e r n s w h e t h e r the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s a n obligation to e v a l u a t e a n y qualifications of the n o m i n e e s for political office. T h e C o d e d o e s not require the S e c r e t a r y of State to determine w h e t h e r e a c h n o m i n e e m e e t s all the qualifications for his or her particular office. S o m e of the qualifications, h o w e v e r , are within the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s official k n o w l e d g e . B y official k n o w l e d g e I m e a n k n o w l e d g e g a i n e d from a n official s o u r c e arising from the performance of duties prescribed by law. F o r e x a m p l e , c a n d i d a t e s are required to file s t a t e m e n t s of e c o n o m i c interest with the E t h i c s C o m m i s s i o n . A L A . C O D E § 3 6 - 2 5 - 1 5 ( S u p p . 1997). If the E t h i c s C o m m i s s i o n provides the S e c r e t a r y of State with formal notice of t h o s e c a n d i d a t e s w h o h a v e not filed statements of e c o n o m i c interest, the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s official k n o w l e d g e that the c a n d i d a t e s h a v e failed to m e e t a certifying d e a d l i n e . O n l y t h o s e c a n d i d a t e s m e e t i n g the filing requirements are entitled to be o n the ballot. A L A . C O D E § 36-25-15(c) ( S u p p . 1997). If the S e c r e t a r y of State h a s official k n o w l e d g e that a c a n d i d a t e h a s not met a certifying qualification, the S e c r e t a r y of State s h o u l d not certify the candidate. Similarly, section 1 7 - 1 6 - 4 0 p l a c e s a duty o n the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e to certify only t h o s e i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s w h o h a v e filed a written petition in a c c o r d a n c e with S e c t i o n 17-7-1 (a)(3). T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s the duty to e n s u r e that the written petition filed by a n independent c a n d i d a t e is in a c c o r d a n c e with s e c t i o n 17-7-1 (a)(3). T h i s Office h a s previously d e t e r m i n e d that the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e is r e s p o n s i b l e for verifying s i g n a t u r e s o n a petition to run a s a n independent c a n d i d a t e . O p i n i o n to H o n o r a b l e P e r r y A . H a n d , dated April 19, 1 9 9 0 , A . G . N o . 9 0 - 0 0 2 2 3 . S e c t i o n 17- 7-1 (a)(3) a l s o requires e a c h i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e to file a petition with the S e c r e t a r y of State on or before 5: 00 p.m. s i x d a y s after the s e c o n d primary e l e c t i o n . A L A . C O D E § 17-7-1 (a)(3) (1995). T h i s Office h a s p r e v i o u s l y c o n c l u d e d statutes setting the time for filing a certificate of nomination are mandatory. O p i n i o n to H o n o r a b l e E a r l e a n Isaac, dated J u l y 2 9 , 1998, A . G . N o . 9 8 0 0 1 9 4 . W h e t h e r a petition by a n i n d e p e n d e n t candidate fulfills the r e q u i r e m e n t s of section 17-71 (a)(3) is within the official k n o w l e d g e of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e . A l a b a m a law directs the S e c r e t a r y of State to certify only i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s who h a v e properly filed p u r s u a n t to section 17-7-
Appendix A 2 of 4
1(a)(3). M o r e o v e r , c a n d i d a t e s w h o h a v e b e e n put in nomination by a primary election or by a c a u c u s , convention, m a s s m e e t i n g , or other a s s e m b l y of a political party must m e e t a statutorily e s t a b l i s h e d filing d e a d l i n e . See A L A . C O D E § 17-7-1 (a)(1) & (2) (1995). If the c a n d i d a t e is required to file with the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e , it is within the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s official k n o w l e d g e a s to w h e t h e r the d e a d l i n e w a s met. A s stated a b o v e , if the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s official k n o w l e d g e that a c a n d i d a t e h a s not met a certifying qualification, the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h o u l d not certify the candidate. CONCLUSION T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e d o e s not h a v e a n obligation to evaluate all of the qualifications of the n o m i n e e s of political parties a n d i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s for state offices prior to certifying s u c h n o m i n e e s a n d c a n d i d a t e s to the probate j u d g e s pursuant to s e c t i o n s 17-7-1 a n d 17-16-40 of the C o d e of A l a b a m a . If the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s k n o w l e d g e g a i n e d from an official s o u r c e arising from the p e r f o r m a n c e of duties p r e s c r i b e d by law, that a c a n d i d a t e h a s not met a certifying qualification, the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h o u l d not certify the c a n d i d a t e . QUESTION 2 If the a n s w e r to q u e s t i o n #1 is in the affirmative, is it p e r m i s s i b l e for the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e to a l s o notify the probate j u d g e s of the disqualification of t h o s e n o m i n e e s of political parties a n d i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s for state office w h i c h h a v e b e e n determined to be disqualified a n d set out the r e a s o n for disqualification in o r d e r for the probate j u d g e s to be informed of the b a s i s of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s d e c i s i o n in t h o s e i n s t a n c e s ? FACTS, ANALYSIS, & CONCLUSION A s stated a b o v e , the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h o u l d not certify a c a n d i d a t e w h e n he h a s official k n o w l e d g e that the c a n d i d a t e is not entitled to be o n the ballot. T h e law d o e s not prohibit the S e c r e t a r y of State from informing the probate j u d g e s of his or her r e a s o n for non-certification. QUESTION 3 If the a n s w e r to q u e s t i o n #1 is in the affirmative, is the obligation to e v a l u a t e qualifications limited to a ministerial r e v i e w b a s e d u p o n the facts within the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s p o s s e s s i o n , or d o e s it a l s o extend to a n obligation to investigate factual allegations c o n c e r n i n g the qualifications of c a n d i d a t e s for state o f f i c e s ? FACTS, ANALYSIS, & CONCLUSION A s stated a b o v e , the C o d e d o e s not require the S e c r e t a r y of State to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r e a c h n o m i n e e m e e t s all the qualifications for his or her particular office. T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e d o e s have an obligation to r e v i e w qualifications b a s e d o n facts within his official k n o w l e d g e . QUESTION 4
Appendix A 3 of 4
If the a n s w e r to q u e s t i o n #1 is in the affirmative a n d the a n s w e r to question #3 provides a factfinding obligation for the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e in reviewing the qualifications of c a n d i d a t e s for state offices, is the investigation of factual allegations a judicial obligation of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e requiring d u e p r o c e s s of law or a n e x t e n s i o n of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s ministerial duty? FACTS, ANALYSIS, & CONCLUSION A s stated in q u e s t i o n 3, the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s no duty to investigate facts not within his official knowledge; therefore, this question n e e d not be a d d r e s s e d . I h o p e this opinion a n s w e r s y o u r q u e s t i o n s . If this Office c a n be of further a s s i s t a n c e , p l e a s e contact B r e n d a F. S m i t h of m y staff. Sincerely, BILL P R Y O R Attorney G e n e r a l By: J A M E S R. S O L O M O N , J R . Chief, O p i n i o n s D i v i s i o n BP/WBM B7.98/M
Appendix A 4 of 4
8 2 3 S o . 2 d 6 7 9 (Ala. 2 0 0 1 ) , 1 9 9 2 2 8 9 , A l l e n v. Bennett P a g e 679 823 So.2d 679 (Ala. Nelson Allen,
Jim Bennett, as Secretary of State of the State of Alabama. 1992289. Supreme Court of A l a b a m a . December 28, P a g e 680 J o s e p h W . H u d s o n , J a s p e r , for appellant. Bill Pryor, atty. g e n . , a n d C h a r l e s Brinsfield C a m p h e l l a n d William P . Clliford III, asst.attys. g e n . , for A p p e l l e e s S e c r e t a r y of state, J i m Bennett. Algert S . A g r i c o l a , Jr., of W a l l a c e , J o r d a n , Ratliff & Brandt, L . L . C . , M o n t g o m e r y , for a p p e l l e e don Bervill. B R O W N , Justice. N e l s o n A l l e n a p p e a l s from a j u d g m e n t in a n action filed by J i m Bennett, a s S e c r e t a r y of State of the State of A l a b a m a , d e c l a r i n g , a m o n g other things, that A l l e n s h o u l d not b e certified on the ballot for the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l election a s the D e m o c r a t i c Party c a n d i d a t e for a district court j u d g e s h i p in W a l k e r C o u n t y . W e affirm. I. O n D e c e m b e r 1, 1 9 9 9 , J u d g e W a r r e n Laird, J r . , r e s i g n e d , creating a v a c a n c y in the office of district court j u d g e , p l a c e no. 1, in W a l k e r C o u n t y . Laird h a d b e e n elected to that office in the N o v e m b e r 1996 g e n e r a l election, a n d his term of office w o u l d h a v e expired in J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 . G o v e r n o r D o n S i e g e l m a n a p p o i n t e d D o n a l d H. Bevill to fill the v a c a n c y c r e a t e d by J u d g e Laird's resignation, a n d Bevill w a s s w o r n in on D e c e m b e r 1, 1 9 9 9 . 2001.
Appendix B 1 of 8
O n M a r c h 28, 2 0 0 0 , the Administrative Office of C o u r t s ( " A O C " ) sent a m e m o r a n d u m to the presiding j u d g e s in c o u n t i e s in P a g e 681 w h i c h a judicial officeholder w o u l d be required to run for election. W a l k e r C o u n t y w a s o n e of those counties. T h e m e m o r a n d u m c o n c l u d e d that, pursuant to 6.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 to the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1901 a n d other pertinent constitutional provisions, J u d g e Bevill's term of office would expire on J a n u a r y 15, 2 0 0 1 , a n d that the office J u d g e Bevill o c c u p i e d s h o u l d be included a m o n g t h o s e offices to be filled in the 2 0 0 0 election. Shortly after the m e m o r a n d u m w a s i s s u e d . N e l s o n A l l e n d e c l a r e d his c a n d i d a c y for the district court j u d g e s h i p , p l a c e no. 1, a n d filed qualifying p a p e r s with the A l a b a m a D e m o c r a t i c Party. S u b s e q u e n t l y , A l l e n , J u d g e Bevill, a n d a third p e r s o n , J i m W e l l s , qualified to run for the j u d g e s h i p in the D e m o c r a t i c primary, w h i c h w a s s c h e d u l e d for J u n e 6, 2 0 0 0 . After S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e J i m Bennett certified the c a n d i d a t e s , the n a m e s of all three m e n w e r e p l a c e d on the ballot a s the D e m o c r a t i c Party c a n d i d a t e s for the district court j u d g e s h i p , a n d the ballots w e r e printed. In the m e a n t i m e , h o w e v e r . J u d g e Bevill h a d r e q u e s t e d a legal opinion f r o m the attorney g e n e r a l a s to w h e n his term of office expired a n d w h e t h e r the district court j u d g e s h i p , p l a c e no. 1, s h o u l d , in fact, b e p l a c e d on the 2 0 0 0 election ballot.
O n M a y 30, 2 0 0 0 , the attorney g e n e r a l i s s u e d an opinion, stating that, u n d e r the pertinent constitutional p r o v i s i o n s . J u d g e Bevill's term of office w o u l d not, a s the A O C h a d o p i n e d , expire in J a n u a r y 2 0 0 1 , but instead w o u l d expire in J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 , a n d that, therefore, J u d g e Bevill w a s not required to run for office in the 2 0 0 0 election. S e e O p . Att'y G e n . , N o . 2 0 0 0 - 1 5 9 (2000). H o w e v e r , the n a m e s of Bevill, A l l e n , a n d W e l l s w e r e on the printed ballots a s the D e m o c r a t i c Party c a n d i d a t e s for the p l a c e n o . 1 district court j u d g e s h i p in W a l k e r C o u n t y w h e n the primary election w a s held o n J u n e 6, 2 0 0 0 . Bevill a n d A l l e n w e r e the top two D e m o c r a t i c vote-getters, with neither receiving m o r e than 5 0 % of the v o t e s . T h e two then met in a run-off e l e c t i o n , held o n J u n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 0 ; A l l e n w o n the run-off.'^''^ P u r s u a n t to 17-7-1 (c) a n d 1 7 - 1 6 - 4 0 , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e B e n n e t t w a s required, by A u g u s t 13, 2 0 0 0 , to certify to the probate judge of e a c h county in A l a b a m a the n a m e s of the c a n d i d a t e s that a r e to a p p e a r on the ballot for the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n . O n J u l y 7, 2 0 0 0 , in v i e w of the conflicting opinions of the A O C a n d the attorney g e n e r a l a s to the p l a c e no. 1 district court j u d g e s h i p in W a l k e r C o u n t y a n d for the a c c u r a c y of the g e n e r a l - e l e c t i o n ballot, S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e Bennett filed a declaratory-judgment action in the W a l k e r Circuit Court, a s k i n g that court to construe the pertinent constitutional p r o v i s i o n s a n d to d e c l a r e the n a m e s of those c a n d i d a t e s w h o s h o u l d b e certified to a p p e a r on the ballot for the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l election. A specific q u e s t i o n put to the court by the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e w a s : W h e n is J u d g e Bevill's term of office a s district court j u d g e d u e to e x p i r e ? After the circuit a n d district j u d g e s of W a l k e r C o u n t y r e c u s e d t h e m s e l v e s , this C o u r t appointed retired M o n t g o m e r y Circuit J u d g e William
Appendix B 2 of 8
G o r d o n ( J u d g e G o r d o n is liereinafter referred to a s "tlie circuit court") to p r e s i d e o v e r the c a s e . T h e parties stipulated to the facts of the c a s e . O n A u g u s t 9, 2 0 0 0 , the circuit court entered its judgment, d e c l a r i n g (1) that, pursuant to 6.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 of the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1 9 0 1 , J u d g e Bevill's initial term lasts until the first P a g e 682 M o n d a y after the s e c o n d T u e s d a y in J a n u a r y following the next g e n e r a l election after he h a s completed o n e y e a r in office; (2) that, accordingly. J u d g e Bevill's term of office a s district court judge, p l a c e no. 1, in W a l k e r C o u n t y d o e s not expire until J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 ; (3) that J u d g e Bevill w a s not required to run for the district court j u d g e s h i p in the 2 0 0 0 election c y c l e ; a n d (4) that, for the aforementioned r e a s o n s , the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h o u l d not certify the n a m e s of a n y c a n d i d a t e s for the office of district court j u d g e , p l a c e no. 1, W a l k e r C o u n t y , o n the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l election ballot. II. O n a p p e a l , A l l e n c o n t e n d s that the circuit court's construction of the pertinent constitutional provisions is incorrect a n d that, a s the winner of the primary election, he s h o u l d h a v e b e e n certified a s the D e m o c r a t i c P a r t y c a n d i d a t e for the district court j u d g e s h i p o n the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 general-election ballot. J u d g e Bevill h a s filed a brief with this C o u r t in w h i c h h e a r g u e s that, b e c a u s e the 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l election h a s b e e n held a n d the office of the district court j u d g e , p l a c e no. 1, w a s not o n t h e ballot, A l l e n ' s a p p e a l p r e s e n t s a moot q u e s t i o n a n d that, therefore, the a p p e a l s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d . H o w e v e r , b e c a u s e the o u t c o m e of this c a s e c o u l d impact future elections, w e hold that the interpretation of 6.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 in this c a s e a n d h e n c e this a p p e a l is not moot. S e e Griggs v. Bennett, 7 1 0 S o . 2 d 4 1 1 , 4 1 2 n.4 ( A l a . 1998), citing V. Ogilvie, 394 U . S . 8 1 4 , 8 1 6 (1969). III. S e c t i o n 6.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 of the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1901 o p e r a t e s to fill v a c a n c i e s in judicial offices. S e c t i o n 6.14 p r o v i d e s : " T h e office of a j u d g e s h a l l be v a c a n t if he d i e s , r e s i g n s , retires, or is r e m o v e d . Vacancies judicial office shall be filled by appointment by the governor; however, occurring in any Moore
v a c a n c i e s occurring in a n y
judicial office in J e f f e r s o n county shall be filled a s n o w p r o v i d e d by a m e n d m e n t s 8 3 a n d 110 to the Constitution of A l a b a m a of 1901 a n d vacancies [or] St. C l a i r county shall be filled as provided hereafter adopted, or as may be otherwise in S h e l b y , M a d i s o n , W i l c o x , M o n r o e , of 1901 with amendments advertised and enacted now or local C o n e c u h , C l a r k e , W a s h i n g t o n , H e n r y , E t o w a h , Walker, T a l l a p o o s a , P i c k e n s , G r e e n e , T u s c a l o o s a , in the Constitution established by a properly
law. A judge, other t h a n a probate j u d g e , appointed
shall serve an initial term
Appendix B 3 of 8
lasting until the first Monday election
held after he has completed
one year in office. At s u c h election s u c h judicial office shall
be filled for a full term of office b e g i n n i n g at the e n d of the a p p o i n t e d term." (Emphasis added.) T h e proviso in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14 applies to judicial v a c a n c i e s in s e v e r a l specifically listed counties, including W a l k e r C o u n t y . A l i e n a r g u e s , a s he did in the circuit court, that the l a n g u a g e in the proviso stating that s u c h v a c a n c i e s "shall be filled a s p r o v i d e d in the Constitution of 1901 with a m e n d m e n t s n o w or hereafter a d o p t e d " m e a n s that the term of office of a j u d g e w h o , like J u d g e Bevill, h a s b e e n a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y in a county s p e c i f i c a l l y listed in 6.14 is g o v e r n e d by 158 of the Constitution of A l a b a m a of 1901.^^^ S e c t i o n 158 provides that a j u d g e filling a v a c a n c y shall s e r v e until the next Page 683 g e n e r a l election following the expiration of six months after the v a c a n c y o c c u r r e d . If, a s A l l e n urges, J u d g e Bevill's term of office is g o v e r n e d by 158, Bevill's term w a s d u e to expire o n J a n u a r y 15, 2 0 0 1 , a n d the office s h o u l d h a v e a p p e a r e d on the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l - e l e c t i o n ballot, with A l l e n , a s the w i n n e r of the D e m o c r a t i c Party primary, certified a s the D e m o c r a t i c Party's candidate. S e c t i o n 158, u p o n w h i c h A l l e n relies, w a s part of what w a s Article VI of the Constitution of A l a b a m a of 1 9 0 1 . H o w e v e r , A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 r e p e a l e d Article VI a n d c r e a t e d the Unified Judicial System.^"^^ S e e Hornsby v. Sessions, 7 0 3 S o . 2 d 9 3 2 , 9 3 9 ( A l a . 1997). T h u s , A m e n d m e n t v. Siegelman, 386 S o . 2 d N o . 3 2 8 , of w h i c h 6.14 is a part, controls in this state. Id. S e e Hooper
2 0 7 , 2 0 9 - 1 0 (Ala. 1980) (noting that 6.14 h a s specifically r e p l a c e d 158). T h e circuit court rejected A l l e n ' s a r g u m e n t that 158 g o v e r n s the term of office of a judge a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y in o n e of the counties listed in the proviso in 6.14 b e c a u s e , it s a i d , his interpretation violated the principles of constitutional construction. A l l e n ' s interpretation, the court s a i d , "would h a v e the court read b a c k into 6.14 a s e c t i o n of old Article VI w h i c h a m e n d m e n t 3 2 8 r e p e a l e d in its entirety." "In s e a r c h i n g for the proper construction of a constitutional provision, w e m u s t look to the l a n g u a g e of that p r o v i s i o n . " Hornsby, s u p r a , 7 0 3 S o . 2 d at 9 3 9 . N o t h i n g in the l a n g u a g e of 6.14 s u g g e s t s that 158 of what w a s Article VI g o v e r n s the t e r m s of office of j u d g e s a p p o i n t e d to fill v a c a n c i e s in the c o u n t i e s listed in 6.14. T h e plain l a n g u a g e of the p r o v i s o in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14 states that judicial v a c a n c i e s in the listed counties "shall be filled a s provided in the Constitution of 1901 with a m e n d m e n t s n o w or hereafter a d o p t e d , or a s m a y be otherwise e s t a b l i s h e d by a properly advertised a n d e n a c t e d local law." W e a g r e e with the circuit court a n d with the attorney g e n e r a l that the Constitution h a s n o w b e e n a m e n d e d by A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 , w h i c h a m e n d m e n t , w e h a v e s t a t e d , r e p e a l e d Article VI, a n d with it 158. U n d e r the g e n e r a l provision of 6.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 , v a c a n c i e s in judicial offices in A l a b a m a "shall be filled
Appendix B 4 of 8
by appointment by the governor." T h e l a n g u a g e that follows that g e n e r a l provision in 6.14 provides that a v a c a n c y in a judicial office in a n y listed county that h a s not a d o p t e d a n alternate p r o c e s s for filling judicial v a c a n c i e s is a l s o filled by appointment of the governor.I-^^ B y a l s o providing that judicial v a c a n c i e s Page 684 m a y be filled a s p r o v i d e d in constitutional a m e n d m e n t s hereafter " a d o p t e d " or " a s m a y be otherwise e s t a b l i s h e d by a properly advertised a n d e n a c t e d local law," 6.14 c o n t e m p l a t e s p r o c e d u r e s e s t a b l i s h e d by future constitutional a m e n d m e n t or by e n a c t m e n t s of the Legislature that could c h a n g e the p r o c e s s for filling judicial v a c a n c i e s in o n e or more of the listed c o u n t i e s . W e a l s o a g r e e with the circuit court a n d the attorney g e n e r a l that the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14, w h i c h i n c l u d e s the p r o v i s o , g o v e r n s only the manner in w h i c h a judicial v a c a n c y in o n e of the listed c o u n t i e s is filled; it d o e s not a p p l y to the term of office of a j u d g e a p p o i n t e d to fill s u c h a v a c a n c y . T h e proviso in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14 must be read a s only granting the listed counties the authority to e s t a b l i s h a different p r o c e s s for filling judicial v a c a n c i e s , not altering w h e n the term of a p e r s o n a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y e n d s or w h e n a n election to fill the v a c a n c y must be held.t^J With the e x c e p t i o n of J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y a n d two other c o u n t i e s specifically c o v e r e d by constitutional a m e n d m e n t s a d o p t e d s u b s e q u e n t to the adoption of 6.14,'-^-' the third s e n t e n c e of 6.14 w h i c h provides that a j u d g e a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y "shall s e r v e a n initial term lasting until the first M o n d a y after the s e c o n d T u e s d a y In J a n u a r y following the next g e n e r a l election held after he h a s c o m p l e t e d o n e y e a r in office" g o v e r n s the term of office of p e r s o n s a p p o i n t e d to fill judicial v a c a n c i e s in A l a b a m a . T h e r e is nothing in the third s e n t e n c e of 6.14 that c a n be c o n s t r u e d a s excepting from its o p e r a t i o n the c o u n t i e s listed in the proviso in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14. T h i s construction of 6.14 is dictated by its l a n g u a g e ; it a l s o provides for s o m e m e a s u r e of uniformity in judicial a p p o i n t e e s ' t e r m s of office. A l l e n a r g u e s that this C o u r t in Griggs v. Bennett, 7 1 0 S o . 2 d 411 (Ala. 1998), "implicitly a c c e p t e d " his interpretation of 6.14 a n d r e c o g n i z e d that 158 of what w a s Article VI of the A l a b a m a Constitution g o v e r n s the term of office of a j u d g e a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y in a c o u n t y listed in the proviso. W e d o not a g r e e . A l t h o u g h the appellants in Griggs, the proviso in 6.14, this C o u r t n e v e r r e a c h e d that c l a i m in Griggs, like A l l e n , m a d e the c l a i m that b e c a u s e w e f o u n d that the 158 g o v e r n e d the t e r m s of office of j u d g e s appointed to fill v a c a n c i e s in the c o u n t i e s c o v e r e d by v a c a n t j u d g e s h i p at i s s u e in that c a s e did not o c c u r in a c o u n t y c o v e r e d by the p r o v i s o . T h e question p r e s e n t e d in Griggs w a s w h e n w a s a p e r s o n a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y in a circuit court j u d g e s h i p in the T w e n t i e t h J u d i c i a l Circuit, w h i c h i n c l u d e s both H e n r y C o u n t y (a c o u n t y listed in the proviso in 6.14) a n d H o u s t o n C o u n t y (a county not listed in the proviso), required to s t a n d for election. W e held that a strict construction of the proviso in 6.14 e x c l u d e s the Twentieth J u d i c i a l Circuit from the s c o p e of the proviso's operation,
Appendix B 5 of 8
P a g e 685 b e c a u s e H o u s t o n C o u n t y is not a listed county. " W h e n a court is interpreting a proviso, the application of w h i c h is in doubt, g e n e r a l c a n o n s of construction require that the proviso be strictly c o n s t r u e d . " Griggs, 7 1 0 S o . 2 d at 4 1 3 .
T h u s , Griggs d o e s not s u p p o r t A l l e n ' s a r g u m e n t c o n c e r n i n g J u d g e Bevill's term of office. Although this Court set out the a p p e l l a n t s ' a r g u m e n t in Griggs, w e took no position in that c a s e on the continued viability of 1 5 8 . Notwithstanding A l l e n ' s a r g u m e n t a n d the a r g u m e n t m a d e by the appellants in Griggs, this C o u r t h a s previously r e c o g n i z e d that 6.14 h a s r e p l a c e d 158 a s the g e n e r a l constitutional provision with l a n g u a g e governing the term of office of a p e r s o n appointed to fill a judicial v a c a n c y in A l a b a m a . S e e Hooper v. Siegelman, 3 8 6 S o . 2 d 2 0 7 , 2 0 9 - 1 0 (Ala. 1980).
A c c o r d i n g l y , w e hold that the circuit court correctly determined that J u d g e Bevill's term of office d o e s not expire until J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 . J u d g e Bevill is not required to stand for election until the 2 0 0 2 election. IV. A l i e n a l s o a r g u e s that S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e Bennett s h o u l d have b e e n equitably e s t o p p e d from s e e k i n g the declaratory j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e , A l l e n s a y s , he relied to his detriment on Bennett's certification of his c a n d i d a c y in the D e m o c r a t i c Party primary a n d run-off a n d b e c a u s e , he s a y s , Bennett u n r e a s o n a b l y d e l a y e d bringing the declaratory-judgment action. " T o establish the e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s of equitable e s t o p p e l , [a party] must s h o w the following: "(1) That '[t]he p e r s o n a g a i n s t w h o m e s t o p p e l is a s s e r t e d , w h o usually m u s t h a v e k n o w l e d g e of the facts, c o m m u n i c a t e s s o m e t h i n g in a m i s l e a d i n g w a y , either by w o r d s , c o n d u c t , or s i l e n c e , with the intention that the c o m m u n i c a t i o n will be a c t e d o n ; ' "(2) That 'the p e r s o n s e e k i n g to a s s e r t e s t o p p e l , w h o l a c k s k n o w l e d g e of the facts, relies upon [the] c o m m u n i c a t i o n ; ' a n d "(3) That 'the p e r s o n relying w o u l d be h a r m e d materially if the actor is later permitted to a s s e r t a claim inconsistent with his earlier conduct.'" Lambert v. Mail Handlers Benefit Plan, 6 8 2 S o . 2 d 6 1 , 6 4 ( A l a . 1996), quoting General Co., 4 3 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 0 , 1243 ( A l a . 1983). Electric
Credit Corp. v. Strickland T h i s Court h a s h e l d :
Div. of Rebel Lumber
" E q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l is to be applied a g a i n s t a g o v e r n m e n t a l entity only with e x t r e m e caution or
Appendix B 6 of 8
under e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s . First Nat'l Bank of Montgomery 1983).
176 F . S u p p .
7 6 8 ( M . D . A l a . 1959), afTd, 2 8 5 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1961); Ex parte Fields, 4 3 2 S o . 2 d 1290 ( A l a .
' " U n d e r the settled law, equitable e s t o p p e l . . . must be predicated u p o n the conduct, l a n g u a g e , or the s i l e n c e of the party a g a i n s t w h o m it is s o u g h t to be i n v o k e d . S a i d conduct, l a n g u a g e , or s i l e n c e must a m o u n t to the representation or c o n c e a l m e n t of a material fact or facts. The representation must be as to the facts and not as to the law....' estoppel is not a barto the correction... of a mistake of law.'" Automobile
"'The doctrine of equitable
" ( E m p h a s i s a d d e d [in Headrick Club of Michigan State Highway
176 F . S u p p . at 7 7 2 , quoting
v. Commissioner, Dep't v. Headrick
3 5 3 U . S . 180, 182, 7 7 S . C t . 7 0 7 , 7 0 9 , 1 L . E d . 2 d 7 4 6 (1957)." Outdoor Adver., Inc., 5 9 4 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 2 , 1 2 0 4 - 0 5 (Ala. 1992).
S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e B e n n e t t c a n n o t be e s t o p p e d from s e e k i n g the declaratory j u d g m e n t in this c a s e . T h e S e c r e t a r y of P a g e 686 State h a s no authority to certify n a m e s for p l a c e m e n t on a ballot for a n election that, under the pertinent p r o v i s i o n s of the A l a b a m a Constitution, is not s u p p o s e d to be h e l d . A l l e n a l s o s u g g e s t s that the doctrine of equitable e s t o p p e l s h o u l d be a p p l i e d b e c a u s e , he s a y s . S e c r e t a r y of State B e n n e t t u n r e a s o n a b l y d e l a y e d bringing the declaratory-judgment action. H o w e v e r , the u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e before the circuit court s h o w e d that the S e c r e t a r y of State a c t e d diligently in s e e k i n g the declaratory j u d g m e n t a n d that he did not u n r e a s o n a b l y d e l a y bringing the a c t i o n . F o r the r e a s o n s s t a t e d a b o v e , the circuit court's j u d g m e n t is d u e to be, a n d is h e r e b y , affirmed. AFFIRMED. H o u s t o n , S e e , L y o n s , J o h n s t o n e , H a r w o o d , W o o d a l i , a n d Stuart, J J . , c o n c u r .
Notes: C h a r l e s R. S t e p h e n s , Jr., w h o w a s u n o p p o s e d in the R e p u b l i c a n Party primary, w a s the R e p u b l i c a n Party's n o m i n e e for the p l a c e no. 1 district court j u d g e s h i p .
Appendix B 7 of 8
S e c t i o n 158 p r o v i d e s : " V a c a n c i e s in tlie office of a n y of the j u s t i c e s of the s u p r e m e court or j u d g e s w h o hold office by election, or c h a n c e l l o r s of this state, shall be filled by appointment by the governor. T h e a p p o i n t e e s h a l l hold his office until the next g e n e r a l election for a n y state officer held at least s i x m o n t h s after the v a c a n c y o c c u r s , a n d until his s u c c e s s o r is e l e c t e d a n d qualified; the s u c c e s s o r c h o s e n at s u c h election shall hold office for the u n e x p i r e d term a n d until his s u c c e s s o r is e l e c t e d a n d qualified." ^^•I T h e p r e a m b l e to A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 states: "Article VI of the Constitution of A l a b a m a of 1901 a s a m e n d e d , a n d a m e n d m e n t s 3 1 7 a n d 3 2 3 thereof, are h e r e b y r e p e a l e d a n d in lieu thereof the following article s h a l l be adopted[.]" S e c t i o n 6.14 a l s o specifically provides that v a c a n c i e s occurring in judicial offices in J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y shall b e filled a s provided by A m e n d m e n t s N o . 8 3 a n d N o . 110 to the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1 9 0 1 . A m e n d m e n t s N o . 8 3 a n d N o . 110 provide a n alternate p r o c e s s a c o m m i s s i o n n o m i n a t e s to the g o v e r n o r three qualified p e r s o n s , o n e of w h o m the g o v e r n o r s h a l l then appoint to fill the v a c a n c y for filling judicial v a c a n c i e s in the B i r m i n g h a m Division of the Jefferson Circuit C o u r t . T h u s , 6.14 e x p r e s s l y p r e s e r v e s this p r o c e s s . S i n c e the e n a c t m e n t of 6.14, constitutional a m e n d m e n t s a p p l i c a b l e to M a d i s o n , M o b i l e , a n d T a l l a d e g a counties h a v e b e e n a d o p t e d , providing for judicial v a c a n c i e s occurring in t h o s e c o u n t i e s to be filled by a n o m i n a t i n g - c o m m i s s i o n p r o c e s s similar to the p r o c e s s u s e d in J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y . S e e A m e n d m e n t s N o . 3 3 4 , N o . 6 0 7 , N o . 4 0 8 , a n d N o . 6 1 5 to the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1 9 0 1 . A s the attorney g e n e r a l stated in O p . Att'y G e n . , N o . 2 0 0 0 - 1 5 9 (2000), the proviso c o n t a i n e d in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14 "allows the n a m e d counties to retain the flexibility to provide, by local law, a n alternate appointment process, s u c h a s a judicial nominating c o m m i s s i o n , for e x a m p l e . "
A m e n d m e n t s N o . 8 3 , N o . 6 0 7 , a n d N o . 4 0 8 of the A l a b a m a Constitution specifically provide that p e r s o n s filling judicial v a c a n c i e s in the Jefferson Circuit C o u r t a n d in circuit a n d district courts in M a d i s o n a n d M o b i l e C o u n t i e s shall s e r v e until the next g e n e r a l election following the expiration of six months after the v a c a n c y o c c u r r e d .
Appendix B 8 of 8
K , JOHDAN
SCCRITARY o r STATE
O F F I C E or T H E
STATE O F CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO 95814
September X8, 3^68
Ifr. Jack Weinberg 3^0 North Spaulding, Apt. 1 Los Angslesj Califomia 90036 Dear Mr. Weinberg: To confirai our telephone ccmversaticn last V.^ednesdajr, September 11th, please, be advised that this office i J i l l not certify KLdridge Cleaver as the Peace and Freedom candidate for president on -iihe Hovember ^, 1968 general election ballot* InfoiTiiation i n our possession indicates, and confirme^l bjr you, that I-tr, Cleaver i s 33 and not 3^ years old ^.Mch is a requireiaQnt under our federal constitution for president. The vicepresidential- selection (Peggy Terry) and the hO electoral college voters •will be certified* Under California law, just tho nariio of the party and i t s candidatos ^pear on the ballot. The Peace and Freedm party name vdll; appear on the ballot and your candidate for vice-president on3y. Sincere'ly, " FEANK JORDAN Secretaiy of State
H. P. Sullivan Assistant Seorotaiy of State HPS/pv/m co: Stuart Weinberg h$ Polk Street San franoisco, Califomia
Appendix C 1 of 1
I, the undersigned, being first duly sworn, do hereby state under oath and under penalty of perjury that the facts are true: 1. I am oyer the age of 18 and am a resident of Arizona. The information contained in this affidavit is based upon my own personal knowledge. and, i f called as a witness, could testify competently thereto. I am the duly elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, and I have been a law enforcement officer and official, in both state and federal government, for 51 years. 2. In August of last year, a group of citizens from the Surprise Arizona Tea Party organization met with me in my office and presented a petition signed by approximately 250 residents of Maricopa County, asking if I would investigate the controversy surrounding President Barrack Obama's birth certificate authenticity and his eligibility to serve as the President of the United States. 3. This group expressed its concern that, up until that point, no law enforcement agency in the countiy had ever gone on record indicating that they had either looked into this or that they were willing to do so, citing lack of resources and jurisdictional challenges. 4. The Maricopa County Sheriff s Office is in a rather unique position. Under the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes, as the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, I have the authority to request the aid of the volunteer posse, located in the county, to assist me in the execution of my duties. Having organized a volunteer posse of approximately 3,000 members, I, as the Sheriff of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, can authorize an investigation go forward to answer these questions at virtually noexpense to the-tax payer. 5. The Cold Case posse agreed to undertake the investigation requested by the 250 citizens of Maricopa County. This posse consists of former police officers and attorneys who have worked investigating the controversy surrounding Barack Obama. The investigation mainly focused on the electronic document that was II
Appendix D 1 of 2
presented as President Obama's long form birth certificate to the American people and to citizens of Maricopa County by the White House on April 27,2011. 6. The investigation led to a closer examination of the procedures regarding the registration of births at the Hawaii Department of Health and various statements made by Hawaii government officials regarding the Obama birth controversy over the last five years. 7. Upon close examination of the evidence, it is my belief that forgery andfiraudwas likely committed in key identity documents including President Obama's longform birth certificate, his Selective Service Registration card, and his Social Security number. 8. M y investigators and I believe that President Obama's.long-form.birth certificate is a computer-generated document, was manufactured electronically, and that it did not originate in a paper format, as claimed by the White House. Most importantly, the "registrar's stamp" in the computer generated document released by the White House and posted on the White House website, may have been imported from another unknown source document. The effect of the stamp not being placed on the document pursuant to state and federal laws means that there is probable cause that the document is a forgery, and therefore, it cannot be used as a verification, legal or otherwise, of the date, place or circumstances of Barack Obama's birth. 9. The Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into Barack Obama's birth certificate and his eligibility to be president is on-going. The on-going nature of the investigation is due to additional information that has come to light sinpe we held the press conference in March, 2012. As soon as that information has been properly verified by the Cold Case Posse, I will release that information to the public. Executed this / p day of June, 201 Maricopa County, Arizona.
Joseph M . Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff
Sworn to and subscribed me this 3S9'iDea before b 1 ^ day of 2012.
LYNDA JEMSEMORBM Notw Piittlo- aittB ofArim MAMOOMOOUNTV
MV v D n i W t M n Kni^^
Appendix D 2 of 2
More From This UserSkip carouselRudy v Lee USJF Amicus Brief (2)FBI Todashev Report Attachments 29-49 (Pgs. 101-199) (OCR) (Redacted)Sen. Coburn's 2013 Waste BookABC News & Washington Post Poll on NSA and Snowden - Dec. 21, 2013Letter from Edward Snowden to German Request to TestifyREPORTBrazilUN Syria Chemical Report, September 16, 2013BenghaziIN HIS OWN WORDSLetter for Rep Engel 19 Aug 13 from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. DempseyPfc Bradley Manning v US - Judge Linds RulingGENEVATRANSCRIPT OF US V PFC BRADLEY E. MANNING AFTERNOON 06-04-13-PM-sessionTRANSCRIPT - 06-04-13-AM-session - US v PFC Bradley E. ManningProject on Government Oversight 2013 Inspector General Report06-03-13-PM-session US v PFC Bradley E. Manning06 03 13 AM Session Transcript - US v PFC Bradley E. Manning IG Report Conference Report 2013John Kiriakou Letter From Loretto 1Libya Progress Report Final 1McInnish Connerat Amicus Brief 4-10-13McInnish AG Chapman Appellee Brief 4-23-13Dems Amicus Request
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulBrief to Supreme Court by Helen Tansey0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionMcInnish v Chapman - Brief to Supreme CourtMcInnish v Chapman - Brief to Supreme CourtInterests: Types, Business/LawRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedMcInnish v Chapman - Order Striking Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Alabama Supreme Court - Obama Ballot Challenge - 3/27/2012by ObamaRelease YourRecordsEvidence Drop: Hawaii DOH Apparently Gave Obama Stig Waidelich’s Birth Certificate Number - 3/27/2013by ObamaRelease YourRecordsAL APPEAL 2013-04-10 - McInnish v Chapman - Optional Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief - CONNERATby Jack Ryan05.09.2013. BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE LUCAS DANIEL SMITH, PRO SE, IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS. HUGH McINNISH, et al. vs BETH CHAPMAN, in her capacity as Secretary of State. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. Case No. 1120465.by Lucas Daniel SmithSCOAL 2013-03-26 - McInnish|Goode v Chapman - Brief of Appellantby Jack RyanAffidavit: DHS Special Agent(ret) Stephen Coffman; Obama Selective Service Registration Forged - 1/2/2013by ObamaRelease YourRecordsCitizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Sameby mtngoat61New Obama Evidence: Sheriff Arpaio Lead Obama Investigator Mike Zullo Affidavit - Alabama Supreme Court - 5/14/2013by ObamaRelease YourRecordsAppellate Brief Fair v. Obama (Walker)by Kenyan BornObama2000/2004/2008 Democratic Party of Hawaii Certifications of Nomination for Presidential Candidates -by ObamaRelease YourRecordsRudy v Lee - SCOTUS Amicus Brief - Obama Not Natural Born Citizen - 8/13/2014by ObamaRelease YourRecordsSCOAL 2013-04-24 McInnish|Goode v Chapman APPEAL - ADP Amicus Briefby Jack RyanMotion for Written Opinionby George MillerAbsolute Proof Founders Translated French Word 'Naturels' to English Term 'Natural Born'by protectourlibertyMcInnish v Chapman (AL) Opposition to Motion to Strikeby Reality Check 1776SCOAL 2013-04-24 McInnish|Goode v Chapman APPEAL - Chapman Briefby Jack RyanMississippi Democratic Party Motion v. Taitzby Alex Seitz-WaldVoeltz v Obama - Newly Found Case Authority Notice - Florida Obama Electoral Challenge - 12/31/2012 by ObamaRelease YourRecordsGov.uscourts.cacd.542336.34.0by Mike DunfordAll U.S. Presidents & Eligibility: Grandfather Clause, Natural Born Citizen Clause, or Seated by Fraudby protectourlibertyWash Times: Lord Monckton of UK Issues Challenge to America - Investigate Obama's Docs -22 Oct 2012by protectourlibertyIrrefutable Proof That Foreign-Born Persons Not Eligible To Be POTUSby ObamaRelease YourRecordsAre Persons Born Within the United States Ipso Facto Citizens Thereof - George D. Collinsby kices2012-09-14 - KS - SoS Kobach Letter to Onaka and Responseby Jack RyanMia Marie Pope Knew Obama in High School - Obama Said He Was Foreign Bornby protectourlibertyA Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789by puzo1Response to Zebestby Frank ArduiniPress Release: Fmr. Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders Defends Homemaker Who Challenged Obama’s Forged ID - 2/4/2013by ObamaRelease YourRecordsSimilar To McInnish-Goode v Chapman - Brief of Appellant Oral Argument Requested - Alabama Supreme Court - 3/26/2013Skip carouselMcInnish v Chapman - Order Striking Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Alabama Supreme Court - Obama Ballot Challenge - 3/27/2012Evidence DropAL APPEAL 2013-04-10 - McInnish v Chapman - Optional Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief - CONNERAT05.09.2013. BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE LUCAS DANIEL SMITH, PRO SE, IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS. HUGH McINNISH, et al. vs BETH CHAPMAN, in her capacity as Secretary of State. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. Case No. 1120465.SCOAL 2013-03-26 - McInnish|Goode v Chapman - Brief of AppellantAffidavitCitizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to SameNew Obama EvidenceAppellate Brief Fair v. Obama (Walker)2000/2004/2008 Democratic Party of Hawaii Certifications of Nomination for Presidential Candidates -Rudy v Lee - SCOTUS Amicus Brief - Obama Not Natural Born Citizen - 8/13/2014SCOAL 2013-04-24 McInnish|Goode v Chapman APPEAL - ADP Amicus BriefMotion for Written OpinionAbsolute Proof Founders Translated French Word 'Naturels' to English Term 'Natural Born'McInnish v Chapman (AL) Opposition to Motion to StrikeSCOAL 2013-04-24 McInnish|Goode v Chapman APPEAL - Chapman BriefMississippi Democratic Party Motion v. TaitzVoeltz v Obama - Newly Found Case Authority Notice - Florida Obama Electoral Challenge - 12/31/2012 Gov.uscourts.cacd.542336.34.0All U.S. Presidents & EligibilityWash TimesIrrefutable Proof That Foreign-Born Persons Not Eligible To Be POTUSAre Persons Born Within the United States Ipso Facto Citizens Thereof - George D. Collins2012-09-14 - KS - SoS Kobach Letter to Onaka and ResponseMia Marie Pope Knew Obama in High School - Obama Said He Was Foreign BornA Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789Response to ZebestPress ReleaseVoeltz v Obama - Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Obama Identity Fraud - Florida Supreme Court - 4/29/2013McInnish v Chapman - Amicus Curiae Brief Obtained From Alabama Democratic Party - 4/23/2013McInnish-Goode v Chapman - Brief of Appellant Oral Argument Requested - Alabama Supreme Court - 3/26/2013