Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
AK - Epperly - 2012-08-10 - ECF 16 - NOTICE of Rebuttal to Assistant U.S. Attorney's Response to Petitioner's "Objection and Removal"

AK - Epperly - 2012-08-10 - ECF 16 - NOTICE of Rebuttal to Assistant U.S. Attorney's Response to Petitioner's "Objection and Removal"

Ratings: (0)|Views: 64 |Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
08/10/2012 16 NOTICE of Rebuttal to Assistant U.S. Attorney's Response to Petitioner's "Objection and Removal" by Gordon Warren Epperly re 9 Notice (Other) (CLW, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/10/2012)





08/10/2012 16 NOTICE of Rebuttal to Assistant U.S. Attorney's Response to Petitioner's "Objection and Removal" by Gordon Warren Epperly re 9 Notice (Other) (CLW, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/10/2012)





More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Aug 11, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/11/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 16 Filed 08/10/12 Page 1 of 7
I
RECEIVED
AUG
fo
2012
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
C O U R ~ L E R ~ U ~ ~ ? / ,
8
I ~ " k f 0 U R T 
FOR
THE DISTRICT
OF
ALASKA
Gordon
Warren
EpperlyP.O. Box 34358
Juneau,
Alaska 99803Tel: (907) 789-5659Gordon
Warren
Epperly,
))
Petitioner, )
vs.
Barack
Hussein
Obama
II,Nancy Pelosi,Mead Treadwell,Gail Fenumiai,Respondents.
)))
)
)))))
Case No. 1:12-CV-0011-TMBJudge Timothy M. BurgessRebuttal
Rebuttal to Assistant U.S. Attorney'sResponse to Petitioner's
"Objection and Removal"
COMES NOW Gordon Warren Epperly, the Petitioner
of
the above entitled proceedingdoes hereby gives the following
"Rebuttal"
to
Assistant U.S. Attorney's
"RESPONDENTPRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN
OBAMA
'S RESPONSE
TO
PETITIONER'SOBJECTION AND REMOVAL"
that was dated August 3, 2010 and received by thePetitioner on August
9,
2010.Within the Assistant U.S. Attorney,
E.
Bryan
Wilson's Response
to
"Petitioner'sObjection and Removal,"
Attorney Wilson exposes his intent in having the Petitioner's
"Petition for an Order in the Nature
of
Mandamus"
to
be moved from the AlaskaSuperior Court into the United States District Court. According
to
Attorney Wilson,Page 1
of5
 
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 16 Filed 08/10/12 Page 2 of 7
the purpose
of
removing Petitioner's
"Petition"
from the Alaska Superior Courtwas to establish a
"Quo Warranto"
proceeding before the U.S. District Court forthe District
of
Alaska to address the
"Merits"
of
what he perceives to be
"Allegations"
of
a
"Want
of
Office Qualifications"
of
a sitting President
of
the United States.This is evident in Attorney Bryan's references to Petitioner's
"Petition for
an
Order
in
Nature
of
Mandamus"
wherein I made personal observations, observations that werenot
"Allegations"
of
"wrong doing"
to be considered by any Court
of
Law.These observations were submitted into and documented within the
"Administrative Record"
of
the Alaska Division
of
Elections which shows
"Reasonable Doubf'
that Barack Hussein Obama II is not a qualified year 2012Presidential Candidate for the Office
of
President
of
the United States. Any rebuttal
of
such
"Allegations"
would have
to
be made within the
"Administrative Record"
of
theAlaska Division
of
Elections, not within a Court
of
Law.
If
Attorney Bryan believes thatI was trying to question the qualifications
of
a sitting President
(which
is
an
issueof"Quo Warranto"),
why did he not make an appearance into the Alaska Superior Courtand challenge my
"Standing"
to present such a Case and why did he not challenge the
"Subject Matter"
jurisdiction
of
the Alaska Superior Court to entertain sucha Proceeding? The answer is simple, there were no
"Quo Warranto"
proceedings beforethe Alaska Superior Court, only a restatement
of
questions
of
qualifications
of
a Presidential Candidate that were presented to the Director
of
the Alaska Division
of
Elections to address; which under the
"Election Laws
of
the State
of
Alaska,the Alaska Director
of
Elections is the only
"Officer"
of
the State that has the authority
to
address such questions
of"Office Eligibility"
of
Candidates." /
1
Please keep in mind that it is not the Petitioner, Gordon Warren Epperly, that is trying
to
establish jurisdiction
of
the U.S. District Court, but it
is
the U.S. Attorney,
(in
andthrough her Assistant
U.S.
Attorney).
If
urisdiction is established, for what jurisdiction
1/
A.S.
15.25.042 Eligibility
of
a
Candidate
-
(a)
If
the director receives a complaint regarding theeligibility
of
a candidate for a particular office, the director shall determine eligibility under regulationsadopted by the director. The director shall determine the eligibility
of
the candidate within 30 days
of
the receipt
of
the complaint.
Page 2
of5
 
Case 1:12-cv-00011-TMB Document 16 Filed 08/10/12 Page 3 of 7
is the U.S. District Court to exercise
if
it
is
not a
"Quo Warranto"
proceeding to addressthe
"Merits"
of
the
"Allegations"
of
"Qualifications
of
Office"
of
a sitting President
as
claimed by the U.S. Attorney.
It
would be an absurdity in law to say thatthe U.S. Attorney is trying
to
establish jurisdiction
of
the Court only to challenge thejurisdiction
of
that Court after it had been established.The Petitioner concedes that a
"Civil Action"
may be removed from a Court
of
a Stateand moved into a U.S. District Court under 28 USC 1442(a){l), but when
we
aretalking about the
"Qualifications
of
Office"
of
a sitting President
("Quo Warranto"),
the only Officers
of
the United States government that may removesuch
"Civil Actions"
is the United States Attorney General or the United StatesAttorney for the District
of
Columbia, and then it must be presented into theUnited States District Court for the District
of
Columbia in the name
of
the
"United States."
P
The United States Attorney for the Judicial District
of
Alaska hasno
"Standing"
to remove such Proceedings from a State Court nor doesthe U.S. District Court for the District
of
Alaska have
"Subject Matter"
jurisdictionto entertain such Proceedings
(for it
is
not the U
S.
District Court
for
theDistrict
of
Columbia).
If
we are talking about what the Assistant U.S. Attorney,
E.
Bryan Wilson may perceiveto be an
"Inquiry"
into
"Allegations"
of
"Criminal Acts,"
there
is
a very important wordthat is overlooked, and that word is
"If'
as
it appears under
"Prayer
for
Relief'
at
Item IV.
As we are talking about
"Office Qualifications"
of
Barack Hussein Obama II
as
2/
Section 16-3501
of
the District
of
Columbia Code states:"A guo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District
of
Columbiain the name
of
the United States against a person who within the District
of
Columbia usurps,intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States ora public office
of
the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed acivil action. -"D.C. Code § 16-3501
(emphasis added).
Under § 16-3502, only the Attorney General
of
theUnited States or the United States Attorney for the District
of
Columbia can initiate a proceeding forissuance
of
a writ
of
quo warranto
"on his own motion or on the relation
of
a third person,"
and
if
the writ
is
brought on behalf
of
a third person, it may only issue by leave
of
the District Court for theDistrict
of
Columbia. D.C.
Code§
16-3502.
Page 3
of5

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->