E-Filed 04/23/2013 @ 02:57:33 P M Honorable Robert Esdale Clerk Of The Court

No. 1120465

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

HUGH MCINNISH, e t a l .
V.

BETH CHAPMAN, S e c r e t a r y o f State

B r i e f o f A p p e l l e e Beth Chapman

Luther Strange (STR003) Attorney General Andrew L. Brasher (BRA143) Deputy Solicitor General James W. Davis {DAV103) Laura E. Howell (HOW084) Assistant Attorneys General
STATE OF ALABAMA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

501 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36130 (334) 242-7300 A t t o r n e y s f o r the A p p e l l e e / Defendant A p r i l 23, 2013

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT This of matter concerns a single straightforward question o f h e r argument that

statutory interpretation. events have

In light

intervening moot,

rendered

a ruling does

on t h e q u e s t i o n that oral to

the Secretary

of State

not think

argument present

i s necessary,

b u t welcomes

the opportunity

argument i f t h i s C o u r t

disagrees.

TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF THE CASE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES STATEMENT OF THE FACTS STANDARD OF REVIEW SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ARGUMENT I. II. III. P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s a r e moot b e c a u s e t h e e l e c t i o n has a l r e a d y taken p l a c e P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s do n o t f a l l " e x c e p t i o n t o mootness." E v e n were t h e y n o t moot, c l a i m s would s t i l l f a i l A. u n d e r an 6 9 i i i iv v 1 2 2 3 4 5

Plaintiffs'

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 over the claims p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 17-16-44 The S e c r e t a r y h a s no l e g a l d u t y t o investigate or v e r i f y the c r e d e n t i a l s of candidates p r i o r t o p l a c i n g them on t h e b a l l o t Only Congress has t h e a u t h o r i t y t o judge t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f P r e s i d e n t i a l c a n d i d a t e s after an e l e c t i o n has been h e l d

B.

10

C.

13

ii

D.

Plaintiffs' b a l l o t s had some v o t e r s , impossible, barred

c l a i m was f i l e d a f t e r been p r i n t e d and s e n t t o making t h e i r a l t e r a t i o n and t h e c l a i m s t i m e 13 14 16

CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

iii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This pursuant Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter

t o A l a . Code 12-2-7(1) and R u l e 3 o f t h e A l a b a m a Procedure,

Rules of Appellate

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

B a r b e r v . C o r n e r s t o n e Cmty. O u t r e a c h , I n c 42 So. 3d 65 ( A l a . 2010) B e l l V. E a g e r t o n , 908 So. 2d 204 ( A l a . 2002) Chapman v . Gooden, 974 So. 2d 972 (2007) C n t y . o f L o s A n g e l e s v. D a v i s , 440 U.S. 625 (1979) Ex P a r t e F o r r e s t e r , 914 So. 2d 855 ( A l a . 2005) Ex p a r t e Graham, 702 So. 2d 1215 ( A l a . 1997) In r e A d o p t i o n o f Walgreen, 710 N.E.2d 1226 (1999) In r e : Stephen J . , 932 N.E.2d 87 ( 1 1 1 . App. C t . 2010) K e y e s v . Bowen, 117 C a l . R p t r . 3d 207 ( C a l . App. 2010) Moore V. O g i l v i e , 394 U.S. 814 (1969) R i c e V. S i n k f i e l d , 732 So. 2d 993 ( A l a . 1998) R o b i n s o n v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2 d 1144 (N.D. C a l . 2008) R o g e r s Found. R e p a i r , I n c . v. P o w e l l , 748 So. 2d 869 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) R o p e r V. Rhodes, 988 So. 2d 471 ( A l a . 2008)

S l a w s o n v . A l a . F o r e s t r y Common, 631 So. 2d 953 ( A l a . 1994) Wood V. B o o t h , 990 So. 2d 314 ( A l a . 2008)
STATUTES

Ala. Ala.

Code 17-14-31 Code 17-14-44

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

U.S.

C o n s t . Amend. X X I I 1

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Alabama E l e c t i o n R e s u l t s , a v a i l a b l e a t http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/ results/states/alabama A t t ' y Gen. Op. 1998-200

vi

STATEMENT OF THE CASE This litigation of presents a challenge in to the the 2012 of each

qualifications election State cycle.

Presidential

candidates that

Plaintiffs

contend

the Secretary of

has a

duty

to i n v e s t i g a t e the c r e d e n t i a l s

candidate

prior

t o p l a c i n g h i s o r h e r name on t h e b a l l o t . accuse h e r o f f a i l i n g Barack to investigate the They attempt remove seek an

Specifically, qualifications injunction back the

they

of President would to have last

Obama.

that clock

the Secretary November ballots. and

to turn President

Obama's name f r o m A l a b a m a ' s The claims Alabama candidate the the

D e f e n d a n t moved t o d i s m i s s were moot once of

on g r o u n d s t h a t was duty over;

(1) t h e (2) t h e

the election State has no

Secretary

to investigate with

qualifications,

and no

power

to interfere

e l e c t i o n of the President jurisdiction-stripping

of the United statute

S t a t e s ; a n d (3) courts from

prevents after

e x a m i n i n g t h e c o n d u c t o f an e l e c t i o n The and Court below granted followed.

i t has o c c u r r e d . to dismiss,

the Defendant's motion

t h i s appeal

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1. to Does t h e S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e have an a f f i r m a t i v e the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of electoral duty

investigate 2.

candidates? of State of moot and

Is the question duty to

o f whether

the Secretary

has

investigate

the s p e c i f i c

credentials

Presidential following

candidates the actual

i n t h e November 2012 e l e c t i o n occurrence of the election

c e r t i f i c a t i o n of i t s 3. Alabama after Does courts the from

results? jurisdiction-stripping examining t h e conduct statute o f an prevent election

i t has o c c u r r e d ? STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Barack Obama was first elected President asked and in about 2008. the that

Following status affected The Circuit before Obama's Br. had of

h i s election, h i s American eligibility filed October

questions

were

citizenship,

whether

his

to hold the Presidency. a complaint i n Montgomery than about one County month

Plaintiff Court the on

11, 2012, l e s s questions

election,

raising

President

citizenship.

See g e n e r a l l y that

d o c . 1, s e e a l s o B l . the Secretary of State of

a t 2. an

I n i t , he a l l e g e d duty

affirmative

to verify 2

the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s

every

individual

appearing

on t h e b a l l o t

i n the State of

A l a b a m a f o r t h e November 2012 e l e c t i o n . 12). The complaint o f Barack took particular

See d o c . 1 a t 4 ( f issue with the that

qualifications his to birth

Obama, a l l e g i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y and t h a t

certificate

was f r a u d u l e n t Secretary

i n obedience

her oath

of office.

Chapman was o b l i g a t e d t o 7-12) .

investigate that a l l e g a t i o n . Plaintiffs Secretary candidate's fails ballot impose now r e q u e s t

See i d . a t 3-4 {ff

a w r i t o f mandamus t o c o m p e l t h e copy o f each P r e s i d e n t i a l candidate

to obtain birth

a certified certificate.

I f t h e former

t o provide

one, h i s name s h o u l d revoked. that

be s t r i c k e n f r o m t h e also seek t o

and h i s votes a requirement

Plaintiffs

the Secretary

t o do t h i s f o r

every future e l e c t i o n cycle. STANDARD OF REVIEW "Appellate de novo." review of a ruling on a q u e s t i o n o f law i s (Ala.

Ex P a r t e

Forrester,

914 So. 2 d 8 5 5 , 858

2005) . So.

See a l s o R o g e r s Found. R e p a i r , Ex p a r t e

I n c . v . P o w e l l , 748 702 So. 2 d 1215

2 d 869 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ; 1997) .

Graham,

(Ala.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The State claims Plaintiffs The bring election against the Secretary of attempt have to long

a r e moot.

Plaintiffs

challenge

has already

passed,

and i t s r e s u l t s they

s i n c e been c e r t i f i e d . President Obama's

The r e l i e f name from

seek, t h e removal o f ballot, i s

t h e Alabama

impossible t o grant. Although one o f them Plaintiffs cite three exceptions t o mootness, The two

i s not recognized

by Alabama

courts.

t h a t do a p p l y a r e i n a p p l i c a b l e h e r e . E v e n were P l a i n t i f f s ' fail no for s i xdifferent a f f i r m a t i v e duty she p l a c e s c l a i m s n o t moot, t h e y w o u l d The S e c r e t a r y still

reasons. to verify

o f State has of every

the credentials ballots.

candidate has

on t h e S t a t e ' s

Rather, she any c a n d i d a t e s The t a s k of

an a f f i r m a t i v e s t a t u t o r y duty t o h e r by a those candidates' within

to certify party.

presented ensuring to

political

eligibility

for office political

i s left party.

leadership

the candidate's

Furthermore, past claims Congress

Alabama

c o u r t s may n o t e x a m i n e

t h e conduct o f hearing the States an

elections, Plaintiffs

and a r e d i s q u a l i f i e d present. Moreover,

from

the United to

i s the only

entity

entitled

conduct

investigation President. presented was made

into Even

the

qualifications from only legal after

of

candidate

for

aside claims

shortcomings, the relief

Plaintiffs they of sought absentee

their

impossible

following

the

mailing names on

ballots For be

w i t h the contested these reasons, the

candidates' Plaintiffs'

them. to

a r g u m e n t s a r e due

dismissed. ARGUMENT I. Plaintiffs' has As the claims are moot because the election

a l r e a d y taken p l a c e . Secretary noted i n her motion to dismiss, the the

occurrence here moot.

o f t h e November 2012 Plaintiffs'

election

renders the

claims of

requested

relief,

removal until a hard at

President of of

Obama's name f r o m t h e

Alabama b a l l o t (namely, to

proof copy this

his citizenship his birth

status i s provided

certificate),

i s impossible

grant

point. " [A] longer interest Outreach, Cnty. of a case or the i s moot when t h e the parties issues a v. presented are no

'live' in

lack

legally

cognizable Cmty. (quoting (1979)).

outcome." 42 So. v. 3d 65,

Barber 70-71 440

Cornerstone

Inc., Los

( A l a . 2010) U.S. 625, 631

Angeles

Davis, 5

I n B e l l V. E a g e r t o n , an all See election

t h i s Court

held that the occurrence

of

and t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s options 908 to stop 2d 204

f a i l u r e to a v a i l himself of i t s h a p p e n i n g mooted ( A l a . 2002) . o f t h i s case a case. to

available generally

So.

Contrary closely

Plaintiffs' those prevent

assertion,

the facts

mimic to

i n Bell:

Plaintiffs

d i d n o t seek

an i n j u n c t i o n

the election's

occurrence,

nor d i d they

explicitly

challenge i t s results.^ II. P l a i n t i f f s ' claims do not f a l l under an ''exception to mootness. " In their to brief. mootness: Plaintiffs (1) capable where cite three of different public evading a Br.

exceptions importance, review, detriment

questions

great yet

(2) i s s u e s (3) cases

of repetition a party

and

would

suffer Bl.

i n t h e a b s e n c e o f an i s s u e ' s r e s o l u t i o n .

M o r e o v e r , P l a i n t i f f s c o u l d n o t have c h a l l e n g e d t h e r e s u l t s o f A l a b a m a ' s e l e c t i o n i n s u c h a way a s t o a f f e c t i t s o u t c o m e . Although P r e s i d e n t Obama won r e - e l e c t i o n b a s e d on t h e t o t a l t a l l y o f e l e c t o r a l v o t e s n a t i o n w i d e , he d i d n o t c a r r y t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , where a s u b s t a n t i a l majority of voters (60.7%) supported Republican candidate Mitt Romney. See Alabama Election Results, available at http://elections.nytimes.com/ 2012/results/states/alabama (last accessed April 12, 2013). R e m o v i n g P r e s i d e n t Obama's name f r o m A l a b a m a b a l l o t s w o u l d n o t a l t e r r e s u l t s o f t h e e l e c t i o n on e i t h e r t h e S t a t e o r n a t i o n a l level.

at

13.

Of

those

three,

only

the

first

two

are here.

recognized

i n A l a b a m a c o u r t s , ^ and The exception is

n e i t h e r one

applies

t o mootness f o r q u e s t i o n s narrowly in

of great Alabama

public courts. of

importance "[A]n great

interpreted exists for a

exception public v. To

'moot c a s e i n v o l v i n g i s s u e s may 972, recur 989 i n the (2007)

importance, 974

which So. 2d

future.'" (emphasis courts of the

Chapman added).

Gooden,

determine whether the three the for the criteria: (1)

exception the

applies,

must e v a l u a t e question, (2)

p u b l i c nature of an

desirability purpose that (quoting of the

authoritative officers, generally Forestry second and the

determination and (3) the Id. 631

guiding question

public will Ala. the

likelihood at So. 2d 989 953

recur. Comm' n, third

Slawson

v.

(Ala. 1994)).

Here,

factors

i n the The

a n a l y s i s preclude of the

a p p l i c a t i o n of duties

exception. these

extent has

Secretary's been

under in an See the

circumstances Opinion Att'y

already the Op.

clarified

official

i s s u e d by Gen.

State Attorney 1998-200.

General.

generally,

Furthermore,

^The f i n a l e x c e p t i o n P l a i n t i f f s p r o p o s e i s n o t r e c o g n i z e d i n A l a b a m a c o u r t s , and i t s o n l y s u p p o r t comes f r o m a cases p e c i f i c r u l i n g by a l o w e r c o u r t i n a n o t h e r s t a t e . See I n re: Stephen J., 932 N.E.2d 87 (111. App. Ct. 2010) ( a u t h o r i z i n g an e x c e p t i o n where one p a r t y w o u l d s u f f e r a detriment). 7

circumstances

at issue

can never

recur

because

President again.

Obama i s t e r m - l i m i t e d and may n o t r u n f o r t h e o f f i c e See U.S. C o n s t . Amend. X X I I narrowly,'" a matter of 1. Since "this the

'exception i s case arguably two

construed involves

even public

though

importance, this

the other

f a c t o r s weigh a g a i n s t e x c e p t i n g doctrine. Slawson at 989

case from t h e mootness In re Adoption of

(quoting

W a l g r e e n , 710 N.E.2d 1226, 1227 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ) . An capable if V. has exception t o mootness a l s o e x i s t s where an i s s u e i s review" Moore Court

of repetition, procedural

b u t w o u l d c o n t i n u a l l y "evade timing restrictions applied.

typical Ogilvie,

394 U.S. 814, 816 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . recognized challenge the l i m i t s

However, t h i s o f Moore's

specifically plaintiffs' even after

holding:

"[The] moot,

to state election election was

l a w was n o t completed, respect

the challenged

because the p l a i n t i f f s to 994 future elections."

could challenge Rice A

the law w i t h

v. S i n k f i e l d , challenge the issue

732 So. 2d 993, election "capable only of

n . l (Ala. mootness

1998). where

t o an is

escapes

repetition." fact

Moore

a t 816. example

The s i t u a t i o n

at bar i si n does n o t target) i s

a paradigmatic

o f when an e x c e p t i o n obvious

apply:

P r e s i d e n t Obama

(the P l a i n t i f f s '

term-limited, again. then,

and b a r r e d Const,

from amend.

running XXII,

f o r the Presidency 1. Necessarily, Plaintiffs do n o t

See U.S.

the circumstances here

of the election

that

challenge

c a n n e v e r be r e p e a t e d . that i s capable

Their claims

pose a s i t u a t i o n review,

of repetition,

but evading

and c o n s e q u e n t l y ,

no e x c e p t i o n t o m o o t n e s s a p p l i e s .

I I I . Even were they not moot. P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s would still Aside occurrence claims other here from of fail. the being t h e November rendered 2012 moot by the a c t u a l Plaintiffs'

elections.

are s t i l l

due t o be d i s m i s s e d

on a number o f

grounds. A. The Court lacks s u b j e c t matter jurisdiction

over the claims pursuant t o A l a . Code 17-16 44. Alabama the far "legality, courts are generally barred from a s c e r t a i n i n g except so

conduct o r r e s u l t s

o f any e l e c t i o n

a s a u t h o r i t y t o do so [ i s ] s p e c i a l l y a n d s e t down b y s t a t u t e . "

and s p e c i f i c a l l y 990

enumerated So. In

Wood v . B o o t h ,

2 d 314, 318 ( A l a . 2008) spite of P l a i n t i f f s '

( q u o t i n g A l a . Code 1 7 - 1 4 - 4 4 ) . to distinguish questioning

attempts

the the a be

qualifications

of e l e c t o r a l

c a n d i d a t e s from

questioning

c o n d u c t o f an e l e c t i o n , difference. forced to in by To look order the

theirs

i s a d i s t i n c t i o n without this last Court would

accommodate P l a i n t i f f s , back to at see of the results of

November's were the

election harmed ballot. does does

whether

their

interests on

presence to

specific assertions

candidates that "this

Contrary

their

lawsuit nor

not seek t o q u e s t i o n the l e g a l i t y of the e l e c t i o n , i t impact the 'conduct' o f the e l e c t i o n , o f an e l e c t i o n , " at this nor

does i t ruling

contest on

the r e s u l t s

B l . B r . a t 36, would results. a the

Plaintiffs'

claims

stage

inherently I t would who of

involve be did

the e v a l u a t i o n of the e l e c t i o n ' s to invalidate a birth the the

impossible not

votes of to the

candidate Secretary

produce and have

certificate of

State

conduct

election unaltered.

remain

unchanged, B.

e v e n i f t h e end r e s u l t The Secretary has

remained

no l e g a l duty to i n v e s t i g a t e

or v e r i f y the

c r e d e n t i a l s of candidates p r i o r

to p l a c i n g them on the b a l l o t . The shall and Alabama Code states of are 10 that "the Secretary of State

certify...the Vice President

names who

a l l candidates f o r nominated by any

President national

convention." is required the

Ala.

Code 17-14-31(a)

(emphasis added). c a n d i d a t e s who party. duty to As a

She have

to c e r t i f y a l l P r e s i d e n t i a l endorsement of law, the of a political has no

secured of the set

matter

Alabama

Secretary

investigate specific to from as a Gen. the the meets

qualifications of

candidates she is

except

i n a very for

circumstances:

responsible has

refusing

certify an

a candidate only source by law,

when she

knowledge g a i n e d her has Ala. duties not met

official

while that a See

performing candidate generally General does

prescribed certifying Op. No.

qualification. 1998-200. An that to

Att'y on

Attorney "[t]he

Opinion not

subject Secretary all Id. the at

elaborates of State

Code

require

determine whether for his or her

e a c h nominee particular that of a

qualifications 3. It does,

office." where the

however,

indicate

Secretary deficiency prescribed considered

possesses "arising by an law,"

"official from the

knowledge" the of

candidate's of duties will as be an

performance that The

source source."

knowledge

"official from the has

Opinion

cites

example a n o t i c e that a candidate of

E t h i c s Committee t o the file a statutorily

Secretary required

f a i l e d to interests.

statement

economic

Id.

Although P l a i n t i f f s

11

identify Obama's

some

groups

that on

have

investigated own

President the not

background drawn

their those

initiatives, are

conclusions "official," government insufficient an o f f i c i a l

from

investigations

s i n c e t h e y were n o t a c q u i r e d i n t h e c o u r s e o f a worker's official duties. They knowledge are therefore from

to constitute source. as s t a t e d

official

gained

Additionally,

i n the motion

to dismiss, A l a .

Code 17-14-31 (a) i m p l i c i t l y verifying party. "[a]ny party, a candidate's i n other

leaves the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r to tended i s best the the nominating that each

credentials states have

Courts

t o agree left to

investigation which

of e l i g i b i l i t y will that

presumably or r i s k

conduct

appropriate will

background be 117 the derailed

check

i t s nominee's

election

b y an o b j e c t i o n

i n Congress."

Keyes As

v . Bowen, concerns multiple of a of have prior

C a l . R p t r . 3d 207, 209 instant case, for

( C a l . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . Party

the Democratic challenging Plaintiffs

provides

opportunities proposed either allowed to

the

qualifications

candidate.

d i d not take

advantage would

the p r e - or post-primary procedures them t o c h a l l e n g e t h e P r e s i d e n t i a l

that

nomination

the occurrence of the general e l e c t i o n .

12

C.

Only Congress has qualifications after an of

the

authority Presidential been h e l d .

to

judge

the

candidates

e l e c t i o n has has

After with V. the

federal

election

occurred,

the

only

entity

power t o F.

review the Supp. 2d of the

results (N.D.

i s Congress. Cal. for if 2008).

Robinson This is and was

Bowen, 567

1144

primarily conflicting

because results

potential might occur

confusion each State

that

given license

to r e v i e w the

election's

outcome:

The p r e s i d e n t i a l n o m i n a t i n g p r o c e s s i s n o t s u b j e c t t o e a c h o f t h e 50 s t a t e s ' e l e c t i o n o f f i c i a l s i n d e p e n d e n t l y d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r a p r e s i d e n t i a l nominee i s q u a l i f i e d , as t h i s c o u l d l e a d t o c h a o t i c r e s u l t s . Were t h e c o u r t s of 50 states at liberty to issue injunctions r e s t r i c t i n g c e r t i f i c a t i o n of d u l y - e l e c t e d presidential e l e c t o r s , t h e r e s u l t c o u l d be c o n f l i c t i n g r u l i n g s and d e l a y e d t r a n s i t i o n o f power i n d e r o g a t i o n o f statutory and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e a d l i n e s . Keyes, to the 117 Cal. the of for Rptr. 3d at 209. of By placing the authority in the drops

judge hands

qualifications Congress once

Presidential an election

candidates is past,

potential to zero. D.

conflicting

adjudications

immediately

Plaintiffs' been p r i n t e d

c l a i m was and sent

filed to

after ballots

had

some v o t e r s ,

making

13

their

alteration

impossible,

and

the

claims

time-barred. Finally, court below. Plaintiffs By the filed time their they been claims too late filed printed their i nthe initial to

complaint, absentee Whether process Roper the J.,

ballots voters,

had a l r e a d y rendering

and s e n t

their

alteration

impossible.

construed ( s e e Wood

as an u n t i m e l y v. B o o t h ,

contest

of the nominating (Ala. or 2008), through

990 So. 2d 314 (Ala. 2008)),

V. Rhodes,

988 So. 2d 471 (see Roper, the

lens of laches dissenting in

988 So. 2d a t 481 but agreeing

(Murdock, i n the from t h e

reasoning claim was

result)),

the P l a i n t i f f s '

time-barred

moment i t was f i l e d .

CONCLUSION For the f o r e g o i n g reasons, C i r c u i t Court's t h i s Court should a f f i r m the claims.

r u l i n g , and d i s m i s s P l a i n t i f f s '

14

R e s p e c t f u l l y submitted, Luther Strange Attorney General Andrew L. B r a s h e r Deputy S o l i c i t o r General Is/ L a u r a E. H o w e l l Assistant Attorney

General

James W. D a v i s L a u r a E. H o w e l l Assistant Attorneys General S t a t e o f Alabama O f f i c e of the A t t o r n e y General 501 W a s h i n g t o n Ave. Montgomery, AL 36130 (334) 242-7300 abrasher@ago.state.al.us j imdavis@ago.state.al.us IhowelKjago.state.al.us A t t o r n e y s f o r S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e B e t h Chapman

15

CERTIFICATE OF I 2013, filed Courts of such hereby certify that

SERVICE on t h e 23rci day o f A p r i l ,

a copy with

o f t h e above the Clerk System of

and f o r e g o i n g the Court

document h a s b e e n the Appellate

using

e-Filing filing

(ACES) w h i c h

will

send

notification emailed

to a l l parties

of record,

has been

where n o t e d , and m a i l e d v i a U.S. M a i l where n o t e d .

L. Dean J o h n s o n 4030 B a l m o r a l D r . , S t e . B H u n t s v i l l e , AL 35801 Johnson dean@bellsouth.net

L a r r y Klayman Klayman Law F i r m 2020 P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e . N.W. S t e . 800 W a s h i n g t o n , D.C. 20006 leklayman@gmail.com

/ s / L a u r a E. H o w e l l OF COUNSEL

16