You are on page 1of 67

E-Filed 03/26/2013 @ 03:57:59 P M Honorable Robert Esdale Clerk Of The Court

Case No. 1120465

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

HUGH MCINNISH,

V.

BETH CHAPMAN, SECRETARY OF STATE Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY CV 2012-1053

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANTS

FR

L a r r y Klayman KLAYMAN 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

IE

ND

L. Dean Johnson L. DEAN JOHNSON, P.O. 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

S

OF

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

TH EF O

GB OW .C OM
et a l . , Appellan-ts

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Pursuant t o Rules 28(a)(1) a n d 3 4 ( a ) , A l a . R. App. P,,

ORAL ARGUMENT I S REQUESTED

Appellants argument i n t h i s Circuit Court.

Hugh M c l n n i s h

and V i r g i l

case f o l l o w i n g the erroneous r u l i n g o f t h e question of

This case i n v o l v e s t h e important

whether t h e Alabama S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e has a d u t y t o i n v e s t i g a t e a presidential candidate's qualifications, when c r e d i b l e has been

evidence and i n f o r m a t i o n from an o f f i c i a l presented office. The S e c r e t a r y oath o f o f f i c e that i n d i c a t e s t h ecandidate

has an a f f i r m a t i v e d u t y t h a t stems from h e r

u n d e r b o t h t h e U.S. a n d A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n s , t o from f r a u d and o t h e r misconduct by w i t h e v i d e n c e from an o f f i c i a l

protect thec i t i z e n s candidates. source,

A f t e r being presented

theSecretary

q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of candidates As a r e s u l t o f h e r i n a c t i o n , for for

S

OF

has r e f u s e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e f o r President o f the United States.

ND

t h a t o f f i c e h a s b e e n e l e c t e d . As t h e c h i e f e l e c t i o n

TH EF O
i

a p e r s o n b e l i e v e d t o be u n q u a l i f i e d official

IE

t h e S t a t e o f Alabama, t h e S e c r e t a r y

FR

person with the duty t o prevent on t h e b a l l o t . Ala.

ineligible

Code §17-16-44, t h e J u r i s d i c t i o n - S t r i p p i n g s t a t u t e ,

GB OW .C OM
Goode r e q u e s t oral source may n o t be q u a l i f i e d f o r i s the responsible names f r o m appearing

does not a p p l y t o t h i s case Court to a s c e r t a i n the

s i n c e A p p e l l a n t s are not a s k i n g conduct, or r e s u l t s of an

the

"legality,

e l e c t i o n , " but eligibility

r a t h e r t o a s c e r t a i n the a u t h o r i t y t o

o f c a n d i d a t e s f o r p r e s i d e n t ; T h e r e i s no s t a t u t e her duty.

which p r o h i b i t s the S e c r e t a r y from performing The fact that this i s s u e was

not r e s o l v e d b e f o r e

e l e c t i o n d o e s n o t moot t h e q u e s t i o n , b e c a u s e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y i s present review". for this i s s u e t o be "capable of r e p e t i t i o n yet evading

S i n c e e l e c t i o n s h a p p e n e v e r y y e a r , and

e l e c t i o n s occur every i n any election cycle,

f o u r y e a r s , t h e p o t e n t i a l harm c o u l d

TH EF O

not

j u s t the e l e c t i o n j u s t past. i s erroneous as a m a t t e r

d e c i s i o n of the C i r c u i t The

Court

S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e i s r e q u i r e d and

to p r o t e c t the c i t i z e n s of t h i s s t a t e i n a l l e l e c t i o n

P l a i n t i f f s b e l i e v e t h a t t h e S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e s h o u l d be to v e r i f y the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s election, and

OF

f o r a l l the p r e s i d e n t i a l

i n t h e 2012

t h a t o r a l argument would a i d t h i s

FR

IE

ND

S

Court's d e c i s i o n i n t h i s

case.

ii

GB OW .C OM
verify the presidential occur The of law. a u t h o r i z e d by l a w t o a c t matters. ordered candidates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

.C OG BO W
jurisdiction parties too late

STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ARGUMENT I. II. A. B. C. D. E. INTRODUCTION

EF

TH

ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS .... 10

Three e x c e p t i o n s t o mootness Attorney General's Sheriff opinion

OF

This case

i s n o t moot

S

ND

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

California

IE

F.

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

FR

G.

H. I.

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

in

OM
iii-iv v vi vii-viii 1 4 5 7 8 9 9 11 13 17 18 19 20 21 21 22

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

i - i i

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

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

.C
certificate

OG BO W

A r p a i o says p r o b a b l e cause b i r t h

Q.

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

Clear legal

L a c k o f a n o t h e r remedy

EF

Duty o f respondent

t o perform

Properly invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n

TH

of t h e Court

CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

FR

IE

ND

S

OF

iv

OM
23 23 23 26 27 27 28 29 33 .... 35 37 40

LIST OF APPENDICES

Allen

V. Bennett

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

FR

IE

ND

S

OF

TH EF O
V

GB OW .C OM
Appendix B

Attorney

General's

Opinion

No.

No.

1998-200

Appendix A

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION T h i s C o u r t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code § 1 2 - 2 7(1) w h i c h g r a n t s t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t j u r i s d i c t i o n appeals. T h i s case i s an a p p e a l from t h e C i r c u i t Alabama.

Montgomery C o u n t y ,

FR

IE

ND

S

OF

TH EF O
vi

GB OW .C OM
Court of

t o hear

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Alabama 2004}. Allen Republican Party v. McGinley,

V. Bennett,

823 So. 2d 679 (Alabama 2001)

Barber v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc., 42 S o , 3 d 65, 70-71 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) , q u o t i n g Cnty. Of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U. S. 625, 631 (1979) Bell V. Eagerton, 908 So 2 d 204 ( A l a . 2002)

Brown v . Board

of Education,

349 U.S. 294 (1955)

Cooper Ex Parte Ex parte Golden Hollander

V. Aaron, Collins, Integon v. Zwickler,

358 U.S. 1 84 So.3d Corp.,612

TH EF O
(1958). 48, 50 (Ala. 63,68 483 U.S. 228

Coady v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, The Commonwealth 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 , "an u n r e p o r t e d s i n g l e - j u d g e 'Memorandum O p i n i o n " '

So.2d 497, 499 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) .

394 U.S. 103 (1969) 566 F.Supp.2d

v. McCain,

OF

McPherson Moore

ND

Marbury

v. Madison,

S

In re: Stephen J., A p p e l l a t e C o u r t o f I l l i n o i s , D i s t r i c t , No. 2-09-0472 5 U.S. 137 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892)

v. Blacker,

Puerto

IE

v. O g i l v i e , Rico

394 U.S. 814.

v. Branstad,

FR

R i c e V. Chapman, 51 So.3d 281, 284 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) . Roe V. Wade, 410 U.S. 1 1 3 , 166 (1973)

vii

GB OW .C OM
893 So. 2 d 337, 342 { A l a , 2010). (D.N.H. 2008) Second

SEC V. Medical (1972)

committee

for Human Rights,

404 U.S.

403

United

States

v. Munsingwear,

Inc.,

S t a t u t e s And Other L e g i s l a t i v e A u t h o r i t y

A l a . Code § 6-6-640: Commencement by P e t i t i o n ; amendments; r e l i e f upon i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d Ala. Ala. Code § 12-2-7(1): J u r i s d i c t i o n

Code § 1 7 - 1 - 3 : C h i e f E l e c t i o n s O f f i c i a l s

A l a . Code § 1 7 - 9 - 3 : P e r s o n s E n t i t l e d t o Have Names P r i n t e d on B a l l o t s ; F a i l u r e of S e c r e t a r y of State t o C e r t i f y Nominations A l a . Code § 1 7 - 1 4 - 2 0 , e t s e q : C a n v a s s o f E l e c t i o n R e t u r n s b y State O f f i c i a l s A l a . Code § 1 7 - 1 6 - 4 4 : A l a b a m a J u r i s d i c t i o n Appeal A l a . Code § 3 2 - 6 - 8 ( b ) : Learner's Licenses

EF
viii

U.S. C o n s t . A r t I I , §1, c l . 5 Ala. C o n s t , o f 1 9 0 1 , a r t . X V I , §279, c l . 1

Other

FR

Ala.

IE

A t t ' y Gen. Op. No. 1998-200 ( A u g u s t 12, 1998)

ND

Authorities

S

OF

TH

Temporary I n s t r u c t i o n and

OG BO W .C OM
340 U.S. 36 1950) answer t h e r e t o ; generally and p o w e r s o f c o u r t i n Election Contests;

STATEMENT OF This dismissal Court. This case i s before Circuit this case with i s a direct prejudice appeal entered

THE

CASE of

by t h e Montgomery

Court

by t h e Montgomery Virgil Goode's

Court denying

petition

f o r a Writ Relief.

Appropriate directed Alabama petition State

Extraordinary

t o B e t h Chapman, Secretary requested

i n her o f f i c i a l The Prayer

of State. that

TH EF O

the Court order

t o demand t h a t

a l l candidates States

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

Secretary of the

directly

OF

from the government i n which

the record

depository

r e c e i p t of such

S

a prerequisite to their ballot

placed

ND

on t h e Alabama election. To

f o r t h e November

injunction

IE

general

i s s u e a p r e l i m i n a r y and the placement

preventing their

FR

ballot

until

eligibility

had been c o n c l u s i v e l y

determined.

1

GB OW .C OM
Circuit on a p p e a l f r o m an order Hugh M c l n n i s h ' s o f Mandamus o r Such p e t i t i o n Other is c a p a c i t y as t h e i n the of for Relief the Secretary f o r the O f f i c e of copy of d e l i v e r e d to the official i n charge a n d t o make being 2012 i t i s stored, name 6, permanent Alabama on t h e 2012

from a judgment

and

The Motion

Court to

below held, was

i n error,

t h a t the

Secretary's

Timeline of February and others

-the 2,

Case 2012: the Mclnnish Office

together the

visited Hon.

of

which the speaking

Emily

Thompson,

Deputy S e c r e t a r y of f o r the

i n the

a b s e n c e o f and office

represented legitimacy under the

that her of any and

would not thus

candidate,

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

2012:

o f Montgomery County. Reese.

TH EF O

H o n o r a b l e E u g e n e W. 12, 2012:

October

Mclnnish

and

summary j u d g m e n t a n d days, the as time was 6,

OF

a motion to essence

shorten to get

of

the

November October

S

2 012 2012:

presidential The

ND

18,

Secretary of and

IE

motion

to dismiss, which Mclnnish 31, 2012: Mclnnish was and

October

FR

status

conference

s i n c e time

of

2

GB OW .C OM
with his attorney State, Secretary of State, Secretary of State, i n v e s t i g a t e the her violating duties was assigned Goode f i l e d a motion time to response 5 a d e c i s i o n before election. State filed her opposed. Goode f u l l y Goode f i l e d the essence, a motion the

Dismiss

granted.

at

for

for

election not

was

u p c o m i n g on November

6, 2 0 1 2 a n d t h i s

case

was

November Praecipe,

10, 2012: this

Mclnnish

since

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

be d e c i d e d

electors

on December

17, 2012.

November

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,

2012: A h e a r i n g

TH EF O

was h e l d b e f o r e

day, Judge Reese,

i n a one-sentence No

the case with was given.

prejudice.

January appeal

17, 2013: A p p e l l a n t s

filed

to this

FR

IE

ND

S

OF

Court.

3

GB OW .C OM
a n d Goode filed a importance, as require the before filed h e r renewed a n d Goode a l s o opposed. the Court. order, f o r the explanation a timely notice of

resolved.

STATEMENT OF

THE

ISSUES

The 1. doctrine election 2.

issues f o r appeal Whether under the t h i s case i s ripe

are

as

exceptions

for review,

about which

i t revolves i s past. Secretary of

Whether the

S t a t e has

investigate evidence presented for and

a candidate's

q u a l i f i c a t i o n s when an official

i n f o r m a t i o n from the

Office.

FR

IE

ND

S

OF

TH EF O

that indicates

candidate

4

GB OW .C OM
follows: to the mootness even though the a duty to credible has source not been may be qualified

STATEMENT OF THE

FACTS

On o r a b o u t A p r i l presidency,

2011,after

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

on August

4, 1 9 6 1 t o A m e r i c a n

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

Verified

No p h y s i c a l , p a p e r certificate establish Compl.I the 8.

TH EF O

Compl. §6.

copy o f t h e a c t u a l long i n order to

has been produced birth

OBAMA's

within the United there

(C8) I n s t e a d , certificate"

i s credible evidence

"birth

OF

published

altered

or otherwise

fraudulent. together with h i s of

On F e b r u a r y attorney State,

ND

and o t h e r s , time

S

2, 2 0 1 2 , M c l n n i s h , visited

the Office of the Secretary Thompson, Deputy

Secretary

IE

at which

t h e Hon. E m i l y speaking

of State,

i n t h e absence o f and on represented to Mclnnish of

FR

behalf that

of the Secretary

of State,

her office

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
5

GB OW .C OM
2 years into h i s pressure, Barack i n Honolulu, mother, subject father, birth birth definitively States. Verified that o n t h e i n t e r n e t was

any

candidate,

thus

violating

her

duties Compl. § and

under the 13. (09)

U.S.

and

On the writ

October

11,

2012

Mclnnish

Circuit

Court

o f Montgomery County to the Alabama

o f mandamus i s s u e d her to

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 on

been s u b m i t t e d f o r the birth

Alabama,

O f f i c e of

a bone f i d e be

certificate. Secretary who was

Such b i r t h of State

delivered to

the

TH EF O

government o f f i c i a l depository i n which

i n charge

i t was

stored.

FR

IE

ND

S

OF

6

GB OW .C OM
Goode f i l e d seeking suit in a t o have of Secretary State whose names the ballot in of the United States, certificate from directly of the the records

Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n s .

Verified

shall

"Questions Republican 2004) . Party

o f law a r e reviewed v. McGinley,

893 So. 2 d 337, 342

FR

IE

ND

S

OF

TH EF O
7

GB OW .C OM
de novo." Alabama (Ala.

STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Because resolution

the l e n g t h o f time matters

required

of election

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,

required

f o r an e l e c t i o n

t o tabulated, i t does

and the swearing

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

i s n o t moot b e c a u s e review." addition, elections

TH EF O

Resolution of this

must s t i l l

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,

duty under her oath a n d U.S.

OF

ofoffice

t o support both

Constitutions

t o investigate

presidential

ND

S

t h o s e who w i s h

t o have

their

names a p p e a r o n t h e A writ o f mandamus m u s t

election

ballots.

respectfully perform

be i s s u e d

requiring

the Secretary o f State t o o f the State o f under both

IE

her duties

owed t o t h e c i t i z e n s t o her oath

FR

Alabama

andt o her duties a n d U.S.

the Alabama

Constitutions.

8

GB OW .C OM
t o receive a i n o f a new o f f i c e criteria our r i g h t t o vote a t least every two occur and this yet ofrepetition hasan a f f i r m a t i v e the Alabama the e l i g i b i l i t y o f of office

for

as t h e

ARGUMENT

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,

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,"

p o s i t i o n by fraud that thetruth

and d e c e i t ? There with

evidence The

U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n r e q u i r e s citizen,

TH EF O

lies

"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

Although

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

define

natural-born

citizen,

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

OF

and i ti su s u a l l y taken of parents both

soil

not necessarily natural-born question regarding That

S

ND

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

IE

natural-born

citizen.

f o rthe o f f i c e

FR

mandated by A r t i c l 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 .

9

GB OW .C OM
leader o f t h e Free high office? Or o n e who h a s a r r i v e d a t i s compelling the latter. that a President be a II, 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.

INTRODUCTION

t h e Commander i n C h i e f o f World,

In

an e f f o r t

to resolve

this

persistent

question two

Mr.

birth the

certificates,

c a l l e d the short-form

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 anomalies

these documents by experts which point generated This important Alabama to the strong

forgeries. suit asks this Court

to resolve

question

b y i s s u i n g a w r i t o f mandamus t o t h e of State

Secretary

presidential s u b m i t bona

candidates fide birth

TH EF O
i n the recent certificates infra We, therefore, these points
10

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

verification. The question, fact that

the e l e c t i o n i s past

n o r a s we e x p l a i n

OF

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

S

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 are left with the

dismissing

averments

IE

assumption

ND

t h e case. that

he c o n c u r r e d w i t h

i n Chapman's m o t i o n address

to dismiss. i n turn.

FR

accordingly,

GB OW .C OM
c e r t i f i c a t e and both a r e computerthis critically to her f o r does n o t o b v i a t e t h e i t moot. does i t r e n d e r some o r a l l o f t h e We will,

Obama h a s p r o d u c e d

and o f f e r e d

to the public

purported

Chapman f i r s t grounds In V. of

asked

that

our

c a s e be

d i s m i s s e d on

the

support of her motion Cmty. Outreach, Of

she

Cornerstone

Inc., Los

(Ala.2010), S. 625, In 631

q u o t i n g Cnty. (1979). the case

Angeles

Barber,

involved used

authorities gambling addressed had

of slot

machines

operation

i n Lowndes County.

the q u e s t i o n of mootness, The Court observed t o use

TH EF O

alleged.

that

a sense, but had had

agreed not

not

further

agreed

to r e f r a i n and

from u s i n g further, not

not been

seized,

that,

assurance new this

that

OF

the o p e r a t o r s would was

machines. was

T h e r e f o r e Barber

a case o f non-mootness, that

S

i t does not

Chapman's c l a i m

ND

the present case Bell v. Eagerton,

(Ala.

IE

Chapman a l s o 2002). Bell as

cited

involved

a case

FR

disqualified The

a candidate for circuit judged

County,

c a s e was

t o be m o o t s i n c e
11

GB OW .C OM
cited the case of So, v. 3d 65, Barber 42 70-71 Davis, 440 U. the seizure i n an by state allegedly Court illegal The first which the defendants in t h e o p e r a t o r s had, seized, that the machines the machines t h e r e was p r o c u r e and n o t moot. support no operate Since held i s moot. 908 So 2d 204 was i n which a person judge i n Lowndes Bell d i d not

mootness.

take

the proper

legal

actions.

Specifically

he f a i l e d he

to

to it

be a c a n d i d a t e , was h e l d .

and d i d not c o n t e s t d i d not involve and i s not

the e l e c t i o n

the would-be candidate, case. In the u n l i k e l y case moot, event

relevant to the present

that this

Court

present

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

clarity

i n Coady reads

The p r e s e n c e

EN

DS

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"'

OF

o f any one o f t h e s e

TH

Parole,

which

EF

OG
three

follows:

FR I

sufficient following

to defeat examples:

a m o o t n e s s c l a i m , as shown i n t h e

12

BO W

considers the under the

factors i s

.C

The s u i t

the legitimacy of

OM
after

seek an i n j u n c t i o n

to stop the e l e c t i o n

i n which

wished

E x c e p t i o n 1, Coady v. Pennsylvania

Questions of Board of of

great public Probation and

importance, Parole,

Commonwealth C o u r t E x c e p t i o n 2, Moore v. Ogilvie,

Pennsylvania

Capable of 394 U.S.

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 p p e l l a t e Court

2-09-0472. The present and 1: case

falls

exceptions,

t h e r e f o r e i s not The present

Exception extreme p u b l i c whether the

citizenry in their

TH

importance. are

our

self

government.

E x c e p t i o n 2: of the

OF

dishonesty

elections.

The

complaint

been determined

ND

candidates,

S

where the

t o be

i n s e r i o u s doubt, t h a t can, and

Moreover,

IE

question

a complaint we need

l o o k no

FR

case

to conclude

that i t i s impracticable to adjudicate the time names a r e submitted to the

such

cases

between

EF OG BO W .C OM
No. 598 M, D. 2001; repetition but evading review, 814. a detriment. Second In re: Illinois, District, under each of moot: the three named case involves a question question of of I t goes t o the t o be protected against fraud I t goes t o the very heart and of here i s that the l e g i t i m a c y least one any has l e g i t i m a c y of at i s without will this probably than the recur. present further
13

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.

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

and appeals

process. f o r harm Thus

happen every

the p o t e n t i a l cycle.

as p r e s e n t complained

election of

t h e conduct

repetition, Exception

y e t avoiding review. 3: W i t h o u t suffer will a decision

and

Goode w i l l they

a direct

EF OG
detriment counted on nonmootnes
14

citizens their

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 and recorded.

BO

of the court, Mclnnish i n t h a t as that

election

was h o n e s t ,

himself was

a presidential

TH

legitimate

c a n d i d a t e s were

W

o f i s capable

candidate,

s h o u l d be a s s u r e d candidate.

The rules

classic to reach

OF

n o t competing w i t h an i n e l i g i b l e and best known c a s e

of application

a decision

i s t h a t o f Roe v. f o r t h em a j o r i t y ,

said

i n part:

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 ) .

FR

IE

ND

Wade i n w h i c h

S

Justice

Blackmun, w r i t i n g

.C OM
year i n t h e next Goode, t h a t he of these

i s t r u e by analogy

case,

every

c o n t e s t o f an length of a

I n Roe Attorney to

the pregnant

J a n e Roe was

an a b o r t i o n ,

the Texas

TH EF O
too late

o f D a l l a s County,

Texas c l a i m i n g

law outlawing

withstanding.

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.

and i n an o r d i n a r y

I t was o b v i o u s l y B u t , as seen

OF

above, the

the court case.

mootness

exceptions

and heard o f Allen

particularly of State

ND

S

In Alabama,

the case

v. Bennett

instructive,

since that

i t involves the Allen

and an e l e c t i o n of State

i s past.

Secretary

IE

Jim Bennett judge

erroneously

FR

ballot

for circuit

i n t h e November that

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

election

B u t t h e Supreme C o u r t
15

GB OW .C OM
suing the District she had a right abortion not the case case i t would to grant before f o r the court applied the ( A p p e n d i x B) i s Secretary that claimed left him o f f the general 2000

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).

said:

As

i s true would

by

analogy

in this

case,

election trial and and

similarly

be m o o t e d b y

appeals p r o c e s s . Yet

elections

the p o t e n t i a l cycle.

f o r harm i s j u s t I t has

election that

t h u s become t h e

election For as

has the

passed. reasons under

d i s c u s s e d supra, valid

TH EF O

election

issues

will

n o t become moot s i m p l y b e c a u s e

i t qualifies

exceptions to the

doctrine. Next, case in

Chapman a r g u e d

OF

five We

additional shall

s h o u l d be

dismissed.

1.

ND

The

S

turn:

S e c r e t a r y of

S t a t e has a

investigate

the

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

IE

The

Secretary of and shall

FR

in

the state

provide uniform guidance 17-1-3 ( a ) ) . l a w do

election Secretary

activities" of

(Code o f A l a . § under
16

State's duties

GB OW .C OM
every contest of length an the sheer of happen e v e r y year as p r e s e n t i n t h e case law next this case i s not moot mootness reasons each that of this these address no l e g a l duty to candidate. elections for The not "chief Alabama

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)

a

i n Alabama an

official

provide If

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

only in

criterion

f o r a person

performing

the case

o f an e l e c t e d

official,

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"

certainly it

her doing

i s the right

t o do.

Chapman c i t e d {Appendix this to

Attorney General's

A) C o n t r a r y

TH EF O

to the Secretary of State's opinion strongly of at least supports one o f t h e

Attorney General's

determine

the legitimacy

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

eligibility

OF

foroffice.

FR

IE

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

ND

S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e had gained source

S

official

t h a t t h e r e was p r o b a b l e
17

GB OW .C OM
her duty, c o r r u p t i o n would grind be to a halt. t o do a thing a thing when, as h e r e , O p i n i o n No. 1998-200. argument, t h e need The o p i n i o n s t a t e s i n knowledge cause from an to believe

absolute compulsion

especially

that

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

qualification.

the

request

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

citizen

Constitution

as P r e s i d e n t :

In an a f f i d a v i t as follows:

(Appendix

D) S h e r i f f A r p a i o

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)

FR

IE

ND

Further,

S

OF

i ti s not novel t o not only
18

Secretary

of State

TH EF O

GB OW .C OM
citizens, conducted a stated i n part n o r uncommon f o r a investigate the

J o s e p h M. A r p a i o ,

County A r i z o n a , a t

eligibility

of presidential

candidates, forfailure

but to also

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

One s u c h

i n 1968 i n C a l i f o r n i a , of State Cleaver

California

F r a n k M. J o r d a n

determined

was i n e l i g i b l e t o s e r v e

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

BO
Weinberg

W

as p r e s i d e n t set

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

EF OG
ballot. t o Jack Lindsay

In a l e t t e r

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 :

Likewise,

ND

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.)

OF

i n 2012, one P e t a

TH

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

IE

t o be i t s P r e s i d e n t i a l ballot. Secretary

FR

the

2012 C a l i f o r n i a

primary

Debra Bowen, h o w e v e r ,

r e j e c t e d Ms, L i n d s a y , because
19

and refused t o old,

place

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

.C OM
case that to put issued (Chairman, (Appendix

remove them f r o m t h e b a l l o t

t o meet t h e

and §1,

not

eligible

under that age.

the

U.S.

Constitution, for

Article to be

2, at

least

35

years

of

Contrary determine United

to

this assertion

by

Chapman,

BO W .C
the President with or a official the Secretary the as to support duty to enforce States United to elections, official to letter President for

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.

the

authority

authority of

q u a l i f i c a t i o n f o r the does not direct a rest

o f f i c e of

States no

exclusively or

Congress, 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

EF OG

w h i c h has

statutory

C o n s t i t u t i o n a l means Presidentenforcing of

There States has

Constitution. an oath

In

fact,

taken

TH

explicitly as

Constitution. elections

Again, she

i t i s her

OF

officer, law as

i s required as the

Alabama E l e c t i o n Constitutional discussed a

well

IE ND

S

provisions

pertaining

above,

certainly for a provision i s not of

state

Constitutional the

unprecedented. State's

supra

C a l i f o r n i a Secretary the barring of

FR

announcing the

a candidate failing

California b a l l o t for

t o meet

Constitutional

requirements.
20

OM
to to the the United Alabama and, as enforce See from

which

requires

candidates

President

3.

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

over

Again, lack here

Court does

subject i s not the the

matter

question

whether the votes

properly

Presidential placed on the

candidates ballot.

were q u a l i f i e d I f , as

BO
to have and the and of

Instead,

question

i s w h e t h e r one

o r more o f

W
the matter approve

whether

were p r o p e r l y

c o u n t e d and

reported. the

perpetrated Alabama,

upon the Court

Secretary certainly

EF OG

appears probable, of State

this

has

subject

jurisdiction. 4. Plaintiffs This State law. do is a her have f a i l e d suit

TH

to

join

necessary that

parties. of Alabama

merely

asking

Secretary under

duty

OF

under the that

Constitution

While

i t i s true

B a r a c k Obama was the Secretary

specifically State the needed

to

investigate, of

ND

S

m e n t i o n e d as

a

candidate

that

P l a i n t i f f s contention duties to

applies to

Secretary

State's

investigate

a l l presidential Chairman in his merit. the

candidates.

IE

Nevertheless,

for President sought to

Obama, t h e intervene

FR

of

the

Alabama case,

Democrat P a r t y but the lower

initial

court

d i d not

request.

Therefore,

Chapman's argument
21

i s without

.C OM
not presented conducted, or their fraud names was of citizens

5.

Plaintiffs' Since

c l a i m was

f i l e d too their

late.

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

Plaintiffs' contentions 2012 well.

w r i t was are still

they apply 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

with

discussion Again, continue issue the

mootness, of

supra. eligibility i n future

question an be of

TH EF O

t o be

issue

needs to capable

resolved.

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 issue review is will

matters follow

r e p e t i t i o n yet

Additional The case:

important p o i n t s of

OF

in future

elections until

this

the

IE

1. T h i s Case Is merits. As discussed

ND

following additional points

S

not

Moot and

S h o u l d Be

supra,

this

case meets each of one of which is

FR

conditions to render

f o r nonmootness, i t nonmoot.

any

22

GB OW .C OM
i t was hold filed to that 2012 election, only the not to the a l l future elections in as this question their of candidates will and the election cycles, resolved. argument are important to this D e c i d e d on its the three sufficient

Plaintiffs

brought

writ

before

the

2012

Plaintiffs, suit as move f o r w a r d

therefore, respectfully a n d be d e c i d e d

request

that

this just

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 Court.

importance is

i n need o f a c l e a r Court

now t h i s

can prevent

confusion i n future

w h e r e i t may o t h e r w i s e

arise.

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 . "

birth

certificate

submitted

TH EF O
by Barack Zullo. asked § 2 (C38)

There

i s strong technical

evidence

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

case

Michael

Sheriff investigation August

A r p a i o was f i r s t into

OF

Obama's l o n g - f o r m

o f 2011 upon p e t i t i o n

S

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 ,

in

IE

The

ND

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

October,

2 0 1 1 , a n d was c o m p r i s e d investigators 5(C35)

FR

enforcement

and p r a c t i c i n g

Affidavit,§

23

GB OW .C OM
this By acting elections of fraud i nthe This of Sheriff Obama. t o undertake birth an certificate in Maricopa Arpaio attorneys. Zullo

on i t s m e r i t s

since,

t o r e c u r , and

Michael

Zullo

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

whether as

the electronic Obama's b i r t h Zullo

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 ,

Barack

authentic.

Affidavit,§ 6.(C 35) 2 012, the Cold

In February Arpaio that there

Case Posse

was l i k e l y

forgery involved with the

documents. Zullo

§ 7. ( C 3 6 ) concluded that

White House w e b s i t e , public a legal

TH EF O

" t h e document p u b l i s h e d on t h e to the

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

and cannot be r e l i e d place and

document v e r i f y i n g Obama's b i r t h . " conclusions

the date,

of Barack

§ 1 1 . {C36)

Zullo's to, input

OF

"were b a s e d upon,

f r o m numerous e x p e r t s

i n the areas documents,

document a n a l y s i s a n d Adobe computer programs,

ND

typesetting,

S

computer generated

policies

IE

review

of Hawaii

s t a t e law, Hawaii

and procedures,

and comparisons w i t h

FR

other b i r t h

r e c o r d s . " § 7. ( C 3 6 )

24

GB OW .C OM
House informed Sheriff on as circumstance but not limited of forensic as w e l l as, Department o f H e a l t h numerous

C a s e P o s s e a n d was c h a r g e d

with the task of determining

In t h e course investigators misleading officials what,

of their

investigation,

"The

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."

birth

records

Department

§ 12 were

(C37).

Zullo's affidavit currently Dr.

conclusions

also supported

o f Jerome

Corsi,

Ph.D., a j o u r n a l i s t Staff Reporter

Corsi holds

a Ph.D. f r o m H a r v a r d

extensively utilized

researched

TH EF O
research

employed as a S e n i o r

OBAMA a n d h i s p a s t .

h i sextensive

t o p u b l i s h h i s book 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,

Certificate:

The Case T h a t B a r a c k §

Corsi aided over

OF

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

S

a l l the research

he c o n d u c t e d research.

ND

as w e l l as any subsequent

t o meet w i t h

IE

At

Zullo's request, the Cold

Dr. C o r s i f l e w

Case

Posse and present

FR

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

subsequently.

§7 I d .
25

GB OW .C OM
Hawaii government years regarding by t h e sworn and author b y WND.com. U n i v e r s i t y and has Dr. C o r s i investigation to write h i s § 6. ( C 4 0 ) t o Phoenix, Arizona the evidence he

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

a r e h e l d by the Hawaii

Dr. private,

Corsi's research,

both t h a t p u b l i s h e d and t h a t

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

significant he was b o r n ,

issues of fact that are i n dispute

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

H a v i n g been p r e s e n t e d

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

TH EF O
§ 7 (C 39)
26

S t a t e s and i t s t e r r i t o r i e s "

§ 9

(C41)

t h e evidence by i n v e s t i g a t o r concluded that "forgery

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,

that

" P r e s i d e n t Obama's l o n g - f o r m

ND

S h e r i f f Arpaio

S

OF

based h i s conclusions

electronically,

IE

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 and i t d i d n o t o r i g i n a t e i n a paper format,

FR

as c l a i m e d

b y The W h i t e House." § 8 I d .

GB OW .C OM
"there are as t o where documents certificate, on i n d i c a t i o n s i sa birth certificate

" r e v e a l s a n d shows a l i k e l i h o o d

t h a t key i d e n t i t y

including his

In "there and

summary,

Sheriff cause

Arpaio that

unequivocally the

stated

that

therefore of

i t c a n n o t be the date, Id.^

u s e d as or

otherwise,

place

circumstance

Obama's b i r t h . "

With of in

this

strong

evidence

of

fraud an

Maricopa the

County Arizona,

official

Alabama A t t o r n e y to require fide

General's

Obama a b o n a

birth

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 .

TH EF O

reasonable

the

Secretary

certificate.

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).

Petitioners

ND

S

OF

address each of

these

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 .
27

FR

IE

GB OW .C OM
a verification, of legal Barack coming from the as Sheriff source provided opinion, of i t is certainly State t o demand the issuance of a writ elements in turn.

i s probable

document i s a

forgery,

or

from

(1)

A

clear legal Appellants

right

to

the

order

sought: to the order

sought. M c l n n i s h States. general he He is a

is a citizen

o f Alabama and who voted

registered voter He pays

election.

each year

owes, w h i c h and

typically taxes,

include

income t a x e s , Further,

taxes,

sales

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

national

interest

constitutional of has

TH EF O

government,

wellbeing certainly

himself,

h i s progeny, right

a clear legal

chief

elections officer

perform her

constitutional

Goode i s a c i t i z e n States. He

OF

elections

i n furtherance

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

S

^ 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 .

FR

IE

ND

was

a candidate

28

GB OW .C OM
of the United i n the 2012 a l l the numerous real taxes estate he is debt.^ i n the maintenance of i n that and i t is vital his the to property. state's honest to have duties a to ensure stable, O f f i c e of

have a c l e a r l e g a l

right

the United

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

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

compelled

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

TH EF O
Should
29

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

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 ,

IE

FR

14-20, e t s e q . The i m p e r a t i v e d u t y

ND

S

(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.

OF

See H o l l a n d e r v. McCain,

566 F.Supp,2d 63,68

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

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 :

GB OW .C OM
against denies qualified he f o r the from competing o f any t h a t w o u l d n o t be t h e (D.N.H.
to perform,

presidential election,

a n d had an i n t e r e s t i n a

fair

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

follows:

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

general

q u a l i f i e d f o r the (Those so by

TH EF O

office

(Emphasis added.) e.g., those

entitled

certified

their

respective parties.)

"[P]rovided surplusage included only added

they

are

otherwise the

OF

a t whim by for a

L e g i s l a t u r e , but purpose. By

i n the who

law

substantive

ballot, those

ND

the

S

those

are

"otherwise

qualified"

statute clearly who

implies that not

who

seek o f f i c e not

are nor

persons

IE

are the

entitled,

even p e r m i t t e d ,

FR

names on

ballot.

30

GB OW .C OM
the following persons the provided they seek...." listed, then qualified" i s not was allowing the mere t o a p p e a r on there will be qualified, and such their t o have

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.

This

p h r a s e makes c l e a r t h a t that names m i g h t be

the

lawmakers to

were Secretary

of

State

which were de the facto,

l e g i t i m a t e prima and by that the such

legitimate allowed on

ballot

state's chief elections

official.

The taken an

U.S. oath

C o n s t i t u t i o n , which to uphold, f o r one the provides

President clarified, exclusive, number o f persons, m i g h t be (1892).

of

United

TH EF O

requirements

t o be

eligible As

States.

"...the with the

power and

jurisdiction of the

exception the

e l e c t o r s and so

ineligibility and

framed that

OF

Congressional v.

excluded."

McPherson not

Blacker, way

eligibility

ND

S

The

s t a t e s may

i n any

r e q u i r e m e n t s mandated by

three

IE

The

oath

of

office

i s the

common r o o t

branches

of

government that as

spring.

FR

form of

government

Justice Marshall the grounds

Court

J u s t i c e s ' oath

31

GB OW .C OM
f a c i e , but these not as should not be the Secretary of State a specific f o r the set of Office of the Supreme C o u r t of the State to has is 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 influence 1, 35 the C o n s t i t u t i o n . from which vital the to the our I t i s so cited Supreme for establishing

anticipating

submitted

the

has

judicial fidelity (or

review. to her

Marbury oath

v.

Madison, supra,

5 U.S.

137. she

In swore

a f f i r m e d ) t h a t she of the

would

"... s u p p o r t . . .

Constitution the

S t a t e o f Alabama...," and 19'?5

instructions codified of

c o n t a i n e d i n A l a . Code i n law

supra,

under the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n , an imperative duty to

Secretary

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

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.

TH EF O

about

qualifications

office

The of "It

S e c r e t a r y of State, must,

acting

Alabama, would be

OF

of

course,

obey the

superfluous to restate has

obey the

ND

requirements of such of

S

which

t h i s Court

imposed upon s t a t e of the

Constitution, i t may 349 1

performance to Brown

duties; Education, 358 U.S.

IE

v.

Board v.

FR

and

Cooper

Aaron, U.S.

(1958)."

V.Branstad, an

483

a t 228. person

I f the to run
32

allows

ineligible

GB OW .C OM
the i n view of §17-9-3, the determine requirements on the f o r placement case doubt of a would-be concerning his on b e h a l f of the U.S. State Constitution. occasions on to the a l l the officials or a duty compelled refer (1955), Rico State of suffice to U.S. 294 Puerto Secretary of Office f o r the

of o f f i c e ,

i n which

President violation allowed. Yet with

of of

the the

United U.S.

States

i t w o u l d be This

in

direct be

on

February and

2,

2012, others,

Appellant visited

his attorney of

Secretary Thompson, absence of her office

State,

during

which meeting of State, of

Deputy and

Secretary

f o r the

Secretary

would not

i n v e s t i g a t e the her

candidate,

thus v i o l a t i n g

TH EF O

duties

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.

Lack of

A n o t h e r A d e q u a t e Remedy

Alabama's E l e c t i o n Contest 17-9-3 e t . offices seq, govern only be an

OF

s t a t u t e s , A l a . C o d e 1975 enumerated This list of

t h a t may

S

contested.

challenges elected not

ND

to a l l Alabama the judiciary

state officers, i n the state. and of

IE

to

mention

any

federal office, President further

FR

mention the Ala. Code §

O f f i c e of 17-16-44

provides:

33

GB OW .C OM
Mclnnish, together the the O f f i c e of Hon. in the Emily speaking the State, represented l e g i t i m a c y of the any under U.S. and of the Secretary constitutional § elected for those does not statute allows as w e l l as statute does This specifically the United States.

Constitution.

outcome cannot

that

Thus § it does not of

17-9-3 i s t h e provide the

only

election to

for a contest States.

President

United

Moreover,

§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

eliminates jurisdiction these Alabama and

adequate remedy.

TH EF O

address the

eligibility Secretary

of

government o f f i c i a l name o f ballot. If it the an

who

is in a position and

illegitimate

candidate

Secretary was

OF

of

State

failed the

w o u l d mean s h e the U.S. the

violating

wrong of one

ND

S

land,

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 serious s o r t would go unattended,

most

o r more p e r s o n s concerning the

a b o u t whom t h e r e their

questions

IE

eligibility w o u l d be

FR

President --

of and

United

States

ballot

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 .
34

without

being

GB OW .C OM
contest statute, of the election the A l a Code to 1975 challenge s t a t u t e s do not there i s no other State i s the to sole the the interdict i t from exclude to perform law this of duty, highest this a namely were l e g i t i m a t e f o r the placed Office on the of office

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 .

by for of so and

and

But remedy.

equity In t h i s

demands t h a t

f o r every wrong

t h e r e be

a

extraordinarily candidate t o do

s i m p l e one. what e v e r y permit.

I t i s to require teenager

get a l e a r n e r ' s certificate, State i s the

I t i s to produce

A l a . C o d e 1975 official

§32-6-8(b) a n d that to

t o cause

(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

TH EF O

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

4.

A l a . Code 1975

OF

So.

§17-16-44 Does Not
A l a . Code 1975,

FR

"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 . " of Rice v. Chapman, 51 So. 3d 281(2010) the

In

Alabama Supreme C o u r t

IE

the case

ND

The

aforementioned

S

i n v o k e d Code o f A l a . 1975
35

GB OW .C OM
each i s required t o do to a bona the fide birth Secretary of happen.

i n s t a n c e the obvious

remedy i s an

Court
to hear §6-6-640. cases See

ju r i s d i c t i o n

( A l a . 2010).

Bar

This Action.

§17-16-44 p r o v i d e s :

§17-16-44,

the s o - c a l l e d concluded In Rice, that

"jurisdiction

stripping

s t a t u t e , " and

the p l a i n t i f f

sought

to prevent

the Republican

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

not timely that

qualified.

canvassing votes would Primary election, actions. §17-16-44

"impact

OG BO W
reason that from that o f any e l e c t i o n " lawsuit n o r does this lawsuit

the prevention of a party the 'conduct'" of the

Republican prohibited found matter that

one o f t h e s p e c i f i c a l l y the Court

I t was f o r t h i s stripped

the Court

having subject

j urisdiction.

"legality, 16-44

conduct,

or results

TH

Yet

i t i s only the proceedings

EF

entertain the t h a t §17-

question the

the l e g a l i t y

OF

prevents.

U n l i k e Rice,

this

does n o t seek t o

of the election,

n o r does i t impact i tcontest the i s about the i n the election

"conduct"

of the election, Rather

eligibility

ND

results

o f an e l e c t i o n . o f those

S

seeking to participate

eligibility

IE

and

the duty

of the Secretary of State t o determine the attempting to participate. Thus, none by

of those

FR

of

the prohibited

actions

o f §17-16-44 a r e i m p l i c a t e d

36

.C

Party

from

canvassing votes

cast f o r a possibly

ineligible The

OM

i t h a d no j u r i s d i c t i o n

t o hear

the lawsuit.

this

l a w s u i t and

this

l a w s u i t i s not

barred

by

that

Further Constitution office of

§

17-16-44 does not

preempt

i n i t s d e m a n d s made on of the United

President

CONCLUSION It w o u l d be of paradoxical the lies

beyond measure the de

grave question a question

l e g i t i m a c y of at the very

which

Constitutional the simplest of

Government, documents,

TH EF O

were l e f t a birth

explained license

supra,

a teenager an

applying

must

submit The

original,

bona

joins any

a troop. of

OF

certificate.

same i s t r u e any

f o r a Boy

Could

c l e v e r excuse, computer

sleight an

hand w i t h

to withhold

ND

provide

honorable his birth

S

r a t i o n a l e f o r the certificate American has at

IE

citizens,

and

from the

public? i t s fingertips By the power

This

honorable Court this

FR

to

resolve

monumental conundrum. for a Writ

Petitioner's

request

o f Mandamus i t w i l l

37

GB OW .C OM
the U. S. a candidate for the States. i f the real and facto President, heart of our American unresolved f o r want As of certificate. for a fide learner's birth he Scout before any artful possibly words, software, Commander-in-Chief view of Alabama from the granting be

statute.

resolved. simply exist. will

E i t h e r a bone

fide birth

certificate

will

be not t o

E i t h e r way,

this

most

important

of l e g a l

maintained,

and t h e a n x i e t y o f Alabama supra,

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

The

remedy

f o r here, requires a very

however,

BO W .C
citizens of requires of virtually of no wrong the w r i t here that among nor a judge No, he

have been answered, t h e p u r i t y o f Alabama's

stilled. State

an i n v e s t i g a t i v e no

investigation. purportedly thing:

I t merely

EF OG
I t requires that Branch,
38

the production

already

exists,

ordinary,

commonplace

a birth

certificate.

A maxim o f e q u i t y a remedy. requested. w o u l d be to Should

TH

expenditure

of time

o r money b y t h e S e c r e t a r y holds f o r every

Petitioners, left without

OF

the Court not issue

as w e l l as t h e p e o p l e

o f Alabama, admitting

a remedy

f o r t h e wrong o f

serious

IE ND

the b a l l o t

S

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 i s in others

doubt. He

question. who

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

c o n s t i t u t e the L e g i s l a t i v e who

FR

others

c o n s t i t u t e the J u d i c i a l

Branch.

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

OM
questions ballot what State. there i s among seeks to Branch,

produced,

or i t w i l l

n e c e s s a r i l y be a d m i t t e d

the

President of the United Uncorrected, this would

States.

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

society

grievously. this writ

honorable

Court

Secretary for

to obtain birth

certificates States

President of the United

was h e l d i n N o v e m b e r , candidates

i n future presidential are not forthcoming the votes

TH EF O

2 0 1 2 , a n d d o t h e same f o r a l l elections. I f such birth order

certificates of t h i s

within

Court,

certified

responding

s h o u l d be

decertified.

OF

FR

IE

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

ND

S

39

GB OW .C OM
that their i n their u r g e n t l y ask ordering the from the candidates which f o r the election 45 d a y s a f t e r f o r any c a n d i d a t e not

result,

not without

some

CERTIFICATE OF

SERVICE

FR IE N

DS

OF

TH

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

EF
40

OG

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:

BO W

.C OM

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

Case No. 1120465

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

HUGH MCINNISH, e t a l . ,

V.

BETH CHAPMAN, SECRETARY OF STATE Appellee.

APPENDICES TO BRIEF OF THE APPELLANTS

FR

Attorneys f o r Appellants

IE

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

ND

S

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

OF

TH EF O

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY CV 2012-1053

GB OW .C OM
Appellants

LIST OF APPENDICES

Attorney Allen

General's

Opinion

No. No.

1998-200

V. Bennett

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

FR

IE

ND

S

OF

TH EF O
2

GB OW .C OM
Appendix A Appendix B

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

FR

IE

ND

S

OF
1

TH EF O

GB OW .C OM

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;

ND

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?

FR

IE

S

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

OF

TH EF O
FACTS AND ANALYSIS

Appendix A 1 of 4

GB OW .C OM

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 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). 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) 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

FR

(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 1 (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

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 17-7of 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-

IE

ND

S

OF

TH EF O
Appendix A 2 of 4

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.

GB OW .C OM

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 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 .

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

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

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

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 ?

IE

ND

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

FR

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

S

OF

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

FACTS, ANALYSIS, & CONCLUSION

TH EF O
Appendix A 3 of 4

QUESTION 2

GB OW .C OM

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

FR

IE

ND

S

OF
Appendix A 4 of 4

TH EF O

GB OW .C OM

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,
V.

2001)

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 2001.

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 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. 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

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

FR

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 .

IE

ND

S

OF

TH EF O
Appendix B 1 of 8

GB OW .C OM

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 ballot. 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

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.'^''^

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 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

FR

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

IE

ND

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

S

OF

TH EF O
Appendix B 2 of 8

GB OW .C OM

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 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. 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

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 V. Ogilvie, 394 U . S . 8 1 4 , 8 1 6 (1969). III. 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 Moore

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 in any

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

FR

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

IE

judicial office shall be filled by appointment

ND

S

OF

TH EF O
occurring

by the governor; however,

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 of 1901 with amendments advertised and enacted now or local established by a properly

law. A judge, other t h a n a probate j u d g e , appointed

to fill a vacancy

Appendix B 3 of 8

GB OW .C OM
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 , shall serve an initial term

v a c a n c i e s occurring in a n y

lasting until the first Monday election

after the second

Tuesday

in January

following

the next

general

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 filling a v a c a n c y shall s e r v e until the next Page 683 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

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

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

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

FR

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 , 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

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

IE

ND

S

OF

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

TH EF O
Appendix B 4 of 8

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

GB OW .C OM

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 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 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. 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

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 " 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

FR

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,

IE

ND

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

S

OF

TH EF O
Appendix B 5 of 8

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

GB OW .C OM

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 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,

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

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 election. IV.

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

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

Lambert

IE

claim inconsistent with his earlier conduct.'" 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

FR

Credit Corp. v. Strickland

T h i s Court h a s h e l d : " 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

ND

S

OF

Div. of Rebel Lumber

TH EF O
Appendix B 6 of 8

GB OW .C OM

3 8 6 S o . 2 d 2 0 7 , 2 0 9 - 1 0 (Ala. 1980).

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).

v. United States,

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 doctrine of equitable

the correction...

" ( E m p h a s i s a d d e d [in Headrick Club of Michigan State Highway

Outdoor

Advertising].)

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

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. 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 . 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

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 .

FR

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 .

IE

ND

AFFIRMED.

S

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.

OF

TH EF O
Appendix B 7 of 8

c a s e . T h e S e c r e t a r y of

GB OW .C OM
of a mistake of law.'" Automobile

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 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: 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;

"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 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 .

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

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 .

FR

IE

ND

S

OF

TH EF O
Appendix B 8 of 8

GB OW .C OM

FRANK

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:

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, "

OF

TH

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*

EF

FEANK JORDAN Secretaiy of State

HPS/pv/m

IE

co:

ND

H. P. Sullivan Assistant Seorotaiy of State

FR

Stuart Weinberg h$ Polk Street San franoisco, Califomia

S

Appendix C 1 of 1

OG BO W .C OM
/'
/

/

State of Arizona County of Maricopa

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.

FR IE

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

ND

S

OF

TH

EF

OG BO

I, the undersigned, being first duly sworn, do hereby state under oath and under penalty of perjury that the facts are true:

W

.C

AFFIDAVIT

OM

) ) ss. )

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.

ND

S

FR IE

OF

TH

Joseph M . Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff

EF
Appendix D 2 of 2

Sworn to and subscribed me this 3S9'iDea before b 1 ^ day of 2012.

OG BO

LYNDA JEMSEMORBM Notw Piittlo- aittB ofArim MAMOOMOOUNTV
MV v D n i W t M n Kni^^

W

.C

OM