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,

et a l . , Appellan-ts

V.

BETH CHAPMAN, SECRETARY OF STATE Appellees.

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

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANTS

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

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 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

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

Goode r e q u e s t

oral

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

source

may n o t be q u a l i f i e d f o r

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

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.

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

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

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

i s the responsible names f r o m appearing

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 ,

i

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

verify

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. the

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

presidential occur

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 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 The of

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

Court

law.

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

a u t h o r i z e d by l a w t o a c t matters. ordered

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

candidates

i n t h e 2012

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

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

ii

. A. B. II.. E.. 10 This case i s n o t moot 11 13 17 18 19 Three e x c e p t i o n s t o mootness Attorney General's Sheriff opinion Arpaio's a f f i d a v i t Secretary of State's l e t t e r not e x c l u s i v e t o California 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 20 21 21 22 G. I. F. INTRODUCTION i . H. C.i i iii-iv v vi vii-viii 1 4 5 7 8 9 9 ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS .TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS L I S T OF APPENDICES STATEMENT OF J U R I S D I C T I O N TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF THE CASE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES STATEMENT OF FACTS STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ARGUMENT I. D. jurisdiction parties too late P l a i n t i f f s have j o i n e d n e c e s s a r y P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m was n o t f i l e d in .

Jerome C o r s i a i d e d c o l d case posse Where Obama was b o r n i n d i s p u t e Sheriff forged A r p a i o says p r o b a b l e cause b i r t h Q. 2. f o r w r i t o f mandamus a r e p r e s e n t right to order t o perform 27 28 29 33 Clear legal Duty o f respondent L a c k o f a n o t h e r remedy Properly invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e Court CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . C a s e s h o u l d be d e c i d e d on i t s m e r i t s C r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e o f f r a u d i n Obama b i r t h C o l d case posse Forgery i n b i r t h certificate likely 22 certificate23 23 23 23 26 certificate 27 Dr. 0. A.J. L. A l l elements 1. N. K... 3. P. M. 35 37 40 iv ..

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 V .LIST OF APPENDICES Attorney Allen General's Opinion No. No. 1998-200 Appendix A Appendix B V.

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. t o hear

Court of

Montgomery C o u n t y ,

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Alabama 2004}. Allen Republican Party v. McGinley, 893 So. 2 d 337, 342 { A l a ,

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) 349 U.S. 294 (1955)

Brown v . Board

of Education,

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 " ' Cooper Ex Parte Ex parte Golden Hollander V. Aaron, Collins, Integon v. Zwickler, v. McCain, 358 U.S. 1 84 So.3d Corp.,612 (1958). 48, 50 (Ala. 2010).

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

394 U.S. 103 (1969) 566 F.Supp.2d 63,68 (D.N.H. 2008) Second

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 Marbury McPherson Moore Puerto v. Madison, v. Blacker, 5 U.S. 137 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892)

v. O g i l v i e , Rico

394 U.S. 814. 483 U.S. 228

v. Branstad,

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

SEC V. Medical (1972)

committee

for Human Rights,

404 U.S.

403

United

States

v. Munsingwear,

Inc.,

340 U.S.

36

1950)

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 answer t h e r e t o ; generally

and p o w e r s o f c o u r t

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 i n Election Contests;

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

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

Authorities

Ala.

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

viii

This case i s before Circuit this case with i s a direct prejudice appeal entered THE CASE of Circuit from a judgment by t h e Montgomery Court on a p p e a l f r o m an order and by t h e Montgomery Virgil Goode's Court denying Hugh M c l n n i s h ' s Other petition f o r a Writ Relief. o f Mandamus o r Such p e t i t i o n Appropriate directed Alabama petition State Extraordinary is t o B e t h Chapman.STATEMENT OF This dismissal Court. To f o r t h e November i s s u e a p r e l i m i n a r y and the placement permanent Alabama injunction ballot preventing their on t h e 2012 until eligibility had been c o n c l u s i v e l y determined. r e c e i p t of such a prerequisite to their ballot placed general on t h e Alabama election. name 6. 1 . Secretary requested i n her o f f i c i a l The Prayer c a p a c i t y as t h e i n the of of State. that for Relief the Court order the Secretary t o demand t h a t a l l candidates States f o r the O f f i c e of copy of President their bona of the United fide birth to cause a c e r t i f i e d c e r t i f i c a t e t o be d e l i v e r e d to the official i n charge a n d t o make being 2012 Secretary of the directly from the government i n which the record depository i t i s stored.

Deputy S e c r e t a r y of f o r the Secretary of 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 i n v e s t i g a t e the her duties candidate. and was assigned H o n o r a b l e E u g e n e W. a motion the conference s i n c e time of 2 . 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. violating U. 12. 2012: Mclnnish was and Goode f u l l y October status Goode f i l e d the essence. which Mclnnish 31. State. 2012: October Mclnnish Goode f i l e d a motion time to for 5 summary j u d g m e n t a n d days. t h a t the Secretary's Dismiss -the 2. granted. of Secretary of which the speaking Emily Thompson. of a motion to the essence shorten to get response a d e c i s i o n before November October 2 012 2012: presidential The election. 18. 11. Timeline of February and others Case 2012: the Mclnnish Office together the with his attorney State. for Secretary of and motion to dismiss. State filed her opposed. at visited Hon.S.The Motion Court to below held. Reese. State. the as time was 6. was i n error.

the Court. November 2 0 . filed h e r renewed opposed. Obama h a d " w o n " that this case vote the election should and law and e q u i t y at least before require the be d e c i d e d electors on December 17. f o r the the case with was given. 2 0 1 0 : The S e c r e t a r y which Mclnnish motion t o dismiss. a n d Goode a l s o was h e l d b e f o r e 2012: A h e a r i n g day. explanation January appeal 17. November 10. 2012. Judge Reese. December On t h e same dismissed dismissal 6. 2013: A p p e l l a n t s Court. 2012: this Mclnnish a n d Goode filed a as Praecipe. prejudice. 2 0 1 2 a n d t h i s case was resolved.election not was u p c o m i n g on November 6. filed a timely notice of to this 3 . i n a one-sentence No order. since lawsuit i s of great importance.

4 . issues f o r appeal Whether under the t h i s case i s ripe are as follows: to the mootness the exceptions for review. doctrine election 2.STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES The 1. even though about which i t revolves i s past. Secretary of S t a t e has a duty to Whether the 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 may credible has been i n f o r m a t i o n from the source not be that indicates candidate qualified Office.

2011. 2 0 1 2 . copy o f t h e a c t u a l long i n order to birth has been produced birth definitively States.I the 8. 1 9 6 1 t o A m e r i c a n mother. visited and o t h e r s . was t h e s o .after 2 years into h i s pressure. Deputy at which t h e Hon. certificate" i s credible evidence "birth published o n t h e i n t e r n e t was altered or otherwise fraudulent. E m i l y speaking Secretary behalf that of State.c a l l e d " l o n g . This subject B a r a c k Obama. i n t h e absence o f and on represented to Mclnnish of of the Secretary of State.f o r m " (C8) form Verified Compl. Barack and under media and p o l i t i c a l Obama p u b l i s h e d purported Hawaii Stanley birth on t h e i n t e r n e t an e l e c t r o n i c v e r s i o n o f a certificate alleging h i sbirth citizen i n Honolulu. p a p e r certificate establish Compl.STATEMENT OF THE FACTS On o r a b o u t A p r i l presidency. a n d K e n y a n B r i t i s h Sr. birth A n n Dunham. 2. M c l n n i s h . time the Office of the Secretary Thompson. Verified that OBAMA's within the United there (C8) I n s t e a d . No p h y s i c a l . certificate. §6. father. together with h i s of On F e b r u a r y attorney 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 . on August 4.

records i t was 6 .S. (09) U. 2012 Verified Mclnnish Goode f i l e d seeking suit in a Circuit Court o f Montgomery County to the Alabama t o have of o f mandamus i s s u e d her to Secretary State names in compelling had demand f r o m a l l c a n d i d a t e s to her for inclusion President of on the whose been s u b m i t t e d f o r the birth the ballot Alabama. § and under the 13. Secretary who was Such b i r t h of State certificate from delivered to the directly of the government o f f i c i a l depository i n which i n charge stored. O f f i c e of United States. and Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n s . shall the a bone f i d e be certificate. thus violating her duties Compl. On the writ October 11.any candidate.

Party o f law a r e reviewed v. McGinley. 2 d 337.STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW "Questions Republican 2004) . de novo. 893 So." Alabama (Ala. 342 7 .

required f o r an e l e c t i o n t o tabulated. officer f o r the state. more t h a n years.S. of office the Alabama Constitutions. ofoffice t o support both Constitutions t o have t o investigate their the e l i g i b i l i t y o f t h o s e who w i s h presidential respectfully perform Alabama names a p p e a r o n t h e A writ o f mandamus m u s t election be i s s u e d ballots. t h e amount o f t i m e results holder.SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Because resolution the l e n g t h o f time matters required t o receive a of election i n the c o u r t s f a r exceeds t o be h e l d ." addition.S. elections i t i s "capable ofrepetition evading In chief the S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e o f Alabama. as t h e hasan a f f i r m a t i v e the Alabama duty under her oath a n d U. case We i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s c h e r i s h anything andhold e l e c t i o n s matter our r i g h t t o vote a t least every two and this yet Resolution of this must s t i l l occur i s n o t moot b e c a u s e review. i t does and the swearing i n o f a new o f f i c e criteria for not f a l l under the t r a d i t i o n a l mootness. requiring the Secretary o f State t o o f the State o f under both her duties owed t o t h e c i t i z e n s t o her oath andt o her duties a n d U. 8 .

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 office? he a " p r e t e n d e r high t o the throne. C o n s t i t u t i o n r e q u i r e s citizen. 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. C o n s t i t u t i o n . C l . 5.S. a mere " c i t i z e n . 9 ." o n e who h a s a r r i v e d a t i s compelling p o s i t i o n by fraud that thetruth and d e c e i t ? There with the latter. S. "natural-born" Sec. Although a President be a II. whether he meets t h e o f President as natural-born citizen. not necessarily natural-born question regarding That Obama i s w h e t h e r h e i s a i s . 1. t h e Commander i n C h i e f o f leader o f t h e Free high World. Or armed f o r c e s . C l . that evidence The lies U. The core and i ti su s u a l l y taken soil of parents both t o mean a p e r s o n o f whom a r e a t l e a s t citizens themselves.S. 5 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . minimum r e q u i r e m e n t s mandated by A r t i c l e f o rthe o f f i c e I I . 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. " b o r n on A m e r i c a n citizens.ARGUMENT INTRODUCTION A gnawing indeed question vexes t h e Alabama body p o l i t i c and Obama. U. S e c . 1. A r t i c l e t h e U.

However d e t a i l e d e x a m i n a t i o n o f h a s shown g l a r i n g suspicion that both anomalies a r e computer- these documents by experts which point generated This important Alabama to the strong forgeries. therefore. n o r a s we e x p l a i n does i t r e n d e r Answers t o D e f e n d a n t ' s Renewed M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s The court below g a v e no h i n t o f i t s r a t i o n a l e f o r We. that he c o n c u r r e d w i t h some o r a l l o f t h e We will. The question. suit asks this Court to resolve this critically 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 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 Secretary presidential s u b m i t bona candidates fide birth i n the recent certificates to her f o r verification. i n Chapman's m o t i o n address to dismiss. fact that the e l e c t i o n i s past infra does n o t o b v i a t e t h e i t moot. and o f f e r e d to the public purported c a l l e d the short-form c e r t i f i c a t e and long-form c e r t i f i c a t e . accordingly. Obama h a s p r o d u c e d birth the certificates. these points 10 . i n turn.In an e f f o r t to resolve this persistent question two Mr. are left with the dismissing assumption averments t h e case.

of asked that our c a s e be d i s m i s s e d on the mootness. support of her motion Cmty. seized. S. operate Since machines. Of Cornerstone Inc. Los (Ala.Chapman f i r s t grounds In V. The Court observed t o use which defendants in alleged. Barber 70-71 440 U. In 631 q u o t i n g Cnty. the case Angeles Davis. that i t does not support Chapman's c l a i m the present case Bell v. from u s i n g further. The a candidate for circuit judged judge i n Lowndes Bell d i d not c a s e was t o be m o o t s i n c e 11 . (1979). a sense. Outreach. Bell as cited involved a case i n which a person disqualified County. that t h e o p e r a t o r s had. Barber. 908 So 2d 204 was Chapman a l s o (Ala. 3d 65.. v. assurance new this that the o p e r a t o r s would T h e r e f o r e Barber was p r o c u r e and n o t moot. involved used the seizure i n an by state illegal first authorities gambling addressed had of slot machines allegedly The Court the operation i n Lowndes County. 2002). Eagerton. she cited 42 the case of So. was held a case o f non-mootness. the q u e s t i o n of mootness. i s moot.2010). not the machines t h e r e was no that not been seized. 625. but had had agreed not not further the machines agreed to r e f r a i n and that.

was h e l d . No. which follows: 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. 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 . event relevant to the present that this Court considers the under the 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 . 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 Parole. v.take the proper legal actions. Specifically he f a i l e d he to seek an i n j u n c t i o n to it be a c a n d i d a t e . Coady v. 598 M. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. as shown i n t h e 12 . 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 . 2 0 0 1 . In the u n l i k e l y case moot. to stop the e l e c t i o n and d i d not c o n t e s t d i d not involve and i s not i n which wished after the e l e c t i o n The s u i t the legitimacy of the would-be candidate. case. i f n o t most s t a t e s . D.j u d g e 'Memorandum Opinion"' The p r e s e n c e sufficient following o f any one o f t h e s e three factors i s to defeat examples: a m o o t n e s s c l a i m . " a n u n r e p o r t e d s i n g l e . (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 . The e x c e p t i o n s a r e b y many.

and 598 but importance. Capable of 394 U. The complaint here i s that the l e g i t i m a c y least one any has E x c e p t i o n 2: of the candidates. Second In re: A p p e l l a t e Court Illinois. Pennsylvania M. The present and 1: case falls under each of moot: involves a question question of and of of the three named exceptions. and i s without will this a complaint we need probably than the recur. Commonwealth C o u r t E x c e p t i o n 2. where the l e g i t i m a c y of at been determined question Moreover. Stephen No. repetition 814. t h a t can. Pennsylvania Questions of Board of of great public Probation No. present l o o k no further to conclude cases that i t i s impracticable to adjudicate the time names a r e submitted to the between 13 . government.S. Coady v. A p a r t y would s u f f e r of a detriment. evading E x c e p t i o n 3. Parole. case such t o be i n s e r i o u s doubt. review.E x c e p t i o n 1. Ogilvie. D. 2-09-0472. District. J. 2001. t h e r e f o r e i s not The present case Exception extreme p u b l i c whether the importance.. are I t goes t o the t o be citizenry in their protected against fraud I t goes t o the very heart dishonesty our self elections. Moore v.

case. 3: W i t h o u t suffer will a decision of the court.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. SEC v. 394 U. election was h o n e s t . n o t competing w i t h an i n e l i g i b l e The classic to reach and best known c a s e of application of these rules a decision Justice on nonmootnes i s t h a t o f Roe v. 14 .S. 1 0 2 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . f o r harm Thus happen every the p o t e n t i a l cycle. f o r t h em a j o r i t y . 4 0 3 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . Zwickler. Munsingwear. Medical committee for Human Rights.S. Mclnnish i n t h a t as that and Goode w i l l they a direct detriment 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 counted and recorded. Wade i n w h i c h said i n part: Blackmun. United States v. Inc. as p r e s e n t complained i n t h e next o f i s capable election of t h e conduct repetition. s h o u l d be a s s u r e d candidate. 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 .S. legitimate himself was c a n d i d a t e s were Goode.. t h a t he a presidential candidate. 36 1 9 5 0 ) . Exception y e t avoiding review. 3 4 0 U. w r i t i n g The u s u a l r u l e i n f e d e r a l c a s e s i s t h a t a n a c t u a l c o n t r o v e r s y must e x i s t a t s t a g e s o f a p p e l l a t e o r c e r t i o r a r i review. 404 U. Golden v. every c o n t e s t o f an length of a year i s t r u e by analogy would s i m i l a r l y be mooted by t h e s h e e r Yet elections i s just and appeals process.

her relief. I t was o b v i o u s l y B u t . 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 . the Texas Texas c l a i m i n g law outlawing she had a an a b o r t i o n . Wade. abortion not the case case i t would to grant withstanding. t h e c a s e was m o o t b e c a u s e t h e disagreed and B u t t h e Supreme C o u r t 15 .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 t w i l l a l w a y s be w i t h u s . Roe h a d h e r b a b y l o n g before r e a c h e d t h e Supreme C o u r t . 1 1 3 .B u t when. particularly of State the case v. applied the mootness exceptions and heard o f Allen In Alabama. 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. 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. be moot. 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 . i f man i s t o s u r v i v e . as seen and i n an o r d i n a r y too late above. I f t h a t t e r m i n a t i o n makes a c a s e moot. 410 U.S. since that i t involves the Allen and an e l e c t i o n of State i s past. I n Roe Attorney to the pregnant J a n e Roe was suing the District right o f D a l l a s County. claimed Secretary ballot Jim Bennett judge erroneously left him o f f the general for circuit i n t h e November that 2000 election. 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 . y e t e v a d i n g r e v i e w " Roe v. election I t was a r g u e d was o v e r . Bennett ( A p p e n d i x B) i s Secretary that instructive. 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 . t h e n o r m a l 2 6 6 . 166 (1973). Our l a w s h o u l d n o t be t h a t r i g i d . a s h e r e . the f o r the court the court case.

f o r harm i s j u s t I t has as p r e s e n t i n t h e case law election that t h u s become t h e i n Alabama an election has the issues passed. Bennett. 2 d 679 ( A l a b a m a 2001) As i s true would by analogy in this case. 823 S o .said: H o w e v e r because the outcome of t h i s case could Impact future e l e c t i o n s . § under 16 State's duties Alabama . The S e c r e t a r y of the S t a t e has a no l e g a l duty to investigate The in q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of State i s the candidate. reasons under will n o t become moot s i m p l y b e c a u s e election For as d i s c u s s e d supra. case in Chapman a r g u e d five We additional shall reasons each that of this these s h o u l d be dismissed. every contest of the sheer length an of year next a election trial and and similarly be m o o t e d b y appeals p r o c e s s . ( I t a l i c s a d d e d . . address turn: 1. Next. ) Allen v. t h i s c a s e i s n o t m o o t . valid this case i s not moot i t qualifies exceptions to the mootness doctrine. elections for The not official Secretary of and shall "chief the state provide uniform guidance 17-1-3 ( a ) ) . l a w do election Secretary activities" of (Code o f A l a . we h o l d t h a t . . Yet elections happen e v e r y the p o t e n t i a l cycle.

certainly it her doing i s the right t o do. The official S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e had gained source knowledge cause from an t h a t t h e r e was p r o b a b l e 17 to believe . i n the form as she seems t o a r g u e . the case o f an e l e c t e d official. as h e r e . The fact and o u r whole s o c i e t y t h a t s h e h a s "no l e g a l does n o t prevent thing might w e l l duty" t o do a a thing thing when. u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g o f CONCLUSION. of "legal duty" were t h e absolute compulsion criterion only in f o r a person performing her duty.2 0 0 . argument. 1 9 9 8 . t h e need Chapman c i t e d {Appendix this to Attorney General's A) C o n t r a r y to the Secretary of State's opinion strongly of at least supports one o f t h e 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 foroffice. Attorney G e n e r a l ' s O p i n i o n No.provide If an e x c u s e f o r her inaction. c o r r u p t i o n would grind to a rampant. O p i n i o n No. especially be halt. The o p i n i o n s t a t e s i n eligibility 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 . 1998-200. 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.

C 1 9 . ( I t a l i c s added. 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 l s o E x h i b i t D) Further. a t conducted a o f a group o f A r i z o n a investigation into Obama p r e s e n t e d citizens. A r p a i o . 8. A r p a i o . 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 . Most i m p o r t a n t l y . Secretary i ti s not novel t o not only 18 n o r uncommon f o r a investigate the of State . 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 .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 .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. 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 : D) S h e r i f f A r p a i o stated i n part In an a f f i d a v i t as follows: (Appendix 7. a s c l a i m e d b y t h e W h i t e House. J o s e p h M. 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 . and therefore. A f f i d a v i t o f J o s e p h M. 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 . 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. place or circumstances of Barack Obama's b i r t h . legal or otherwise. a n d h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y number. 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 . 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. of the date. the request County A r i z o n a . 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 . i t cannot be used as a v e r i f i c a t i o n .

i n 2012. (Appendix Peace and Freedom P a r t y C e n t r a l Committee) C) he s a i d i n part as f o l l o w s : ( P ) l e a s e be a d v i s e d t h a t t h i s o f f i c e w i l l n o t c e r t i f y E l d r i d g e C l e a v e r as t h e Peace and Freedom c a n d i d a t e f o r p r e s i d e n t o n t h e N o v e m b e r 5.. A p p e n d i x C. 1968. In a l e t t e r t o Jack Weinberg (Chairman. t h a t M r . 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 as p r e s i d e n t set he d i d n o t meet t h e minimum age r e q u i r e m e n t and refused t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 35 y e a r s . 1 9 6 8 g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n ballot. one P e t a Lindsay was s e l e c t e d b y t h e candidate of State on Peace and Freedom P a r t y the 2012 C a l i f o r n i a t o be i t s P r e s i d e n t i a l ballot. the Secretary of State to put issued ballot. of State Cleaver California that F r a n k M. L i n d s a y .eligibility of presidential candidates. s h e was 27 y e a r s . h e r name o n t h e b a l l o t . forfailure but to also t o meet t h e case remove them f r o m t h e b a l l o t minimum r e q u i r e m e n t s occurred Secretary Eldridge since by his by of e l i g i b i l i t y . 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. 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 .. J a c k W e i n b e r g . ( I t a l i c s added.) Likewise. S e p t e m b e r 18. because 19 and refused t o old. place r e j e c t e d Ms. h o w e v e r . name o n t h e C a l i f o r n i a . Secretary primary Debra Bowen. 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. where One s u c h i n 1968 i n C a l i f o r n i a .

she well i t i s her officer. United State States chief P r e s i d e n t i a l Candidate. elections Again. certainly for a provision i s not of state enforce See Constitutional the unprecedented. for Article to be 2. 20 . State's for letter President supra C a l i f o r n i a Secretary the barring of announcing the a candidate failing from California b a l l o t for t o meet Constitutional requirements.and §1. an oath fact. the U. o f f i c e of the authority to the authority of to the q u a l i f i c a t i o n f o r the does not direct a rest President States no exclusively or with Congress. 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. of w h i c h has statutory C o n s t i t u t i o n a l means or a Presidentenforcing of challenging elect . not eligible under that age. to Secretary the as taken explicitly as support duty to United Alabama Constitution. official to above. Contrary determine United to this assertion by Chapman. 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 .S. as Alabama E l e c t i o n Constitutional discussed a United to provisions pertaining elections. at which 35 requires years of candidates President least 2. Constitution. law as i s required as the enforce States and. i s no bar to a state In There States has official the the Constitution.

4. the their fraud names was of question i s w h e t h e r one o r more o f to have Presidential placed on the candidates ballot. were q u a l i f i e d I f . Democrat P a r t y but the lower initial request. election The was the over Again. Plaintiffs This State law. upon the Court Secretary certainly citizens this subject matter jurisdiction. of the Nevertheless. of 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.3. do is a her have f a i l e d suit merely to join necessary that the parties. t h e intervene approve Alabama case. for President sought to Obama. whether Instead. Chapman's argument 21 i s without . of Alabama asking Secretary under duty under the that Constitution and While i t i s true a B a r a c k Obama was the Secretary specifically of State the needed m e n t i o n e d as to candidate that investigate. jurisdiction. court d i d not Therefore. 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. the candidates. were p r o p e r l y c o u n t e d and reported. lack here Court does not subject i s not the the matter question presented or whether the votes properly conducted. of has State and the perpetrated Alabama. contrary to Chapman's c o n t e n t i o n . as appears probable.

needs to capable resolved. this case meets each of one of which is the three conditions to render f o r nonmootness. As discussed not Moot and S h o u l d Be D e c i d e d on its supra. p r e s i d e n t i a l e l e c t i o n took place. continue issue the mootness. of supra. even i f t h i s untimely valid as Court were f o r the 2012 to i t was hold Plaintiffs' contentions 2012 well. T h i s Case Is merits. but Plaintiffs of have d e a l t a l l future this elections in their with question discussion Again. eligibility i n future of candidates will and the question an be of t o be issue election cycles. However. not only to they apply to p r e s i d e n t i a l e l e c t i o n . Plaintiffs' Since c l a i m was f i l e d too their late. Additional The case: important p o i n t s of the argument are important to this following additional points 1. w r i t was are still election. i t nonmoot.5. any sufficient 22 . writ before the 2012 filed that the the as Plaintiffs brought general timely. O t h e r w i s e more s u i t s i n v o l v i n g avoiding this issue review is will matters follow r e p e t i t i o n yet in future elections until resolved.

a c r i t i c a l which i s presented answer question of statewide here from i s certain this Court. 2 0 1 1 . 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 . suit as move f o r w a r d therefore.f o r m certificate in Maricopa o f 2011 upon p e t i t i o n by 250 r e s i d e n t s o f County. " There birth i s strong technical submitted evidence of fraud i nthe Obama. asked t o undertake birth an case Michael Sheriff investigation August A r p a i o was f i r s t into Obama's l o n g . A r p a i o A f f i d a v i t . Wade. a n d was c o m p r i s e d investigators 5(C35) enforcement Affidavit. This of Sheriff certificate by Barack 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. Zullo 23 . and By acting 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 elections w h e r e i t may o t h e r w i s e arise.Plaintiffs. § 2 (C38) The in 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 Arpaio October. County A r i z o n a . 2. and by t h e l e a d e r o f h i s Zullo. respectfully a n d be d e c i d e d request that this just on i t s m e r i t s since. t o r e c u r . i n Roe v.§ and p r a c t i c i n g attorneys.

§ 6. Affidavit. m i s l e a d i n g import a s i t h a s no l e g a l document v e r i f y i n g Obama's b i r t h . but not limited of forensic as w e l l as. ( C 3 6 ) concluded that " t h e document p u b l i s h e d on t h e to the on as White House w e b s i t e . ( C 3 6 ) 24 . typesetting.(C 35) 2 012. i n f a c t . input "were b a s e d upon. {C36) circumstance of Barack Zullo's to. document a n a l y s i s a n d Adobe computer programs. a t minimum. Hawaii Department o f H e a l t h numerous policies and procedures. review of Hawaii s t a t e law.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 C a s e P o s s e a n d was c h a r g e d whether as the electronic Obama's b i r t h Zullo with the task of determining House document r e l e a s e d by t h e W h i t e certificate was. the Cold Case Posse informed Sheriff In February Arpaio that there was l i k e l y forgery involved with the documents. " conclusions and cannot be r e l i e d place and the date. Barack authentic. Zullo § 7. and comparisons w i t h other b i r t h r e c o r d s . § 1 1 . f r o m numerous e x p e r t s computer generated i n the areas documents. " § 7. public a legal i s .

a j o u r n a l i s t Staff Reporter employed as a S e n i o r b y WND. research h i sextensive t o p u b l i s h h i s book The Case T h a t B a r a c k § Obama 9.In t h e course investigators misleading officials what. 25 .D. C o r s i f l e w t o Phoenix. §7 I d . the Cold Dr. ( C 4 0 ) a l l the research he c o n d u c t e d research.com. "The a l s o c h r o n i c l e d a s e r i e s o f i n c o n s i s t e n t and Hawaii years government regarding representations that various h a v e made o v e r the past five i fany. by t h e sworn and author Zullo's affidavit currently Dr. " C o r s i A f f i d a v i t the Cold Case Posse's Corsi aided over investigation to write h i s § 6. C o r s i extensively utilized researched OBAMA a n d h i s p a s t . Arizona t o meet w i t h Case Posse and present the evidence he he h a d p r o d u c e d conducted f o rt h e book and r e l e v a n t r e s e a r c h subsequently. turning book. Certificate: t o Be P r e s i d e n t . f r o m H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y and has Dr. o r i g i n a l of Health. conclusions also supported o f Jerome Corsi.D.. Ph. of their investigation.(C41) by "Where's t h e B i r t h is Not E l i g i b l e Dr. Corsi holds a Ph." birth records a r e h e l d by the Hawaii Department § 12 were (C37). as w e l l as any subsequent At Zullo's request.

h i s S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e Card. was m a n u f a c t u r e d electronically. S h e r i f f A r p a i o and f r a u d was l i k e l y committed i n key i d e n t i t y birth documents i n c l u d i n g P r e s i d e n t Obama's l o n g . 26 . issues of fact that are i n dispute as t o where H a w a i i a s he c l a i m s .f o r m certificate. and h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Number." § 8 I d . o r o u t s i d e o f t h e U n i t e d § 9 (C41) S t a t e s and i t s t e r r i t o r i e s " H a v i n g been p r e s e n t e d t h e evidence by i n v e s t i g a t o r concluded that "forgery Z u l l o and Dr. 27. private. a n d h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Number. 2 0 1 1 . 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. § 7 (C 39) on i n d i c a t i o n s i sa S h e r i f f Arpaio that based h i s conclusions " P r e s i d e n t Obama's l o n g .Dr. as c l a i m e d and i t d i d n o t o r i g i n a t e i n a paper format." A r p a i o Affidavit. both t h a t p u b l i s h e d and t h a t t h a t key i d e n t i t y including his " r e v e a l s a n d shows a l i k e l i h o o d p a p e r s f o r P r e s i d e n t Obama have b e e n f o r g e d .f o r m birth certificate c o m p u t e r ." Dr.g e n e r a t e d document. Corsi similarly concluded that "there are significant he was b o r n . Corsi's research. C o r s i . b y The W h i t e House.

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 . 1995). S. (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 . 2 d 4 9 7 .In "there and summary. 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 . official source Alabama A t t o r n e y to require fide General's opinion. Sheriff cause Arpaio that unequivocally the stated that i s probable document i s a forgery. was not a n a t u r a l . " With of in this strong evidence of fraud an coming from the as Sheriff provided certainly from Maricopa the County Arizona. (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 . of otherwise. Ex parte Integon Corp. 499 (Ala. would seem to mean t h a t Obama J r . . T h i s .. 672 So. of i t is reasonable the Secretary certificate. 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 . Id. s i n c e he was not born t o two U.b o r n American. then. 27 . State t o demand Obama a b o n a birth 3. S r . legal Barack or therefore of i t c a n n o t be the date. place circumstance Obama's b i r t h .^ u s e d as or a verification. thus making Obama the e l d e r a B r i t i s h s u b j e c t . 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. 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 . 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. the issuance of a writ 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 . Petitioners address each of these elements in turn. c i t i z e n p a r e n t s .

and c h i l d .^ estate taxes. u s d e b t c l o c k .census. See http://www. 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. include income t a x e s . the He h i s share of has a manifest national interest i n the maintenance to of constitutional of has government. w h i c h and typically taxes. of V i r g i n i a f o r the and of the United President of Goode i s a c i t i z e n States. debt. woman. h i s progeny. i n that and i t is vital his the wellbeing certainly himself. Further. M c l n n i s h States. sales among o t h e r s .gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cbll -215. See h t t p : / / w w w . right property.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. the burdened w i t h Mclnnish lawful.(1) A clear legal Appellants right to the order sought: to the of order the United 2012 taxes have a c l e a r l e g a l is a citizen right sought. He was a candidate O f f i c e of ^ 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. 28 . state's honest a clear legal to have duties a chief elections officer i n furtherance perform her to ensure stable.719 f o r e v e r y man. general he He is a o f Alabama and who voted a l l the registered voter He pays i n the election. elections of m a i n t a i n i n g constitutional government.6 million. each year numerous real he is owes. o r g / I n J u l y 2011.7 trillion.

The i m p e r a t i v e d u t y S t a t e o f Alabama stems from t h e o a t h o f o f f i c e took a t t h e time s h e assumed o f f i c e : 29 .N. Being candidates f o r the o f f i c e of President of the United t o compete f o r s a i d o f f i c e f o r the o f f i c e qualified he against denies compelled who may n o t be e l i g i b l e Mr. Code o f A l a . and t h e p r i n t i n g of b a l l o t s . 566 F. e t s e q . personal interest i n having Should from competing 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. McCain. 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 f o r the 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 . 2008) o f any be i n c l u d e d i n t h e t a l l y t h a t w o u l d n o t be t h e (D. i n t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a .H.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 a n d had an i n t e r e s t i n a fair presidential election.Supp. § 17-1-3 ( a ) ) . 1975 §17of the Secretary of t h a t she 14-20. to perform. candidates case. 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 . 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.68 (2) An I m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do so. election contest States. See H o l l a n d e r v.2d 63.

those who statute clearly who implies that not seek o f f i c e not are nor qualified. a r t . those entitled then certified their respective parties..I. 1. o f 1 9 0 1 . q u a l i f i e d f o r the (Those so by office (Emphasis added. X V I ." A l a . State C o d e 1975 as §17-9-3 i n s t r u c t s "(a) The the follows: following persons the they entitled ballot t o have t h e i r f o r the names p r i n t e d on election... s o l e m n l y s w e a r ( o r a f f i r m .) e. t o t h e b e s t o f my a b i l i t y . but purpose..) "[P]rovided surplusage included only added they are otherwise the qualified" i s not was mere a t whim by law for a L e g i s l a t u r e . and such their persons names on are the entitled. By i n the who substantive allowing the those the are "otherwise qualified" t o a p p e a r on there will be ballot. Secretary shall be of Ala. 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 . c l .g. Further. So h e l p me God. t o have ballot. 30 . they are appropriate are otherwise general provided seek. C o n s t . even p e r m i t t e d ." listed. 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 . § 2 7 9 . 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 . 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 .

S. exclusive. which to uphold. l e g i t i m a t e prima and by that the such as f a c i e . of t o be eligible As Office United States. oath C o n s t i t u t i o n .S. but these legitimate allowed on should ballot state's chief elections official. the e l e c t o r s and so framed that ineligibility and Congressional v. m i g h t be (1892). influence 1.. f o r one the provides the Secretary set of State of of has is the has a specific f o r the the requirements President clarified." The McPherson not Blacker. I t i s so cited form of Court government Justice Marshall the grounds Supreme J u s t i c e s ' oath for establishing 31 ..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 not not be anticipating of State submitted the which were de the facto. number o f persons. 35 excluded. The taken an U. The three oath of of office i s the common r o o t from which vital the to the our branches government that as spring. Supreme C o u r t of the State to ". way s t a t e s may i n any eligibility r e q u i r e m e n t s mandated by the C o n s t i t u t i o n .the with the power and exception the jurisdiction of the p r o v i s i o n s as of c e r t a i n Federal 146 alter U.

Education.S. i t may 349 1 compelled refer (1955).S. .. person I f the to run 32 Secretary of Office ineligible f o r the . 358 U. . would be obey the Constitution." Puerto V. would i n which the a f f i r m e d ) t h a t she of the ". Constitution the S t a t e o f Alabama.. to her Marbury oath v. Madison.S. Aaron. suffice to U.S. allows an 483 a t 228. Rico State of performance to and Brown Cooper v. U.. supra. s u p p o r t . must. an imperative duty to determine the 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 requirements on the P r e s i d e n c y and This f o r placement case doubt of a ballot. acting on b e h a l f of the U. occasions on to the superfluous to restate has a l l the which t h i s Court imposed upon s t a t e of the officials or a duty obey the requirements of such of Constitution. would-be about concerning his qualifications office The of "It S e c r e t a r y of State. 5 U. State Alabama. 137. of course. 294 Board v." and 19'?5 i n view §17-9-3. of instructions codified of c o n t a i n e d i n A l a .. under the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n .judicial fidelity (or review. (1958). she In swore of o f f i c e . Code i n law supra. duties. 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..Branstad.S.

the together the his attorney of O f f i c e of the Hon. absence of her office State. i n the state.President violation allowed. Code § O f f i c e of 17-16-44 States. others. f o r the Secretary represented any and would not i n v e s t i g a t e the her duties l e g i t i m a c y of under the U.S. offices seq. during which meeting of State. constitutional Lack of A n o t h e r A d e q u a t e Remedy s t a t u t e s . Appellant visited Mclnnish. provides: 33 . C o d e 1975 enumerated This list of § Alabama's E l e c t i o n Contest 17-9-3 e t . in Secretary Thompson. govern only be an elected for those does not t h a t may contested. President further specifically the United does mention the Ala. of Emily the that Deputy and Secretary speaking State. States i t w o u l d be This in direct be Constitution. 2012. candidate. State duty (3) It i s clear that the Secretary of 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. Yet with of of the the United U.S. and of This mention federal office. A l a . statute allows as w e l l as statute challenges elected not to to a l l Alabama the any judiciary state officers. outcome cannot on February and 2. thus v i o l a t i n g Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n s .

w o u l d mean s h e the U. i s s u e of The who eliminates jurisdiction these Alabama and of challenge not other s t a t u t e s do there i s no address the eligibility Secretary adequate remedy. State i s the to sole the the government o f f i c i a l name o f ballot. 34 office being .S. C o n s t i t u t i o n . I t w o u l d a l s o mean t h a t most serious s o r t would go unattended. wrong of one o r more p e r s o n s concerning of and the a b o u t whom t h e r e their were l e g i t i m a t e f o r the placed Office on the of questions President ballot without -- eligibility w o u l d be United States 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 .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 . of the 1975 and for a contest States. election President United Moreover. the violating highest this a namely land. or r e s u l t s a n y e l e c t i o n . Thus. 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 . If it the an is in a position candidate and interdict i t from illegitimate exclude Secretary was of State failed the to perform law this of duty. Thus § it does not of 17-9-3 i s t h e provide the only election to the contest by for of so and statute. conduct. A l a Code to §17-16-44 s p e c i f i c a l l y other e l e c t i o n s .

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 i n s t a n c e the obvious s i m p l e one. aforementioned §17-16-44 p r o v i d e s : "No j u r i s d i c t i o n e x i s t s i n o r s h a l l b e e x e r c i s e d by any j u d g e o r c o u r t t o e n t e r t a i n any p r o c e e d i n g for a s c e r t a i n i n g the l e g a l i t y . cases See ju r i s d i c t i o n i n v o l v i n g mandamus p u r s u a n t e. ( A l a . " In the case of Rice v. . 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 . Code 1975. 2010). A l a . remedy i s an each t o do fide to birth extraordinarily candidate t o do I t i s to require teenager i s required a bona the get a l e a r n e r ' s certificate. 4. Ex parte CollinSr 84 t o A l a . Chapman. State i s the I t i s to produce §32-6-8(b) a n d that to A l a . Code 1975 The §17-16-44 Does Not A l a . 50 So. C o d e 1975 official Secretary of t o cause happen.g. (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 Court to hear §6-6-640. C o d e 1975 3d 48. 1975 35 §17-16-44. what e v e r y permit. 3d 281(2010) the Alabama Supreme C o u r t i n v o k e d Code o f A l a . Bar This Action. 51 So. or r e s u l t s o f a n y e l e c t i o n . conduct.

c a l l e d concluded In Rice. n o r does this n o r does i t impact i tcontest the i s about the i n the election "conduct" of the election. Thus. i t i s only the proceedings conduct. i t h a d no j u r i s d i c t i o n sought the p l a i n t i f f to prevent the Republican ineligible The Party from canvassing votes cast f o r a possibly not timely that qualified. Rather results o f an e l e c t i o n . o f those lawsuit eligibility and the duty seeking to participate of the Secretary of State t o determine the of those attempting to participate. none by eligibility of the prohibited actions o f §17-16-44 a r e i m p l i c a t e d 36 . §17-16-44 "impact Republican prohibited found matter that one o f t h e s p e c i f i c a l l y reason that the Court I t was f o r t h i s stripped the Court from having subject j urisdiction. c a n d i d a t e who h a d a l l e g e d l y Alabama Supreme C o u r t from found the prevention of a party the 'conduct'" of the canvassing votes would Primary election. 16-44 o f any e l e c t i o n " this lawsuit prevents.the s o . actions. U n l i k e Rice. or results that entertain the t h a t §17- Yet "legality. " and t o hear the lawsuit. that "jurisdiction stripping s t a t u t e . does n o t seek t o question the the l e g a l i t y of the election.

for the i n i t s d e m a n d s made on of the United a candidate President States. documents. provide honorable his birth r a t i o n a l e f o r the certificate American has at Commander-in-Chief view of Alabama to withhold citizens. applying bona learner's birth he must submit The original. S. for a fide explained license supra. American f o r want As of which heart Constitutional the simplest of Government. CONCLUSION It w o u l d be of paradoxical the lies beyond measure the de of i f the facto our real and grave question a question l e g i t i m a c y of at the very President.this l a w s u i t and this l a w s u i t i s not barred by that statute. certificate. This to resolve from the and from the public? i t s fingertips By the power honorable Court this monumental conundrum. for a Writ granting be Petitioner's request o f Mandamus i t w i l l 37 . Further Constitution office of § 17-16-44 does not preempt the U. a teenager an were l e f t a birth unresolved certificate. joins any a troop. of same i s t r u e any f o r a Boy Scout before any artful possibly Could c l e v e r excuse. computer words. sleight an hand w i t h software.

resolved. or i t w i l l this n e c e s s a r i l y be a d m i t t e d important of l e g a l E i t h e r way. State have been answered. 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 Branch. left without as w e l l as t h e p e o p l e a remedy f o r t h e wrong o f the b a l l o t doubt. w o u l d be to Should wrong the Court not issue the w r i t here o f Alabama. most questions ballot stilled. there i s A maxim o f e q u i t y a remedy. among c o n s t i t u t e the L e g i s l a t i v e who nor a judge No. citizens of maintained. I t requires virtually of expenditure of time o r money b y t h e S e c r e t a r y holds that f o r every State. others c o n s t i t u t e the J u d i c i a l Branch. investigation. admitting Petitioners. purportedly thing: I t merely the production ordinary. As r e c o u n t e d explained means. t h e p u r i t y o f Alabama's and t h e a n x i e t y o f Alabama supra. requested. 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 38 . will E i t h e r a bone fide birth certificate will be not t o produced. already exists. He t h e name o f o n e w h o s e Nor i s i t a t y p i c a l legitimacy i s i n candidate that i s in others serious question. he among seeks to Branch. that the Deputy S e c r e t a r y was without her office called an i n v e s t i g a t i v e requires of no what The remedy f o r here. simply exist. commonplace no a birth certificate. requires a very however.

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 39 . this writ u r g e n t l y ask honorable Court ordering the from the candidates which Secretary for to obtain birth certificates States President of the United f o r the election was h e l d i n N o v e m b e r . i ^ n s o n \ (JOH046} L. result. S u i t e B H u n t s v i l l e . 4030 B a l m o r a l D r . within I f such birth order i n future presidential are not forthcoming the votes certificates of t h i s 45 d a y s a f t e r Court. a n d d o t h e same f o r a l l elections. .the President of the United Uncorrected. P r C . candidates 2 0 1 2 . this would States. certified f o r any c a n d i d a t e not responding s h o u l d be decertified. DEAN JOHNSON. 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 i n their governors. 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. l 7 D e a n . this society grievously. not without some that their justification.

Esq. Alabama 36130 40 . F l e m i n g J a m e s W.L a r r y Klayman. which w i l l send n o t i f i c a t i o n o f such f i l i n g t o t h e following: Hon. 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 . 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. 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. 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 . com Pro Hac V i c e CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 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 . 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. S u i t e 800 W a s h i n g t o n . L u t h e r S t r a n g e . NW.

C. 4030 Balmoral Dr. S u i t e B H u n t s v i l l e . Dean Johnson L.. BETH CHAPMAN.C. AL 35801 T e l : (256) 880-5177 L a r r y Klayman KLAYMZ^ LAW FIRM 2020 P e n n s y l v a n i a Ave. DEAN JOHNSON. e t a l . P. NW S u i t e 800 Washington. 20006 T e l : (310) 595-0800 Attorneys f o r Appellants . SECRETARY OF STATE Appellee. . APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY CV 2012-1053 APPENDICES TO BRIEF OF THE APPELLANTS L. Appellants V. 1120465 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA HUGH MCINNISH. D.Case No.

LIST OF APPENDICES Attorney Allen General's Opinion No. 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 2 . No. 1998-200 Appendix A Appendix B V.

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. 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. A l a b a m a 36130 1 .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 . L u t h e r S t r a n g e . D a v i s L a u r a 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. 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. F l e m i n g James W.

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 . 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. Box 5616 Montgomery. Alabama Attorney General Opinions 1998. certify to the probate judge of e a c h county in the state a Appendix A 1 of 4 . A l a b a m a 36103 Secretary of S t a t e . 1998-200 A u g u s t 12.A G O 1998-200. Bennett. D e a r Mr.C a n d i d a t e s . within 4 5 d a y s after the s e c o n d primary election.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 .Ballots .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 . 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. A G O 1998-200.1 6 .O. 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 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.1 6 . that a c a n d i d a t e h a s not met a certifying qualification. 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.4 0 of the C o d e of Alabama? FACTS AND ANALYSIS S e c t i o n 1 7 .

N o . A L A . 1 9 9 0 . A L A . 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.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). 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. A l a b a m a law directs the S e c r e t a r y of State to certify only i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s who h a v e properly filed p u r s u a n t to section 17-7- Appendix A 2 of 4 . section 1 7 . 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.2 5 . C O D E § 3 6 . S o m e of the qualifications. 1998. C O D E § 1716. 9 8 0 0 1 9 4 . N o . S e c t i o n 17. H a n d . 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 .0 0 2 2 3 . 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 . C O D E § 36-25-15(c) ( S u p p . T h e C o d e d o e s not require the S e c r e t a r y of State to determine w h e t h e r e a c h n o m i n e e m e e t s all the qualifications for his or her particular office. O p i n i o n to H o n o r a b l e P e r r y A . W h e t h e r a petition by a n i n d e p e n d e n t candidate fulfills the r e q u i r e m e n t s of section 17-71 (a)(3) is within the official k n o w l e d g e of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e .1 5 ( S u p p . G .m. 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 . h o w e v e r .4 0 (1995). A L A . dated April 19. T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s the duty to e n s u r e that the written petition filed by a n independent c a n d i d a t e is in a c c o r d a n c e with s e c t i o n 17-7-1 (a)(3). F o r e x a m p l e .1 6 . 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. C O D E § 17-7-1 (a)(3) (1995). 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. 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 . 1997). A . A L A . dated J u l y 2 9 . certify to the probate judge of e a c h county in the state. A . 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 . the S e c r e t a r y of State s h o u l d not certify the candidate. 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. G . s i x d a y s after the s e c o n d primary e l e c t i o n . 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 .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. . . 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. 1997). A L A . not later than 4 5 d a y s after the s e c o n d primary. Similarly. 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. C O D E § 17-7-1 (c) (1995). e x c e p t n o m i n e e s for c o u n t y offices. .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). 9 0 . in the c a s e of an officer to be voted for by the electors of the w h o l e state. to be voted for by the voters of s u c h county. 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.

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. 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 . convention. 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. 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. QUESTION 3 If the a n s w e r to q u e s t i o n #1 is in the affirmative. C O D E § 17-7-1 (a)(1) & (2) (1995). is the obligation to e v a l u a t e qualifications limited to a ministerial r e v i e w b a s e d u p o n the facts within the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s p o s s e s s i o n . 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. the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h o u l d not certify a c a n d i d a t e w h e n he h a s official k n o w l e d g e that the c a n d i d a t e is not entitled to be o n the ballot. 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.1(a)(3). 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 . CONCLUSION T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e d o e s not h a v e a n obligation to evaluate all of the qualifications of the n o m i n e e s of political parties a n d i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s for state offices prior to certifying s u c h n o m i n e e s a n d c a n d i d a t e s to the probate j u d g e s pursuant to s e c t i o n s 17-7-1 a n d 17-16-40 of the C o d e of A l a b a m a . m a s s m e e t i n g . M o r e o v e r . or d o e s it a l s o extend to a n obligation to investigate factual allegations c o n c e r n i n g the qualifications of c a n d i d a t e s for state o f f i c e s ? FACTS. that a c a n d i d a t e h a s not met a certifying qualification. QUESTION 4 Appendix A 3 of 4 . 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 . & CONCLUSION A s stated a b o v e . QUESTION 2 If the a n s w e r to q u e s t i o n #1 is in the affirmative. 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 . ANALYSIS. See A L A . ANALYSIS. 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. & CONCLUSION A s stated a b o v e . 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 . 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.

98/M Appendix A 4 of 4 . Sincerely. 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.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. & CONCLUSION A s stated in q u e s t i o n 3. ANALYSIS. J R . Chief. this question n e e d not be a d d r e s s e d . p l e a s e contact B r e n d a F. BILL P R Y O R Attorney G e n e r a l By: J A M E S R. 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. S m i t h of m y staff. If this Office c a n be of further a s s i s t a n c e . S O L O M O N . O p i n i o n s D i v i s i o n BP/WBM B7. 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 .

J u d g e W a r r e n Laird. that A l l e n s h o u l d not b e certified on the ballot for the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l election a s the D e m o c r a t i c Party c a n d i d a t e for a district court j u d g e s h i p in W a l k e r C o u n t y . 1 9 9 9 . in W a l k e r C o u n t y . Appendix B 1 of 8 . . I. g e n . M o n t g o m e r y . d e c l a r i n g . Jr.attys. for A p p e l l e e s S e c r e t a r y of state. g e n . 1 9 9 9 . J o r d a n . W e affirm. 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. for a p p e l l e e don Bervill. 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. of W a l l a c e . r e s i g n e d .2d 679 (Ala. creating a v a c a n c y in the office of district court j u d g e . 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. Bill Pryor. 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. J r . Bennett P a g e 679 823 So. December 28. P a g e 680 J o s e p h W . 2 d 6 7 9 (Ala. Nelson Allen. C . 1 9 9 2 2 8 9 . Clliford III. a n d C h a r l e s Brinsfield C a m p h e l l a n d William P . Ratliff & Brandt. a m o n g other things. J a s p e r . 2 0 0 1 ) . Supreme Court of A l a b a m a . L . H u d s o n . for appellant. . L . B R O W N . V. as Secretary of State of the State of Alabama. . . a s S e c r e t a r y of State of the State of A l a b a m a . O n D e c e m b e r 1. 1992289. asst. 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 .8 2 3 S o . J i m Bennett. 2001) Jim Bennett. atty. p l a c e no. Algert S . a n d Bevill w a s s w o r n in on D e c e m b e r 1. A l l e n v.. 2001. 1. A g r i c o l a . Justice.

A l a . 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. J u d g e Bevill's term of office would expire on J a n u a r y 15. 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. 2 0 0 0 . A specific q u e s t i o n put to the court by the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e w a s : W h e n is J u d g e Bevill's term of office a s district court j u d g e d u e to e x p i r e ? After the circuit a n d district j u d g e s of W a l k e r C o u n t y r e c u s e d t h e m s e l v e s . 2 0 0 0 . T h e two then met in a run-off e l e c t i o n . T h e m e m o r a n d u m c o n c l u d e d that. A l l e n . 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 . 2 0 0 0 . therefore. A l l e n w o n the run-off. C o d e 1 9 7 5 . 1. p l a c e no. 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 . W a l k e r C o u n t y w a s o n e of those counties.1 5 9 (2000). N o . u n d e r the pertinent constitutional p r o v i s i o n s . the n a m e s of Bevill. .'^''^ P u r s u a n t to 17-7-1 (c) a n d 1 7 . a n d a third p e r s o n . a n d the ballots w e r e printed. p l a c e no. b e p l a c e d on the 2 0 0 0 election ballot. J u d g e Bevill's term of office w o u l d not. pursuant to 6.e l e c t i o n ballot. h o w e v e r . 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 h i c h w a s s c h e d u l e d for J u n e 6.1 6 . s h o u l d . by A u g u s t 13. a n d that. J u d g e Bevill.O n M a r c h 28.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . H o w e v e r . 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. in fact. J u d g e Bevill h a d r e q u e s t e d a legal opinion f r o m the attorney g e n e r a l a s to w h e n his term of office expired a n d w h e t h e r the district court j u d g e s h i p . 2 0 0 0 . 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. O n M a y 30. 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. In the m e a n t i m e . 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 . but instead w o u l d expire in J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 . stating that. O n J u l y 7. 1. 3 2 8 to the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1901 a n d other pertinent constitutional provisions. this C o u r t appointed retired M o n t g o m e r y Circuit J u d g e William Appendix B 2 of 8 . S e e O p . 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 . J u d g e Bevill w a s not required to run for office in the 2 0 0 0 election. the attorney g e n e r a l i s s u e d an opinion. 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. 2 0 0 0 . 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. 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. 2 0 0 0 . with neither receiving m o r e than 5 0 % of the v o t e s . S u b s e q u e n t l y . 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. a s the A O C h a d o p i n e d . 2 0 0 0 . J i m W e l l s . 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 .4 0 . expire in J a n u a r y 2 0 0 1 . 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 . Att'y G e n . A l l e n . held o n J u n e 2 7 . 2 0 0 1 .

2 0 0 0 . 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. II.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 . o n the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l election ballot. the circuit court entered its judgment.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 . 8 1 4 . M a d i s o n . p l a c e no. d e c l a r i n g (1) that. T h e parties stipulated to the facts of the c a s e . Ogilvie. however. Bennett. 1998). C l a r k e . retires. P i c k e n s . w e hold that the interpretation of 6. a n d (4) that. A judge. 3 2 8 in this c a s e a n d h e n c e this a p p e a l is not moot. W i l c o x . S e e Griggs v. S e c t i o n 6. 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.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . 4 1 2 n. w a s not o n t h e ballot. W a l k e r C o u n t y . therefore. 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. S e c t i o n 6. 7 1 0 S o . 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. p l a c e no. citing V. (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 . 1. for the aforementioned r e a s o n s . H e n r y . 1. 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. O n a p p e a l . S . O n A u g u s t 9. or is r e m o v e d .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 . Walker. H o w e v e r .4 ( A l a . 1. in the Constitution established by a properly law. (2) that. J u d g e Bevill's term of office a s district court judge. G r e e n e . a s the winner of the primary election. 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. the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h o u l d not certify the n a m e s of a n y c a n d i d a t e s for the office of district court j u d g e . p l a c e no. occurring in any Moore v a c a n c i e s occurring in a n y judicial office in J e f f e r s o n county shall be filled a s n o w p r o v i d e d by a m e n d m e n t s 8 3 a n d 110 to the Constitution of A l a b a m a of 1901 a n d vacancies [or] St. 2 d 4 1 1 . III. the a p p e a l s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d . 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. or as may be otherwise in S h e l b y . 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 . W a s h i n g t o n . 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 . M o n r o e . accordingly. T a l l a p o o s a . pursuant to 6. appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve an initial term Appendix B 3 of 8 . Vacancies judicial office shall be filled by appointment by the governor.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . T u s c a l o o s a . other t h a n a probate j u d g e . r e s i g n s . C l a i r county shall be filled as provided hereafter adopted. 394 U . E t o w a h . of 1901 with amendments advertised and enacted now or local C o n e c u h . 8 1 6 (1969).

^^^ S e c t i o n 158 provides that a j u d g e filling a v a c a n c y shall s e r v e until the next Page 683 g e n e r a l election following the expiration of six months after the v a c a n c y o c c u r r e d . 3 2 8 . S e c t i o n 158. 2 d 9 3 2 . of w h i c h 6. T h u s . 7 0 3 S o . a n d with it 158. H o w e v e r .14 h a s specifically r e p l a c e d 158). 7 0 3 S o .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. S e e Hooper 2 0 7 .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 . v a c a n c i e s in judicial offices in A l a b a m a "shall be filled Appendix B 4 of 8 . 2 d at 9 3 9 . A m e n d m e n t N o . Siegelman. If." 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 . r e p e a l e d Article VI. 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. like J u d g e Bevill.14 is g o v e r n e d by 158 of the Constitution of A l a b a m a of 1901. 2 d N o . 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 . A l i e n a r g u e s .1 0 (Ala. controls in this state. Id. A m e n d m e n t v.) T h e proviso in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6. U n d e r the g e n e r a l provision of 6. J u d g e Bevill's term of office is g o v e r n e d by 158. certified a s the D e m o c r a t i c Party's candidate. "would h a v e the court read b a c k into 6. s u p r a . with A l l e n . 3 2 8 . 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. Sessions. his interpretation violated the principles of constitutional construction.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. 9 3 9 ( A l a . a s the w i n n e r of the D e m o c r a t i c Party primary.e l e c t i o n ballot. a s A l l e n urges.14. 2 0 0 1 . A l l e n ' s interpretation.14 is a part. u p o n w h i c h A l l e n relies. 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. 386 S o . 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. the court s a i d . it s a i d . T h e circuit court rejected A l l e n ' s a r g u m e n t that 158 g o v e r n s the term of office of a judge a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y in o n e of the counties listed in the proviso in 6. including W a l k e r C o u n t y . 1980) (noting that 6. 1997). w e h a v e s t a t e d . " Hornsby. 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 .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. w h i c h a m e n d m e n t .^"^^ S e e Hornsby v. Bevill's term w a s d u e to expire o n J a n u a r y 15." "In s e a r c h i n g for the proper construction of a constitutional provision.14 b e c a u s e . 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 . 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 . 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.14 applies to judicial v a c a n c i e s in s e v e r a l specifically listed counties. 2 0 9 . 3 2 8 . a s he did in the circuit court. N o t h i n g in the l a n g u a g e of 6." (Emphasis added.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o .

14.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. 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 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 .14) a n d H o u s t o n C o u n t y (a county not listed in the proviso). T h e question p r e s e n t e d in Griggs w a s w h e n w a s a p e r s o n a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y in a circuit court j u d g e s h i p in the T w e n t i e t h J u d i c i a l Circuit.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 .14. not altering w h e n the term of a p e r s o n a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y e n d s or w h e n a n election to fill the v a c a n c y must be held. w h i c h i n c l u d e s the p r o v i s o .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 .by appointment by the governor. the proviso in 6. required to s t a n d for election. 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 . 1998). Bennett. 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. W e d o not a g r e e . 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. W e held that a strict construction of the proviso in 6. T h i s construction of 6. "implicitly a c c e p t e d " his interpretation of 6.'-^-' the third s e n t e n c e of 6.14 a n d r e c o g n i z e d that 158 of what w a s Article VI of the A l a b a m a Constitution g o v e r n s the term of office of a j u d g e a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y in a c o u n t y listed in the proviso.14.14 is dictated by its l a n g u a g e . A l t h o u g h the appellants in Griggs." T h e l a n g u a g e that follows that g e n e r a l provision in 6. 2 d 411 (Ala.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. 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. Appendix B 5 of 8 . T h e r e is nothing in the third s e n t e n c e of 6.14 that c a n be c o n s t r u e d a s excepting from its o p e r a t i o n the c o u n t i e s listed in the proviso in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14 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. A l l e n a r g u e s that this C o u r t in Griggs v. 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. like A l l e n . T h e proviso in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.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. 7 1 0 S o . 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 ." 6.

" Griggs. either by w o r d s . J u d g e Bevill is not required to stand for election until the 2 0 0 2 election. 1980). 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. w e hold that the circuit court correctly determined that J u d g e Bevill's term of office d o e s not expire until J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 . A l l e n s a y s . 7 1 0 S o . of Rebel Lumber " E q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l is to be applied a g a i n s t a g o v e r n m e n t a l entity only with e x t r e m e caution or Appendix B 6 of 8 .. 4 3 7 S o . 1243 ( A l a . A c c o r d i n g l y . Electric Credit Corp. [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 . or s i l e n c e . w h o usually m u s t h a v e k n o w l e d g e of the facts. 6 4 ( A l a . 1996). w h o l a c k s k n o w l e d g e of the facts. ' a n d "(3) That 'the p e r s o n relying w o u l d be h a r m e d materially if the actor is later permitted to a s s e r t a claim inconsistent with his earlier conduct. c o n d u c t . T h u s . 2 d 1 2 4 0 . relies upon [the] c o m m u n i c a t i o n . Siegelman. 2 0 9 . 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 . 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 . the application of w h i c h is in doubt. 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. 2 d 6 1 . Mail Handlers Benefit Plan. 2 d at 4 1 3 . 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 . 6 8 2 S o .14 h a s r e p l a c e d 158 a s the g e n e r a l constitutional provision with l a n g u a g e governing the term of office of a p e r s o n appointed to fill a judicial v a c a n c y in A l a b a m a . ' "(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 .1 0 (Ala. " W h e n a court is interpreting a proviso. 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 . 1983). " 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 . 2 d 2 0 7 . 3 8 6 S o .'" Lambert v. v. Strickland T h i s Court h a s h e l d : Div. IV. 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 . 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 . this C o u r t h a s previously r e c o g n i z e d that 6. 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. he s a y s .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. S e e Hooper v. quoting General Co.

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 . Jr. equitable e s t o p p e l .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 . 7 0 9 .2d 123 (5th Cir. United States. 1 L . H o u s t o n . must be predicated u p o n the conduct.. The representation must be as to the facts and not as to the law. 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. 2 d 1 2 0 2 . 182. . F o r the r e a s o n s s t a t e d a b o v e . A l a . 1 2 0 4 . ' " U n d e r the settled law. J o h n s t o n e . S a i d conduct. Commissioner. 5 9 4 S o . Headrick 3 5 3 U . S u p p . 2 8 5 F. l a n g u a g e . S t e p h e n s . 1959). 180... S u p p . 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. 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. the circuit court's j u d g m e n t is d u e to be. 4 3 2 S o . 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 . at 7 7 2 . l a n g u a g e . c o n c u r . v.. AFFIRMED. a n d is h e r e b y . the u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e before the circuit court s h o w e d that the S e c r e t a r y of State a c t e d diligently in s e e k i n g the declaratory j u d g m e n t a n d that he did not u n r e a s o n a b l y d e l a y bringing the a c t i o n . Dep't v. a n d Stuart. quoting v. he s a y s . J J . . H a r w o o d . 1992). afTd." Outdoor Adver. 7 7 S . 1 district court j u d g e s h i p . 7 0 7 .0 5 (Ala. W o o d a l i . 7 6 8 ( M . Inc. Notes: C h a r l e s R. First Nat'l Bank of Montgomery 1983). 2 d 7 4 6 (1957). 176 F . S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e B e n n e t t c a n n o t be e s t o p p e d from s e e k i n g the declaratory j u d g m e n t in this c a s e . S e e .. 2 d 1290 ( A l a . S . of a mistake of law. is not s u p p o s e d to be h e l d .. T h e S e c r e t a r y of P a g e 686 State h a s no authority to certify n a m e s for p l a c e m e n t on a ballot for a n election that. Ex parte Fields. C t . Appendix B 7 of 8 .' estoppel is not a barto the correction. affirmed. under the pertinent p r o v i s i o n s of the A l a b a m a Constitution. D . . 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.'" Automobile "'The doctrine of equitable " ( E m p h a s i s a d d e d [in Headrick Club of Michigan State Highway Outdoor Advertising]. 1961).) 176 F . H o w e v e r . E d .. L y o n s ..

shall be filled by appointment by the governor. 8 3 . or c h a n c e l l o r s of this state. 6 1 5 to the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1 9 0 1 . 3 3 4 . 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. 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 . T h e a p p o i n t e e s h a l l hold his office until the next g e n e r a l election for a n y state officer held at least s i x m o n t h s after the v a c a n c y o c c u r s . 4 0 8 .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 . M o b i l e . 8 3 a n d N o . N o . A m e n d m e n t s N o . by local law. for e x a m p l e . a n d a m e n d m e n t s 3 1 7 a n d 3 2 3 thereof. a n d T a l l a d e g a counties h a v e b e e n a d o p t e d . 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. 2 0 0 0 . s u c h a s a judicial nominating c o m m i s s i o n . 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 .]" S e c t i o n 6. 8 3 a n d N o .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. 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[. " A m e n d m e n t s N o . 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 . 110 to the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1 9 0 1 . 3 2 8 states: "Article VI of the Constitution of A l a b a m a of 1901 a s a m e n d e d . T h u s . 6 0 7 . 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 . Att'y G e n .14. 6. a n d N o . .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 . 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 . N o . S e e A m e n d m e n t s N o . a n d N o . a n alternate appointment process.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 . Appendix B 8 of 8 .1 5 9 (2000). A s the attorney g e n e r a l stated in O p . 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. 6 0 7 . S i n c e the e n a c t m e n t of 6." ^^•I T h e p r e a m b l e to A m e n d m e n t N o .

September 11th. and confirme^l bjr you. The vicepresidential. Califomia / Appendix C 1 of 1 . 1 Los Angslesj Califomia 90036 Dear Mr.Mch is a requireiaQnt under our federal constitution for president. Cleaver i s 33 and not 3^ years old ^. 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 ^. " FEANK JORDAN Secretaiy of State / /' H.selection (Peggy Terry) and the hO electoral college voters •will be certified* Under California law. Apt. please. Sullivan Assistant Seorotaiy of State HPS/pv/m co: Stuart Weinberg h$ Polk Street San franoisco. Weinberg: To confirai our telephone ccmversaticn last V. The Peace and Freedm party name vdll. Sincere'ly. just tho nariio of the party and i t s candidatos ^pear on the ballot. P. that I-tr.FRANK K . Jack Weinberg 3^0 North Spaulding. 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.^ednesdajr. 1968 general election ballot* InfoiTiiation i n our possession indicates. appear on the ballot and your candidate for vice-president on3y.

up until that point. 4. 3. i f called as a witness. In August of last year. ) AFFIDAVIT I. I have the authority to request the aid of the volunteer posse. Arizona. to assist me in the execution of my duties. 2. and. The investigation mainly focused on the electronic document that was II Appendix D 1 of 2 .000 members. This posse consists of former police officers and attorneys who have worked investigating the controversy surrounding Barack Obama. The Cold Case posse agreed to undertake the investigation requested by the 250 citizens of Maricopa County. 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. do hereby state under oath and under penalty of perjury that the facts are true: 1. being first duly sworn. can authorize an investigation go forward to answer these questions at virtually noexpense to the-tax payer. This group expressed its concern that. for 51 years. citing lack of resources and jurisdictional challenges. 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. Under the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes. located in the county. 5. the undersigned. Having organized a volunteer posse of approximately 3. as the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County. as the Sheriff of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office. I am oyer the age of 18 and am a resident of Arizona. in both state and federal government.State of Arizona County of Maricopa ) ) ss. could testify competently thereto. I am the duly elected Sheriff of Maricopa County. The Maricopa County Sheriff s Office is in a rather unique position. The information contained in this affidavit is based upon my own personal knowledge. I. and I have been a law enforcement officer and official.

The Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into Barack Obama's birth certificate and his eligibility to be president is on-going. Maricopa County Sheriff Sworn to and subscribed me this 3S9'iDea before b 1 ^ day of 2012. As soon as that information has been properly verified by the Cold Case Posse. of the date. 201 Maricopa County. may have been imported from another unknown source document. Arizona. I will release that information to the public. it cannot be used as a verification. 9. and that it did not originate in a paper format.2011. 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. 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. 8. 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. M y investigators and I believe that President Obama's.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. and his Social Security number.birth certificate is a computer-generated document. LYNDA JEMSEMORBM Notw Piittlo. Executed this / p day of June. as claimed by the White House. the "registrar's stamp" in the computer generated document released by the White House and posted on the White House website. Arpaio.aittB ofArim MAMOOMOOUNTV MV v D n i W t M n Kni^^ Appendix D 2 of 2 . Upon close examination of the evidence. his Selective Service Registration card. place or circumstances of Barack Obama's birth. 7. it is my belief that forgery andfiraudwas likely committed in key identity documents including President Obama's longform birth certificate. was manufactured electronically.long-form. Joseph M . legal or otherwise. Most importantly. 6. and therefore. 2012.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful