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

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 . E. B. I.i i iii-iv v vi vii-viii 1 4 5 7 8 9 9 ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS .. A. D. H. INTRODUCTION i . II. C.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.. 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.. F.

0. A l l elements 1. N. 3. 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. M. P. K. 35 37 40 iv ... 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. L. 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 .. A. 2.J.

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

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. name 6. 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. 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. 1 .STATEMENT OF This dismissal Court. 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. r e c e i p t of such a prerequisite to their ballot placed general on t h e Alabama election. To f o r t h e November i s s u e a p r e l i m i n a r y and the placement 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.

11. 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. Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n s . State. 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. and was assigned H o n o r a b l e E u g e n e W. the as time was 6. which Mclnnish 31. violating U. State. t h a t the Secretary's Dismiss -the 2. 12. 2012: Mclnnish was and Goode f u l l y October status Goode f i l e d the essence.S.The Motion Court to below held. at visited Hon. for Secretary of and motion to dismiss. 18. was i n error. Timeline of February and others Case 2012: the Mclnnish Office together the with his attorney State. a motion the conference s i n c e time of 2 . Mclnnish and Goode f i l e d This case suit in the October Circuit to the Court 2012: o f Montgomery County. 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. State filed her opposed. Reese.

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

4 . doctrine election 2. 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.STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES The 1. even though about which i t revolves i s past. 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.

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

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. shall the a bone f i d e be certificate. (09) U.any candidate. and Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n s .S. thus violating her duties Compl. § and under the 13. records i t was 6 . 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. On the writ October 11.

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

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 . 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.S. 8 . 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. t h e amount o f t i m e results holder. required f o r an e l e c t i o n t o tabulated. officer f o r the state." addition.S. of office the Alabama Constitutions. 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. 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. 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. more t h a n years. case We i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s c h e r i s h anything andhold e l e c t i o n s matter our r i g h t t o vote 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.

S. " b o r n on A m e r i c a n citizens. 5. "natural-born" Sec. C o n s t i t u t i o n . Or armed f o r c e s . 5 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . 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. 1. S e c . A r t i c l e t h e U. C l . Although a President be a II.S. 9 . whether he meets t h e o f President as natural-born citizen.S. t h e Commander i n C h i e f o f leader o f t h e Free high World. 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 l . 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. a mere " c i t i z e 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 . that evidence The lies U. 1.ARGUMENT INTRODUCTION A gnawing indeed question vexes t h e Alabama body p o l i t i c and Obama. U. 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." 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. not necessarily natural-born question regarding That Obama i s w h e t h e r h e i s a i s . C o n s t i t u t i o n r e q u i r e s citizen.

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. 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. 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. The question. fact that the e l e c t i o n i s past infra does n o t o b v i a t e t h e i t moot. n o r a s we e x p l a i n does i t r e n d e r Answers t o D e f e n d a n t ' s Renewed M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s The court below g a v e no h i n t o f i t s r a t i o n a l e f o r We. i n Chapman's m o t i o n address to dismiss. these points 10 .In an e f f o r t to resolve this persistent question two Mr. therefore. Obama h a s p r o d u c e d birth the certificates. are left with the dismissing assumption averments t h e case. i n turn. 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.

that i t does not support Chapman's c l a i m the present case Bell v. the q u e s t i o n of mootness. 625. that t h e o p e r a t o r s had. Outreach. from u s i n g further. 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. the case Angeles Davis. 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. 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.2010). was held a case o f non-mootness. she cited 42 the case of So. a sense.Chapman f i r s t grounds In V. Bell as cited involved a case i n which a person disqualified County. Eagerton. but had had agreed not not further the machines agreed to r e f r a i n and that. Barber. not the machines t h e r e was no that not been seized. i s moot. 908 So 2d 204 was Chapman a l s o (Ala. v. S. 2002). seized. 3d 65.. 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 . Los (Ala. Of Cornerstone Inc. operate Since machines. Barber 70-71 440 U. The Court observed t o use which defendants in alleged. (1979). In 631 q u o t i n g Cnty.

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. No. as shown i n t h e 12 . In the u n l i k e l y case moot. D. case. The e x c e p t i o n s a r e b y many.take the proper legal actions. was h e l d . 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 Board of Probation and Parole. 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 . 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. 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. (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 . i f n o t most s t a t e s . 598 M.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 . 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. v. 2 0 0 1 . " a n u n r e p o r t e d s i n g l e .

repetition 814. and i s without will this a complaint we need probably than the recur. D. Commonwealth C o u r t E x c e p t i o n 2. Capable of 394 U. Pennsylvania Questions of Board of of great public Probation No. The present and 1: case falls under each of moot: involves a question question of and of of the three named exceptions. 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. Moore v.. Parole. Ogilvie. 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. 2-09-0472.S. 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. Coady v. case such t o be i n s e r i o u s doubt. where the l e g i t i m a c y of at been determined question Moreover. t h a t can.E x c e p t i o n 1. evading E x c e p t i o n 3. 2001. review. A p a r t y would s u f f e r of a detriment. government. and 598 but importance. District. Stephen No. J. 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 . Pennsylvania M.

404 U. f o r harm Thus happen every the p o t e n t i a l cycle. 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. t h a t he a presidential candidate.S. SEC v. Munsingwear. s h o u l d be a s s u r e d candidate. 394 U.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. Medical committee for Human Rights. legitimate himself was c a n d i d a t e s were Goode. Wade i n w h i c h said i n part: Blackmun.. 1 0 2 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . 14 . election was h o n e s t . 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. Zwickler.S. 36 1 9 5 0 ) . 4 0 3 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . Inc. 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. case.S. f o r t h em a j o r i t y . United States v. 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. 3: W i t h o u t suffer will a decision of the court. 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 . Golden v. 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. 3 4 0 U. Exception y e t avoiding review.

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 . 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. 410 U. election I t was a r g u e d was o v e r . her relief. the f o r the court the court case. Bennett ( A p p e n d i x B) i s Secretary that instructive.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. particularly of State the case v. 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 . abortion not the case case i t would to grant withstanding. t h e n o r m a l 2 6 6 . 166 (1973). applied the mootness exceptions and heard o f Allen In Alabama. 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 . 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 . 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. I t was o b v i o u s l y B u t . Wade. 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. since that i t involves the Allen and an e l e c t i o n of State i s past. 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 . 1 1 3 . a s h e r e . as seen and i n an o r d i n a r y too late above. 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. 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 . I f t h a t t e r m i n a t i o n makes a c a s e moot. p r e g n a n c y 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 . i f man i s t o s u r v i v e . Our l a w s h o u l d n o t be t h a t r i g i d . y e t e v a d i n g r e v i e w " Roe v. i t w i l l a l w a y s be w i t h u s .S.B u t when. be moot.

( I t a l i c s a d d e d . ) Allen v. t h i s c a s e i s n o t m o o t .said: H o w e v e r because the outcome of t h i s case could Impact future e l e c t i o n s . 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. 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. 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. 823 S o . address turn: 1. § under 16 State's duties Alabama . Next. 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. 2 d 679 ( A l a b a m a 2001) As i s true would by analogy in this case. 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. elections for The not official Secretary of and shall "chief the state provide uniform guidance 17-1-3 ( a ) ) . . valid this case i s not moot i t qualifies exceptions to the mootness doctrine. l a w do election Secretary activities" of (Code o f A l a . 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 .

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. 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 . Attorney G e n e r a l ' s O p i n i o n No. certainly it her doing i s the right t o do. u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g o f CONCLUSION. argument. 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. i n the form as she seems t o a r g u e . especially be halt. c o r r u p t i o n would grind to a rampant. the case o f an e l e c t e d official. 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.provide If an e x c u s e f o r her inaction. 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 . as h e r e . O p i n i o n No. 1 9 9 8 . of "legal duty" were t h e absolute compulsion criterion only in f o r a person performing her duty. 1998-200.2 0 0 .

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

place r e j e c t e d Ms. 1968.eligibility of presidential candidates. the Secretary of State to put issued ballot. A p p e n d i x C. 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. In a l e t t e r t o Jack Weinberg (Chairman. ( I t a l i c s added. Secretary primary Debra Bowen. 1 9 6 8 g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n ballot. s h e was 27 y e a r s . 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 . J a c k W e i n b e r g . h o w e v e r . 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 . S e p t e m b e r 18. of State Cleaver California that F r a n k M. J o r d a n t o Mr. h e r name o n t h e b a l l o t .. t h a t M r . (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. 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. where One s u c h i n 1968 i n C a l i f o r n i a . because 19 and refused t o old. i n 2012.) Likewise. name o n t h e C a l i f o r n i a . 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 i n d s a y . L e t t e r f r o m F r a n k M..

i s no bar to a state In There States has official the the Constitution. Contrary determine United to this assertion by Chapman. elections Again. at which 35 requires years of candidates President least 2. an oath fact. she well i t i s her officer. official to above. as Alabama E l e c t i o n Constitutional discussed a United to provisions pertaining elections. 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. for Article to be 2. 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. 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 . Constitution. law as i s required as the enforce States and. certainly for a provision i s not of state enforce See Constitutional the unprecedented. 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 . not eligible under that age. United State States chief P r e s i d e n t i a l Candidate. 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. 20 . to Secretary the as taken explicitly as support duty to United Alabama Constitution.S.and §1.

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

Additional The case: important p o i n t s of the argument are important to this following additional points 1. Plaintiffs' Since c l a i m was f i l e d too their late. 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. 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. but Plaintiffs of have d e a l t a l l future this elections in their with question discussion Again.5. i t nonmoot. However. any sufficient 22 . eligibility i n future of candidates will and the question an be of t o be issue election cycles. even i f t h i s untimely valid as Court were f o r the 2012 to i t was hold Plaintiffs' contentions 2012 well. w r i t was are still election. needs to capable resolved. 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 . continue issue the mootness. of supra. T h i s Case Is merits. writ before the 2012 filed that the the as Plaintiffs brought general timely.

Wade. and by t h e l e a d e r o f h i s Zullo. 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. i n Roe v.Plaintiffs. t o r e c u r . A r p a i o A f f i d a v i t .f o r m certificate in Maricopa o f 2011 upon p e t i t i o n by 250 r e s i d e n t s o f County. a n d was c o m p r i s e d investigators 5(C35) enforcement Affidavit. " There birth i s strong technical submitted evidence of fraud i nthe Obama. 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. 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 . a c r i t i c a l which i s presented answer question of statewide here from i s certain this Court. 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. 2. suit as move f o r w a r d therefore. 2 0 1 1 . 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 . § 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.§ and p r a c t i c i n g attorneys. County A r i z o n a . Zullo 23 .

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

"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.D.com. C o r s i f l e w t o Phoenix. 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. " 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. turning book. §7 I d . Certificate: t o Be P r e s i d e n t . the Cold Dr. Ph. as w e l l as any subsequent At Zullo's request. 25 . o r i g i n a l of Health.In t h e course investigators misleading officials what.D." birth records a r e h e l d by the Hawaii Department § 12 were (C37). conclusions also supported o f Jerome Corsi. f r o m H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y and has Dr. Corsi holds a Ph. 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. C o r s i extensively utilized researched OBAMA a n d h i s p a s t .. 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. 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. by t h e sworn and author Zullo's affidavit currently Dr. ( C 4 0 ) a l l the research he c o n d u c t e d research.

C o r s i . b y The W h i t e House. was m a n u f a c t u r e d electronically. Corsi similarly concluded that "there are significant he was b o r n . 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 . a n d h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Number. 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.g e n e r a t e d document. h i s S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e Card. 27.f o r m birth certificate c o m p u t e r . private." A r p a i o Affidavit.Dr. 26 . 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. 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 . § 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 . Corsi's research. 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." Dr. and h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Number." § 8 I d . 2 0 1 1 .f o r m certificate. 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 .

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

w h i c h and typically taxes. 28 .gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cbll -215. general he He is a o f Alabama and who voted a l l the registered voter He pays i n the election. See http://www. each year numerous real he is owes.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. M c l n n i s h States. See h t t p : / / w w w . of V i r g i n i a f o r the and of the United President of Goode i s a c i t i z e n States. He was 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.census. state's honest a clear legal to have duties a chief elections officer i n furtherance perform her to ensure stable. and c h i l d . sales among o t h e r s . 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. elections of m a i n t a i n i n g constitutional government. i n that and i t is vital his the wellbeing certainly himself.7 trillion. right property. debt.6 million. include income t a x e s .^ estate taxes. h i s progeny. Further.(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. o r g / I n J u l y 2011. woman. the He h i s share of has a manifest national interest i n the maintenance to of constitutional of has government.719 f o r e v e r y man. u s d e b t c l o c k .

See H o l l a n d e r v.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. i n t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a . candidates case. 566 F. 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. 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.N. election contest States.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. Code o f A l a . 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 .2d 63. 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. e t s e q . and t h e p r i n t i n g of b a l l o t s . to perform. § 17-1-3 ( a ) ) . 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 . McCain. 1975 §17of the Secretary of t h a t she 14-20.H. 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 .Supp. 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.

§ 2 7 9 .) "[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 . s o l e m n l y s w e a r ( o r a f f i r m . t o t h e b e s t o f my a b i l i t y . 1. they are appropriate are otherwise general provided seek.. 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 . 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.. and such their persons names on are the entitled. but purpose." listed. 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 . Further. 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 . 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." A l a . those who statute clearly who implies that not seek o f f i c e not are nor qualified. X V I .. those entitled then certified their respective parties. even p e r m i t t e d .I.) e. o f 1 9 0 1 . t o have ballot. 30 . 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 . c l .g. a r t . C o n s t . q u a l i f i e d f o r the (Those so by office (Emphasis added. So h e l p me God.

influence 1. 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 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..S. exclusive. m i g h t be (1892)." The McPherson not Blacker.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. of t o be eligible As Office United States. which to uphold. Supreme C o u r t of the State to ". but these legitimate allowed on should ballot state's chief elections official. 35 excluded. 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 . number o f persons. 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.. oath 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.S. l e g i t i m a t e prima and by that the such as f a c i e . the e l e c t o r s and so framed that ineligibility and Congressional v. The taken an U.

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

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

w o u l d mean s h e the U. conduct.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 .S. 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. State i s the to sole the the government o f f i c i a l name o f ballot. of the 1975 and for a contest States. C o n s t i t u t i o n . 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 . 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 . 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 . 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. 34 office being . election President United Moreover. 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. 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 . 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. Thus.

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. 3d 281(2010) the Alabama Supreme C o u r t i n v o k e d Code o f 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. what e v e r y permit. Ex parte CollinSr 84 t o A l a . 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. 2010). State i s the I t i s to produce §32-6-8(b) a n d that to A l a . or r e s u l t s o f a n y e l e c t i o n . conduct.g. 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 . " In the case of Rice v. Chapman. . 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 .But remedy. Code 1975 The §17-16-44 Does Not A l a . 4. 1975 35 §17-16-44. ( A l a . C o d e 1975 3d 48. 50 So. A l a . (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. Code 1975. Bar This Action. C o d e 1975 official Secretary of t o cause happen. 51 So.

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. does n o t seek t o question the the l e g a l i t y of the election. " and t o hear the lawsuit. Rather results o f an e l e c t i o n . that "jurisdiction stripping s t a t u t e . Thus. i t i s only the proceedings conduct. actions. or results that entertain the t h a t §17- Yet "legality. §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. U n l i k e Rice.the s o . 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. 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 . 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.c a l l e d concluded In Rice. 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.

this l a w s u i t and this l a w s u i t i s not barred by that statute. computer words. 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. for a fide explained license supra. sleight an hand w i t h software. certificate. joins any a troop. a teenager an were l e f t a birth unresolved certificate. 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. applying bona learner's birth he must submit The original. Further Constitution office of § 17-16-44 does not preempt the U. American f o r want As of which heart Constitutional the simplest of Government. documents. This to resolve from the and from the public? i t s fingertips By the power honorable Court this monumental conundrum. 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. S. for a Writ granting be Petitioner's request o f Mandamus i t w i l l 37 . for the i n i t s d e m a n d s made on of the United a candidate President States.

most questions ballot stilled. 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. 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. 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. simply exist. requires a very however. 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. commonplace no a birth certificate. 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. there i s A maxim o f e q u i t y a remedy. citizens of maintained. 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 . State have been answered. 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. 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. requested. admitting Petitioners. he among seeks to Branch. As r e c o u n t e d explained means. investigation. will E i t h e r a bone fide birth certificate will be not t o produced. w o u l d be to Should wrong the Court not issue the w r i t here o f Alabama. others c o n s t i t u t e the J u d i c i a l Branch. already exists. purportedly thing: I t merely the production ordinary.resolved. 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.

S u i t e B H u n t s v i l l e . . result. DEAN JOHNSON. n e t 39 . 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 . 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 . this would States. 4030 B a l m o r a l D r . 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. not without some that their justification. P r C . 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. certified f o r any c a n d i d a t e not responding s h o u l d be decertified. 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.the President of the United Uncorrected. a n d d o t h e same f o r a l l elections. l 7 D e a n . candidates 2 0 1 2 . this society grievously. i ^ n s o n \ (JOH046} 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. Esq. NW. 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 . Alabama 36130 40 . 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 . 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. 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 . F l e m i n g J a m e s W. 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 . 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. D a v i s L a u r a E.L a r r y Klayman.

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

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

A l a b a m a 36130 1 . 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. 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. 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.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 . 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.

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

c a n d i d a t e s are required to file s t a t e m e n t s of e c o n o m i c interest with the E t h i c s C o m m i s s i o n . A . 1997). 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 . section 1 7 . 1997). O p i n i o n to H o n o r a b l e P e r r y A . 1 9 9 0 . . 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 .2 5 .m. 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. not later than 4 5 d a y s after the s e c o n d primary. 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 . in the c a s e of an officer to be voted for by the electors of the w h o l e state. C O D E § 3 6 . H a n d . .1 5 ( S u p p . dated April 19. S e c t i o n 17. 9 8 0 0 1 9 4 . C O D E § 1716. C O D E § 36-25-15(c) ( S u p p . C O D E § 17-7-1 (c) (1995). 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 . G .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.4 0 (1995).1 6 . A . 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 . N o . 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 . 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. 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). N o . 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.0 0 2 2 3 .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). S o m e of the qualifications. to be voted for by the voters of s u c h county. T h e C o d e d o e s not require the S e c r e t a r y of State to determine w h e t h e r e a c h n o m i n e e m e e t s all the qualifications for his or her particular office. s i x d a y s after the s e c o n d primary e l e c t i o n . A L A . F o r e x a m p l e .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). A L A . e x c e p t n o m i n e e s for c o u n t y offices. 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. C O D E § 17-7-1 (a)(3) (1995). 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. certify to the probate judge of e a c h county in the state. the S e c r e t a r y of State s h o u l d not certify the candidate. A L A . 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 . . A L A . Similarly. 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 . 1998. dated J u l y 2 9 . 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. 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. 9 0 . G . 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. h o w e v e r .

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 . 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. ANALYSIS. See A L A . 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. 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. C O D E § 17-7-1 (a)(1) & (2) (1995). the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h o u l d not certify the candidate. & CONCLUSION A s stated a b o v e . m a s s m e e t i n g . ANALYSIS. that a c a n d i d a t e h a s not met a certifying qualification. 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 .1(a)(3). convention. 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. QUESTION 3 If the a n s w e r to q u e s t i o n #1 is in the affirmative. 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. & 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 . 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 . A s stated a b o v e . T h e law d o e s not prohibit the S e c r e t a r y of State from informing the probate j u d g e s of his or her r e a s o n for non-certification. 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. 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 . 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 . QUESTION 2 If the a n s w e r to q u e s t i o n #1 is in the affirmative. is it p e r m i s s i b l e for the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e to a l s o notify the probate j u d g e s of the disqualification of t h o s e n o m i n e e s of political parties a n d i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s for state office w h i c h h a v e b e e n determined to be disqualified a n d set out the r e a s o n for disqualification in o r d e r for the probate j u d g e s to be informed of the b a s i s of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s d e c i s i o n in t h o s e i n s t a n c e s ? FACTS. M o r e o v e r . QUESTION 4 Appendix A 3 of 4 . 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 .

therefore. Chief. J R . 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 . S O L O M O N . ANALYSIS.98/M Appendix A 4 of 4 . 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. S m i t h of m y staff.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. 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. BILL P R Y O R Attorney G e n e r a l By: J A M E S R. Sincerely. O p i n i o n s D i v i s i o n BP/WBM B7. If this Office c a n be of further a s s i s t a n c e . 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. & CONCLUSION A s stated in q u e s t i o n 3.

atty. V. g e n . L . Clliford III. December 28. p l a c e no. r e s i g n e d . 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. 1 9 9 9 . A g r i c o l a . a m o n g other things. B R O W N . 1992289. J u d g e W a r r e n Laird. J o r d a n . 1. . 2001) Jim Bennett.attys. Bennett P a g e 679 823 So. asst. 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 . P a g e 680 J o s e p h W . Algert S . . 1 9 9 2 2 8 9 . L . C . Nelson Allen. O n D e c e m b e r 1. Jr. Bill Pryor. for A p p e l l e e s S e c r e t a r y of state. as Secretary of State of the State of Alabama. for a p p e l l e e don Bervill. M o n t g o m e r y . for appellant. 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. Appendix B 1 of 8 . J i m Bennett. 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 . H u d s o n . in W a l k e r C o u n t y . 2 d 6 7 9 (Ala.8 2 3 S o . 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. W e affirm. J r . 2 0 0 1 ) . 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. a s S e c r e t a r y of State of the State of A l a b a m a . a n d Bevill w a s s w o r n in on D e c e m b e r 1.. J a s p e r . creating a v a c a n c y in the office of district court j u d g e . . I. Supreme Court of A l a b a m a . Justice. g e n . Ratliff & Brandt. 1 9 9 9 . a n d C h a r l e s Brinsfield C a m p h e l l a n d William P . 2001. of W a l l a c e .2d 679 (Ala. A l l e n v. d e c l a r i n g . .

held o n J u n e 2 7 . H o w e v e r .14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . J i m W e l l s . a n d a third p e r s o n . 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 . Shortly after the m e m o r a n d u m w a s i s s u e d . C o d e 1 9 7 5 . 2 0 0 0 . p l a c e no. b e p l a c e d on the 2 0 0 0 election ballot. Att'y G e n . in fact. the n a m e s of all three m e n w e r e p l a c e d on the ballot a s the D e m o c r a t i c Party c a n d i d a t e s for the district court j u d g e s h i p . A l a . 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. s h o u l d . S e e O p . 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 . O n J u l y 7. 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. 2 0 0 0 . A l l e n .'^''^ P u r s u a n t to 17-7-1 (c) a n d 1 7 . but instead w o u l d expire in J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 . N o . 2 0 0 0 . the n a m e s of Bevill. 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. 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. 3 2 8 to the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1901 a n d other pertinent constitutional provisions. h o w e v e r . 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. 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. J u d g e Bevill's term of office w o u l d not. J u d g e Bevill's term of office would expire on J a n u a r y 15. . w h i c h w a s s c h e d u l e d for J u n e 6. a n d W e l l s w e r e on the printed ballots a s the D e m o c r a t i c Party c a n d i d a t e s for the p l a c e n o .1 6 . 1. a n d the ballots w e r e printed. by A u g u s t 13. expire in J a n u a r y 2 0 0 1 .O n M a r c h 28. 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 . 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 . p l a c e no. the attorney g e n e r a l i s s u e d an opinion. J u d g e Bevill. O n M a y 30. A l l e n . 2 0 0 0 . 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 . 1. u n d e r the pertinent constitutional p r o v i s i o n s . 2 0 0 1 . T h e m e m o r a n d u m c o n c l u d e d that.1 5 9 (2000). 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 . with neither receiving m o r e than 5 0 % of the v o t e s . therefore. 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. 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.e l e c t i o n ballot.4 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. a n d that. T h e two then met in a run-off e l e c t i o n . 2 0 0 0 . 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. W a l k e r C o u n t y w a s o n e of those counties. 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 . In the m e a n t i m e . 2 0 0 0 . S u b s e q u e n t l y . stating that. pursuant to 6. J u d g e Bevill w a s not required to run for office in the 2 0 0 0 election. A l l e n w o n the run-off. a s the A O C h a d o p i n e d .

Vacancies judicial office shall be filled by appointment by the governor. W a s h i n g t o n . J u d g e Bevill's term of office a s district court judge. J u d g e Bevill's initial term lasts until the first P a g e 682 M o n d a y after the s e c o n d T u e s d a y in J a n u a r y following the next g e n e r a l election after he h a s completed o n e y e a r in office. 2 d 4 1 1 . p l a c e no. a n d (4) that.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 . 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 . P i c k e n s .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 . 7 1 0 S o . 1. 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. 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 . 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 a p p e a l s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d . Ogilvie. appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve an initial term Appendix B 3 of 8 . 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 .14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . (2) that. w a s not o n t h e ballot. O n A u g u s t 9. 1998). (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 . 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. C l a r k e . for the aforementioned r e a s o n s . 8 1 4 . O n a p p e a l . p l a c e no. E t o w a h . 3 2 8 of the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1 9 0 1 . other t h a n a probate j u d g e . p l a c e no. III. M a d i s o n . however. a s the winner of the primary election. or as may be otherwise in S h e l b y . Walker. 2 0 0 0 . Bennett. A judge.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . 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. T a l l a p o o s a . 1. d e c l a r i n g (1) that. of 1901 with amendments advertised and enacted now or local C o n e c u h . 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. or is r e m o v e d . 8 1 6 (1969). S e e Griggs v. therefore. retires. citing V. r e s i g n s . in the Constitution established by a properly law. w e hold that the interpretation of 6. W a l k e r C o u n t y . T h e parties stipulated to the facts of the c a s e . G r e e n e . accordingly.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . II. 1. S . H o w e v e r . 3 2 8 in this c a s e a n d h e n c e this a p p e a l is not moot. S e c t i o n 6. 394 U .4 ( A l a . C l a i r county shall be filled as provided hereafter adopted. 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. S e c t i o n 6. W i l c o x . T u s c a l o o s a . M o n r o e . 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. 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. H e n r y . 4 1 2 n. pursuant to 6.

u p o n w h i c h A l l e n relies. 2 0 0 1 .e l e c t i o n ballot. A l i e n a r g u e s . his interpretation violated the principles of constitutional construction." W e a g r e e with the circuit court a n d with the attorney g e n e r a l that the Constitution h a s n o w b e e n a m e n d e d by A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 . with A l l e n . A m e n d m e n t N o . 7 0 3 S o . T h u s .1 0 (Ala. 1997). H o w e v e r . 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. h a s b e e n a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y in a county s p e c i f i c a l l y listed in 6.14 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. 9 3 9 ( A l a . "would h a v e the court read b a c k into 6. Bevill's term w a s d u e to expire o n J a n u a r y 15. it s a i d . A m e n d m e n t v. 3 2 8 .) T h e proviso in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6. 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. 7 0 3 S o .14 h a s specifically r e p l a c e d 158). 2 d 9 3 2 . 1980) (noting that 6. " Hornsby. 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 . a s A l l e n urges. 2 d at 9 3 9 . N o t h i n g in the l a n g u a g e of 6. w h i c h a m e n d m e n t . A l l e n ' s interpretation. 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 .14 is g o v e r n e d by 158 of the Constitution of A l a b a m a of 1901.14. 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 . 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. including W a l k e r C o u n t y . 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. 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 . 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.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . controls in this state. a s he did in the circuit court.^^^ 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 . S e c t i o n 158.14 is a part. of w h i c h 6. Siegelman. a s the w i n n e r of the D e m o c r a t i c Party primary.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 . w e h a v e s t a t e d .^"^^ S e e Hornsby v. 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 . r e p e a l e d Article VI. Sessions. certified a s the D e m o c r a t i c Party's candidate.14 b e c a u s e ." (Emphasis added. 386 S o .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. 3 2 8 . U n d e r the g e n e r a l provision of 6. the court s a i d .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. S e e Hooper 2 0 7 ." "In s e a r c h i n g for the proper construction of a constitutional provision. If.14 applies to judicial v a c a n c i e s in s e v e r a l specifically listed counties. like J u d g e Bevill. Id. 2 d N o . s u p r a . 2 0 9 . J u d g e Bevill's term of office is g o v e r n e d by 158. a n d with it 158.

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 . A l l e n a r g u e s that this C o u r t in Griggs v. W e d o not a g r e e .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 . 2 d 411 (Ala. 1998). A l t h o u g h the appellants in Griggs.14.14) a n d H o u s t o n C o u n t y (a county not listed in the proviso). 7 1 0 S o . not altering w h e n the term of a p e r s o n a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y e n d s or w h e n a n election to fill the v a c a n c y must be held.t^J With the e x c e p t i o n of J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y a n d two other c o u n t i e s specifically c o v e r e d by constitutional a m e n d m e n t s a d o p t e d s u b s e q u e n t to the adoption of 6. Appendix B 5 of 8 . 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. the proviso in 6. "implicitly a c c e p t e d " his interpretation of 6. 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.by appointment by the governor. it d o e s not a p p l y to the term of office of a j u d g e a p p o i n t e d to fill s u c h a v a c a n c y . T h i s construction 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.14. 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.14 provides that a v a c a n c y in a judicial office in a n y listed county that h a s not a d o p t e d a n alternate p r o c e s s for filling judicial v a c a n c i e s is a l s o filled by appointment of the governor.I-^^ B y a l s o providing that judicial v a c a n c i e s Page 684 m a y be filled a s p r o v i d e d in constitutional a m e n d m e n t s hereafter " a d o p t e d " or " a s m a y be otherwise e s t a b l i s h e d by a properly advertised a n d e n a c t e d local law. 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.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 . 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.14 is dictated by its l a n g u a g 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. like A l l e n .14 w h i c h provides that a j u d g e a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y "shall s e r v e a n initial term lasting until the first M o n d a y after the s e c o n d T u e s d a y In J a n u a r y following the next g e n e r a l election held after he h a s c o m p l e t e d o n e y e a r in office" g o v e r n s the term of office of p e r s o n s a p p o i n t e d to fill judicial v a c a n c i e s in A l a b a m a . T h e proviso in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6. Bennett.'-^-' the third s e n t e n c e of 6. required to s t a n d for election.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 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." 6." T h e l a n g u a g e that follows that g e n e r a l provision in 6. w h i c h i n c l u d e s the p r o v i s o .14. T h e r e is nothing in the third s e n t e n c e of 6. W e held that a strict construction of the proviso in 6.

J u d g e Bevill is not required to stand for election until the 2 0 0 2 election. this C o u r t h a s previously r e c o g n i z e d that 6. 6 4 ( A l 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 . 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 . 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 .1 0 (Ala. 6 8 2 S o . IV. 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 . 4 3 7 S o . " W h e n a court is interpreting a proviso. w e took no position in that c a s e on the continued viability of 1 5 8 . 2 d at 4 1 3 . c o n d u c t . 2 d 6 1 . 2 d 2 0 7 . T h u s . S e e Hooper v. the application of w h i c h is in doubt. Electric Credit Corp.'" Lambert v. Siegelman. A c c o r d i n g l y . 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 0 9 . 1996). or s i l e n c e . Mail Handlers Benefit Plan. 1983). either by w o r d s . 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 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 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 . A l l e n s a y s . 2 d 1 2 4 0 . " Griggs. w h o usually m u s t h a v e k n o w l e d g e of the facts.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. 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. relies upon [the] c o m m u n i c a t i o n . w h o l a c k s k n o w l e d g e of the facts. v. 3 8 6 S o . 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 . " 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 . 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.. 1243 ( A l a . he s a y s . ' 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. quoting General Co. Strickland T h i s Court h a s h e l d : Div. 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 . 7 1 0 S o . 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 .14 h a s r e p l a c e d 158 a s the g e n e r a l constitutional provision with l a n g u a g e governing the term of office of a p e r s o n appointed to fill a judicial v a c a n c y in A l a b a m a .

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

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

please. Califomia / Appendix C 1 of 1 . Weinberg: To confirai our telephone ccmversaticn last V.Mch is a requireiaQnt under our federal constitution for president. Jack Weinberg 3^0 North Spaulding. The vicepresidential. " FEANK JORDAN Secretaiy of State / /' H. that I-tr. JOHDAN SCCRITARY o r STATE O F F I C E or T H E STATE O F CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO 95814 September X8.selection (Peggy Terry) and the hO electoral college voters •will be certified* Under California law.^ednesdajr. Apt. P. appear on the ballot and your candidate for vice-president on3y. just tho nariio of the party and i t s candidatos ^pear on the ballot. The Peace and Freedm party name vdll. 3^68 Ifr. Cleaver i s 33 and not 3^ years old ^. and confirme^l bjr you.FRANK K . 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 ^. 1 Los Angslesj Califomia 90036 Dear Mr. Sullivan Assistant Seorotaiy of State HPS/pv/m co: Stuart Weinberg h$ Polk Street San franoisco. September 11th. Sincere'ly. 1968 general election ballot* InfoiTiiation i n our possession indicates.

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful