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 . INTRODUCTION i . E.. II. H. I. D.i i iii-iv v vi vii-viii 1 4 5 7 8 9 9 ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS ..TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS L I S T OF APPENDICES STATEMENT OF J U R I S D I C T I O N TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF THE CASE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES STATEMENT OF FACTS STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ARGUMENT I.. B. 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. C. A.

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

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

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

Court of

Montgomery C o u n t y ,

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

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

V. Bennett,

823 So. 2d 679 (Alabama 2001)

Barber v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc., 42 S o , 3 d 65, 70-71 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) , q u o t i n g Cnty. Of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U. S. 625, 631 (1979) Bell V. Eagerton, 908 So 2 d 204 ( A l a . 2002) 349 U.S. 294 (1955)

Brown v . Board

of Education,

Coady v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, The Commonwealth C o u r t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a , No. 598 M. D. 2 0 0 1 , "an u n r e p o r t e d s i n g l e - j u d g e 'Memorandum O p i n i o n " ' Cooper Ex Parte Ex parte Golden Hollander V. Aaron, Collins, Integon v. Zwickler, v. McCain, 358 U.S. 1 84 So.3d Corp.,612 (1958). 48, 50 (Ala. 2010).

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

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

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

v. O g i l v i e , Rico

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

v. Branstad,

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

vii

SEC V. Medical (1972)

committee

for Human Rights,

404 U.S.

403

United

States

v. Munsingwear,

Inc.,

340 U.S.

36

1950)

S t a t u t e s And Other L e g i s l a t i v e A u t h o r i t y A l a . Code § 6-6-640: Commencement by P e t i t i o n ; amendments; r e l i e f upon i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d Ala. Ala. Code § 12-2-7(1): J u r i s d i c t i o n answer t h e r e t o ; generally

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

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

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

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

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

Other

Authorities

Ala.

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

viii

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. name 6.STATEMENT OF This dismissal Court. 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. To f o r t h e November i s s u e a p r e l i m i n a r y and the placement permanent Alabama injunction ballot preventing their on t h e 2012 until eligibility had been c o n c l u s i v e l y determined. r e c e i p t of such a prerequisite to their ballot placed general on t h e Alabama election. 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. 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. 1 .

11. 2012: Mclnnish was and Goode f u l l y October status Goode f i l e d the essence. a motion the conference s i n c e time of 2 . 18. Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n s . violating U. granted. for Secretary of and motion to dismiss. which Mclnnish 31. the as time was 6. Timeline of February and others Case 2012: the Mclnnish Office together the with his attorney State. 2012: October Mclnnish Goode f i l e d a motion time to for 5 summary j u d g m e n t a n d days. at visited Hon. 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. State. Deputy S e c r e t a r y of f o r the Secretary of i n the a b s e n c e o f and office represented legitimacy under the that her of any and would not thus i n v e s t i g a t e the her duties candidate. and was assigned H o n o r a b l e E u g e n e W. was i n error. Mclnnish and Goode f i l e d This case suit in the October Circuit to the Court 2012: o f Montgomery County. State filed her opposed.S. State. of Secretary of which the speaking Emily Thompson. 12.The Motion Court to below held. t h a t the Secretary's Dismiss -the 2. Reese.

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

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. 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. doctrine election 2.STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES The 1. 4 .

Deputy at which t h e Hon. certificate" i s credible evidence "birth published o n t h e i n t e r n e t was altered or otherwise fraudulent. on August 4. p a p e r certificate establish Compl. 2 0 1 2 .I the 8. §6. visited and o t h e r s .c a l l e d " l o n g . 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. was t h e s o . No p h y s i c a l . copy o f t h e a c t u a l long i n order to birth has been produced birth definitively States. 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 . a n d K e n y a n B r i t i s h Sr. M c l n n i s h . This subject B a r a c k Obama. 2011. 2. time the Office of the Secretary Thompson. father.STATEMENT OF THE FACTS On o r a b o u t A p r i l presidency.after 2 years into h i s pressure. i n t h e absence o f and on represented to Mclnnish of of the Secretary of State. birth A n n Dunham.f o r m " (C8) form Verified Compl. together with h i s of On F e b r u a r y attorney State. certificate. 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. E m i l y speaking Secretary behalf that of State.

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

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

" addition. 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. 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. officer f o r the state.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. 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. 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. 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. t h e amount o f t i m e results holder.S. of office the Alabama Constitutions. required f o r an e l e c t i o n t o tabulated.

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. that evidence The lies U.S. C l . C l . Or armed f o r c e s ." 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. C o n s t i t u t i o n d o e s n o t i ti scertainly distinct from define natural-born citizen. C o n s t i t u t i o n . 5. 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. 1. 5 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . whether he meets t h e o f President as natural-born citizen. 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 .ARGUMENT INTRODUCTION A gnawing indeed question vexes t h e Alabama body p o l i t i c and Obama. S. A r t i c l e t h e U. S e c . 1.S. " b o r n on A m e r i c a n citizens. 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. Although a President be a II. t h e Commander i n C h i e f o f leader o f t h e Free high World. "natural-born" Sec. 9 . U. 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. a mere " c i t i z e n .

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. 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. Obama h a s p r o d u c e d birth the certificates. i n Chapman's m o t i o n address to dismiss. 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 . these points 10 . are left with the dismissing assumption averments t h e case. therefore. accordingly.In an e f f o r t to resolve this persistent question two Mr. 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. 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. i n turn. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 9 9 8 .2 0 0 . argument. Attorney G e n e r a l ' s O p i n i o n No. especially be halt. the case o f an e l e c t e d official. 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. O p i n i o n No. 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 . 1998-200. certainly it her doing i s the right t o do.provide If an e x c u s e f o r her inaction. of "legal duty" were t h e absolute compulsion criterion only in f o r a person performing her duty. 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. 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. as h e r e . i n the form as she seems t o a r g u e . c o r r u p t i o n would grind to a rampant. 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 . u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g o f CONCLUSION.

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

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

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

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

of supra. writ before the 2012 filed that the the as Plaintiffs brought general timely. T h i s Case Is merits. 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. eligibility i n future of candidates will and the question an be of t o be issue election cycles. 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. any sufficient 22 . 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. 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. w r i t was are still election. However.5. but Plaintiffs of have d e a l t a l l future this elections in their with question discussion Again. needs to capable resolved. p r e s i d e n t i a l e l e c t i o n took place. this case meets each of one of which is the three conditions to render f o r nonmootness. i t nonmoot. As discussed not Moot and S h o u l d Be D e c i d e d on its supra.

" There birth i s strong technical submitted evidence of fraud i nthe Obama. asked t o undertake birth an case Michael Sheriff investigation August A r p a i o was f i r s t into Obama's l o n g . a c r i t i c a l which i s presented answer question of statewide here from i s certain this Court. 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. a n d was c o m p r i s e d investigators 5(C35) enforcement Affidavit.§ and p r a c t i c i n g attorneys.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. suit as move f o r w a r d therefore. t o r e c u r . § 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 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. Zullo 23 . and By acting importance is i n need o f a c l e a r Court now t h i s can prevent confusion i n future elections w h e r e i t may o t h e r w i s e arise. 2 0 1 1 . i n Roe v. A r p a i o A f f i d a v i t . 2. There Is C r e d i b l e Evidence of Fraud In Candidate Obama's P u r p o r t e d " B i r t h C e r t i f i c a t e . County A r i z o n a . Wade.Plaintiffs.

" conclusions and cannot be r e l i e d place and the date. Barack authentic.(C 35) 2 012. the Cold Case Posse informed Sheriff In February Arpaio that there was l i k e l y forgery involved with the documents. i n f a c t . Hawaii Department o f H e a l t h numerous policies and procedures. f r o m numerous e x p e r t s computer generated i n the areas documents. and comparisons w i t h other b i r t h r e c o r d s . 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 . " § 7. Affidavit. ( C 3 6 ) concluded that " t h e document p u b l i s h e d on t h e to the on as White House w e b s i t e . ( C 3 6 ) 24 .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. input "were b a s e d upon. typesetting. but not limited of forensic as w e l l as.§ 6. a t minimum. § 1 1 . document a n a l y s i s a n d Adobe computer programs. {C36) circumstance of Barack Zullo's to. review of Hawaii s t a t e law. Zullo § 7. public a legal i s .

as w e l l as any subsequent At Zullo's request. ( C 4 0 ) a l l the research he c o n d u c t e d research.D.(C41) by "Where's t h e B i r t h is Not E l i g i b l e Dr. "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. Ph. Corsi holds a Ph. f r o m H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y and has Dr. C o r s i extensively utilized researched OBAMA a n d h i s p a s t . C o r s i f l e w t o Phoenix. 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.com. 25 . conclusions also supported o f Jerome Corsi. §7 I d . Certificate: t o Be P r e s i d e n t .. of their investigation.In t h e course investigators misleading officials what." birth records a r e h e l d by the Hawaii Department § 12 were (C37).D. o r i g i n a l of Health. 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. turning book. " 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. by t h e sworn and author Zullo's affidavit currently 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. the Cold Dr.

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

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

state's honest a clear legal to have duties a chief elections officer i n furtherance perform her to ensure stable. woman.7 trillion. 28 . u s d e b t c l o c k . and c h i l d . general he He is a o f Alabama and who voted a l l the registered voter He pays i n the election.^ estate taxes. M c l n n i s h States. include income t a x e s . i n that and i t is vital his the wellbeing certainly himself. debt. the He h i s share of has a manifest national interest i n the maintenance to of constitutional of has government. h i s progeny. right property.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cbll -215. the burdened w i t h Mclnnish lawful. sales among o t h e r s . each year numerous real he is owes.719 f o r e v e r y man. 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.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.(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. 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. See http://www. t h e C e n s u s B u r e a u r e p o r t e d t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s t o be 311. w h i c h and typically taxes.census. See h t t p : / / w w w .6 million. o r g / I n J u l y 2011. Further. elections of m a i n t a i n i n g constitutional government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or results that entertain the t h a t §17- Yet "legality.the s o . 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. i t i s only the proceedings conduct. " and t o hear the lawsuit.c a l l e d concluded In Rice. §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. 16-44 o f any e l e c t i o n " this lawsuit prevents. U n l i k e 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. that "jurisdiction stripping s t a t u t e . Thus. actions. does n o t seek t o question the the l e g a l i t y of the election. Rather results o f an e l e c t i o n . 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. 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 . 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.

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

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. 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 . 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. purportedly thing: I t merely the production ordinary. investigation. requires a very however. simply exist. 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. 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. most questions ballot stilled. w o u l d be to Should wrong the Court not issue the w r i t here o f Alabama. 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. admitting Petitioners. there i s A maxim o f e q u i t y a remedy. requested. As r e c o u n t e d explained means. 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.resolved. citizens of maintained. others c o n s t i t u t e the J u d i c i a l Branch. that the Deputy S e c r e t a r y was without her office called an i n v e s t i g a t i v e requires of no what The remedy f o r here. he among seeks to Branch. State have been answered. 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. will E i t h e r a bone fide birth certificate will be not t o produced. commonplace no a birth certificate. already exists.

this would States. P r C . n e t 39 . A n d when t h e g o v e r n e d can s u f f e r to grant lose faith We i n their governors. their real i n t h e i m p r e s s i o n among t h e c i t i z e n s g o v e r n m e n t was d y s f u n c t i o n a l a n d h a s i g n o r e d concerns. certified f o r any c a n d i d a t e not responding s h o u l d be decertified. i ^ n s o n \ (JOH046} L. candidates 2 0 1 2 . result. DEAN JOHNSON. 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. this society grievously. S u i t e B H u n t s v i l l e . l 7 D e a n . 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 .the President of the United Uncorrected. 4030 B a l m o r a l D r . a n d d o t h e same f o r a l l elections. not without some that their justification. 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 . .

S u i t e 800 W a s h i n g t o n . 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 . DC 2 0 0 0 6 T e l : (310) 595-0800 Email: l e k l a y m a n ( 5 g m a i l . A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f A l a b a m a M a r g a r e t L. D a v i s L a u r a E. F l e m i n g J a m e s W.L a r r y Klayman. Alabama 36130 40 . 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. Esq. 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. NW. 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 . L u t h e r S t r a n g e . 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.

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

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

D a v i s L a u r a E. H o w e l l O f f i c e o f t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f Alabama 501 W a s h i n g t o n S t r e e t Montgomery.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 . A l a b a m a 36130 1 . which w i l l send n o t i f i c a t i o n o f such f i l i n g t o t h e f o l l o w i n g : Hon. A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f A l a b a m a M a r g a r e t L. F l e m i n g James W. 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.

the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h o u l d not certify the c a n d i d a t e . T h i s opinion of the Attorney G e n e r a l is i s s u e d in r e s p o n s e to y o u r request. certify to the probate judge of e a c h county in the state a Appendix A 1 of 4 .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 . Bennett. Alabama Attorney General Opinions 1998. A l a b a m a 36103 Secretary of S t a t e .4 0 of the C o d e of Alabama? FACTS AND ANALYSIS S e c t i o n 1 7 .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. within 4 5 d a y s after the s e c o n d primary election.1 6 .Ballots .O. 1998-200 A u g u s t 12.C a n d i d a t e s . that a c a n d i d a t e h a s not met a certifying qualification. Box 5616 Montgomery. 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 .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 . D e a r Mr.1 6 . 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. A G O 1998-200. 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 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. 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 . dated April 19. . T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s the duty to e n s u r e that the written petition filed by a n independent c a n d i d a t e is in a c c o r d a n c e with s e c t i o n 17-7-1 (a)(3). A . section 1 7 . 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 .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). Y o u r question c o n c e r n s w h e t h e r the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s a n obligation to e v a l u a t e a n y qualifications of the n o m i n e e s for political office.4 0 (1995). G . Similarly.m.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.1 5 ( S u p p . F o r e x a m p l e . C O D E § 3 6 . 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. A L A .2 5 . S e c t i o n 17.1 6 . 9 0 . 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 . C O D E § 17-7-1 (c) (1995). S e c t i o n 17-7-1 provides in pertinent part: (c) T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e must. 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. 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 . h o w e v e r . C O D E § 17-7-1 (a)(3) (1995). G . in the c a s e of an officer to be voted for by the electors of the w h o l e state. 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. H a n d . N o .0 0 2 2 3 . A . to be voted for by the voters of s u c h county. A L A . W h e t h e r a petition by a n i n d e p e n d e n t candidate fulfills the r e q u i r e m e n t s of section 17-71 (a)(3) is within the official k n o w l e d g e of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e . O p i n i o n to H o n o r a b l e P e r r y A . 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. e x c e p t n o m i n e e s for c o u n t y offices. 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 . the S e c r e t a r y of State s h o u l d not certify the candidate. S o m e of the qualifications. 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 . C O D E § 36-25-15(c) ( S u p p . . 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 . 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. 1998.4 0 p l a c e s a duty o n the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e to certify only t h o s e i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s w h o h a v e filed a written petition in a c c o r d a n c e with S e c t i o n 17-7-1 (a)(3). C O D E § 1716. 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 . 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. 1997). 1997). 1 9 9 0 . not later than 4 5 d a y s after the s e c o n d primary. 9 8 0 0 1 9 4 . . A L A . N o . certify to the probate judge of e a c h county in the state. A L A . 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.

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

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

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

2 0 0 0 . 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 . N o . Shortly after the m e m o r a n d u m w a s i s s u e d . 2 0 0 0 . J u d g e Bevill w a s not required to run for office in the 2 0 0 0 election. 1. 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. O n M a y 30. 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 a third p e r s o n . O n J u l y 7. 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 . . 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 . A l l e n . with neither receiving m o r e than 5 0 % of the v o t e s . C o d e 1 9 7 5 . 2 0 0 0 . the Administrative Office of C o u r t s ( " A O C " ) sent a m e m o r a n d u m to the presiding j u d g e s in c o u n t i e s in P a g e 681 w h i c h a judicial officeholder w o u l d be required to run for election. J u d g e Bevill's term of office w o u l d not. Att'y G e n . a n d that. u n d e r the pertinent constitutional p r o v i s i o n s . the n a m e s of Bevill. a n d the ballots w e r e printed. by A u g u s t 13. 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 . a s the A O C h a d o p i n e d . p l a c e no. s h o u l d . S u b s e q u e n t l y . 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.'^''^ P u r s u a n t to 17-7-1 (c) a n d 1 7 . J i m W e l l s . 3 2 8 to the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1901 a n d other pertinent constitutional provisions. S e e O p . 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 . stating that. 2 0 0 0 . J u d g e Bevill. 2 0 0 1 . held o n J u n e 2 7 .4 0 . 2 0 0 0 . b e p l a c e d on the 2 0 0 0 election ballot. 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 . T h e two then met in a run-off e l e c t i o n . the attorney g e n e r a l i s s u e d an opinion. S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e Bennett filed a declaratory-judgment action in the W a l k e r Circuit Court. in fact. A l l e n w o n the run-off. w h i c h w a s s c h e d u l e d for J u n e 6. therefore. h o w e v e r .14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . In the m e a n t i m e . 2 0 0 0 . A l l e n .O n M a r c h 28. J u d g e Bevill's term of office would expire on J a n u a r y 15. but instead w o u l d expire in J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 . A l a . expire in J a n u a r y 2 0 0 1 . H o w e v e r .e l e c t i o n ballot.1 5 9 (2000). 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 . pursuant to 6. 2 0 0 0 . 2 0 0 0 . 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. 1. 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. T h e m e m o r a n d u m c o n c l u d e d that. W a l k e r C o u n t y w a s o n e of those counties.1 6 . 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. 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 . p l a c e no. 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. 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. 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 .

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

If. 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 . Id." "In s e a r c h i n g for the proper construction of a constitutional provision.^"^^ S e e Hornsby v. s u p r a . 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. T h e plain l a n g u a g e of the p r o v i s o in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . Sessions. controls in this state. S e e Hooper 2 0 7 . a n d with it 158. Siegelman. 2 d N o . Bevill's term w a s d u e to expire o n J a n u a r y 15. 3 2 8 . 2 0 0 1 . a s the w i n n e r of the D e m o c r a t i c Party primary. 7 0 3 S o . u p o n w h i c h A l l e n relies. w h i c h a m e n d m e n t . " Hornsby. it s a i 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.14 b e c a u s e .) T h e proviso in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6. 7 0 3 S o .14 is a part. 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.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. 3 2 8 . 3 2 8 . his interpretation violated the principles of constitutional construction. A m e n d m e n t v. of w h i c h 6. including W a l k e r C o u n t y . 2 d 9 3 2 . "would h a v e the court read b a c k into 6. like J u d g e Bevill. A l l e n ' s interpretation. 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. S e c t i o n 158. r e p e a l e d Article VI.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. 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. a s A l l e n urges.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. T h u s . N o t h i n g in the l a n g u a g e of 6.^^^ 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 . 2 0 9 . U n d e r the g e n e r a l provision of 6. with A l l e n . A m e n d m e n t N o ." (Emphasis added.14. A l i e n a r g u e s . 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 .e l e c t i o n ballot.14 is g o v e r n e d by 158 of the Constitution of A l a b a m a of 1901.1 0 (Ala. 1980) (noting that 6." 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 . the court s a i d .14 h a s specifically r e p l a c e d 158).14 applies to judicial v a c a n c i e s in s e v e r a l specifically listed counties. 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 . 9 3 9 ( A l a . w e h a v e s t a t e d . v a c a n c i e s in judicial offices in A l a b a m a "shall be filled Appendix B 4 of 8 . 1997). 2 d at 9 3 9 . 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 . H o w e v e r . 386 S o .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 . J u d g e Bevill's term of office is g o v e r n e d by 158. certified a s the D e m o c r a t i c Party's candidate. a s he did in the circuit court.

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. 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.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. 1998).14) a n d H o u s t o n C o u n t y (a county not listed in the proviso). 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." 6. A l l e n a r g u e s that this C o u r t in Griggs v.14.14.14 is dictated by its l a n g u a g e . W e d o not a g r e e .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 . A l t h o u g h the appellants in Griggs.14. 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 . 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. 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. 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. 7 1 0 S o . 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 . 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. T h i s construction of 6. T h e proviso in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6. Appendix B 5 of 8 . W e held that a strict construction of the proviso in 6.by appointment by the governor. like A l l e n .14. this C o u r t n e v e r r e a c h e d that c l a i m in Griggs.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.'-^-' the third s e n t e n c e of 6.14 provides that a v a c a n c y in a judicial office in a n y listed county that h a s not a d o p t e d a n alternate p r o c e s s for filling judicial v a c a n c i e s is a l s o filled by appointment of the governor.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 . w h i c h i n c l u d e s the p r o v i s o . required to s t a n d for election. T h e r e is nothing in the third s e n t e n c e of 6. Bennett. "implicitly a c c e p t e d " his interpretation of 6." T h e l a n g u a g e that follows that g e n e r a l provision in 6.14 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 . the proviso in 6.14 a n d r e c o g n i z e d that 158 of what w a s Article VI of the A l a b a m a Constitution g o v e r n s the term of office of a j u d g e a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y in a c o u n t y listed in the proviso.14 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. 2 d 411 (Ala.

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 . " W h e n a court is interpreting a proviso. 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 . w e took no position in that c a s e on the continued viability of 1 5 8 . 3 8 6 S o . S e e Hooper v. A c c o r d i n g l y . 6 8 2 S o . 7 1 0 S o . v. c o n d u c t . 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 . 2 d 6 1 . [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 . 2 d 2 0 7 . T h u s . " 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 .. this C o u r t h a s previously r e c o g n i z e d that 6. 2 d at 4 1 3 . " Griggs. Siegelman. 1996). 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. ' 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. 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. Electric Credit Corp. 2 d 1 2 4 0 . relies upon [the] c o m m u n i c a t i o n .1 0 (Ala. ' "(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 . 2 0 9 . 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 . Strickland T h i s Court h a s h e l d : Div.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 . A l l e n s a y s . w h o usually m u s t h a v e k n o w l e d g e of the facts. 4 3 7 S o . 1983). w h o l a c k s k n o w l e d g e of the facts. 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. or s i l e n c e . 6 4 ( A l a . quoting General Co. 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 . J u d g e Bevill is not required to stand for election until the 2 0 0 2 election. Mail Handlers Benefit Plan. Bennett u n r e a s o n a b l y d e l a y e d bringing the declaratory-judgment action. he s a y s .P a g e 685 b e c a u s e H o u s t o n C o u n t y is not a listed county.'" Lambert v. the application of w h i c h is in doubt. 1243 ( A l a . either by w o r d s . 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 . 1980). 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 . IV.

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

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 d until his s u c c e s s o r is e l e c t e d a n d qualified. 8 3 . constitutional a m e n d m e n t s a p p l i c a b l e to M a d i s o n . M o b i l e . N o . 6 1 5 to the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1 9 0 1 . A s the attorney g e n e r a l stated in O p . 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 . s u c h a s a judicial nominating c o m m i s s i o n .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 . 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 .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. N o . 6 0 7 . Appendix B 8 of 8 . 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 a m e n d m e n t s 3 1 7 a n d 3 2 3 thereof. or c h a n c e l l o r s of this state. 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 . a n alternate appointment process. 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 . 8 3 a n d N o . 6 0 7 .14 "allows the n a m e d counties to retain the flexibility to provide. 3 3 4 .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 . 110 to the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1 9 0 1 . S e e A m e n d m e n t s N o . . 4 0 8 . shall be filled by appointment by the governor. a n d N o . by local law. 6. 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. N o . " A m e n d m e n t s N o . N o . T h u s . S i n c e the e n a c t m e n t of 6. Att'y G e n . 8 3 a n d N o . 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. 2 0 0 0 . for e x a m p l e . A m e n d m e n t s N o . 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 ." ^^•I T h e p r e a m b l e to A m e n d m e n t N o .14.1 5 9 (2000).]" S e c t i o n 6.14 a l s o specifically provides that v a c a n c i e s occurring in judicial offices in J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y shall b e filled a s provided by A m e n d m e n t s N o . 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 . a n d N o .

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

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful