AlaFile E-Notice

01-CV-2012-000023.00 Judge: HELEN SHORES LEE To: RAGSDALE BARRY ALAN bragsdale@sirote.com

NOTICE OF COURT ACTION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA HAROLD SORENSON VS MARK KENNEDY, CHAIRMAN OF ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC PART 01-CV-2012-000023.00 A court action was entered in the above case on 1/19/2012 8:56:11 AM D001 KENNEDY MARK, CHAIRMAN OF ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC PARTY MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(B) [Filer: RAGSDALE BARRY ALAN] Disposition: Judge: Notice Date: GRANTED HSL 1/19/2012 8:56:11 AM

ANNE-MARIE ADAMS CIRCUIT COURT CLERK JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM, AL 35203 205-325-5355 anne-marie.adams@alacourt.gov

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 1/19/2012 8:56 AM CV-2012-000023.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA ANNE-MARIE ADAMS, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM DIVISION

SORENSON HAROLD, Plaintiff, V. KENNEDY MARK, CHAIRMAN OF ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, Defendant.

) ) ) ) Case No.: ) ) ) ORDER

CV-2012-000023.00

THIS MATTER CAME TO BE HEARD on the Defendants Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs Motion of Recusal, and the Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss. After a hearing and due consideration, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs Motion of Recusal is due to be DENIED and the Defendants Motion to Dismiss is due to be granted and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Initially, it should be noted that this Court takes the Plaintiffs Motion of Recusal very seriously. Accusations of racial bias (or any other kind of bias) against this or any other court obviously cannot be ignored, regardless of how specious the claim might be. This Court notes, however, that the Plaintiff did not attempt to offer any evidence in support of his allegation and when this Court gave the Plaintiff the opportunity at the hearing to explain his claim, he was unable to articulate any legitimate reason why this Court should be disqualified from deciding this matter. See Ex parte Monsanto Co., 862 So.2d 595, 605-06 (Ala. 2003) (The burden of proof is on the party seeking recusal. [A] mere accusation of bias that is unsupported by substantial fact does not require the disqualification of a judge. (Citations omitted)). More importantly, this Court is unaware of any possible justification for recusal in this

matter. This Court has a Constitutional obligation to decide the cases that come before it and this Court will not shirk that solemn duty in the absence of some legitimate objection to this Courts qualification to do so. See Dunlop Tire Corp. v. Allen, 725 So.2d 960, 976 (Ala. 1998) (The Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Alabama of 1901 impose on judges the duty to decide cases.). The Plaintiffs Motion of Recusal is DENIED. The Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the Defendants Motion to Dismiss raise issues that are identical to those recently addressed by this Court in Albert Hendershot, Jr. v. Mark Kennedy, No. CV-2011-002321.00 and by the Circuit Court of St. Clair County in Tommy Thompson v. Mark Kennedy, No. CV-2012-00003.00. The present action is due to be dismissed for the same reasons that those actions were dismissed. Pursuant to 17-1644 of the Code of Alabama (1975) and the binding decisions of the Alabama Supreme Court, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the present action because there is not an Alabama statute that specially and specifically grants this Court such jurisdiction. See Rice v. Chapman, 51 So.3d 281, 284-285 (Ala. 2010). Finally, the Defendant has asked this Court to award him costs and attorneys fees because the present action is frivolous, vexatious, interposed for an improper purpose, and is without substantial justification. This Court agrees. The present action is the third virtually identical case filed within the past month seeking to enjoin the Alabama Democratic Party from certifying President Barack Obama as the partys nominee for President on the 2012 primary election ballot. Alabama law could not be clearer that the courts have no jurisdiction to hear this case. The Court takes judicial notice that the Plaintiff previously filed an action in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County claiming that President Obama was not a natural born citizen. Harold Sorensen v. Bob Riley, No. CV-2008-1906 (Montgomery Co. Cir. Ct.). That action was

also summarily dismissed. The Court also notes that the Plaintiff was present at the hearing in Albert Hendershot, Jr. v. Mark Kennedy, No. CV-2011-002321.00. The Court finds, therefore, that the Plaintiff clearly knew or reasonably should have known that this action was without substantial justification. The Court concludes that a sanction in the form of an award of costs and attorneys fees is justified in the present case. At the hearing in this matter, however, counsel for the Defendant indicated that the Defendant would forego any award of costs and fees if the Plaintiff would refrain from filing any additional actions such as the present case or collaborating with others to initiate any such actions. The Plaintiff indicated at the hearing that he would comply with the Defendants conditions. Based upon the Defendants suggestion, this Court will suspend the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff while retaining jurisdiction over this matter should the Plaintiff continue his vexatious conduct. The present action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, costs taxed as paid.

DONE this 19th day of January, 2012. /s/ HELEN SHORES LEE CIRCUIT JUDGE