Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
HUGH MCINNISH,
V.
FR
L a r r y Klayman KLAYMAN LAW FIRM 2020 P e n n s y l v a n i a Ave, NW S u i t e 800 Washington, D.C. 20006 T e l : (310) 595-0800 Attorneys f o r Appellants
IE
ND
L. Dean Johnson L. DEAN JOHNSON, P.O. 4030 Balmoral Dr., S u i t e B H u n t s v i l l e , AL 35801 T e l : (256) 880-5177
OF
TH EF O
GB OW .C OM
et a l . , Appellan-ts
Hugh M c l n n i s h
and V i r g i l
A f t e r being presented
theSecretary
OF
ND
t h a t o f f i c e h a s b e e n e l e c t e d . As t h e c h i e f e l e c t i o n
TH EF O
i
a p e r s o n b e l i e v e d t o be u n q u a l i f i e d official
IE
t h e S t a t e o f Alabama, t h e S e c r e t a r y
FR
ineligible
Code 17-16-44, t h e J u r i s d i c t i o n - S t r i p p i n g s t a t u t e ,
GB OW .C OM
Goode r e q u e s t oral source may n o t be q u a l i f i e d f o r i s the responsible names f r o m appearing
the
"legality,
r a t h e r t o a s c e r t a i n the a u t h o r i t y t o
o f c a n d i d a t e s f o r p r e s i d e n t ; T h e r e i s no s t a t u t e her duty.
not r e s o l v e d b e f o r e
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
f o u r y e a r s , t h e p o t e n t i a l harm c o u l d
TH EF O
not
d e c i s i o n of the C i r c u i t The
Court
S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e i s r e q u i r e d and
to p r o t e c t the c i t i z e n s of t h i s s t a t e i n a l l e l e c t i o n
OF
f o r a l l the p r e s i d e n t i a l
i n t h e 2012
t h a t o r a l argument would a i d t h i s
FR
IE
ND
Court's d e c i s i o n i n t h i s
case.
ii
GB OW .C OM
verify the presidential occur The of law. a u t h o r i z e d by l a w t o a c t matters. ordered candidates
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS L I S T OF APPENDICES STATEMENT OF J U R I S D I C T I O N TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF THE CASE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES STATEMENT OF FACTS
.C OG BO W
jurisdiction parties too late
STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ARGUMENT I. II. A. B. C. D. E. INTRODUCTION
EF
TH
OF
This case
i s n o t moot
ND
California
IE
F.
FR
G.
H. I.
in
OM
iii-iv v vi vii-viii 1 4 5 7 8 9 9 11 13 17 18 19 20 21 21 22
i - i i
J. K. L. M. N. 0. P.
22 certificate23
.C
certificate
OG BO W
A r p a i o says p r o b a b l e cause b i r t h
Q.
A l l elements 1. 2. 3. A.
Clear legal
L a c k o f a n o t h e r remedy
EF
Duty o f respondent
t o perform
Properly invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n
TH
of t h e Court
FR
IE
ND
OF
iv
OM
23 23 23 26 27 27 28 29 33 .... 35 37 40
LIST OF APPENDICES
Allen
V. Bennett
C a l i f o r n i a S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e Jordan l e t t e r t o Jack Weinberg ( C h a i r m a n , P e a c e and Freedom P a r t y C e n t r a l C o m m i t t e e ) Appendix C Affidavit of Sheriff Arpaio Appendix D
FR
IE
ND
OF
TH EF O
V
GB OW .C OM
Appendix B
Attorney
General's
Opinion
No.
No.
1998-200
Appendix A
Montgomery C o u n t y ,
FR
IE
ND
OF
TH EF O
vi
GB OW .C OM
Court of
t o hear
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
V. Bennett,
Barber v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc., 42 S o , 3 d 65, 70-71 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) , q u o t i n g Cnty. Of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U. S. 625, 631 (1979) Bell V. Eagerton, 908 So 2 d 204 ( A l a . 2002)
Brown v . Board
of Education,
TH EF O
(1958). 48, 50 (Ala. 63,68 483 U.S. 228
Coady v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, The Commonwealth C o u r t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a , No. 598 M. D. 2 0 0 1 , "an u n r e p o r t e d s i n g l e - j u d g e 'Memorandum O p i n i o n " '
v. McCain,
OF
McPherson Moore
ND
Marbury
v. Madison,
In re: Stephen J., A p p e l l a t e C o u r t o f I l l i n o i s , D i s t r i c t , No. 2-09-0472 5 U.S. 137 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892)
v. Blacker,
Puerto
IE
v. O g i l v i e , Rico
v. Branstad,
FR
R i c e V. Chapman, 51 So.3d 281, 284 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) . Roe V. Wade, 410 U.S. 1 1 3 , 166 (1973)
vii
GB OW .C OM
893 So. 2 d 337, 342 { A l a , 2010). (D.N.H. 2008) Second
committee
404 U.S.
403
United
States
v. Munsingwear,
Inc.,
S t a t u t e s And Other L e g i s l a t i v e A u t h o r i t y
Code 1 7 - 1 - 3 : C h i e f E l e c t i o n s O f f i c i a l s
A l a . Code 1 7 - 9 - 3 : P e r s o n s E n t i t l e d t o Have Names P r i n t e d on B a l l o t s ; F a i l u r e of S e c r e t a r y of State t o C e r t i f y Nominations A l a . Code 1 7 - 1 4 - 2 0 , e t s e q : C a n v a s s o f E l e c t i o n R e t u r n s b y State O f f i c i a l s A l a . Code 1 7 - 1 6 - 4 4 : A l a b a m a J u r i s d i c t i o n Appeal A l a . Code 3 2 - 6 - 8 ( b ) : Learner's Licenses
EF
viii
Other
FR
Ala.
IE
ND
Authorities
OF
TH
Temporary I n s t r u c t i o n and
OG BO W .C OM
340 U.S. 36 1950) answer t h e r e t o ; generally and p o w e r s o f c o u r t i n Election Contests;
STATEMENT OF This dismissal Court. This case i s before Circuit this case with i s a direct prejudice appeal entered
THE
CASE of
by t h e Montgomery
Court
Court denying
petition
f o r a Writ Relief.
Extraordinary
of State. that
TH EF O
t o demand t h a t
a l l candidates States
to cause a c e r t i f i e d
c e r t i f i c a t e t o be
Secretary of the
directly
OF
the record
depository
r e c e i p t of such
placed
ND
on t h e Alabama election. To
f o r t h e November
injunction
IE
general
preventing their
FR
ballot
until
eligibility
had been c o n c l u s i v e l y
determined.
GB OW .C OM
Circuit on a p p e a l f r o m an order Hugh M c l n n i s h ' s o f Mandamus o r Such p e t i t i o n Other is c a p a c i t y as t h e i n the of for Relief the Secretary f o r the O f f i c e of copy of d e l i v e r e d to the official i n charge a n d t o make being 2012 i t i s stored, name 6, permanent Alabama on t h e 2012
from a judgment
and
The Motion
Court to
i n error,
t h a t the
Secretary's
-the 2,
together the
visited Hon.
of
Emily
Thompson,
Deputy S e c r e t a r y of f o r the
i n the
a b s e n c e o f and office
candidate,
U.S. 11,
2012:
TH EF O
H o n o r a b l e E u g e n e W. 12, 2012:
October
Mclnnish
and
OF
a motion to essence
shorten to get
of
the
November October
2 012 2012:
presidential The
ND
18,
Secretary of and
IE
motion
October
FR
status
conference
s i n c e time
of
GB OW .C OM
with his attorney State, Secretary of State, Secretary of State, i n v e s t i g a t e the her violating duties was assigned Goode f i l e d a motion time to response 5 a d e c i s i o n before election. State filed her opposed. Goode f u l l y Goode f i l e d the essence, a motion the
Dismiss
granted.
at
for
for
election not
was
u p c o m i n g on November
6, 2 0 1 2 a n d t h i s
case
was
November Praecipe,
Mclnnish
since
lawsuit i s of great
be d e c i d e d
electors
on December
17, 2012.
November
2012: A h e a r i n g
TH EF O
was h e l d b e f o r e
i n a one-sentence No
prejudice.
January appeal
17, 2013: A p p e l l a n t s
filed
to this
FR
IE
ND
OF
Court.
GB OW .C OM
a n d Goode filed a importance, as require the before filed h e r renewed a n d Goode a l s o opposed. the Court. order, f o r the explanation a timely notice of
resolved.
STATEMENT OF
THE
ISSUES
are
as
exceptions
for review,
about which
Whether the
S t a t e has
a candidate's
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s when an official
i n f o r m a t i o n from the
Office.
FR
IE
ND
OF
TH EF O
that indicates
candidate
GB OW .C OM
follows: to the mootness even though the a duty to credible has source not been may be qualified
STATEMENT OF THE
FACTS
On o r a b o u t A p r i l presidency,
2011,after
on August
4, 1 9 6 1 t o A m e r i c a n
B a r a c k Obama, certificate.
Verified
TH EF O
Compl. 6.
OBAMA's
(C8) I n s t e a d , certificate"
i s credible evidence
"birth
OF
published
altered
or otherwise
On F e b r u a r y attorney State,
ND
and o t h e r s , time
2, 2 0 1 2 , M c l n n i s h , visited
Secretary
IE
at which
t h e Hon. E m i l y speaking
of State,
FR
behalf that
of the Secretary
of State,
her office
would not i n v e s t i g a t e t h e e l i g i b i l i t y
5
GB OW .C OM
2 years into h i s pressure, Barack i n Honolulu, mother, subject father, birth birth definitively States. Verified that o n t h e i n t e r n e t was
any
candidate,
thus
violating
her
U.S.
and
On the writ
October
11,
2012
Mclnnish
Circuit
Court
o f mandamus i s s u e d her to
compelling had
Alabama,
O f f i c e of
a bone f i d e be
Such b i r t h of State
delivered to
the
TH EF O
i n charge
i t was
stored.
FR
IE
ND
OF
GB OW .C OM
Goode f i l e d seeking suit in a t o have of Secretary State whose names the ballot in of the United States, certificate from directly of the the records
Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n s .
Verified
shall
FR
IE
ND
OF
TH EF O
7
GB OW .C OM
de novo." Alabama (Ala.
Because resolution
required
of election
i n the c o u r t s f a r exceeds t o be h e l d ,
required
f o r an e l e c t i o n
t o tabulated, i t does
not f a l l
under the t r a d i t i o n a l
TH EF O
Resolution of this
must s t i l l
i t i s "capable
evading In chief
OF
ofoffice
t o support both
Constitutions
t o investigate
presidential
ND
t h o s e who w i s h
t o have
their
election
ballots.
respectfully perform
be i s s u e d
requiring
IE
her duties
FR
Alabama
the Alabama
Constitutions.
GB OW .C OM
t o receive a i n o f a new o f f i c e criteria our r i g h t t o vote a t least every two occur and this yet ofrepetition hasan a f f i r m a t i v e the Alabama the e l i g i b i l i t y o f of office
for
as t h e
ARGUMENT
A gnawing indeed
question
vexes
the e n t i r e country:
I s Barack Hussein
man e n s c o n c e d our
i n t h e W h i t e House,
armed f o r c e s , t h e t r a d i t i o n a l qualified
constitutionally is his
t o occupy t h i s
he a " p r e t e n d e r high
t o the throne,"
evidence The
U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n r e q u i r e s citizen,
TH EF O
lies
"natural-born" Sec. 1, C l . 5.
U. S. C o n s t i t u t i o n , A r t i c l e
Although
define
natural-born
citizen,
OF
soil
ND
minimum r e q u i r e m e n t s
IE
natural-born
citizen.
f o rthe o f f i c e
FR
mandated by A r t i c l e
I I , S e c . 1, C l . 5 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n .
GB OW .C OM
leader o f t h e Free high office? Or o n e who h a s a r r i v e d a t i s compelling the latter. that a President be a II, t o mean a p e r s o n o f whom a r e a t l e a s t citizens themselves.
INTRODUCTION
t h e Commander i n C h i e f o f World,
In
an e f f o r t
to resolve
this
persistent
question two
Mr.
birth the
certificates,
c a l l e d the short-form
long-form c e r t i f i c a t e .
these documents by experts which point generated This important Alabama to the strong
to resolve
question
b y i s s u i n g a w r i t o f mandamus t o t h e of State
Secretary
presidential s u b m i t bona
TH EF O
i n the recent certificates infra We, therefore, these points
10
the e l e c t i o n i s past
n o r a s we e x p l a i n
OF
below
dismissing
averments
IE
assumption
ND
t h e case. that
he c o n c u r r e d w i t h
i n Chapman's m o t i o n address
to dismiss. i n turn.
FR
accordingly,
GB OW .C OM
c e r t i f i c a t e and both a r e computerthis critically to her f o r does n o t o b v i a t e t h e i t moot. does i t r e n d e r some o r a l l o f t h e We will,
Obama h a s p r o d u c e d
and o f f e r e d
to the public
purported
Chapman f i r s t grounds In V. of
asked
that
our
c a s e be
d i s m i s s e d on
the
she
Cornerstone
Inc., Los
Angeles
Barber,
involved used
of slot
machines
operation
i n Lowndes County.
TH EF O
alleged.
that
agreed not
not
further
agreed
to r e f r a i n and
not been
seized,
that,
that
OF
machines. was
T h e r e f o r e Barber
i t does not
Chapman's c l a i m
ND
(Ala.
IE
cited
involved
a case
FR
disqualified The
County,
c a s e was
t o be m o o t s i n c e
11
GB OW .C OM
cited the case of So, v. 3d 65, Barber 42 70-71 Davis, 440 U. the seizure i n an by state allegedly Court illegal The first which the defendants in t h e o p e r a t o r s had, seized, that the machines the machines t h e r e was p r o c u r e and n o t moot. support no operate Since held i s moot. 908 So 2d 204 was i n which a person judge i n Lowndes Bell d i d not
mootness.
take
the proper
legal
actions.
Specifically
he f a i l e d he
to
to it
be a c a n d i d a t e , was h e l d .
the e l e c t i o n
that this
Court
present
i t nevertheless f a l l s
clarity
i n Coady reads
The p r e s e n c e
EN
DS
T h i s c o u r t w i l l d e c i d e q u e s t i o n s t h a t have o t h e r w i s e b e e n r e n d e r e d moot when one o r more o f t h e f o l l o w i n g t h r e e e x c e p t i o n s a p p l y : (1) t h e c a s e i n v o l v e s questions of great p u b l i c importance; (2) t h e c o n d u c t complained of i s capable of r e p e t i t i o n yet a v o i d i n g r e v i e w ; o r (3) a p a r t y t o t h e c o n t r o v e r s y w i l l s u f f e r some d e t r i m e n t w i t h o u t t h e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n . Coady v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, The C o m m o n w e a l t h C o u r t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a , No. 598 M. D. 2 0 0 1 , " a n u n r e p o r t e d s i n g l e - j u d g e 'Memorandum Opinion"'
OF
o f any one o f t h e s e
TH
Parole,
which
EF
OG
three
follows:
FR I
sufficient following
to defeat examples:
a m o o t n e s s c l a i m , as shown i n t h e
12
BO W
factors i s
.C
The s u i t
the legitimacy of
OM
after
seek an i n j u n c t i o n
to stop the e l e c t i o n
i n which
wished
E x c e p t i o n 1, Coady v. Pennsylvania
Questions of Board of of
importance, Parole,
Pennsylvania
A p a r t y would s u f f e r of
A p p e l l a t e Court
falls
exceptions,
citizenry in their
TH
importance. are
our
self
government.
E x c e p t i o n 2: of the
OF
dishonesty
elections.
The
complaint
been determined
ND
candidates,
where the
t o be
Moreover,
IE
question
a complaint we need
l o o k no
FR
case
to conclude
such
cases
between
EF OG BO W .C OM
No. 598 M, D. 2001; repetition but evading review, 814. a detriment. Second In re: Illinois, District, under each of moot: the three named case involves a question question of of I t goes t o the t o be protected against fraud I t goes t o the very heart and of here i s that the l e g i t i m a c y least one any has l e g i t i m a c y of at i s without will this probably than the recur. present further
13
o f S t a t e and t h e e l e c t i o n i n this
i sheld.
would s i m i l a r l y
and appeals
happen every
the p o t e n t i a l cycle.
as p r e s e n t complained
election of
t h e conduct
repetition, Exception
and
Goode w i l l they
a direct
EF OG
detriment counted on nonmootnes
14
citizens their
BO
election
was h o n e s t ,
himself was
a presidential
TH
legitimate
c a n d i d a t e s were
o f i s capable
candidate,
s h o u l d be a s s u r e d candidate.
The rules
classic to reach
OF
of application
a decision
i s t h a t o f Roe v. f o r t h em a j o r i t y ,
said
i n part:
The u s u a l r u l e i n f e d e r a l c a s e s i s t h a t a n a c t u a l c o n t r o v e r s y must e x i s t a t s t a g e s o f a p p e l l a t e o r c e r t i o r a r i review, and not simply a t t h e date the a c t i o n i s i n i t i a t e d . United States v, Munsingwear, Inc., 3 4 0 U.S. 36 1 9 5 0 ) ; Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 1 0 2 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ; SEC v. Medical committee for Human Rights, 404 U.S. 4 0 3 ( 1 9 7 2 ) .
FR
IE
ND
Wade i n w h i c h
Justice
Blackmun, w r i t i n g
.C OM
year i n t h e next Goode, t h a t he of these
i s t r u e by analogy
case,
every
c o n t e s t o f an length of a
I n Roe Attorney to
the pregnant
J a n e Roe was
an a b o r t i o n ,
the Texas
TH EF O
too late
o f D a l l a s County,
Texas c l a i m i n g
law outlawing
withstanding.
Roe h a d h e r b a b y l o n g
and i n an o r d i n a r y
I t was o b v i o u s l y B u t , as seen
OF
above, the
mootness
exceptions
particularly of State
ND
In Alabama,
the case
v. Bennett
instructive,
since that
and an e l e c t i o n of State
i s past.
Secretary
IE
erroneously
FR
ballot
for circuit
i n t h e November that
election.
I t was a r g u e d was o v e r .
election
B u t t h e Supreme C o u r t
15
GB OW .C OM
suing the District she had a right abortion not the case case i t would to grant before f o r the court applied the ( A p p e n d i x B) i s Secretary that claimed left him o f f the general 2000
B u t when, a s h e r e , p r e g n a n c y i s a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t i n the l i t i g a t i o n , t h e n o r m a l 2 6 6 - d a y human g e s t a t i o n p e r i o d i s s o s h o r t t h a t t h e p r e g n a n c y w i l l come t o term before the usual a p p e l l a t e process i s complete. I f t h a t t e r m i n a t i o n makes a c a s e moot, p r e g n a n c y litigation s e l d o m w i l l s u r v i v e much b e y o n d t h e t r i a l s t a g e and a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w w i l l be e f f e c t i v e l y d e n i e d . Our l a w s h o u l d n o t be t h a t r i g i d . Pregnancy often c o m e s m o r e t h a n o n c e t o t h e same woman, a n d i n t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n , i f man i s t o s u r v i v e , i t w i l l a l w a y s be w i t h u s . Pregnancy provides a c l a s s i c justification f o r a c o n c l u s i o n o f nonmootness. I t t r u l y c o u l d be " c a p a b l e o f r e p e t i t i o n , y e t e v a d i n g r e v i e w " Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 1 1 3 , 166 (1973).
said:
As
i s true would
by
analogy
in this
case,
similarly
be m o o t e d b y
appeals p r o c e s s . Yet
elections
the p o t e n t i a l cycle.
f o r harm i s j u s t I t has
election that
t h u s become t h e
election For as
has the
d i s c u s s e d supra, valid
TH EF O
election
issues
will
n o t become moot s i m p l y b e c a u s e
i t qualifies
exceptions to the
Chapman a r g u e d
OF
five We
additional shall
s h o u l d be
dismissed.
1.
ND
The
turn:
S e c r e t a r y of
S t a t e has a
investigate
the
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of State i s the
IE
The
FR
in
the state
election Secretary
activities" of
(Code o f A l a . under
16
State's duties
GB OW .C OM
every contest of length an the sheer of happen e v e r y year as p r e s e n t i n t h e case law next this case i s not moot mootness reasons each that of this these address no l e g a l duty to candidate. elections for The not "chief Alabama
H o w e v e r because the outcome of t h i s case could Impact future e l e c t i o n s , we h o l d t h a t . . . t h i s c a s e i s n o t m o o t . ( I t a l i c s a d d e d . ) Allen v. Bennett, 823 S o . 2 d 679 ( A l a b a m a 2001)
i n Alabama an
official
provide If
an e x c u s e
only in
criterion
f o r a person
performing
the case
o f an e l e c t e d
official,
might w e l l duty"
certainly it
her doing
i s the right
t o do.
Attorney General's
A) C o n t r a r y
TH EF O
Attorney General's
determine
the legitimacy
eligibility
OF
foroffice.
FR
IE
I f t h e S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e has knowledge g a i n e d from an o f f i c i a l s o u r c e a r i s i n g f r o m t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f d u t i e s p r e s c r i b e d by law t h a t a candidate has not met a c e r t i f y i n g q u a l i f i c a t i o n , t h e S e c r e t a r y o f State should not c e r t i f y the candidate. Attorney G e n e r a l ' s O p i n i o n No. 1 9 9 8 - 2 0 0 , u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g o f CONCLUSION.
The
ND
official
t h a t t h e r e was p r o b a b l e
17
GB OW .C OM
her duty, c o r r u p t i o n would grind be to a halt. t o do a thing a thing when, as h e r e , O p i n i o n No. 1998-200. argument, t h e need The o p i n i o n s t a t e s i n knowledge cause from an to believe
absolute compulsion
especially
that
qualification.
the
request
t o t h e p u b l i c as proof as r e q u i r e d by t h e
a "natural-born" t o serve
citizen
Constitution
as P r e s i d e n t :
In an a f f i d a v i t as follows:
(Appendix
D) S h e r i f f A r p a i o
7. U p o n c l o s e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e , i t i s my b e l i e f t h a t f o r g e r y a n d f r a u d was l i k e l y c o m m i t t e d i n k e y i d e n t i t y d o c u m e n t s i n c l u d i n g P r e s i d e n t Obama's long-form b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e , h i s S e l e c t i v e Service R e g i s t r a t i o n c a r d , a n d h i s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y number. 8. My i n v e s t i g a t o r s a n d I b e l i e v e t h a t P r e s i d e n t Obama's l o n g - f o r m b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e i s a c o m p u t e r g e n e r a t e d d o c u m e n t , was m a n u f a c t u r e d e l e c t r o n i c a l l y , and t h a t i t d i d n o t o r i g i n a t e i n a p a p e r f o r m a t , a s c l a i m e d b y t h e W h i t e House. Most i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e " r e g i s t r a r ' s stamp" i n t h e computer g e n e r a t e d document r e l e a s e d b y t h e W h i t e House and p o s t e d on t h e W h i t e H o u s e w e b s i t e , may h a v e b e e n i m p o r t e d f r o m a n o t h e r unknown s o u r c e document. The e f f e c t o f t h e stamp n o t b e i n g p l a c e d on t h e document p u r s u a n t t o s t a t e a n d f e d e r a l l a w s m e a n s t h a t t h e r e i s probable cause that the document i s a forgery, and therefore, i t cannot be used as a v e r i f i c a t i o n , legal or otherwise, of the date, place or circumstances of Barack Obama's b i r t h . ( I t a l i c s added. A f f i d a v i t o f J o s e p h M. A r p a i o , C 1 9 ; a l s o E x h i b i t D)
FR
IE
ND
Further,
OF
Secretary
of State
TH EF O
GB OW .C OM
citizens, conducted a stated i n part n o r uncommon f o r a investigate the
J o s e p h M. A r p a i o ,
County A r i z o n a , a t
eligibility
of presidential
candidates, forfailure
but to also
of e l i g i b i l i t y . where
One s u c h
California
F r a n k M. J o r d a n
determined
was i n e l i g i b l e t o s e r v e
BO
Weinberg
as p r e s i d e n t set
EF OG
ballot. t o Jack Lindsay
In a l e t t e r
Likewise,
ND
( P ) l e a s e be a d v i s e d t h a t t h i s o f f i c e w i l l n o t c e r t i f y E l d r i d g e C l e a v e r as t h e Peace and Freedom c a n d i d a t e f o r p r e s i d e n t o n t h e N o v e m b e r 5, 1 9 6 8 g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n ballot. I n f o r m a t i o n i n o u r p o s s e s s i o n i n d i c a t e s ... t h a t M r . C l e a v e r i s 33 a n d n o t 35 y e a r s o l d which is a requirement under our federal c o n s t i t u t i o n for president. ( I t a l i c s added. L e t t e r f r o m F r a n k M. J o r d a n t o Mr. J a c k W e i n b e r g , S e p t e m b e r 18, 1968, A p p e n d i x C.)
OF
i n 2012, one P e t a
TH
IE
t o be i t s P r e s i d e n t i a l ballot. Secretary
FR
the
2012 C a l i f o r n i a
primary
Debra Bowen, h o w e v e r ,
r e j e c t e d Ms, L i n d s a y , because
19
place
h e r name o n t h e b a l l o t ,
s h e was 27 y e a r s
.C OM
case that to put issued (Chairman, (Appendix
remove them f r o m t h e b a l l o t
t o meet t h e
and 1,
not
eligible
the
U.S.
Constitution, for
Article to be
2, at
least
35
years
of
to
this assertion
by
Chapman,
BO W .C
the President with or a official the Secretary the as to support duty to enforce States United to elections, official to letter President for
2. In r e g a r d t o c a n d i d a t e s f o r P r e s i d e n t , judge q u a l i f i c a t i o n s r e s t s w i t h Congress.
the
authority
authority of
o f f i c e of
States no
exclusively or
Congress, of
EF OG
w h i c h has
statutory
C o n s t i t u t i o n a l means Presidentenforcing of
Constitution. an oath
In
fact,
taken
TH
explicitly as
Constitution. elections
Again, she
i t i s her
OF
officer, law as
i s required as the
well
IE ND
provisions
pertaining
above,
state
Constitutional the
unprecedented. State's
supra
FR
announcing the
a candidate failing
California b a l l o t for
t o meet
Constitutional
requirements.
20
OM
to to the the United Alabama and, as enforce See from
which
requires
candidates
President
3.
The C o u r t l a c k s s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n P l a i n t i f f s ' claims. contrary to Chapman's c o n t e n t i o n , jurisdiction. election The was the
over
Court does
matter
question
properly
candidates ballot.
were q u a l i f i e d I f , as
BO
to have and the and of
Instead,
question
i s w h e t h e r one
o r more o f
W
the matter approve
whether
were p r o p e r l y
c o u n t e d and
reported. the
perpetrated Alabama,
Secretary certainly
EF OG
this
has
subject
TH
to
join
necessary that
parties. of Alabama
merely
asking
Secretary under
duty
OF
Constitution
While
i t i s true
to
investigate, of
ND
m e n t i o n e d as
candidate
that
P l a i n t i f f s contention duties to
applies to
Secretary
State's
investigate
candidates.
IE
Nevertheless,
Obama, t h e intervene
FR
of
the
Alabama case,
initial
court
d i d not
request.
Therefore,
Chapman's argument
21
i s without
.C OM
not presented conducted, or their fraud names was of citizens
5.
Plaintiffs' Since
c l a i m was
f i l e d too their
late.
general timely.
they apply to
with
mootness, of
question an be of
TH EF O
t o be
issue
needs to capable
resolved.
matters follow
r e p e t i t i o n yet
important p o i n t s of
OF
in future
elections until
this
the
IE
ND
not
Moot and
S h o u l d Be
supra,
this
FR
conditions to render
f o r nonmootness, i t nonmoot.
any
22
GB OW .C OM
i t was hold filed to that 2012 election, only the not to the a l l future elections in as this question their of candidates will and the election cycles, resolved. argument are important to this D e c i d e d on its the three sufficient
Plaintiffs
brought
writ
before
the
2012
therefore, respectfully a n d be d e c i d e d
request
that
this just
i n Roe
importance is
i n need o f a c l e a r Court
now t h i s
can prevent
confusion i n future
w h e r e i t may o t h e r w i s e
arise.
birth
certificate
submitted
TH EF O
by Barack Zullo. asked 2 (C38)
There
i s strong technical
evidence
i s s u b s t a n t i a t e d by the a f f i d a v i t s
of Maricopa posse,
County A r i z o n a , and by t h e l e a d e r o f h i s
case
Michael
A r p a i o was f i r s t into
OF
Obama's l o n g - f o r m
o f 2011 upon p e t i t i o n
by 250 r e s i d e n t s o f
County. A r p a i o A f f i d a v i t ,
in
IE
The
ND
C o l d Case
October,
FR
enforcement
and p r a c t i c i n g
Affidavit,
23
GB OW .C OM
this By acting elections of fraud i nthe This of Sheriff Obama. t o undertake birth an certificate in Maricopa Arpaio attorneys. Zullo
on i t s m e r i t s
since,
t o r e c u r , and
Michael
Zullo
was t h e l e a d i n v e s t i g a t o r
f o r the Cold
whether as
Barack
authentic.
Case Posse
was l i k e l y
documents. Zullo
7. ( C 3 6 ) concluded that
TH EF O
i s , a t minimum, m i s l e a d i n g import
a s i t h a s no l e g a l
the date,
of Barack
1 1 . {C36)
OF
"were b a s e d upon,
f r o m numerous e x p e r t s
ND
typesetting,
computer generated
policies
IE
review
of Hawaii
s t a t e law, Hawaii
and procedures,
and comparisons w i t h
FR
other b i r t h
r e c o r d s . " 7. ( C 3 6 )
24
GB OW .C OM
House informed Sheriff on as circumstance but not limited of forensic as w e l l as, Department o f H e a l t h numerous
C a s e P o s s e a n d was c h a r g e d
of their
investigation,
"The
i fany, o r i g i n a l of Health."
birth
records
Department
12 were
(C37).
conclusions
also supported
o f Jerome
Corsi,
Corsi holds
a Ph.D. f r o m H a r v a r d
extensively utilized
researched
TH EF O
research
employed as a S e n i o r
OBAMA a n d h i s p a s t .
h i sextensive
Certificate:
The Case T h a t B a r a c k
OF
a l l the research
he c o n d u c t e d research.
ND
as w e l l as any subsequent
t o meet w i t h
IE
At
Dr. C o r s i f l e w
Case
FR
he h a d p r o d u c e d conducted
f o rt h e book
and r e l e v a n t r e s e a r c h
subsequently.
7 I d .
25
GB OW .C OM
Hawaii government years regarding by t h e sworn and author b y WND.com. U n i v e r s i t y and has Dr. C o r s i investigation to write h i s 6. ( C 4 0 ) t o Phoenix, Arizona the evidence he
a l s o c h r o n i c l e d a s e r i e s o f i n c o n s i s t e n t and
a r e h e l d by the Hawaii
Dr. private,
Corsi's research,
both t h a t p u b l i s h e d and t h a t
r e l e a s e d b y t h e W h i t e House on 8Id.
significant he was b o r n ,
H a w a i i a s he c l a i m s , o r o u t s i d e o f t h e U n i t e d
H a v i n g been p r e s e n t e d
TH EF O
7 (C 39)
26
S t a t e s and i t s t e r r i t o r i e s "
(C41)
i n c l u d i n g P r e s i d e n t Obama's l o n g - f o r m
that
" P r e s i d e n t Obama's l o n g - f o r m
ND
S h e r i f f Arpaio
OF
based h i s conclusions
electronically,
IE
FR
as c l a i m e d
b y The W h i t e House." 8 I d .
GB OW .C OM
"there are as t o where documents certificate, on i n d i c a t i o n s i sa birth certificate
" r e v e a l s a n d shows a l i k e l i h o o d
t h a t key i d e n t i t y
including his
In "there and
summary,
Sheriff cause
Arpaio that
unequivocally the
stated
that
therefore of
u s e d as or
otherwise,
place
circumstance
Obama's b i r t h . "
With of in
this
strong
evidence
of
fraud an
Maricopa the
County Arizona,
official
General's
Obama a b o n a
birth
3. A l l the e l e m e n t s n e c e s s a r y f o r o f mandamus a r e p r e s e n t .
TH EF O
reasonable
the
Secretary
certificate.
Mandamus i s a d r a s t i c a n d e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , t o be i s s u e d o n l y w h e r e t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t to t h e o r d e r s o u g h t ; (2} a n i m p e r a t i v e d u t y u p o n t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d by a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d {4) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court. Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 So. 2 d 4 9 7 , 499 (Ala. 1995).
Petitioners
ND
OF
address each of
these
A p a r t from the q u e s t i o n o f the l e g i t i m a c y of Obama's b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e t h e r e i s a d i s t i n c t but r e l a t e d q u e s t i o n : Obama h i m s e l f acknowledges t h a t h i s f a t h e r i s Barack Obama, S r . , who was b o r n i n what i s today Kenya but a t the time was a p a r t of B r i t i s h E a s t A f r i c a , thus making Obama the e l d e r a B r i t i s h s u b j e c t . T h i s , then, would seem to mean t h a t Obama J r . was not a n a t u r a l - b o r n American, s i n c e he was not born t o two U. S. c i t i z e n p a r e n t s .
27
FR
IE
GB OW .C OM
a verification, of legal Barack coming from the as Sheriff source provided opinion, of i t is certainly State t o demand the issuance of a writ elements in turn.
i s probable
document i s a
forgery,
or
from
(1)
right
to
the
order
is a citizen
election.
each year
owes, w h i c h and
typically taxes,
include
income t a x e s , Further,
taxes,
sales
among o t h e r s . the
national
interest
constitutional of has
TH EF O
government,
wellbeing certainly
himself,
h i s progeny, right
a clear legal
chief
elections officer
perform her
constitutional
Goode i s a c i t i z e n States. He
OF
elections
i n furtherance
of m a i n t a i n i n g
^ The n a t i o n a l d e b t s t a n d s a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y $17.7 trillion. See h t t p : / / w w w . u s d e b t c l o c k . o r g / I n J u l y 2011, t h e C e n s u s B u r e a u r e p o r t e d t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s t o be 311.6 million. See http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cbll -215.html/ The a r i t h m e t i c y i e l d s a d e b t o f $53,719 f o r e v e r y man, woman, and c h i l d .
FR
IE
ND
was
a candidate
28
GB OW .C OM
of the United i n the 2012 a l l the numerous real taxes estate he is debt.^ i n the maintenance of i n that and i t is vital his the to property. state's honest to have duties a to ensure stable, O f f i c e of
have a c l e a r l e g a l
right
the United
S t a t e s f o r t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n P a r t y i n t h e 2012
compelled
who may n o t be e l i g i b l e
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
i n having
TH EF O
Should
29
be i n c l u d e d i n t h e t a l l y
of b a l l o t s ,
IE
FR
14-20, e t s e q . The i m p e r a t i v e d u t y
ND
OF
See H o l l a n d e r v. McCain,
GB OW .C OM
against denies qualified he f o r the from competing o f any t h a t w o u l d n o t be t h e (D.N.H.
to perform,
presidential election,
a n d had an i n t e r e s t i n a
fair
Ala. State
C o d e 1975 as
follows:
entitled ballot
t o have t h e i r f o r the
general
q u a l i f i e d f o r the (Those so by
TH EF O
office
entitled
certified
their
respective parties.)
they
are
otherwise the
OF
a t whim by for a
L e g i s l a t u r e , but purpose. By
i n the who
law
substantive
ballot, those
ND
the
those
are
"otherwise
qualified"
who
seek o f f i c e not
are nor
persons
IE
are the
entitled,
even p e r m i t t e d ,
FR
names on
ballot.
30
GB OW .C OM
the following persons the provided they seek...." listed, then qualified" i s not was allowing the mere t o a p p e a r on there will be qualified, and such their t o have
This
the
lawmakers to
were Secretary
of
State
legitimate allowed on
ballot
official.
The taken an
U.S. oath
of
United
TH EF O
requirements
t o be
eligible As
States.
power and
jurisdiction of the
exception the
e l e c t o r s and so
ineligibility and
framed that
OF
Congressional v.
excluded."
McPherson not
Blacker, way
eligibility
ND
The
s t a t e s may
i n any
r e q u i r e m e n t s mandated by
three
IE
The
oath
of
office
i s the
common r o o t
branches
of
government that as
spring.
FR
form of
government
Court
J u s t i c e s ' oath
31
GB OW .C OM
f a c i e , but these not as should not be the Secretary of State a specific f o r the set of Office of the Supreme C o u r t of the State to has is the p r o v i s i o n s as of c e r t a i n Federal 146 alter U.S. the influence 1, 35 the C o n s t i t u t i o n . from which vital the to the our I t i s so cited Supreme for establishing
anticipating
submitted
the
has
review. to her
Marbury oath
v.
Madison, supra,
5 U.S.
137. she
In swore
a f f i r m e d ) t h a t she of the
would
"... s u p p o r t . . .
Constitution the
instructions codified of
c o n t a i n e d i n A l a . Code i n law
supra,
Secretary
S t a t e has
P r e s i d e n c y and This
ballot. candidate
TH EF O
about
qualifications
office
The of "It
S e c r e t a r y of State, must,
acting
Alabama, would be
OF
of
course,
obey the
obey the
ND
requirements of such of
which
t h i s Court
performance to Brown
IE
v.
Board v.
FR
and
Cooper
Aaron, U.S.
(1958)."
V.Branstad, an
483
a t 228. person
I f the to run
32
allows
ineligible
GB OW .C OM
the i n view of 17-9-3, the determine requirements on the f o r placement case doubt of a would-be concerning his on b e h a l f of the U.S. State Constitution. occasions on to the a l l the officials or a duty compelled refer (1955), Rico State of suffice to U.S. 294 Puerto Secretary of Office f o r the
of o f f i c e ,
i n which
of of
the the
United U.S.
States
i t w o u l d be This
in
direct be
on
February and
2,
2012, others,
Appellant visited
his attorney of
State,
during
Deputy and
Secretary
f o r the
Secretary
would not
i n v e s t i g a t e the her
candidate,
thus v i o l a t i n g
TH EF O
duties
It i s clear that
Lack of
A n o t h e r A d e q u a t e Remedy
OF
t h a t may
contested.
ND
IE
to
mention
any
FR
O f f i c e of 17-16-44
provides:
33
GB OW .C OM
Mclnnish, together the the O f f i c e of Hon. in the Emily speaking the State, represented l e g i t i m a c y of the any under U.S. and of the Secretary constitutional elected for those does not statute allows as w e l l as statute does This specifically the United States.
Constitution.
outcome cannot
that
only
election to
President
United
Moreover,
adequate remedy.
TH EF O
address the
eligibility Secretary
of
who
is in a position and
illegitimate
candidate
Secretary was
OF
of
State
failed the
violating
wrong of one
ND
land,
most
a b o u t whom t h e r e their
questions
IE
eligibility w o u l d be
FR
President --
of and
United
States
ballot
without
being
GB OW .C OM
contest statute, of the election the A l a Code to 1975 challenge s t a t u t e s do not there i s no other State i s the to sole the the interdict i t from exclude to perform law this of duty, highest this a namely were l e g i t i m a t e f o r the placed Office on the of office
by for of so and
and
But remedy.
equity In t h i s
demands t h a t
f o r every wrong
t h e r e be
extraordinarily candidate t o do
I t i s to require teenager
I t i s to produce
A l a . C o d e 1975 official
32-6-8(b) a n d that to
t o cause
TH EF O
t o A l a . C o d e 1975 3d 48, 50
4.
A l a . Code 1975
OF
So.
FR
"No j u r i s d i c t i o n e x i s t s i n o r s h a l l b e e x e r c i s e d by any j u d g e o r c o u r t t o e n t e r t a i n any p r o c e e d i n g for a s c e r t a i n i n g the l e g a l i t y , conduct, or r e s u l t s o f a n y e l e c t i o n , e x c e p t s o f a r a s a u t h o r i t y t o do so s h a l l be s p e c i a l l y and s p e c i f i c a l l y e n u m e r a t e d a n d s e t down b y s t a t u t e . " of Rice v. Chapman, 51 So. 3d 281(2010) the
In
Alabama Supreme C o u r t
IE
the case
ND
The
aforementioned
i n v o k e d Code o f A l a . 1975
35
GB OW .C OM
each i s required t o do to a bona the fide birth Secretary of happen.
i n s t a n c e the obvious
remedy i s an
Court
to hear 6-6-640. cases See
ju r i s d i c t i o n
( A l a . 2010).
Bar
This Action.
17-16-44 p r o v i d e s :
17-16-44,
"jurisdiction
stripping
s t a t u t e , " and
the p l a i n t i f f
sought
to prevent
the Republican
qualified.
"impact
OG BO W
reason that from that o f any e l e c t i o n " lawsuit n o r does this lawsuit
I t was f o r t h i s stripped
the Court
having subject
j urisdiction.
"legality, 16-44
conduct,
or results
TH
Yet
EF
question the
the l e g a l i t y
OF
prevents.
U n l i k e Rice,
this
does n o t seek t o
of the election,
"conduct"
eligibility
ND
results
o f an e l e c t i o n . o f those
seeking to participate
eligibility
IE
and
the duty
of those
FR
of
the prohibited
actions
o f 17-16-44 a r e i m p l i c a t e d
36
.C
Party
from
canvassing votes
cast f o r a possibly
ineligible The
OM
i t h a d no j u r i s d i c t i o n
t o hear
the lawsuit.
this
l a w s u i t and
this
l a w s u i t i s not
barred
by
that
preempt
President
l e g i t i m a c y of at the very
which
Government, documents,
TH EF O
were l e f t a birth
explained license
supra,
a teenager an
applying
must
submit The
original,
bona
joins any
a troop. of
OF
certificate.
same i s t r u e any
f o r a Boy
Could
c l e v e r excuse, computer
sleight an
hand w i t h
to withhold
ND
provide
IE
citizens,
and
from the
This
FR
to
resolve
Petitioner's
request
o f Mandamus i t w i l l
37
GB OW .C OM
the U. S. a candidate for the States. i f the real and facto President, heart of our American unresolved f o r want As of certificate. for a fide learner's birth he Scout before any artful possibly words, software, Commander-in-Chief view of Alabama from the granting be
statute.
E i t h e r a bone
fide birth
certificate
will
be not t o
E i t h e r way,
this
most
important
of l e g a l
maintained,
The
remedy
however,
BO W .C
citizens of requires of virtually of no wrong the w r i t here that among nor a judge No, he
stilled. State
an i n v e s t i g a t i v e no
I t merely
EF OG
I t requires that Branch,
38
the production
already
exists,
ordinary,
commonplace
a birth
certificate.
TH
expenditure
of time
OF
as w e l l as t h e p e o p l e
o f Alabama, admitting
a remedy
f o r t h e wrong o f
serious
IE ND
the b a l l o t
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
doubt. He
question. who
d o e s n o t s e e k t o be a l e g i s l a t o r
c o n s t i t u t e the L e g i s l a t i v e who
FR
others
c o n s t i t u t e the J u d i c i a l
Branch.
b e t h e s i n g l e p e r s o n who
c o n s t i t u t e s the Executive
OM
questions ballot what State. there i s among seeks to Branch,
produced,
or i t w i l l
n e c e s s a r i l y be a d m i t t e d
the
States.
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
governors, this
society
honorable
Court
Secretary for
to obtain birth
certificates States
was h e l d i n N o v e m b e r , candidates
TH EF O
certificates of t h i s
within
Court,
certified
responding
s h o u l d be
decertified.
OF
FR
IE
l 7 D e a n . i ^ n s o n \ (JOH046} L. DEAN JOHNSON, P r C . 4030 B a l m o r a l D r , , S u i t e B H u n t s v i l l e , AL 35801 T e l : (256) 880-5177 Fax: (256) 880-5187 Email: J o h n s o n dean(?be 1 1 s o u t h . n e t
ND
39
GB OW .C OM
that their i n their u r g e n t l y ask ordering the from the candidates which f o r the election 45 d a y s a f t e r f o r any c a n d i d a t e not
result,
not without
some
CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE
FR IE N
DS
OF
TH
EF
40
OG
I HEREBY C E R T I F Y t h a t o n t h e 26 d a y o f M a r c h 2 0 1 3 , I e l e c t r o n i c a l l y f i l e d the foregoing with the Clerk of the Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a u s i n g t h e ACIS f i l i n g system, which w i l l send n o t i f i c a t i o n o f such f i l i n g t o t h e following:
BO W
.C OM
L a r r y Klayman, Esq. KLAYMAN LAW F I R M 2 0 2 0 P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e . NW, S u i t e 800 W a s h i n g t o n , DC 2 0 0 0 6 T e l : (310) 595-0800 Email: l e k l a y m a n ( 5 g m a i l . com Pro Hac V i c e
HUGH MCINNISH, e t a l . ,
V.
FR
Attorneys f o r Appellants
IE
L a r r y Klayman KLAYMZ^ LAW FIRM 2020 P e n n s y l v a n i a Ave, NW S u i t e 800 Washington, D.C. 20006 T e l : (310) 595-0800
ND
L. Dean Johnson L. DEAN JOHNSON, P.C. 4030 Balmoral Dr., S u i t e B H u n t s v i l l e , AL 35801 T e l : (256) 880-5177
OF
TH EF O
GB OW .C OM
Appellants
LIST OF APPENDICES
Attorney Allen
General's
Opinion
No. No.
1998-200
V. Bennett
FR
IE
ND
OF
TH EF O
2
GB OW .C OM
Appendix A Appendix B
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY t h a t on t h e 26 d a y o f M a r c h 2 0 1 3 , I e l e c t r o n i c a l l y f i l e d a t r u e and c o r r e c t copy o f t h e Appendices to B r i e f o f t h e A p p e l l a n t s w i t h t h e C l e r k o f t h e Supreme C o u r t of Alabama u s i n g t h e ACIS f i l i n g system, which w i l l send n o t i f i c a t i o n o f such f i l i n g t o t h e f o l l o w i n g : Hon. L u t h e r S t r a n g e , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f A l a b a m a M a r g a r e t L. F l e m i n g James W. D a v i s L a u r a E. H o w e l l O f f i c e o f t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f Alabama 501 W a s h i n g t o n S t r e e t Montgomery, A l a b a m a 36130
FR
IE
ND
OF
1
TH EF O
GB OW .C OM
A G O 1998-200. Alabama Attorney General Opinions 1998. A G O 1998-200. 1998-200 A u g u s t 12, 1 9 9 8 H o n o r a b l e J i m Bennett S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e P.O. Box 5616 Montgomery, A l a b a m a 36103
T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e d o e s not h a v e a n obligation to e v a l u a t e all of the qualifications of the n o m i n e e s of political parties a n d i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s for state offices prior to certifying s u c h n o m i n e e s a n d c a n d i d a t e s to the probate j u d g e s pursuant to s e c t i o n s 17-7-1 a n d 17-16-40 of the C o d e of A l a b a m a . If the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s k n o w l e d g e g a i n e d from a n official s o u r c e arising from the p e r f o r m a n c e of duties p r e s c r i b e d by law, that a c a n d i d a t e h a s not met a certifying qualification, the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h o u l d not certify the c a n d i d a t e . T h e law d o e s not prohibit the S e c r e t a r y of State from informing the probate j u d g e s of his or her r e a s o n for non-certification.
D e a r Mr. Bennett;
ND
D o e s the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a v e the obligation to e v a l u a t e a n y qualifications of the n o m i n e e s of political parties a n d i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s for state offices prior to certifying s u c h n o m i n e e s a n d candidates to the probate j u d g e s pursuant to s e c t i o n s 17-7-1 a n d 1 7 - 1 6 - 4 0 of the C o d e of Alabama?
FR
IE
S e c t i o n 1 7 - 1 6 - 4 0 of the C o d e of A l a b a m a provides: T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h a l l , within 4 5 d a y s after the s e c o n d primary election, certify to the probate judge of e a c h county in the state a
OF
TH EF O
FACTS AND ANALYSIS
Appendix A 1 of 4
GB OW .C OM
s e p a r a t e list of n o m i n e e s of e a c h party for office a n d for e a c h candidate w h o h a s r e q u e s t e d to be an independent c a n d i d a t e a n d h a s filed a written petition in a c c o r d a n c e with S e c t i o n 17-7-1 (a)(3), e x c e p t n o m i n e e s for c o u n t y offices, to be voted for by the voters of s u c h county. A L A . C O D E 1716- 4 0 (1995). S e c t i o n 17-7-1 provides in pertinent part: (c) T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e must, not later than 4 5 d a y s
after the s e c o n d primary, certify to the probate judge of e a c h county in the state, in the c a s e of an officer to be voted for by the electors of the w h o l e state, a n d to the probate j u d g e s of the counties c o m p o s i n g the circuit or district in c a s e of an officer to be voted for by the electors of a circuit or district, upon suitable b l a n k s to be p r e p a r e d by him or her for that p u r p o s e , the fact of nomination or independent c a n d i d a c y of e a c h n o m i n e e or i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e or c a n d i d a t e of a party w h o did not receive more than 2 0 p e r c e n t of the entire vote c a s t in the last g e n e r a l election preceding the primary w h o h a s qualified to a p p e a r o n the g e n e r a l election b a l l o t . . . . A L A . C O D E 17-7-1 (c) (1995).
qualifications of the n o m i n e e s for political office. T h e C o d e d o e s not require the S e c r e t a r y of State S o m e of the qualifications, h o w e v e r , are within the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s official k n o w l e d g e . B y official k n o w l e d g e I m e a n k n o w l e d g e g a i n e d from a n official s o u r c e arising from the performance of duties prescribed by law. F o r e x a m p l e , c a n d i d a t e s are required to file s t a t e m e n t s of e c o n o m i c interest with the E t h i c s C o m m i s s i o n . A L A . C O D E 3 6 - 2 5 - 1 5 ( S u p p . 1997). If the E t h i c s C o m m i s s i o n provides the S e c r e t a r y of State with formal notice of t h o s e c a n d i d a t e s w h o h a v e not filed statements of e c o n o m i c interest, the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s official k n o w l e d g e that the c a n d i d a t e s h a v e failed to m e e t a certifying d e a d l i n e . O n l y t h o s e c a n d i d a t e s m e e t i n g the filing requirements are entitled to be o n the ballot. A L A . C O D E 36-25-15(c) ( S u p p . 1997). If the S e c r e t a r y of State h a s official k n o w l e d g e that a c a n d i d a t e h a s not met a certifying qualification, the S e c r e t a r y of State s h o u l d not certify the candidate. Similarly, section 1 7 - 1 6 - 4 0 p l a c e s a duty o n the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e to certify only t h o s e i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s w h o h a v e filed a written petition in a c c o r d a n c e with S e c t i o n 17-7-1 (a)(3). c a n d i d a t e is in a c c o r d a n c e with s e c t i o n 17-7-1 (a)(3). T h i s Office h a s previously d e t e r m i n e d that the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e is r e s p o n s i b l e for verifying s i g n a t u r e s o n a petition to run a s a n independent c a n d i d a t e . O p i n i o n to H o n o r a b l e P e r r y A . H a n d , dated April 19, 1 9 9 0 , A . G . N o . 9 0 - 0 0 2 2 3 . S e c t i o n 17- 7-1 (a)(3) a l s o requires e a c h i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e to file a petition with the S e c r e t a r y of State on or before 5: 00 p.m. s i x d a y s after the s e c o n d primary e l e c t i o n . A L A . C O D E 17-7-1 (a)(3) T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s the duty to e n s u r e that the written petition filed by a n independent
FR
(1995). T h i s Office h a s p r e v i o u s l y c o n c l u d e d statutes setting the time for filing a certificate of nomination are mandatory. O p i n i o n to H o n o r a b l e E a r l e a n Isaac, dated J u l y 2 9 , 1998, A . G . N o . 9 8 1 (a)(3) is within the official k n o w l e d g e of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e . A l a b a m a law directs the S e c r e t a r y
0 0 1 9 4 . W h e t h e r a petition by a n i n d e p e n d e n t candidate fulfills the r e q u i r e m e n t s of section 17-7of State to certify only i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s who h a v e properly filed p u r s u a n t to section 17-7-
IE
ND
OF
TH EF O
Appendix A 2 of 4
GB OW .C OM
1(a)(3). M o r e o v e r , c a n d i d a t e s w h o h a v e b e e n put in nomination by a primary election or by a c a u c u s , convention, m a s s m e e t i n g , or other a s s e m b l y of a political party must m e e t a statutorily e s t a b l i s h e d filing d e a d l i n e . See A L A . C O D E 17-7-1 (a)(1) & (2) (1995). If the c a n d i d a t e is required to file with the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e , it is within the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s official k n o w l e d g e a s to w h e t h e r the d e a d l i n e w a s met. A s stated a b o v e , if the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s official k n o w l e d g e that a c a n d i d a t e h a s not met a certifying qualification, the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h o u l d not certify the candidate.
CONCLUSION
n o m i n e e s of political parties a n d i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s for state offices prior to certifying s u c h C o d e of A l a b a m a . If the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s k n o w l e d g e g a i n e d from an official s o u r c e arising from the p e r f o r m a n c e of duties p r e s c r i b e d by law, that a c a n d i d a t e h a s not met a certifying qualification, the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h o u l d not certify the c a n d i d a t e .
If the a n s w e r to q u e s t i o n #1 is in the affirmative, is it p e r m i s s i b l e for the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e to a l s o notify the probate j u d g e s of the disqualification of t h o s e n o m i n e e s of political parties a n d i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s for state office w h i c h h a v e b e e n determined to be disqualified a n d set out the r e a s o n for disqualification in o r d e r for the probate j u d g e s to be informed of the b a s i s of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s d e c i s i o n in t h o s e i n s t a n c e s ?
k n o w l e d g e that the c a n d i d a t e is not entitled to be o n the ballot. T h e law d o e s not prohibit the S e c r e t a r y of State from informing the probate j u d g e s of his or her r e a s o n for non-certification. QUESTION 3
to a ministerial r e v i e w b a s e d u p o n the facts within the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s p o s s e s s i o n , or d o e s it a l s o extend to a n obligation to investigate factual allegations c o n c e r n i n g the qualifications of c a n d i d a t e s for state o f f i c e s ?
IE
ND
FR
A s stated a b o v e , the C o d e d o e s not require the S e c r e t a r y of State to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r e a c h n o m i n e e m e e t s all the qualifications for his or her particular office. T h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e d o e s have an obligation to r e v i e w qualifications b a s e d o n facts within his official k n o w l e d g e . QUESTION 4
OF
TH EF O
Appendix A 3 of 4
QUESTION 2
GB OW .C OM
If the a n s w e r to q u e s t i o n #1 is in the affirmative a n d the a n s w e r to question #3 provides a factfinding obligation for the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e in reviewing the qualifications of c a n d i d a t e s for state offices, is the investigation of factual allegations a judicial obligation of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e requiring d u e p r o c e s s of law or a n e x t e n s i o n of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s ministerial duty? FACTS, ANALYSIS, & CONCLUSION
A s stated in q u e s t i o n 3, the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e h a s no duty to investigate facts not within his official knowledge; therefore, this question n e e d not be a d d r e s s e d .
I h o p e this opinion a n s w e r s y o u r q u e s t i o n s . If this Office c a n be of further a s s i s t a n c e , p l e a s e contact B r e n d a F. S m i t h of m y staff. Sincerely, BILL P R Y O R Attorney G e n e r a l By: J A M E S R. S O L O M O N , J R . Chief, O p i n i o n s D i v i s i o n BP/WBM B7.98/M
FR
IE
ND
OF
Appendix A 4 of 4
TH EF O
GB OW .C OM
2001)
Jim Bennett, as Secretary of State of the State of Alabama. 1992289. Supreme Court of A l a b a m a . December 28, P a g e 680 2001.
J o s e p h W . H u d s o n , J a s p e r , for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. g e n . , a n d C h a r l e s Brinsfield C a m p h e l l a n d William P . Clliford III, asst.attys. g e n . , for A p p e l l e e s S e c r e t a r y of state, J i m Bennett.
N e l s o n A l l e n a p p e a l s from a j u d g m e n t in a n action filed by J i m Bennett, a s S e c r e t a r y of State of the State of A l a b a m a , d e c l a r i n g , a m o n g other things, that A l l e n s h o u l d not b e certified on the ballot j u d g e s h i p in W a l k e r C o u n t y . W e affirm. I. for the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l election a s the D e m o c r a t i c Party c a n d i d a t e for a district court
FR
district court j u d g e , p l a c e no. 1, in W a l k e r C o u n t y . Laird h a d b e e n elected to that office in the N o v e m b e r 1996 g e n e r a l election, a n d his term of office w o u l d h a v e expired in J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 . G o v e r n o r D o n S i e g e l m a n a p p o i n t e d D o n a l d H. Bevill to fill the v a c a n c y c r e a t e d by J u d g e Laird's resignation, a n d Bevill w a s s w o r n in on D e c e m b e r 1, 1 9 9 9 .
IE
ND
OF
TH EF O
Appendix B 1 of 8
GB OW .C OM
O n M a r c h 28, 2 0 0 0 , the Administrative Office of C o u r t s ( " A O C " ) sent a m e m o r a n d u m to the presiding j u d g e s in c o u n t i e s in P a g e 681 w h i c h a judicial officeholder w o u l d be required to run for election. W a l k e r C o u n t y w a s o n e of those counties. T h e m e m o r a n d u m c o n c l u d e d that, pursuant to 6.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 to the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1901 a n d other pertinent constitutional provisions, J u d g e Bevill's term of office would expire on J a n u a r y 15, 2 0 0 1 , a n d that the office J u d g e Bevill o c c u p i e d s h o u l d be included a m o n g t h o s e offices to be filled in the 2 0 0 0 election. Shortly after the m e m o r a n d u m w a s i s s u e d . N e l s o n A l l e n d e c l a r e d his c a n d i d a c y for the district court j u d g e s h i p , p l a c e no. 1, a n d filed qualifying p a p e r s with the A l a b a m a D e m o c r a t i c Party. S u b s e q u e n t l y , A l l e n , J u d g e Bevill, a n d a third p e r s o n , J i m W e l l s , qualified to run for the j u d g e s h i p in the D e m o c r a t i c primary, w h i c h w a s s c h e d u l e d for J u n e 6, 2 0 0 0 . After S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e J i m Bennett certified the c a n d i d a t e s , the n a m e s of all three m e n w e r e p l a c e d on the ballot a s the D e m o c r a t i c Party c a n d i d a t e s for the
district court j u d g e s h i p , a n d the ballots w e r e printed. In the m e a n t i m e , h o w e v e r . J u d g e Bevill h a d r e q u e s t e d a legal opinion f r o m the attorney g e n e r a l a s to w h e n his term of office expired a n d ballot. w h e t h e r the district court j u d g e s h i p , p l a c e no. 1, s h o u l d , in fact, b e p l a c e d on the 2 0 0 0 election
O n M a y 30, 2 0 0 0 , the attorney g e n e r a l i s s u e d an opinion, stating that, u n d e r the pertinent constitutional p r o v i s i o n s . J u d g e Bevill's term of office w o u l d not, a s the A O C h a d o p i n e d , expire in J a n u a r y 2 0 0 1 , but instead w o u l d expire in J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 , a n d that, therefore, J u d g e Bevill w a s not required to run for office in the 2 0 0 0 election. S e e O p . Att'y G e n . , N o . 2 0 0 0 - 1 5 9 (2000). H o w e v e r , the n a m e s of Bevill, A l l e n , a n d W e l l s w e r e on the printed ballots a s the D e m o c r a t i c Party c a n d i d a t e s for the p l a c e n o . 1 district court j u d g e s h i p in W a l k e r C o u n t y w h e n the primary election w a s held o n J u n e 6, 2 0 0 0 . Bevill a n d A l l e n w e r e the top two D e m o c r a t i c vote-getters, with neither receiving m o r e than 5 0 % of the v o t e s . T h e two then met in a run-off e l e c t i o n , held o n J u n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 0 ; A l l e n w o n the run-off.'^''^
A u g u s t 13, 2 0 0 0 , to certify to the probate judge of e a c h county in A l a b a m a the n a m e s of the c a n d i d a t e s that a r e to a p p e a r on the ballot for the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l e l e c t i o n . O n J u l y 7, 2 0 0 0 , in v i e w of the conflicting opinions of the A O C a n d the attorney g e n e r a l a s to the p l a c e no. 1 district court j u d g e s h i p in W a l k e r C o u n t y a n d for the a c c u r a c y of the g e n e r a l - e l e c t i o n ballot, S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e Bennett filed a declaratory-judgment action in the W a l k e r Circuit Court, a s k i n g that court to construe the pertinent constitutional p r o v i s i o n s a n d to d e c l a r e the n a m e s of those c a n d i d a t e s w h o s h o u l d b e certified to a p p e a r on the ballot for the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l election. A specific q u e s t i o n put to the court by the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e w a s : W h e n is J u d g e Bevill's C o u n t y r e c u s e d t h e m s e l v e s , this C o u r t appointed retired M o n t g o m e r y Circuit J u d g e William
FR
IE
ND
OF
TH EF O
Appendix B 2 of 8
GB OW .C OM
G o r d o n ( J u d g e G o r d o n is liereinafter referred to a s "tlie circuit court") to p r e s i d e o v e r the c a s e . T h e parties stipulated to the facts of the c a s e . O n A u g u s t 9, 2 0 0 0 , the circuit court entered its judgment, d e c l a r i n g (1) that, pursuant to 6.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 of the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1 9 0 1 , J u d g e Bevill's initial term lasts until the first P a g e 682
completed o n e y e a r in office; (2) that, accordingly. J u d g e Bevill's term of office a s district court
judge, p l a c e no. 1, in W a l k e r C o u n t y d o e s not expire until J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 ; (3) that J u d g e Bevill w a s not required to run for the district court j u d g e s h i p in the 2 0 0 0 election c y c l e ; a n d (4) that, for the the office of district court j u d g e , p l a c e no. 1, W a l k e r C o u n t y , o n the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l election ballot. II. aforementioned r e a s o n s , the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e s h o u l d not certify the n a m e s of a n y c a n d i d a t e s for
O n a p p e a l , A l l e n c o n t e n d s that the circuit court's construction of the pertinent constitutional provisions is incorrect a n d that, a s the winner of the primary election, he s h o u l d h a v e b e e n certified a s the D e m o c r a t i c P a r t y c a n d i d a t e for the district court j u d g e s h i p o n the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 general-election ballot. J u d g e Bevill h a s filed a brief with this C o u r t in w h i c h h e a r g u e s that, b e c a u s e the 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l election h a s b e e n held a n d the office of the district court j u d g e , p l a c e no. 1, w a s not o n t h e ballot, A l l e n ' s a p p e a l p r e s e n t s a moot q u e s t i o n a n d that, therefore, the a p p e a l s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d . H o w e v e r , b e c a u s e the o u t c o m e of this c a s e c o u l d impact future elections, w e hold that the interpretation of 6.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 in this c a s e a n d h e n c e V. Ogilvie, 394 U . S . 8 1 4 , 8 1 6 (1969). III. this a p p e a l is not moot. S e e Griggs v. Bennett, 7 1 0 S o . 2 d 4 1 1 , 4 1 2 n.4 ( A l a . 1998), citing Moore
S e c t i o n 6.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 of the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1901 o p e r a t e s to fill v a c a n c i e s in judicial offices. S e c t i o n 6.14 p r o v i d e s : " T h e office of a j u d g e s h a l l be v a c a n t if he d i e s , r e s i g n s , retires, or is r e m o v e d . Vacancies in any
FR
Constitution of A l a b a m a of 1901 a n d vacancies [or] St. C l a i r county shall be filled as provided hereafter adopted, or as may be otherwise
IE
ND
OF
TH EF O
occurring
C o n e c u h , C l a r k e , W a s h i n g t o n , H e n r y , E t o w a h , Walker, T a l l a p o o s a , P i c k e n s , G r e e n e , T u s c a l o o s a , in the Constitution of 1901 with amendments advertised and enacted now or local established by a properly
to fill a vacancy
Appendix B 3 of 8
GB OW .C OM
in S h e l b y , M a d i s o n , W i l c o x , M o n r o e , shall serve an initial term
v a c a n c i e s occurring in a n y
Tuesday
in January
following
the next
general
be filled for a full term of office b e g i n n i n g at the e n d of the a p p o i n t e d term." (Emphasis added.)
T h e proviso in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14 applies to judicial v a c a n c i e s in s e v e r a l specifically listed counties, including W a l k e r C o u n t y . A l i e n a r g u e s , a s he did in the circuit court, that the
l a n g u a g e in the proviso stating that s u c h v a c a n c i e s "shall be filled a s p r o v i d e d in the Constitution of 1901 with a m e n d m e n t s n o w or hereafter a d o p t e d " m e a n s that the term of office of a j u d g e w h o , like J u d g e Bevill, h a s b e e n a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y in a county s p e c i f i c a l l y listed in 6.14 is filling a v a c a n c y shall s e r v e until the next Page 683 g o v e r n e d by 158 of the Constitution of A l a b a m a of 1901.^^^ S e c t i o n 158 provides that a j u d g e
15, 2 0 0 1 , a n d the office s h o u l d h a v e a p p e a r e d on the N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 g e n e r a l - e l e c t i o n ballot, with A l l e n , a s the w i n n e r of the D e m o c r a t i c Party primary, certified a s the D e m o c r a t i c Party's candidate.
S e c t i o n 158, u p o n w h i c h A l l e n relies, w a s part of what w a s Article VI of the Constitution of A l a b a m a of 1 9 0 1 . H o w e v e r , A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 r e p e a l e d Article VI a n d c r e a t e d the Unified Judicial System.^"^^ S e e Hornsby v. Sessions, 7 0 3 S o . 2 d 9 3 2 , 9 3 9 ( A l a . 1997). T h u s , A m e n d m e n t v. Siegelman, 386 S o . 2 d N o . 3 2 8 , of w h i c h 6.14 is a part, controls in this state. Id. S e e Hooper
A l l e n ' s a r g u m e n t that 158 g o v e r n s the term of office of a judge a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y in o n e of the counties listed in the proviso in 6.14 b e c a u s e , it s a i d , his interpretation violated the principles of constitutional construction. A l l e n ' s interpretation, the court s a i d , "would h a v e the court read b a c k into 6.14 a s e c t i o n of old Article VI w h i c h a m e n d m e n t 3 2 8 r e p e a l e d in its entirety." "In s e a r c h i n g for the proper construction of a constitutional provision, w e m u s t look to the l a n g u a g e of that p r o v i s i o n . " Hornsby, s u p r a , 7 0 3 S o . 2 d at 9 3 9 . N o t h i n g in the l a n g u a g e of 6.14 s u g g e s t s that 158 of what w a s Article VI g o v e r n s the t e r m s of office of j u d g e s a p p o i n t e d to fill v a c a n c i e s in the c o u n t i e s listed in 6.14. T h e plain l a n g u a g e of the p r o v i s o in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14 states that judicial v a c a n c i e s in the listed counties "shall be filled a s provided in the Constitution of 1901 with a m e n d m e n t s n o w or hereafter a d o p t e d , or a s m a y be otherwise
FR
with the attorney g e n e r a l that the Constitution h a s n o w b e e n a m e n d e d by A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 , provision of 6.14 of A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 , v a c a n c i e s in judicial offices in A l a b a m a "shall be filled
IE
ND
OF
2 0 7 , 2 0 9 - 1 0 (Ala. 1980) (noting that 6.14 h a s specifically r e p l a c e d 158). T h e circuit court rejected
TH EF O
Appendix B 4 of 8
GB OW .C OM
by appointment by the governor." T h e l a n g u a g e that follows that g e n e r a l provision in 6.14 provides that a v a c a n c y in a judicial office in a n y listed county that h a s not a d o p t e d a n alternate p r o c e s s for filling judicial v a c a n c i e s is a l s o filled by appointment of the governor.I-^^ B y a l s o providing that judicial v a c a n c i e s Page 684
p r o c e d u r e s e s t a b l i s h e d by future constitutional a m e n d m e n t or by e n a c t m e n t s of the Legislature that could c h a n g e the p r o c e s s for filling judicial v a c a n c i e s in o n e or more of the listed c o u n t i e s .
W e a l s o a g r e e with the circuit court a n d the attorney g e n e r a l that the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14, w h i c h i n c l u d e s the p r o v i s o , g o v e r n s only the manner in w h i c h a judicial v a c a n c y in o n e of the listed c o u n t i e s is filled; it d o e s not a p p l y to the term of office of a j u d g e a p p o i n t e d to fill s u c h a
counties the authority to e s t a b l i s h a different p r o c e s s for filling judicial v a c a n c i e s , not altering w h e n be held.t^J
With the e x c e p t i o n of J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y a n d two other c o u n t i e s specifically c o v e r e d by constitutional a m e n d m e n t s a d o p t e d s u b s e q u e n t to the adoption of 6.14,'-^-' the third s e n t e n c e of 6.14 w h i c h provides that a j u d g e a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y "shall s e r v e a n initial term lasting until the first M o n d a y after the s e c o n d T u e s d a y In J a n u a r y following the next g e n e r a l election held after he h a s c o m p l e t e d o n e y e a r in office" g o v e r n s the term of office of p e r s o n s a p p o i n t e d to fill judicial v a c a n c i e s in A l a b a m a . T h e r e is nothing in the third s e n t e n c e of 6.14 that c a n be c o n s t r u e d a s construction of 6.14 is dictated by its l a n g u a g e ; it a l s o provides for s o m e m e a s u r e of uniformity in judicial a p p o i n t e e s ' t e r m s of office. excepting from its o p e r a t i o n the c o u n t i e s listed in the proviso in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14. T h i s
A l l e n a r g u e s that this C o u r t in Griggs v. Bennett, 7 1 0 S o . 2 d 411 (Ala. 1998), "implicitly a c c e p t e d " Constitution g o v e r n s the term of office of a j u d g e a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y in a c o u n t y listed in the proviso. W e d o not a g r e e . A l t h o u g h the appellants in Griggs, the proviso in 6.14, this C o u r t n e v e r r e a c h e d that c l a i m in Griggs, like A l l e n , m a d e the c l a i m that b e c a u s e w e f o u n d that the 158 g o v e r n e d the t e r m s of office of j u d g e s appointed to fill v a c a n c i e s in the c o u n t i e s c o v e r e d by v a c a n t j u d g e s h i p at i s s u e in that c a s e did not o c c u r in a c o u n t y c o v e r e d by the p r o v i s o . T h e
FR
j u d g e s h i p in the T w e n t i e t h J u d i c i a l Circuit, w h i c h i n c l u d e s both H e n r y C o u n t y (a c o u n t y listed in the proviso in 6.14) a n d H o u s t o n C o u n t y (a county not listed in the proviso), required to s t a n d for election. W e held that a strict construction of the proviso in 6.14 e x c l u d e s the Twentieth J u d i c i a l Circuit from the s c o p e of the proviso's operation,
IE
ND
OF
TH EF O
Appendix B 5 of 8
GB OW .C OM
P a g e 685 b e c a u s e H o u s t o n C o u n t y is not a listed county. " W h e n a court is interpreting a proviso, the application of w h i c h is in doubt, g e n e r a l c a n o n s of construction require that the proviso be strictly c o n s t r u e d . " Griggs, 7 1 0 S o . 2 d at 4 1 3 .
T h u s , Griggs d o e s not s u p p o r t A l l e n ' s a r g u m e n t c o n c e r n i n g J u d g e Bevill's term of office. Although this Court set out the a p p e l l a n t s ' a r g u m e n t in Griggs, w e took no position in that c a s e on the continued viability of 1 5 8 . Notwithstanding A l l e n ' s a r g u m e n t a n d the a r g u m e n t m a d e by the
appellants in Griggs, this C o u r t h a s previously r e c o g n i z e d that 6.14 h a s r e p l a c e d 158 a s the to fill a judicial v a c a n c y in A l a b a m a . S e e Hooper v. Siegelman,
A c c o r d i n g l y , w e hold that the circuit court correctly determined that J u d g e Bevill's term of office election. IV.
d o e s not expire until J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 . J u d g e Bevill is not required to stand for election until the 2 0 0 2
A l i e n a l s o a r g u e s that S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e Bennett s h o u l d have b e e n equitably e s t o p p e d from s e e k i n g the declaratory j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e , A l l e n s a y s , he relied to his detriment on Bennett's certification of his c a n d i d a c y in the D e m o c r a t i c Party primary a n d run-off a n d b e c a u s e , he s a y s , Bennett u n r e a s o n a b l y d e l a y e d bringing the declaratory-judgment action. " T o establish the e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s of equitable e s t o p p e l , [a party] must s h o w the following: "(1) That '[t]he p e r s o n a g a i n s t w h o m e s t o p p e l is a s s e r t e d , w h o usually m u s t h a v e k n o w l e d g e of the facts, c o m m u n i c a t e s s o m e t h i n g in a m i s l e a d i n g w a y , either by w o r d s , c o n d u c t , or s i l e n c e , with the intention that the c o m m u n i c a t i o n will be a c t e d o n ; ' "(2) That 'the p e r s o n s e e k i n g to a s s e r t e s t o p p e l , w h o l a c k s k n o w l e d g e of the facts, relies upon [the] c o m m u n i c a t i o n ; ' a n d
Lambert
IE
claim inconsistent with his earlier conduct.'" v. Mail Handlers Benefit Plan, 6 8 2 S o . 2 d 6 1 , 6 4 ( A l a . 1996), quoting General Co., 4 3 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 0 , 1243 ( A l a . 1983). Electric
FR
ND
OF
TH EF O
Appendix B 6 of 8
GB OW .C OM
3 8 6 S o . 2 d 2 0 7 , 2 0 9 - 1 0 (Ala. 1980).
v. United States,
176 F . S u p p .
7 6 8 ( M . D . A l a . 1959), afTd, 2 8 5 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1961); Ex parte Fields, 4 3 2 S o . 2 d 1290 ( A l a .
' " U n d e r the settled law, equitable e s t o p p e l . . . must be predicated u p o n the conduct, l a n g u a g e , or the s i l e n c e of the party a g a i n s t w h o m it is s o u g h t to be i n v o k e d . S a i d conduct, l a n g u a g e , or s i l e n c e must a m o u n t to the representation or c o n c e a l m e n t of a material fact or facts. The representation must be as to the facts and not as to the law....' estoppel is not a barto
the correction...
Outdoor
Advertising].)
176 F . S u p p . at 7 7 2 , quoting
P a g e 686
State h a s no authority to certify n a m e s for p l a c e m e n t on a ballot for a n election that, under the pertinent p r o v i s i o n s of the A l a b a m a Constitution, is not s u p p o s e d to be h e l d . A l l e n a l s o s u g g e s t s that the doctrine of equitable e s t o p p e l s h o u l d be a p p l i e d b e c a u s e , he s a y s . S e c r e t a r y of State B e n n e t t u n r e a s o n a b l y d e l a y e d bringing the declaratory-judgment action. a c t e d diligently in s e e k i n g the declaratory j u d g m e n t a n d that he did not u n r e a s o n a b l y d e l a y bringing the a c t i o n . H o w e v e r , the u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e before the circuit court s h o w e d that the S e c r e t a r y of State
H o u s t o n , S e e , L y o n s , J o h n s t o n e , H a r w o o d , W o o d a l i , a n d Stuart, J J . , c o n c u r .
FR
Notes:
IE
ND
AFFIRMED.
OF
TH EF O
Appendix B 7 of 8
c a s e . T h e S e c r e t a r y of
GB OW .C OM
of a mistake of law.'" Automobile
S e c t i o n 158 p r o v i d e s : " V a c a n c i e s in tlie office of a n y of the j u s t i c e s of the s u p r e m e court or j u d g e s w h o hold office by election, or c h a n c e l l o r s of this state, shall be filled by appointment by the governor. T h e a p p o i n t e e s h a l l hold his office until the next g e n e r a l election for a n y state officer the s u c c e s s o r c h o s e n at s u c h election shall hold office for the u n e x p i r e d term a n d until his s u c c e s s o r is e l e c t e d a n d qualified." ^^I T h e p r e a m b l e to A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 states: held at least s i x m o n t h s after the v a c a n c y o c c u r s , a n d until his s u c c e s s o r is e l e c t e d a n d qualified;
"Article VI of the Constitution of A l a b a m a of 1901 a s a m e n d e d , a n d a m e n d m e n t s 3 1 7 a n d 3 2 3 thereof, are h e r e b y r e p e a l e d a n d in lieu thereof the following article s h a l l be adopted[.]"
S e c t i o n 6.14 a l s o specifically provides that v a c a n c i e s occurring in judicial offices in J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y shall b e filled a s provided by A m e n d m e n t s N o . 8 3 a n d N o . 110 to the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1 9 0 1 . A m e n d m e n t s N o . 8 3 a n d N o . 110 provide a n alternate p r o c e s s a
c o m m i s s i o n n o m i n a t e s to the g o v e r n o r three qualified p e r s o n s , o n e of w h o m the g o v e r n o r s h a l l then appoint to fill the v a c a n c y for filling judicial v a c a n c i e s in the B i r m i n g h a m Division of the Jefferson Circuit C o u r t . T h u s , 6.14 e x p r e s s l y p r e s e r v e s this p r o c e s s . S i n c e the e n a c t m e n t of b e e n a d o p t e d , providing for judicial v a c a n c i e s occurring in t h o s e c o u n t i e s to be filled by a n o m i n a t i n g - c o m m i s s i o n p r o c e s s similar to the p r o c e s s u s e d in J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y . S e e A m e n d m e n t s N o . 3 3 4 , N o . 6 0 7 , N o . 4 0 8 , a n d N o . 6 1 5 to the A l a b a m a Constitution of 1 9 0 1 .
A s the attorney g e n e r a l stated in O p . Att'y G e n . , N o . 2 0 0 0 - 1 5 9 (2000), the proviso c o n t a i n e d in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14 "allows the n a m e d counties to retain the flexibility to provide, by local law, a n alternate appointment process, s u c h a s a judicial nominating c o m m i s s i o n , for e x a m p l e . "
A m e n d m e n t s N o . 8 3 , N o . 6 0 7 , a n d N o . 4 0 8 of the A l a b a m a Constitution specifically provide that p e r s o n s filling judicial v a c a n c i e s in the Jefferson Circuit C o u r t a n d in circuit a n d district courts in M a d i s o n a n d M o b i l e C o u n t i e s shall s e r v e until the next g e n e r a l election following the expiration of six months after the v a c a n c y o c c u r r e d .
FR
IE
ND
OF
TH EF O
Appendix B 8 of 8
GB OW .C OM
FRANK
K , JOHDAN
SCCRITARY o r STATE
O F F I C E or T H E
Ifr. Jack Weinberg 3^0 North Spaulding, Apt. 1 Los Angslesj Califomia 90036 Dear Mr. Weinberg:
Under California law, just tho nariio of the party and i t s candidatos ^pear on the ballot. The Peace and Freedm party name vdll; appear on the ballot and your candidate for vice-president on3y. Sincere'ly, "
OF
TH
To confirai our telephone ccmversaticn last V.^ednesdajr, September 11th, please, be advised that this office i J i l l not certify KLdridge Cleaver as the Peace and Freedom candidate for president on -iihe Hovember ^, 1968 general election ballot* InfoiTiiation i n our possession indicates, and confirme^l bjr you, that I-tr, Cleaver i s 33 and not 3^ years old ^.Mch is a requireiaQnt under our federal constitution for president. The vicepresidential- selection (Peggy Terry) and the hO electoral college voters will be certified*
EF
HPS/pv/m
IE
co:
ND
FR
Appendix C 1 of 1
OG BO W .C OM
/'
/
1. I am oyer the age of 18 and am a resident of Arizona. The information contained in this affidavit is based upon my own personal knowledge. and, i f called as a witness, could testify competently thereto. I am the duly elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, and I have been a law enforcement officer and official, in both state and federal government, for 51 years. 2. In August of last year, a group of citizens from the Surprise Arizona Tea Party organization met with me in my office and presented a petition signed by approximately 250 residents of Maricopa County, asking if I would investigate the controversy surrounding President Barrack Obama's birth certificate authenticity and his eligibility to serve as the President of the United States. 3. This group expressed its concern that, up until that point, no law enforcement agency in the countiy had ever gone on record indicating that they had either looked into this or that they were willing to do so, citing lack of resources and jurisdictional challenges. 4. The Maricopa County Sheriff s Office is in a rather unique position. Under the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes, as the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, I have the authority to request the aid of the volunteer posse, located in the county, to assist me in the execution of my duties. Having organized a volunteer posse of approximately 3,000 members, I, as the Sheriff of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, can authorize an investigation go forward to answer these questions at virtually noexpense to the-tax payer.
FR IE
5. The Cold Case posse agreed to undertake the investigation requested by the 250 citizens of Maricopa County. This posse consists of former police officers and attorneys who have worked investigating the controversy surrounding Barack Obama. The investigation mainly focused on the electronic document that was
II
Appendix D 1 of 2
ND
OF
TH
EF
OG BO
I, the undersigned, being first duly sworn, do hereby state under oath and under penalty of perjury that the facts are true:
.C
AFFIDAVIT
OM
) ) ss. )
presented as President Obama's long form birth certificate to the American people and to citizens of Maricopa County by the White House on April 27,2011. 6. The investigation led to a closer examination of the procedures regarding the registration of births at the Hawaii Department of Health and various statements made by Hawaii government officials regarding the Obama birth controversy over the last five years. 7. Upon close examination of the evidence, it is my belief that forgery andfiraudwas likely committed in key identity documents including President Obama's longform birth certificate, his Selective Service Registration card, and his Social Security number. 8. M y investigators and I believe that President Obama's.long-form.birth certificate is a computer-generated document, was manufactured electronically, and that it did not originate in a paper format, as claimed by the White House. Most importantly, the "registrar's stamp" in the computer generated document released by the White House and posted on the White House website, may have been imported from another unknown source document. The effect of the stamp not being placed on the document pursuant to state and federal laws means that there is probable cause that the document is a forgery, and therefore, it cannot be used as a verification, legal or otherwise, of the date, place or circumstances of Barack Obama's birth. 9. The Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into Barack Obama's birth certificate and his eligibility to be president is on-going. The on-going nature of the investigation is due to additional information that has come to light sinpe we held the press conference in March, 2012. As soon as that information has been properly verified by the Cold Case Posse, I will release that information to the public. Executed this / p day of June, 201 Maricopa County, Arizona.
ND
FR IE
OF
TH
EF
Appendix D 2 of 2
OG BO
.C
OM