Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Brief To Supreme Court
Brief To Supreme Court
HUGH MCINNISH,
et a l . , Appellan-ts
V.
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
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
source
may n o t be q u a l i f i e d f o r
A f t e r being presented
theSecretary
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
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 ,
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
verify
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
presidential occur
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
candidates
i n t h e 2012
Court's d e c i s i o n i n t h i s
ii
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. II. A. B. C. D. E. F. INTRODUCTION
i - i i iii-iv v vi vii-viii 1 4 5 7 8 9 9
California
20 21 21 22
G. H. I.
in
J. K. L. M. N. 0. P.
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.
A l l elements 1. 2. 3. A.
27 28 29 33
Clear legal
Duty o f respondent
.... 35 37 40
iv
LIST OF APPENDICES Attorney Allen General's Opinion No. No. 1998-200 Appendix A Appendix B
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
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,
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).
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
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
committee
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
Other
Authorities
Ala.
viii
STATEMENT OF This dismissal Court. This case i s before Circuit this case with i s a direct prejudice appeal entered
THE
CASE of Circuit
Court
on a p p e a l
f r o m an
order and
Court denying
petition
f o r a Writ Relief.
o f Mandamus o r Such p e t i t i o n
Extraordinary
is
c a p a c i t y as t h e i n the of
of State. that
for Relief
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
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
the record
depository
i t i s stored, name 6,
r e c e i p t of such
placed general
on t h e Alabama election. To
f o r t h e November
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.
The Motion
Court to
i n error,
t h a t the
Secretary's
Dismiss -the 2,
granted.
Case 2012: the Mclnnish Office together the with his attorney State, State, State, at
visited Hon.
of
Secretary of
Emily
Thompson,
i n the
a b s e n c e o f and office
candidate,
violating
U.S. 11,
2012:
was
assigned
H o n o r a b l e E u g e n e W. 12, 2012:
October
Mclnnish
Goode f i l e d
a motion time to
for 5
shorten to get
response
a d e c i s i o n before
November October
2 012 2012:
presidential The
Secretary of and
motion
Goode f u l l y
October status
a motion the
conference
s i n c e time
of
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
Praecipe,
since
lawsuit i s of great
importance,
require the
be d e c i d e d
electors
on December
November
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
i n a one-sentence No
order, f o r the
prejudice.
explanation
January appeal
filed
a timely notice of
to this
STATEMENT OF
THE
ISSUES
are
as
even though
about which
Whether the
a candidate's
i n f o r m a t i o n from the
source not be
that indicates
candidate
qualified
Office.
STATEMENT OF THE
FACTS
On o r a b o u t A p r i l presidency,
2011,after
2 years
on August
4, 1 9 6 1 t o A m e r i c a n
subject
B a r a c k Obama, certificate.
Verified
Compl. 6.
birth
OBAMA's
(C8) I n s t e a d , certificate"
i s credible evidence
"birth
published
o n t h e i n t e r n e t was
altered
or otherwise
On F e b r u a r y attorney State,
2, 2 0 1 2 , M c l n n i s h , visited
and o t h e r s , time
at which
t h e Hon. E m i l y speaking
of State,
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
any
candidate,
thus
violating
her
U.S.
and
Verified Mclnnish
Goode f i l e d seeking
suit
in a
Circuit
Court
t o have of
o f mandamus i s s u e d her to
Secretary
State names in
compelling had
whose
the
ballot
Alabama,
O f f i c e of
United
a bone f i d e be
Such b i r t h of State
certificate from
delivered to
the
directly of the
i n charge stored.
records
i t was
STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW "Questions Republican 2004) . Party o f law a r e reviewed v. McGinley, de novo." Alabama (Ala.
Because resolution
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 ,
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
our r i g h t
t o vote
a t least
Resolution of this
must s t i l l
occur
i t i s "capable
ofrepetition
evading In chief
as t h e
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
election be i s s u e d
ballots.
requiring
her duties
of office
the Alabama
Constitutions.
ARGUMENT INTRODUCTION A gnawing indeed question vexes t h e Alabama body p o l i t i c and Obama, 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,
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
office?
he a " p r e t e n d e r high
t o the throne,"
o n e who h a s a r r i v e d a t i s compelling
evidence The
lies
a President
be a II,
"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
define
natural-born
citizen,
t o mean a p e r s o n
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 , S e c . 1, C l . 5 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n .
In
an e f f o r t
to resolve
this
persistent
question two
Mr.
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 documents by experts which point generated This important Alabama to the strong
question
Secretary
presidential s u b m i t bona
to her f o r
verification. The question, fact that the e l e c t i o n i s past infra does n o t o b v i a t e t h e i t moot.
n o r a s we e x p l a i n
does i t r e n d e r
Answers t o D e f e n d a n t ' s Renewed M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s The court below g a v e no h i n t o f i t s r a t i o n a l e f o r We, therefore, are left with the
t h e case. 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,
i n Chapman's m o t i o n address
to dismiss. i n turn.
accordingly,
these points
10
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
mootness. she cited 42 the case of So, v. 3d 65, Barber 70-71 440 U.
Cornerstone
Inc., Los
Angeles
Davis,
Barber,
involved used
the seizure i n an
by
of slot
machines
operation
i n Lowndes County.
which
defendants in
alleged.
that
t h e o p e r a t o r s had, seized,
agreed not
not
further
the machines
agreed
to r e f r a i n and that,
that
not been
seized,
that
p r o c u r e and n o t moot.
operate Since
machines. was
held
i t does not
support
Chapman's c l a i m
cited
involved
a case
i n which
a person
judge
c a s e was
t o be m o o t s i n c e
11
take
the proper
legal
actions.
Specifically
he f a i l e d he
to
seek an i n j u n c t i o n to it be a c a n d i d a t e , was h e l d .
i n which
wished after
the e l e c t i o n
The s u i t
the legitimacy of
that this
Court
present
i t nevertheless f a l l s
clarity
i n Coady reads
Parole,
which
follows:
T h i s c o u r t w i l l d e c i d e q u e s t i o n s t h a t have o t h e r w i s e b e e n r e n d e r e d moot when one o r more o f t h e f o l l o w i n g t h r e e e x c e p t i o n s a p p l y : (1) t h e c a s e i n v o l v e s questions of great p u b l i c importance; (2) t h e c o n d u c t complained of i s capable of r e p e t i t i o n yet a v o i d i n g r e v i e w ; 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"'
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
E x c e p t i o n 1, Coady v. Pennsylvania
Questions of Board of of
Pennsylvania
M,
repetition 814.
evading
A p a r t y would s u f f e r of
a detriment. Second
In
re:
A p p e l l a t e Court
Illinois,
District,
2-09-0472. The present and 1: case falls under each of moot: involves a question question of and of of the three named
exceptions,
importance. are
I t goes t o the t o be
citizenry in their
elections.
government. 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,
where the
l e g i t i m a c y of at
t o be
a complaint we need
recur. present
l o o k no
further
to conclude cases
between
13
o f S t a t e and t h e e l e c t i o n i n this
i s t r u e by analogy 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
i n t h e next o f i s capable
election of
t h e conduct
repetition, Exception
and
Goode w i l l they
a direct
detriment
citizens their
election
was h o n e s t ,
c a n d i d a t e s were
Goode, t h a t he
a presidential
candidate,
s h o u l d be a s s u r e d candidate.
of application
of these
rules
a decision Justice
on nonmootnes
i s t h a t o f Roe v. f o r t h em a j o r i t y ,
Blackmun, 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, 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 ) .
14
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). I n Roe Attorney to the pregnant J a n e Roe was suing the District right
she had a
an a b o r t i o n ,
withstanding.
Roe h a d h e r b a b y l o n g
before
f o r the court
applied the
mootness
exceptions
the case
v. Bennett
( A p p e n d i x B) i s Secretary that
instructive,
since that
and an e l e c t i o n of State
i s past.
claimed
Secretary ballot
erroneously
left
for circuit
i n t h e November that
2000
election. election
I t was a r g u e d was o v e r .
B u t t h e Supreme C o u r t
15
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 , 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) As i s true would by analogy in this case, every contest of the sheer length an of year next a
similarly
be m o o t e d b y
appeals p r o c e s s . Yet
elections
happen e v e r y
the p o t e n t i a l cycle.
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
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, valid
this
case
i s not
moot
i t qualifies
exceptions to the
mootness
doctrine. Next, 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.
address
investigate The in
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of State i s the
"chief
the state
election Secretary
activities" of
(Code o f A l a . under
16
State's duties
Alabama
provide If
an e x c u s e
only in
f o r a person
performing
her duty,
especially be halt.
the case
o f an e l e c t e d
official,
c o r r u p t i o n would grind to a
might w e l l duty"
t o do a a thing
thing when, as h e r e ,
certainly it
her doing
i s the right
Attorney General's
A) C o n t r a r y
Attorney General's
determine
the legitimacy
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 , 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 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
that
qualification.
J o s e p h M. A r p a i o , the request
County A r i z o n a , a t conducted a
citizens,
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. 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) Further, Secretary i ti s not novel t o not only
18
of State
eligibility
of presidential
candidates, forfailure
of e l i g i b i l i t y . where
One s u c h
California that
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
as p r e s i d e n t set
to put issued
ballot.
In a l e t t e r
t o Jack
Weinberg
(Chairman, (Appendix
( 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.)
Likewise,
i n 2012, one P e t a
Lindsay
t o be i t s P r e s i d e n t i a l ballot. Secretary
primary
r e j e c t e d Ms, L i n d s a y , because
19
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
and 1,
not
eligible
the
U.S.
Constitution, for
Article to be
2, at
which 35
requires years of
candidates
President
least
the
authority
to
the
authority of
to the
President
States no
exclusively or
with
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
official the
the
Constitution. an oath
fact, to
Secretary the as
taken
explicitly as
support duty to
United Alabama
Constitution. elections
i t i s her
officer, law as
i s required as the
United to
provisions
pertaining
elections, official to
above,
state
enforce See
Constitutional the
supra
announcing the
a candidate failing
from
California b a l l o t for
t o meet
Constitutional
requirements.
20
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
not
matter
question
presented or
properly
conducted,
whether Instead,
were p r o p e r l y
c o u n t e d and
question
i s w h e t h e r one
o r more o f to have
candidates ballot.
were q u a l i f i e d I f , as
perpetrated Alabama,
Secretary certainly
citizens
this
subject
matter
jurisdiction. 4. Plaintiffs This State law. do is a her have f a i l e d suit merely to join necessary that the parties. of Alabama
asking
Secretary under
duty
Constitution
and
While
i t i s true a
m e n t i o n e d as to
candidate
that
investigate, of
P l a i n t i f f s contention duties to
applies to
Secretary
State's
investigate
candidates. of the
Nevertheless,
Alabama case,
initial request.
court
d i d not
Therefore,
Chapman's argument
21
i s without
5.
Plaintiffs' Since
c l a i m was
f i l e d too their
Plaintiffs
brought
general timely.
p r e s i d e n t i a l e l e c t i o n took place, However, even i f t h i s untimely valid as Court were f o r the 2012 to
i t was hold
they apply to
a l l future this
elections in their
with
question
mootness, of
question an be of
t o be
issue
election cycles,
needs to capable
resolved.
matters follow
r e p e t i t i o n yet
in future
elections until
resolved.
important p o i n t s of
the
not
Moot and
S h o u l d Be
D e c i d e d on
its
supra,
this
the
three
conditions to render
f o r nonmootness, i t nonmoot.
any
sufficient
22
therefore, 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,
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
elections
w h e r e i t may o t h e r w i s e
arise.
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 . " There birth i s strong technical submitted evidence of fraud i nthe Obama. This of Sheriff
certificate
by Barack
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,
case
Michael
A r p a i o was f i r s t into
Obama's l o n g - f o r m
certificate in Maricopa
o f 2011 upon p e t i t i o n
by 250 r e s i d e n t s o f
County. A r p a i o A f f i d a v i t ,
2 (C38)
The in
C o l d Case
Arpaio
October,
enforcement Affidavit,
and p r a c t i c i n g
attorneys.
Zullo
23
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
Barack
authentic.
Affidavit, 6.(C 35) 2 012, the Cold Case Posse informed Sheriff
was l i k e l y
documents. Zullo
i s , a t minimum, m i s l e a d i n g import
circumstance
of Barack
"were b a s e d upon,
typesetting,
Department o f H e a l t h numerous
policies
and procedures,
and comparisons w i t h
other b i r t h
r e c o r d s . " 7. ( C 3 6 )
24
of their
investigation,
"The
i fany, o r i g i n a l of Health."
birth
records
a r e h e l d by the Hawaii
Department
12 were
conclusions
also supported
o f Jerome
Corsi,
employed as a S e n i o r
b y WND.com.
Corsi holds
a Ph.D. f r o m H a r v a r d
extensively utilized
researched
OBAMA a n d h i s p a s t . research
h i sextensive
Certificate:
investigation to write h i s 6. ( C 4 0 )
a l l the research
he c o n d u c t e d research.
as w e l l as any subsequent
At
Dr. C o r s i f l e w
t o Phoenix,
Arizona
t o meet w i t h
Case
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.
7 I d .
25
Dr. private,
Corsi's research,
" r e v e a l s a n d shows a l i k e l i h o o d
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 ,
as t o where
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 9 (C41)
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 - f o r m
certificate,
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 - f o r m
birth certificate
b y The W h i t e House." 8 I d .
26
In "there and
summary,
Sheriff cause
Arpaio that
unequivocally the
stated
that
i s probable
document i s a
therefore of
u s e d as or
a verification, of
otherwise,
place
circumstance
Obama's b i r t h . "
With of in
this
strong
evidence
of
fraud an
coming
from the as
Maricopa the
County Arizona,
official
source
General's
opinion, of
i t is
reasonable
the
Secretary certificate.
State
t o demand
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 .
the
issuance of
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 , 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
address each of
these
elements
in
turn.
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
(1)
right
to
the
order
have a c l e a r l e g a l is a citizen
right
i n the
election.
each year
numerous real he is
owes, w h i c h and
typically taxes,
include
estate
taxes,
sales
among o t h e r s . the
national
interest
i n the
maintenance to
of
constitutional of has
government,
i n that and
wellbeing certainly
himself,
h i s progeny, right
a clear legal
to have duties a
chief
perform her
to ensure stable,
elections
of m a i n t a i n i n g
constitutional
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 $17.7 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 .
28
the United
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
f o r the
from competing
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.H.
See H o l l a n d e r v. McCain,
to perform,
of b a l l o t s ,
14-20, e t s e q . The i m p e r a t i v e d u t y
I, s o l e m n l y s w e a r ( o r a f f i r m , 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 , 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 , 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 ; 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 , t o t h e b e s t o f my a b i l i t y . So h e l p me God." A l a . C o n s t , o f 1 9 0 1 , a r t . X V I , 2 7 9 , c l . 1. Further, Secretary shall be of Ala. State C o d e 1975 as 17-9-3 i n s t r u c t s "(a) The the
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
office
entitled
then
certified
their
respective parties.)
they
are
otherwise the
qualified"
i s not was
mere
L e g i s l a t u r e , but purpose. 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
seek o f f i c e not
are nor
qualified,
and
such their
persons names on
are the
entitled,
even p e r m i t t e d ,
t o have
ballot.
30
This
the
lawmakers to
anticipating of State
submitted
the
f a c i e , but these
legitimate allowed on
should
ballot
official.
The taken an
U.S. oath
the
Secretary set
of
has
t o be
eligible As
Office
United
States.
jurisdiction of the
ineligibility and
Congressional v.
influence 1, 35
excluded." The
McPherson not
Blacker, way
s t a t e s may
i n any
eligibility
r e q u i r e m e n t s mandated by
the C o n s t i t u t i o n .
The three
oath
of of
office
i s the
common r o o t
the our
branches
government that as
spring.
I t i s so cited
form of Court
government
Supreme
J u s t i c e s ' oath
for establishing
31
review. to her
Marbury oath
v.
Madison, supra,
5 U.S.
137. she
In swore
of o f f i c e , would
i n which the
a f f i r m e d ) t h a t she of the
"... s u p p o r t . . .
Constitution the
i n view 17-9-3,
of
instructions codified of
c o n t a i n e d i n A l a . Code i n law
supra,
the
Secretary
S t a t e has
requirements on the
P r e s i d e n c y and This
ballot. candidate
would-be
about
concerning his
qualifications
office
The of "It
acting
on
b e h a l f of the U.S.
State
Alabama, would be
obey the
a l l the
which
t h i s Court
officials or
a duty
obey the
requirements of such of
Board v.
Aaron, U.S.
(1958)."
Puerto
V.Branstad, allows an
483
a t 228. person
I f the to run
32
Secretary of Office
ineligible
f o r the
of of
the the
United U.S.
States
i t w o u l d be This
in
direct be
Constitution.
outcome cannot
on
February and
2,
2012, others,
Appellant visited
Mclnnish, the
together the
his attorney of
O f f i c e of the Hon. in
State,
during
Deputy and
Secretary
speaking State,
f o r the
Secretary
would not
candidate,
thus v i o l a t i n g
It i s clear that
the
Secretary
of
constitutional
Lack of
t h a t may
contested.
This
mention
does
O f f i c e of 17-16-44
States.
provides:
33
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 , conduct, or r e s u l t s a n y e l e c t i o n , e x c e p t s o f a r a s a u t h o r i t y t o do s h a l l be s p e c i a l l y and s p e c i f i c a l l y e n u m e r a t e d s e t down b y s t a t u t e . 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
and
election
President
United
Moreover,
A l a Code to
s t a t u t e s do there i s no
address the
eligibility Secretary
adequate remedy.
State
i s the to
interdict i t from
illegitimate
exclude
Secretary was
of
State
failed the
to perform law
this of
duty,
violating
highest
this a namely
land,
wrong of one
a b o u t whom t h e r e their
eligibility w o u l d be
United
States
office
being
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
A l a . C o d e 1975 official
Secretary of
t o cause
happen.
Court
to hear 6-6-640. cases See
ju r i s d i c t i o n
t o A l a . C o d e 1975 3d 48, 50
So.
( A l a . 2010).
4.
A l a . Code 1975
The
Bar
This Action.
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 , 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 . " In the case of Rice v. Chapman, 51 So. 3d 281(2010) the
Alabama Supreme C o u r t
i n v o k e d Code o f A l a . 1975
35
17-16-44,
"jurisdiction
stripping
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
Party
from
canvassing votes
"impact
I t was f o r t h i s stripped
the Court
from
having subject
j urisdiction. i t i s only the proceedings conduct, or results that entertain the t h a t 17-
Yet
"legality, 16-44
prevents.
U n l i k e Rice,
does n o t seek t o
question the
the l e g a l i t y
"conduct"
results
o f an e l e c t i o n . o f those
lawsuit
seeking to participate
of the Secretary of State t o determine the of those attempting to participate. Thus, 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
this
l a w s u i t and
this
l a w s u i t i s not
barred
by
that
statute. Further Constitution office of 17-16-44 does not preempt the U. S. for the
a candidate
President
States.
CONCLUSION It w o u l d be of paradoxical the lies beyond measure the de of i f the facto our real and
l e g i t i m a c y of at the very
which
heart
were l e f t a birth
unresolved
explained license
supra,
applying bona
learner's birth he
must
submit The
original,
same i s t r u e any
f o r a Boy
Could
c l e v e r excuse, computer
words,
sleight an
hand w i t h
software,
provide
from the
and
from the
granting be
Petitioner's
request
o f Mandamus i t w i l l
37
E i t h e r a bone
fide birth
certificate
will
be not t o
produced,
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
maintained,
an i n v e s t i g a t i v e requires of no what
The
remedy
however,
I t merely
already
exists,
commonplace no
a birth
certificate.
I t requires
virtually of
expenditure
of time
State. there i s
wrong
the w r i t
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. 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
serious
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 Branch,
among
c o n s t i t u t e the L e g i s l a t i v e who
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
38
the
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
i n their
governors, this
society
u r g e n t l y ask
honorable
Court
Secretary for
to obtain birth
certificates States
f o r the election
was h e l d i n N o v e m b e r , candidates
certificates of t h i s
45 d a y s a f t e r
Court,
certified
f o r any c a n d i d a t e not
responding
s h o u l d be
decertified.
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
39
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
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 , 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: 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 J a m e s 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 General o f Alabama 501 W a s h i n g t o n S t r e e t Montgomery, Alabama 36130
40
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 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 Attorneys f o r Appellants
LIST OF APPENDICES
Attorney Allen
General's
Opinion
No. No.
1998-200
Appendix A Appendix B
V. Bennett
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
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 Secretary of S t a t e - C a n d i d a t e s - Ballots - 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 . 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; 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. 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 - 1 6 - 4 0 of the C o d e of Alabama? FACTS AND ANALYSIS 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
Appendix A 1 of 4
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). 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. T h e C o d e d o e s not require the S e c r e t a r y of State to determine w h e t h e r e a c h n o m i n e e m e e t s all the qualifications for his or her particular office. S 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). 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). 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) (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 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 17-71 (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 . 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
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 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 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 . QUESTION 2 If the a n s w e r to q u e s t i o n #1 is in the affirmative, is it p e r m i s s i b l e for the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e to a l s o notify the probate j u d g e s of the disqualification of t h o s e n o m i n e e s of political parties a n d i n d e p e n d e n t c a n d i d a t e s for state office w h i c h h a v e b e e n determined to be disqualified a n d set out the r e a s o n for disqualification in o r d e r for the probate j u d g e s to be informed of the b a s i s of the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s d e c i s i o n in t h o s e i n s t a n c e s ? FACTS, ANALYSIS, & CONCLUSION 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 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. 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 If the a n s w e r to q u e s t i o n #1 is in the affirmative, 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 , 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, ANALYSIS, & CONCLUSION 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
Appendix A 3 of 4
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
Appendix A 4 of 4
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 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. Algert S . A g r i c o l a , Jr., of W a l l a c e , J o r d a n , Ratliff & Brandt, L . L . C . , M o n t g o m e r y , for a p p e l l e e don Bervill. B R O W N , Justice. 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 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 . W e affirm. I. O n D e c e m b e r 1, 1 9 9 9 , J u d g e W a r r e n Laird, J r . , r e s i g n e d , creating a v a c a n c y in the office of 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 . 2001.
Appendix B 1 of 8
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 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 ballot.
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.'^''^ P u r s u a n t to 17-7-1 (c) a n d 1 7 - 1 6 - 4 0 , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , 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, by 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 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 , 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
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 M o n d a y after the s e c o n d T u e s d a y in J a n u a r y following the next g e n e r a l election after he h a s completed o n e y e a r in office; (2) 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 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 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. 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 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 V. Ogilvie, 394 U . S . 8 1 4 , 8 1 6 (1969). III. 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 judicial office shall be filled by appointment by the governor; however, 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. C l a i r county shall be filled as provided hereafter adopted, or as may be otherwise 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 , of 1901 with amendments advertised and enacted now or local 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 established by a properly
to fill a vacancy
Appendix B 3 of 8
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 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 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 . If, a s A l l e n urges, J u d g e Bevill's term of office is g o v e r n e d by 158, Bevill's term w a s d u e to expire o n J a n u a r y 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
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 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 e s t a b l i s h e d by a properly advertised a n d e n a c t e d local law." W e a g r e e with the circuit court a n d with the attorney g e n e r a l that the Constitution h a s n o w b e e n a m e n d e d by A m e n d m e n t N o . 3 2 8 , w h i c h a m e n d m e n t , w e h a v e s t a t e d , r e p e a l e d Article VI, a n d with it 158. U n d e r the g e n e r a l 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
Appendix B 4 of 8
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 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," 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 . 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 v a c a n c y . T h e proviso in the s e c o n d s e n t e n c e of 6.14 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 , not altering w h e n the term of a p e r s o n a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y e n d s or w h e n a n election to fill the v a c a n c y must be held.t^J With the e x c e p t i o n of J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y a n d two other c o u n t i e s specifically c o v e r e d by constitutional a m e n d m e n t s a d o p t e d s u b s e q u e n t to the adoption of 6.14,'-^-' 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 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 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. 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 " his interpretation of 6.14 a n d r e c o g n i z e d that 158 of what w a s Article VI of the A l a b a m a Constitution g o v e r n s the term of office of a j u d g e a p p o i n t e d to fill a v a c a n c y in a c o u n t y listed in the proviso. 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 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, 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,
Appendix B 5 of 8
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 g e n e r a l constitutional provision with l a n g u a g e governing the term of office of a p e r s o n appointed to fill a judicial v a c a n c y in A l a b a m a . S e e Hooper v. Siegelman, 3 8 6 S o . 2 d 2 0 7 , 2 0 9 - 1 0 (Ala. 1980).
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 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 election. IV. 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 "(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.'" Lambert 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
Appendix B 6 of 8
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... of a mistake of law.'" Automobile
Outdoor
Advertising].)
176 F . S u p p . at 7 7 2 , quoting
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 . 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, 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. 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 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 . F o r the r e a s o n s s t a t e d a b o v e , the circuit court's j u d g m e n t is d u e to be, a n d is h e r e b y , affirmed. AFFIRMED. 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 .
Notes: C h a r l e s R. S t e p h e n s , Jr., w h o w a s u n o p p o s e d in the R e p u b l i c a n Party primary, w a s the R e p u b l i c a n Party's n o m i n e e for the p l a c e no. 1 district court j u d g e s h i p .
Appendix B 7 of 8
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 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; 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: "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 6.14, 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 , 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 , 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 .
Appendix B 8 of 8
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: 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* 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, " FEANK JORDAN Secretaiy of State
/
/'
H. P. Sullivan Assistant Seorotaiy of State HPS/pv/m co: Stuart Weinberg h$ Polk Street San franoisco, Califomia
Appendix C 1 of 1
) ) ss. )
AFFIDAVIT
I, the undersigned, being first duly sworn, do hereby state under oath and under penalty of perjury that the facts are true: 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. 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
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.
Appendix D 2 of 2