Hugh McInnish’s lawsuit against Alabama Secretary of State Chapman to require her to verify eligibility of presidential candidates was dismissed with prejudice, a dismissal affirmed by a circuit court in Montgomery.
McInnish argues now before the Alabama Supreme Court that the District Court was in error and that Chapman has an “affirmative duty” to verify eligibility. Chapman said no. McInnish argues:
It would be paradoxical beyond measure if the real and grave question of the legitimacy of the de facto President, a question which lies at the very heart of our American Constitutional Government, were left unresolved for want of the simplest of documents, a birth certificate.
This of course ignores the fact that no less than two other secretaries of state (Arizona and Kansas) asked for and received certifications of the facts of Obama’s birth from Hawaii.
The case is now before the Alabama Supreme Court and it’s newly-elected birther Chief Justice Roy Moore. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are L. Dean Johnson of Huntsville and Larry Klayman.
Read the brief:
SCOAL 2013-03-26 – McInnish|Goode v Chapman – Brief of Appellant by Jack Ryan
Fingernails on a chalkboard.
Klayman and Johnson go Vattelist on page 9:
Although the U.S. Constitution does not define natural-born citizen, it is certainly distinct from a mere “citizen,” and it is usually taken to mean a person born on American soil of parents both of whom are at least citizens, not necessarily natural-born citizens themselves.
They cite nothing to support this argument, and I noticed that they do not even list Minor v. Happersett in their table of authorities.
No one has ever seen the birth certificate except for the PDF which is proven to be forgery by Sheriff Arpaio. Alvin Onaka is a suspect so his verifications are self-serving. In addition, as Mark Gillar has pointed out recently, every statement from Hawaii has always be carefully worded apparently to satisfy the audience but are intentionally misleading. Below is a great clip where Mark Gillar talks about the behavior of the courts and of Hawaii:
http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/4/600/show_4600091.mp3
The Alabama Democratic Party has filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/132864470/SCOAL-2013-03-26-McInnish-Goode-v-Chapman-Motion-for-Leave-to-File-Amicus
At the Fogbow it has been pointed out that the plaintiffs are asking to have the 2012 vote decertified for any candidate who fails to produce a birth certificate. Which begs the question – if Obama were to produce his birth certificate but Romney failed to produce his, would Albama’s electoral votes be given retroactively to Obama?
I’ll tell you what would NOT paradoxical beyond measure: for someone who’s arguing before a state’s Supreme Court to know what “de facto” means.
Apuzzo didn’t seem to know what it means. He kept claiming that there was a “de facto” ban on travel to Pakistan in 1981.
But John, dearest John, it was you yourself who gave me the evidence that this isn’t true. I am eternally grateful for the reference you provided to the White House presser before the main announcement, where Barack Obama’s attorney showed the original certified paper birth certificate to the White House press corps. Without you, I would never have known!
It’s true. They are still illiterate after all this time. All the Grimm’s brothers efforts to create a dictionary are for naught. Even Google can’t reach them.
The definition of a “pretender to the throne” is not “one who has arrived at his high position by fraud and deceit,” which is the definition provided in the first paragraph in the Introduction to the brief.
A pretender to the throne is a person who continues to claim a right to inherit a throne (usually by heredity) in a country where the monarchy has been abolished. In modern times, such pretenders (which really means claimants) have frequently been exiled.
In order for Obama to be a “pretender to the throne” he would have to be either:
a. living in England after the monarchy had been abolished and was claiming a continued right to inherit and rule via monarchy.
b. living in America after the monarchy had been abolished and was claiming a continued right to inherit and rule via monarchy.
Hopefully a modern Shakespeare will take this up, for this is great historical comedy.
There is no state in the Union that requires a birth certificate in order to be eligible to be on the state’s ballot. Furthermore, since primary and general elections have already happened and Electoral votes have already been certified and the Oath of Office has already been taken, there is NOTHING that any Court can do at this late date.
One of the earliest birther challenges (which went all the way to the Supreme Court) made this clear back in 2009:
Barnett v Obama, US District Court Judge David O. Carter: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf
Birthers have been wastng a lot of time and money on useless civil actions, 195 of which have failed.
Arpaio and his clown possies’ findings aren’t result of the law enforcement investigation, and anything they offer is inadmissible in the court of law. Every statement/affidavit from these clowns has always been carefully worded (without doubt) to satisfy the feeble-minded birthers.
Who has declared Onaka to be a suspect? On what grounds?
John, just because you suspect someone of wrongdoing, doesn’t mean anything nefarious really happened.
There’s no evidence, trail of misdeeds, party implications or anything else that suggests Onaka has done anything wrong.
You’re simply following the notion that if someone provides damning information contrary to your position, they must somehow be in on a conspiracy.
You have no other choice mentally because you just can’t accept the truth.
My, what a short memory you have.
And Arpaio has never claimed that is has been proven that the PDF is a forgery. He has only claimed that there is “probable cause” that it is a forgery. Probable cause isn’t proof.
And chew on this. Even if the PDF is a forgery, it doesn’t get you any closer to removing Obama from office. You would still have to prove that he wasn’t born in Hawaii, or anywhere else in the United States. How do you propose to do that? Where are you going to get admissible evidence that he was born in Kenya or Indonesia or wherever?
Arapio has it out for undocumented brown workers, Mexicans and Presidents alike.
Rickey: Klayman and Johnson go Vattelist on page 9:
i guess they won’t be lining up to defend ted cruz, rubio and jindal
Do you laugh your a$$ off when you BS like that, or do you keep a straight face?
The White House frog aka fraud will learn that the hot water he is in will come to a boil in the very near future.
It takes time to hold that fraud accountable for his forgeries, but be certain that thing in the white house will pay for his crimes committed by either him or his ‘gang’.
John, Onaka is a suspect only in the fervid minds of birthers eaten completely up with confirmation bias. No one with a reputation for fairminded evenhandedness has ever said a doubtful word about Onaka. Can you name one? Sheriff Joe certainly doesn’t count, nor does his hand-picked posse leader Zullo qualify. They’ve repeatedly embraced thoroughly debunked lies, such as that Mr. Obama in his first day on the job sealed his personal records by executive order. Can you dispute this?
It also ignores the fact that no one — absolutely no one ever in the history of the Republic — had ever asked for a president’s pedigree until the black one got elected. The irony here being that Obama is the first and only presidential candidate in the history of the republic ever to release his authenticated and actual birth certificate to the public.
Indeed.
Soon he will be people-marched right out of there!
Chart of temperature of the water Obama is in, as heated by righteous birther action:
70F ==============================================================
20082013
Any. Day. Now.
Like this: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Complete story: Niger uranium forgeries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries
Pop quiz: How many have come back from Iraq missing eyes, limbs, with 3rd degree burns, psych basket cases?
I know the answer; do you?
To Boehner, I say “J’accuse”: House Speaker John Boehner says Americans have a right to think what they want to think, even when they’re wrong about President Barack Obama’s citizenship and his religion.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49441.html#ixzz2P2rTTJT1
…or ever asked to.
I think you meant to write “Alvin Onaka is a suspect because his verifications contradict my narrative.”
What Monarchy? America doesn’t have one of those, at least not officially.
It doesn’t matter how many times we point this out, they will never get it.
bgansel9
What Monarchy? America doesn’t have one of those, at least not officially.
That is my point, bgansel. (see McKinnish v. Chapman, page nine- it is the brief posted at top of thread).
The brief has Obama listed as a “pretender to the throne.” I listed the only two possible ways he could be a pretender to the throne, the second one being IF there was a monarchy in America, which there isn’t, so he can’t be a “pretender to the throne.” He would also have to have a hereditary relation to royalty (in most cases) to be a “pretender to the throne.”
This is one of the core arguments of the birthers claiming he is a usurper and a “pretender to the throne.” Here’s the Wiki link to “pretender to the throne” and what it really means in sharp contrast to what the birthers claim it is. I am also posting another link of interest of “men who would be king.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretender
http://listverse.com/2007/09/27/top-10-pretenders-to-the-thrones-of-europe/
For the record, I don’t read WorldNetDaily to find articles for this blog; however, they may be getting leads from me:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/obama-eligibility-appeal-in-roy-moores-court/
Nah that’s cool, I’ve had enough blubbering from sociopath liars this week. No one except birther diehards care what Mr. Self Important has to say about anything. He’s living in a fantasy world on YouTube.
The WND article has nearly 900 comments so far, thanking Judge Moore and praying for his safety.. Even talking about providing additional “security for him”. Also posting a link to contact him.
I find that amusing, because Moore hasn’t yet ruled on anything.. I limit my trolling comments now, learning long ago that there’s no way to reach the remaining die hards I actually feel sorry for them.. I’ll go back once their hopes are dashed, so I can see the change in heart. “Roy caved!” or. “They got to the judge”.
After 5 years, this model has become pretty predictable.
Yep. Remember, Judge
MalahiMalihi was hailed as The Last HonestPizzaJurist until his actual ruling came in, at which point he suddenly became the architect of the US’s destruction by Iranian nuclear hellfire.Of course, Moore is just one of nine justices on the Alabama Supreme Court, although all nine of them are Republicans. But even if they ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, how would it hurt Obama?
Birthers seem to have missed this from page 36 of the brief: “…this lawsuit does not seek to question the legality of the election, nor does it impact the ‘conduct’ of the election, nor does it contest the results of the election.”
The plaintiffs want the Alabama Court to require that the 2012 candidates for President be ordered to produce their birth certificates and that all future candidates be required to produce their birth certificates. Obama could comply, and theoretically that would be the end of it. Or he could ignore it, since the election is over and he didn’t win any of Alabama’s electoral votes, so decertification of his share of the Alabama popular vote would essentially be meaningless.
LOLOLOL, you crack me up!
Every time I think I’ve seen the most insane person on earth post here, some new sockpuppet shows up, acting even crazier.
the model.
WND proclaims that “Moore is on the record questioning Obama’s eligibility.” Doesn’t that disqualify him from judging this case? It seems that Beth Chapman, should this case actually go before the full court, has a case for demanding that Moore recuse himself. Wouldn’t that annoy the birthers?
Also of note: The WND article contains a link to its online store for Moore’s book. But if you click on it, you get a page stating “This item is no longer available.” Oops.
Same with Judge Carter.
I don’t see how that would fall under the jurisdiction of the court.
The only thing that I gather that the case seeks that is actually based on the law is this:
They want a ruling that it is (/would have been) the duty of the SOS to ascertain the eligibility of the candidates.
Now, the first problem is that even if the court ruled accordingly, the method of ascertainment can, IMO, not be prescribed by it. If the court agrees the SOS has such a duty, it would depend on the individual case whether he complied with that duty or not. So the plaintiffs would have to wait for the SOS’ ascertainment and then contest it (again) if they believe it was not sufficient.
I don’t see how the court can simply tell the SOS what a proper ascertainment is (e.g. by requiring him to look at the (original long long long form) BC instead of, for example, getting a “verification in lieu of a certified copy” from Hawaii).
And even if the court decided it could prescribe the (not legally defined) method of ascertainment (which it won’t), all it could do is force the SOS to do so, but it could not (retroactively) void the decision, nor would a decision by the SOS “oops, candidate X turned out to be ineligible” retroactively void the state’s election, nor the “ineligible” candidate’s votes.
So this case is flawed on so many levels that we all know it is DOOOMED even if coming before a birther-friendly judge. All that judge could do is say “well, the SOS should’ve done that and he didn’t, so Obama might be ineligible, but there’s nothing we have jurisdiction about, so we can’t do anything but lament that the black guy didn’t show us his papers”. In other words, a useless propaganda “victory” loss for the birthers. (And that is the best-case scenario for birthers, not what is going to happen.)
I agree. I don’t see how the Alabama Supreme Court could order the decertification of votes which were certified five months ago. That would effectively disenfranchise the nearly 800,000 Alabamans who voted for Obama.
I suppose it is possible that the court could rule that the Alabama SOS has the duty to verify the eligibility of candidates in future elections, but it is difficult to see how the court could go any farther than that.
john:
No one has ever seen the birth certificate except for the PDF which is proven to be forgery by Sheriff Arpaio. Alvin Onaka is a suspect so his verifications are self-serving
*************
John: You are a suspect as well (along with Gabe)
Charges:
1. Culpable Ignorance (i.e. you ought to know better, but remain clueless)
2. Delusions of Intelligence
3. Habitual Incitement to Acid Reflux
Evidence:
The drivel which you both continue to post to this blog.
As one of the token goyim of the Intl Jewish Conspiracy [thank you, Misha], and having found you guilty in my kangaroo court, it is my duty (and unabashed pleasure) to declare the both of youze “ammei ha’aretzot”. Hope you enjoy your martyrdom.
Well John, I’ve never seen you, therefore you do not exist.
“John” is a poltergeist.
Interesting read. Notice the details about the birth of the Portuguese ‘pretender’:
jus soli 😎
9 out of 10 self-appointed experts agree that ‘john’ is a forgery. And we haven’t asked the 10th yet.
Court/government statements are “carefully worded.” I should hope so!
Did you hear about the lawyer who defended an ape for free?
He did it pro-bonobo!
Thank you. I’ll be here all week.
A forgery? Perhaps, but one thing’s for certain, john is a hypocritical little coward who would deny others the privileges he enjoins. Case in point:
On Friday, Carl Gallups is interviewing Mike Zullo on a radio call-in show. The people at ORYR are all very concerned that “obots” will call in and ruin their nasty little stew of conspiracy, bigotry, and ignorance. There’s been talk about how to prevent the wrong people from being able to question Zullo and john has been vocal about who he thinks should be censored. Here’s his list:
“Any persons claiming to be any of the following should definitely not be allowed on the show – Kevin Davison (sic), Foggy AKA Bill Bryan, Frank Aurdini (sic) AKA HistorianDude or Epectitus, Thomas Brown, Loren, Reality Check or RC, Patrick McKinnion, Patrick Colliano. Gallup is just sking for trouble if he lets any of these people on the show.”
And who does john want to call in? None other than convicted forger and professional lair: Lucas Smith.
Yes, “trouble” … as in not going according to plan.
No wonder nutters find reality so “trouble”some!
And butterdezillion and Linda Joy Adams and pretty much every other liar on their side.