The lawsuit of McInnish v. Chapman is the birther’s best hope these days.
Sometimes it can take a while to locate exactly what you want. Here are the briefs before the Alabama Supreme Court in McInnish v. Chapman. The issue is whether Alabama Secretary of State Chapman has a duty to verify the eligibility of candidates for President of the United States and whether the Alabama “Jurisdiction-stripping statute” precludes the courts from hearing the case.
- 3/26/2013 – Brief of the Appellants (oral arguments requested)
- 3/29/2013 – Order admitting Larry Klayman pro hac vice
- 4/10/2013 – Spencer Connerat1 amicus brief
- 4/23/2013 – Brief of Appellee Beth Chapman
- 4/23/2013 – Alabama Democratic Party (ADP) amicus brief
- 5/09/2013 – Lucas Smith amicus brief
- 5/13/2013 – Albert W. L. Moore, Jr., amicus brief
- 5/14/2013 – Appellants’ reply to Appellee’s brief
- 5/14/2013 – United States Justice Foundation (USJF) amicus brief
- 5/14/2013 – Affidavit of Michael Zullo
- 5/14/2013 – Appellants’ motion to strike ADP amicus brief
- 5/19/2013 – Alabama Republican Assembly (Zeigler2) amicus brief
- 5/20/2013 – ADP Response to motion to strike amicus brief
There is a long string of cases, going back to Donofrio v. Wells in 2008 where state courts have ruled that their secretaries of state do not have such a duty. Are the laws in Alabama different? Is the presence of birther sympathizers on the Alabama Supreme Court significant? We shall see.
Update:
The Alabama Supreme Court upheld the lower court decision. The Secretary of State had no obligation to investigate.
1Spencer Connerat brought eligibility suits against Barack Obama in Florida.
2Jim Zeigler, songwriter and Mobile attorney, is a graduate of the Jones School of Law. The Alabama Republican Assembly is a chapter of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, who style themselves as the “Republican wing of the Republican Party.”
The answers to that is:
No.
and
No.
It’s showboating at its worst, with Klayman blowing the birther dogwhistle at every opportunity.
I must say that Mr. Zeigler’s brief isn’t much of a legal argument considering that he’s an attorney. He cites no cases, talks about his beliefs and how his organization feels. His argument, such as it is, is the assertion that the Alabama Secretary of State can afford to mail a letter.
Do they not understand that even if they win this suit, it will only go against them? The last thing the birthers want is to have a SOS demand proof of Obama’s eligibility…. and get it.
Mr. C missed this one:
141502606-SCOAL-2013-05-14-McInnish-Goode-v-Chapman-Appellants-Reply-Brief
http://www.scribd.com/doc/141502606/SCOAL-2013-05-14-McInnish-Goode-v-Chapman-Appellants-Reply-Brief
I had posted this one previously but there was little interest.
[Thanks. Doc.]
It’s a fascinating display of failures.
THe USJF cites a case which supports the Secretary of State’s position. Lucas Smith is back with his so called ‘Kenyan’ birth certificate, and Klayman is losing it over the Amicus and Reply brief filed by the ADP.
Does he not realize that he is responding just as Ragsdale et al were hoping for? Especially fascinating are his attempts to suggest that Zullo somehow represents the MCSO or the Sheriff’s office even though he signed as a private citizen.. Where is Arpaio in all of this?…
Fascinating and so hilarious and in the end only a single issue remains: Does the SOS of Alabama has the duty to investigate claims of ineligibility? And the answer, following the rulings in other cases, is that indeed she does not have such a duty.
and of course, the whole case is totally moot as the President has been sworn in, so no relief can be granted.
Such a bummer.
a “star studded” birther effort: Obama eligibility appeal in Roy Moore’s court
klayman, moore, goode, mcinnish, arpaio’s posse, justice tom parker, etc ….. all that’s missing is a red carpet
http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/obama-eligibility-appeal-in-roy-moores-court/
shouldn’t the “one honest judge” have recused himself?
Also, does Klayman realize that the “affidavit” of Mike Zullo, signed May 13, 2013, did not exist at the time of the 2012 election, and therefore could not have provided “official notice” to the Secretary of State that there were issues to investigate. Nowhere in the Affidavit is there any description of any notification by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office to the Alabama Secretary of state. Talk about really stupid.
You do realize that Klayman’s hope is not that the Court will rule on the narrow issue but rather that the court may address the eligibility of our President, even though not before the court.
But even the dissenting Judge could not argue that the issue is brought before them in a proper manner.
Yes, another great example of Klayman totally go off into legal lala land… Full faith and Credit clause, mootness… All quite poorly argued and showing a lack of understanding of what the clause is all about. No it is not about the musings of some county Sheriff who concludes based on an analysis of a highly compressed document that such document may have been ‘tampered with’.
Really.. It blows the mind…
And even Orly understands
Source: OBC
Good ol’ Orly… There are times where she does surprise me… Other times…
As to Sheriff Arpaio, he is now in the cross-hairs of the Court who found that the MCSO engaged in racial profiling
The ACLU observes
Read the full decision here
The Court will entertain any proposals that are mutually acceptable to the parties in implementing steps to ensure compliance with its above orders, but in the absence of such proposals will proceed to enter such orders as are necessary to effectuate the above relief. In determining what authority may be necessary to provide such relief, the Court is particularly interested in the views of the parties concerning the following questions:
(1) To what extent, if any, should any law enforcement operations of the MCSO that have the potential to involve members of the Plaintiff class be subject to the direct oversight and pre-approval?
(2) To what extent, if any, should the MCSO be required to provide training to all of its personnel including posse members concerning the inappropriate use of race as an indicator of legal violations?
(3) To what extent, if any, should the MCSO be required to provide training to all of its personnel concerning the elements of the Arizona Human Smuggling Statute and the requirements necessary to have reasonable suspicion that the statute is being violated?
(4) To what extent, if any, does the MCSO still hold itself out to the general public as enforcing laws against illegal aliens or as currently engaged in immigration enforcement?
(5) To what extent should the MCSO be required to keep publicly available records of all persons with whom it has law enforcement contact in vehicles so long as it is engaged in the enforcement of state laws that have immigration-related elements such as the state Human Smuggling Act?
(6) To what extent should those records be required to contain the purpose of any law enforcement stops, the names of persons contacted, and the resulting length of the stop?
As further guidance for the proceeding, the Court asks the parties to consider the following stipulations of settlement in place in other jurisdictions:
1) Daniels v. New York, No. 99 Civ. 1695 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2003), available at http://ccrjustice.org/files/Daniels_ StipulationOfSettlement_12_03_0.pdf
2) United States v. Los Angeles, No. 00-11769 GAF (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2001), available at http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/final_consent_decree.pdf
3) United States v. State of New Jersey, Civil No. 99-5970 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 1999), available at http://www.nj.gov/oag/jointapp.htm.
One almost feels sorry for Arpaio but he remains repentless…
Orly’s critique of Zullo’s attempt to interject the CCP into Alabama suggests to me that she’s capable of understanding the rules. Therefore, the fact that she never follows the rules in her own cases seems to indicate that she does so not out of ignorance, but out of willful negligence.
That sort of puts a hindrence in Zullo’s little fantasy CCP Birther witch hunt right there…
Not necessarily.
Klayman may be thinking that if Obama were to produce his birth certificate pursuant to a ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court, he would then be in a position to challenge the authenticity of the birth certificate and open the door to the discovery which the birthers have been seeking for nearly five years.
Of course, if the Alabama Supreme Court were to decide in Klayman’s favor, Obama could just ignore it since he didn’t win any electoral votes in Alabama.
SoS Chapman could just have Hawaii DOH send her another verification.
There’s no way on earth Orly wrote that, unless she intentionally dumbs down her posts at her site and in every single legal document she’s produced. The style is totally different.
ROTFL…
That would require me thinking of him as a human being.
Well that Spencer Connerat is really something.
Actually, in order to be non-partisan, they’ve written the lawsuit requesting birth certificates from all candidates. So my imagined scenario is that the court rules that the SOS should request the birth certificates. She requests them from Obama and Rmoney. Obama complies, Rmoney doesn’t. After all, why should Rmoney? The election is over for him. Shoot, maybe he doesn’t even have a valid U.S. birth certificate! So Rmoney is ruled ineligible, Obama is eligible, and all the electoral votes are vacated from Rmoney and awarded to Obama!
Works for me!!
Not to mention that it is too late to challenge the votes as the electoral college has met and counted the votes and Congress has certified it.
So what really remains is the question if the AL SOS has a duty to check the eligibility of all candidates.
Worst case the Judge rules that she does, and that’s the end of that issue.
Absolutely. There really is no end game in Alabama which does anything for the birthers. The Alabama Supreme Court cannot rule that Obama is ineligible, as that issue is not before the Court. As NBC has pointed out, the Court could conceivably rule that the SOS has a duty to verify eligibility (although it is clear that Alabama law does not require verification by the SOS), which if it stood would only apply to future elections.
Of course, Klayman is still soliciting donations so it may well be that his end game is simply to grift as much cash as possible.
Chapman should reach an agreement with the plaintiffs that she will go to Hawaii to request a look at Mr. Obama’s original birth records. The DoH won’t give her that, but might giver her what they gave the Arizona SoS. This would giver her a nice little Hawaiian vacation. Of course, she should require the plaintiffs to pay her expenses, not the taxpayers of Alabama.
In fact, the supposed one that we have seen says that it is invalid.