SCOAL 2013-05-14 - McInnish Goode v Chapman - Appellants Reply Brief

7/30/2019 SCOAL 2013-05-14 - McInnish Goode v Chapman - Appellants Reply Brief

1/13

Case No. 1,720465IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

HUGH MCfNNISH, et df.,AppelJ_ants,

v.BETH .HAP N' in her capacity as secretary of state,

pel1ee.ON APPEAL FROM THE CTRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY,ALAB

cv 201,3_1053Appell-ants' Reply to pellee's Brief

L. Dean JohnsonL. DEAN JOHNSON, P. C.4030 Bal_moral Dr. , Suite BHuntsville, AL 35901Tel-: (256) 88 0-5]-17Larry KlaymanKLAYMAN L FTRM2020 Pennsylvania Ave, NWSuite 800Washington, D.C. 20006Tel-: (310) 595-0800Attorneys for Appel_lants

E-Filed

05/14/2013 @ 03:37:08 PM

Honorable Robert Esdale

Clerk Of The Court


2/13

TABLE OF CONIENTSTABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF AUTHORITIESSUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTARGUMENT

il_l_

I. CASE NOT MOOTrT. REASONS APPELLANTS CLATM DOES NOT

A. .]URISDICTION STRIPPING STATUTEIL

I.2

2

2.2OES NOT APPLY

B. SECRETARY SHOULD NOT ESCAPE HER DUTY 3CONGRESS NOT ONLY AUTHORITY. 5PRINTED BALLOTS NOT AN EXCUSE .5

III. CHAPM 'S SILENCE

11

D.

CONCLUSION 7CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l0


3/13

TABLE OF AUTEORTTIESCases

Coady v. Pennsylvania Board ofProbation and role, TheC onweal-th Court of pennsylvania,No. 598 II, D. 2007, ,,an unr orted.single-judge,Memorandum inion,,,

Statutes And Other LegislativethorityAla. Code S 1,7 -9-3: persons entitledto have names printed on ballots;failure to Secretary of State tocertify nominationsAla. Code S 1,7-16-44: AlabamaJurisdiction in El_ection Contests;pealU.S. Const. Art fV, 51,

l_L


4/13

SUMIfARY OF TEE ARGUMENT

Chapman's brief fafls naturally into twocategories: First, she argues that this court l_acksjurisdiction to hear the case and, second, she presentsarguments discraiming any responsibirity whatsoever forinterdicting the names of potential candidates who mavbe unqualified for the office sought, even where thereiq nrnh:l-rla ro vlvvqulE cause to suspect fraud. rn the latterr-^1- or.rnrrz aha aVe1. S that 6rn 1 rz /-nnnr^- -quEyvrJ Drle dvers tnaE. orrr_y uongress can act to bar anltncltl.a'l i f iarl 4-=nrl'i .l-f ^ ^n^ ,,-f l-^-rr.1uqarr-LE.'-. CanO.IC.ate, af.*, !u! urrsr, that SinCe thebarlots are arready printed it is too l-ate forcorrection even if an error is manifest.

Since these arguments have alreadv been addressed'i^ 'll^*L^l rrrir^rin-a'l h.iaf rnrlII appeJ-lantl - lrrer, orrLr ,.r._,,t WiShinq tOburden the Court with needl_ess redundancies,Mcrnnish and Goode wil-l address each in sunmary andterse form.


5/13

f. fnis

ARGI'MENTher brief chapman first argues that this casemoot.

But this case is not moot. Mcrnnish and Goode havecarefully explained the doctrine of nonmootness intheir original brief, showing that there are threeexceptions to the mootness doctrine, any one of whichis sufficient to render a case nonmoot, and showing,further, that thj_s case meets, not iust therequirement of one exception, but meets each of thet.hree. coady v. pennsylvania Board of probation andParole, commonwearth court of pennsylvania No. 59g M.D. 200f; (See Appelfants' Brief (AB), 12) .rr. chapman next propounds severar other reasons

why the AppeJ-lantst claims should fai1.A. she contends that rhis court facks iurisdictionunder the "jurisdiction stripping statue," Afa. code sr1-76-44. But as we have already explained, thisstatute is re]evant to the conduct of el_ect.ions, andthe election i n .nroqi_ i an has alreadv been conducted.we are' on the contrary, asking chapman to take theextraordinarily simple step, of demandinq birth


6/13

certificates from each of the rlresi dential candidates,especial-ly in the case of Barack Obama, to determinethe eligibility of each to be a bone fide presidentialcandidate. Hence s ri -16-44 is inappricabl-e . (AB,2r) .B. The secretary attempts to escape her duty tor-or.| i frz anl v arrrl.i -i ^,-JsrLrrv wr-rry quarJ-rf eo candi-dates by decf aring thatshe has no duty to do so. As explained earl_i_er inApperl-ants' original brief, the statute tists thosewhose names should go on the bal-l-ot, but adds thecaveat "provided they are otherwise qualified for theof f ice they seek. " Al_a . Code S I1-g-3 . Theimplication is crear: The lawmakers anticipated thatthere would be those who were not qualified for theoffice sought and these shoul-d be excruded. (AB, 30. )rn the present case there is prentiful evidence thatat least one of the presidential candidates wasunqualified. chapman knew this before the el_ectionand she looked aside from her clutrz and certified himwithout so much as a superficial inquiry. TheSecretary of State had gaj_ned knowl_edqe from anofficial source that there is probable cause to


7/13

bel-ieve that president obama has not met a certifvinqnrr: I i f j ^-l_.i 16 enna.i .i ^^udrr-rr-cdraorr. DIrec-L-r_rcal1y, Joseph M. Arpaio, sheriffof Maricopa County Arizona (and indisputably, anofficial empowered by the l-aw of the state),concluded, as stated in hls affidavit, '....that forgervand fraud was likely committed in kev ident.itvdocuments including president obama's long-form birthcertif icate, his serective Service Reo'i straf -i on card,,and his Social Security nu er.,, (AB, Appendix D)sheriff Arpaio is undoubtedly an official_ source. rnaddition, the Ful-l- Faith and credit cl_ause of the u.s.Constitution, Article IV, Section I, provides that"Ful.l- Faith and Credit sha I I l-rc rri rzorl in each stace rothe public Acts, Records, and judicial- proceedings ofevery other state. " The fact that sheriff Arpaio is inArizona, and not in Al-abama, is irrer-evant. sherif fArpaior ds a public official_, was actj_nq on behal_f ofthe pubric in investigating the quarifications ofPresident Obama and his e'l icrihi'l'i f rz t-.o be president ofthe united states, and, furl faith and credit shoutdand must be given to his public acts and subsequenEfindings- Fortunately for justice it is not too r_ate


8/13

to correct thi o a.yrodin,.g error, and this Court hasready at hand the means to set in motion what isneeded to do so.C. Chapman alleges that only Congress has theauthority to judge the qualifications of nre.sidentialcandidates after an election. rt is true thatcongress does indeed have the authority to judge thequalifications of the candidates, but it is not truethat it has the excfusive authority to do so. As asovereign state surery Alabama has the authority toexcl-ude from its ball-ot those who are ineliqible foroffice. The Cal-ifornia Ser:ref :rrr nf State deniedbal-rot access for presidential candidates in 19Gg andagain in 2012. The california secretary of statedetermined that those candidates did not meet theconstitutional- qualifications and woul_d not arl_owthose names on the baf l_ots. (AB, 19. )D. Finally, chapman preads, once again, that she waspowerless to correct any error in certificatj_on sincethe ballots had already been printed. Afthouqh thisaddresses an issue that is pass6, there are rwo pointsthat are intercsfinrr 1_n note: First, aS haS been dOne


9/13

i-n other jurisdictions, it is simpre to correct, notthe printed ballot, but the effect of an erroneousrv-printed ballot, e.g., posting signs at the votinssites stating that votes for the bogus candidate woufdnot be counted. Second, this chronofogical pi_ctureq.l- ranrr-l rz rai nnrn^d -i ^urvrrvry -Lcrrrrorces, r-n a stark exa f e here in this11 roqAn1- r'=ca, one of the rules for a irrdrrmenj- nf vf rv v! Llrs r Ll_LgJ IL,l d, J Ljlrgrltgl.t L uInonmootness, namery the case which is capable ofrepetition but evadinq review.rrr - chapman's brief speaks most loudly in its

silence.A. No word is offered in arguing that the birthcertificates submitted by obama are genuine. Atl herarguments are aimed at suppressing the truth byavoiding a judicial mandate to do her dutv anddiscover it.B. chapman's sirence regarding the two cariforniasituations where the secret.ari-es of State would notal-l-ow unqualified presidential candidates on theballots. fn 1968 Eldridoe Cl earzer wes refused ball_otaccess and in 2012, peta Lindsey was l_ikewise refusedballot access. (AB, 19.) The Secretary of state in


10/13

Al-abama has the same authority and responsibility thatthe Secretary of St.ate in Cal_ifornia has.

ConclusionThe questi-on of the legitimacy of obama's birth

certificate has been a controversy that has existed forsevera] years. A11 those invol_ved have been examininothe controversy up cl_ose in great detail_.

rt may be helpful at this point to step back, takea deep breath, and look at the overal-l- scene from adistance, to l-ook at the forest, unobscured by close-uptrees and undergrowth, to l-ook at the ful_l_ picture, notat the individual- pixels. And when we do here is whatwe see:

We see a bizarre and vicious fight being wagedover the small_est trivial_ity. We see literal1ymil-lions of doll_ars being expended by one sidedefending its posi-tion, when a ten-dol-rar documencwould resolve the issue. l We see a torrent of' See : http : hawaii . govlheal_thlvital_-records,/vital_records/viLar records.html- for a form to obtain a birthcertifi-cate from the Hawali Department of Hearth. The form


11/13

i-nvecti-ve being hurled indiscrimi-natef v af onr^,.nantswe see abounding inaccuracies and prevarications in

the media.And what is at the core of the issue? It is a

birth certifi-cate. A birth certificate, just tike ateenager needs to obtain a l_earner's permit and iustIike a man needs to join the armv.

Yes, it is, or it ought to be, trivial_ exceprfor the circumstances of the one whose birthcerti-ficate is sought, namely that of Barack obama. Hehappens to be president of the United States, but thatin itseff does not change the simpricity at base.

obama, for reasons unstated, refuses to producehis true birth certificate, and has used his power,i nf 'l rran^a rnA mnnnt' .l- ^r-trruerlceT dlr.- .rl\Jrrey LU avoid doing so. when thisscenario is seen clearly it forms an e arrassinglynonsensical- picture, a caricature of the greatcacophony and confusion surrounding this issue. were anshows a required fee of $1O.OO. The DoH explains thatvital- documents wil-l- be j-ssued only to persons who "have adirect and tangibl-e interest in the record." rn li_strngexamples of those whom they consider to have the requisiternterest, the first listed is "the registrant (the personwhom the record is concerned with. ) " rn this case thel-atter is Barack Obama.


12/13

economist asked to conduct a benefits-co.st-^n:'1 rrsis,his charge would be to determine whether the benefitsoutweigh the cost and by how much. one can imaqine hisastonishment. "Prima facie-" hc min\f Sdy, "the answeris visibl-e. The benefits are monumental, and the costsare infinit.esimal . The benefi_ts-cost ratio, therefore,soars upward toward infinity. There 1s nothinq here formo1-nrlnIt

This court has both the right and the power tosu arily end this untoward controversy. By requiringthe secretary of state to demand a bona fide birthcertificate from Obama and al_l other presidential_candidates, the i-ssue, insofar as Al-abama is concerned,can be settl_ed.

McInnj-sh and Goode pray the Court to do so.

4030 Bal-moral Dr., Suite BHuntsvill_e, AL 35801Tel-: (256) 880-5177Fax: (256 ) BB0-5187Email : j ohnson deanGbelfsouth. net

L. Dear{Johnson \ (JoH04 6 )L. DEAN .fOHNSON, Y.C.


13/13

Larry Klayman, Esq.KLAYMAN LAW FIRM2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,Suite 800Washington, DC 20006Tel-: (310) 595-0800Email-: l-ekl-a anGqmail-. comPro Hac Vice

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEr HEREBY cERTrFy that on the 14 day of May 2013, Tel-ectronically filed the foregoing with the clerk ofthe supreme court of Al-abama using the ACrs filingsystem, which will- send notification of such filinq tothe following:

Hon. Luther strange, Attorney Generar of AlabamaAndrew L. Brasher, Deputy Solicitor General_Margaret L. FlemingJames W. DavisLaura E. Howel_1Office of the Attorney General_ of Alabama501 Washington StreetMontgomery, Al_abama 36130

10

SCOAL 2013-05-14 - McInnish Goode v Chapman - Appellants Reply Brief

Documents

Transcript of SCOAL 2013-05-14 - McInnish Goode v Chapman - Appellants Reply Brief