Announcement

**bsteadman** · 03-22-2014, 02:16 PM

Free Republic is running a thread titled, 'McInnish Appeal denied in Alabama [Obama Eligibility Case]', which was started 3/21/2014 by 'Fractal Trader'

The thread references a 3/21/2014 article on Obama Conspiracy Theories written by Dr. Conspiracy - http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2014/...ed-in-alabama/

View the complete Free Republic thread at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3135795/posts

Excerpt from the original article:

Today the Alabama Supreme Court issued its 7-2 decision in the case of McInnish v. Chapman, and the decision goes against plaintiffs Hugh Chapman and Virgil Goode, who were trying to force the Alabama Secretary of State to verify Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2102 Alabama presidential ballot. Larry Klayman was the attorney for the Appellants.

The Court’s Majority issued no written opinion, only affirming the lower court decision dismissing the case.

Majority decision to affirm, no opinion (Stuart, Murdock, Shaw, Main, Wise) Concurring opinion (Bolin) Concurring opinion (Bryan) Dissenting Opinion (Moore) Dissenting Opinion (Parker) Chief Justice Roy Moore issued the major dissenting opinion, and Justice Bolin issued a concurring opinion specifically addressed to Moore’s dissent. Chief Justice Moore states that under Alabama Law, Secretary of State Chapman has an affirmative duty to verify candidate eligibility. Justice Bolin agrees that candidate eligibility is an important public interest, but that Alabama statutes do not place a duty on the Secretary of State to verify it. Further Justice Bolin points out that Secretary of State Chapman is a nonjudicial officer with no subpoena power or investigative authority. Justice Bolin concludes:

Under our current structure, however, the burden of investigating a presidential candidate’s qualifications is best left – unfortunately or not – to the candidate’s political party….

As I understand his position, Justice Bolin is saying that a state statute requiring verification of eligibility for candidates for president is a desirable thing, given his belief that the federal courts are prohibited from adjudicating eligibility because of the Political Question Doctrine.

Justice Bryan also issued a concurring opinion, briefly stating his belief that legislation could be passed to allow verification of candidate eligibility.

Chief Justice Moore’s dissenting opinion goes to the details of the Alabama statutes involved and at a brief reading has no particular high points. It is an analysis on the merits.

Chief Justice Parker also dissents from the majority opinion, supporting the analysis of Chief Justice Moore, but disagreeing on the Secretary of State’s affirmative duty to investigate candidate eligibility.

A text search of all of the opinions affirms my opinion that the Affidavit of Mike Zullo is irrelevant, being cited not one

**bsteadman1** · 03-22-2014, 07:49 PM

ALA. SUP. CT. DECIDES IN OBAMA CASE: 7-2 The State of Alabama Does NOT Have a Legal Responsibility to Vet a Presidential Candidate!

PPSIMMONS
Carl Gallups
3/21/2014

Excerpt:

EXCLUSIVE

BUT WAIT...
VICTORY FOR OBAMA? No...not really - READ ON!

FINALLY - there is a Chief Justice of a state Supreme Court ON RECORD who questions the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama!

As most of our readers are aware, last year the Alabama Supreme Court decided to hear the case:

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2013-2014
____________________

Hugh McInnish and Virgil H. Goode, Jr.
v.
Jim Bennett, Alabama Secretary of State
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court
(CV-12-1053)

The crux of the matter at hand was to answer the question: Does the State of Alabama have statutory obligation to "vet" the qualifications of a presidential candidate before placing that name on the ballot in Alabama?

Also, it apparently was a matter of judicial review as to whether Alabama had obligation or authority to vet a presidential candidate after that candidate was already on the ballot, and in this case, had already won the presidential election. The decision is officially written ..:

The Basic Ruling (paraphrased): Though, perhaps, the qualifications of this current president should be examined, (based upon the evidence brought before the court) the State of Alabama does not have the statutory authority to conduct such an investigation. There currently is no legal mechanism in place in Alabama for the state alone to determine the qualifications and eligibility of a candidate for president who makes it to the Alabama ballot through the certification process of one of the national parties.

Obama's Eligibility Attorneys Have Used This Argument Before! In an eligibility case in the State of Florida, brought by attorney Larry Klayman in 2012, Obama's attorneys actually argued that the States did not have the authority to determine the eligibility of a presidential candidate who made it to that state's ballot. An excerpt of a WND.com news story on that case reads as follows: "Obama’s attorneys told the judge that other courts have decided that courts should not make such decisions and the process is better handled by Congress. They said state courts especially are not suited to making a decision on the eligibility of Obama.

PPSIMMONS NOTE: Note that even the Obama attorneys admit that Congress is the one that is Constitutionally ordained to make such decisions of eligibility. This is what Carl Gallups, Mike Zullo, and Sheriff Arpaio have been saying from the beginning. Gallups has been proclaiming this fact for over five years on his radio program and in print here at PPSIMMONS News Network. Gallups claims the Constitution gives Congress the official responsibility of conducting such investigations. So far, several federal and state courts have backed up Gallups' position. Yet - to date - not a single congressman has even begun the Constitutional process to vet the qualifications of this president. And this is despite the fact that Congressional Research Service issued, in writing, a declaration that Obama was never vetted by "anyone."

Investigator Mike Zullo says: "It is clear that the argument here is the lack of statutory provision giving the Secretary of State the legal authority to conduct an investigation to verify the legitimacy of a presidential candidate to be placed on ballot of the respective states. There clearly is a lack of statutory authority and legal mechanism in place for a Secretary of State in any of the fifty states to conduct that type of investigation. This Alabama Supreme Court adjudication in no way reflects the question that is really at hand - the authenticity of the document provided to the public of proof- positive that Mr. Obama was in fact born on us soil thus fulfilling the "soil requirement" to be eligible to hold the highest office in the land."

Zullo continued, "The challenge before the American people going forward to prevent this type of atrocity form ever happening again has to be the creation of legislation providing legal authority to empower the Secretary of State in order to fully ascertain the most vital information of a candidate's qualifications, and to have the legal authority to require the one document that every American citizen gets as they draw their first breath - an official state birth certificate free from anomalies, errors and questions."

One of the concurring Justices stated the matter like this:

"The Alabama Secretary of State's office is a non-judicial office without subpoena power or investigative authority or the personnel necessary to undertake a duty to investigate a non-resident candidate's qualifications, even if such a duty could properly be implied (by Alabama Statute). - Justice Bolin

Justice Bolin went on to make a very noteworthy observation in the case:

"(Chief Justice Moore concluded in his dissenting opinion) that the Secretary of State has an affirmative duty to investigate the qualifications of a candidate for President of the United States of America before printing that candidate's name on the general-election ballot in this State. Although logically the Secretary of State,being the chief elections official of the state,should be vested with such a duty, under our present constitutional and statutory framework addressing elections, including presidential elections, not only is that not the case, but the Secretary of State would be bereft of written authority for such an action and ill equipped from a practical standpoint to carry out such an important duty."

Chief Justice Moore's dissenting opinion is extremely lengthy - but he goes into an in-depth explanation as to why he believes that State of Alabama did, indeed, have a responsibility to vet the presidential candidates and went into a detailed analysis of the spurious information surrounding the case of this particular president and especially the Natural Born Citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Read the entire decision ..., as well as all of the opinions.

We urge our readers to especially pay attention to Chief Justice Moore's opinion. This is the FIRST official court opinion regarding the eligibility details of the man who is currently sitting in the White House in the office of president.

Remember - as of this date there has been not a single identifying document presented to the American public as to the uncontested identity of Barack Obama. This cannot be a good thing for the Obama administration or those who have been opposing efforts to look into Obama's qualifications and birth status.

FINALLY - there is a Chief Justice of a state court ON RECORD who questions the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama.

The only document ever proffered by the White House is his supposed long-form birth certificate posted on the White House website in .PDF format. That document, however, has been attested as a 100% fake, forgery, and fabrication by lead investigator Mike Zullo working under the auspices of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office - Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
...........................................

View the complete post at:

http://ppsimmons.blogspot.com/2014/0...-case-7-2.html

**bsteadman1** · 03-22-2014, 07:59 PM

Breaking: Judge rules on Obama eligibility

7-2 majority in state's high court announces decision on constitutional question

WND
Bob Unruh
3/21/2014

Excerpt:

One of the last remaining court battles over Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility has gone down in flames in a 7-2 decision by the Alabama Supreme Court to render “no opinion.”

However, the dissenting minority of Justice Tom Parker and Chief Justice Roy Moore concluded the case has serious constitutional significance, warranting an investigation of the qualifications of 2012 presidential candidates by Alabama’s secretary of state.

Moore wrote in his dissent that the circuit court should have granted the plaintiffs’ request to order the state secretary of state “to implement the natural-born-citizen requirement of the presidential-qualifications clause in future elections.”

“Although the removal of a president-elect or a president who has taken the oath of office is within the breast of Congress, the determination of the eligibility of the 2012 presidential candidates before the casting of the electoral votes is a state function,” Moore argued.

He said the case was of “great constitutional significance in regard to the highest office in our land.”

“Should he who was elected to the presidency be determined to be ineligible, the remedy of impeachment is available through the United States Congress, and the plaintiffs in this case, (Hugh) McInnish and (Virgil) Goode, can pursue this remedy through their representatives in Congress.”

Parker agreed with Moore’s reasoning, except that he would call for the secretary of state to investigate eligibility issues once she “has received notice that a potential candidate may lack the necessary qualifications to be placed on an Alabama election ballot.”

Both justices earlier had expressed concern about the issue.

Parker had filed a special, unpublished concurrence arguing that plaintiff Hugh McInnish’s charge of “forgery” was legitimate cause for concern.

“Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public,” he wrote.

Moore, in an interview with WND in 2010, defended Lt. Col Terrence Lakin’s demand that Obama prove his eligibility as commander in chief as a condition of obeying deployment orders.

Lakin was stripped of his rank and removed from the military when he demanded to see evidence that Obama was a legitimate commander-in-chief of the military before carrying out deployment orders. He reasoned the orders would be illegal if Obama was not eligible to be president.

At the time, Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.”

“And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.

In the 2010 interview with WND, Moore said he had seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and considerable evidence that suggests he is not.

“This is the strangest thing indeed,” he said. “The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law.”

Moore explained that the Alabama case did not request a judicial determination of Obama’s eligibility but an order that the elections officials in the state assure voters that candidates were eligible under the law.

He explained state law calls for candidates “who qualify for placement on the ballot in a presidential-preference primary … are ‘entitled to have their names printed on the appropriate ballot for the general election, provided they are otherwise qualified for the office they seek.’”

“Under Alabama law, therefore, the Secretary of State, as the chief elections official, has a legal duty to determine that presidential-convention nominees who have run in the presidential primary are duly ‘qualified for the office they seek’ before placing their names on the general-election ballot,” he continued.

The case raised some of the same arguments that appeared earlier in dozens of local, state and federal court cases in Obama’s first term.

They all argued in some fashion that because of the lack of verifiable facts about Obama’s birthplace, he might be constitutionally ineligible.

If the parents’ citizenship is a qualifier, Obama by his own admission fails, since he reports his father was a Kenyan student who came to study in the U.S. but never was a U.S. citizen. The senior Obama already was married in Kenya before he met and married Obama Jr.’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.

This case is brought on behalf of 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish, who are asking Alabama’s highest court to force Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.

Get Judge Roy Moore’s classic book about his battle for liberty, “So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious Freedom.”

Attorney Larry Klayman in a brief, argued that the secretary of state, “having the power to certify candidates, can surely de-certify – in effect disqualify – them if they are found to be ineligible.”

He pointed out that, for example, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen rejected Petra Lindsay on the 2012 California primary ballot because she was 27 years old. The U.S. Constitution requires that the president be at least 35.

Certain documentation

The “certain documentation” to which Parker referred comes from a Cold Case Posse investigation launched by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Arpaio’s investigation has concluded that based on the evidence, the birth certificate documentation presented by the White House as “proof positive” of Obama’s eligibility actually is fraudulent, created on a computer and not representative of any official document.

Arpaio’s investigator have raised the possibility of fraud and forgery committed against American voters.
.................................................. .......

View the complete article, including links, at:

http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/breaking-...a-eligibility/

**AMERICAN ADVOCATE** · 03-22-2014, 10:11 PM

AND THE BUCK STOPS HERE ~ no , here ~ nor here ~ no , over there . Every member of congress , stu-preme court , federal courts , every elected and appointed official , every law enforcement official and 100,000,000 AMERICANS know that obummer is not eligible for the office he has usurped , with the help of many other criminals . Yet , they do nothing about removing him to set things right . NO , THE BUCK does not stop anywhere , but is passed from one cowardly bunch to another to another .
It is very obvious that a full head - on military coup is the only way to get rid of the rats in Washington , D . C . ( district of corruption ) .

**bsteadman1** · 03-24-2014, 12:21 AM

Free Republic is running a thread titled, 'Breaking: Judge rules on Obama eligibility', which was started 3/22/2014 by 'iontheball'

The thread references a 4/21/2014 WND article written by Bob Unruh - http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/breaking-...a-eligibility/

View the complete Free Republic thread at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../3136038/posts

Excerpts from comments in the thread:

To: Huskerfan44

Enforced by who? That is the problem. None of the laws/Constitution matter, unless the PEOPLE have a way to force those laws to be enforced. As long as the people who are in a position to enforce are dependent on the crooked politicians/party people to get there, they will never prosecute the crimes committed by the politicians/party shuysters.

Somehow there has to be an avenue for we the people to hold the system accountable to the law. And it can’t just be through elections, because those are easily manipulated. We need a REAL way for people to charge officials with crimes.

You and I should be able to have Pelosi arrested, on the basis of the evidence that she perjured herself on Obama’s OCON, for instance. And we should be able to have Antonio Villagairoso arrested too. And Alice Travers Germond. Bob Bauer should be rotting in prison already, as should Robert Gibbs.

The only way these people have stayed out of prison is because the people have been told they can’t do anything about it. Why have we not shown up at our state AG’s offices in such large numbers that they can’t even get the door open, to protest the lily-livered, lawless political crony-ism that lets these crimes go unchecked?

Because we deserve to have tyrants over us. We deserve the loss of the United States of America, and that’s what we’ve got. She is dead. There are people who have wanted to preserve the US but they didn’t have the courage to do what had to be done, because they were demoralized by MOLES, which are a million times worse than simple “trolls”/sock puppets. People we thought were our “friends”. Everywhere. We were all led to believe that the systems were intact when in fact the systems - ALL the systems - were overrun, not only by trolls but even worse, by MOLES.

All the places for people to get their news were overrun. All the places for people to discuss the news were overrun. All the places for people to vote were overrun. All the places where the votes were counted were overrun. All the places where the laws were supposed to be enforced were overrun. All the places where lawsuits were to be heard were overrun. The military was overrun.

All overrun by MOLES. People we thought were our friends but were in reality actors/actresses bought and paid with a price for the purpose of demoralizing us and getting millions of people to believe they could do nothing about the thugs taking over their entire country.

Look around you, right here. This place is not what everybody has thought it is. This place is in the same shape as the country as a whole. The “secretaries of state” here are no different than the SOS’s all over the country. Government “minders” don’t have to wear their labels; they are most effective when they wear camouflage. And when there is no transparency. Where there is no transparency or accountability, corruption is an absolute given.

The most dangerous time of all is when the system is overrun but people believe it is still intact. When the things that are not actionable are allowed to be jawed over to occupy our time and give the illusion that we are among friends but any efforts on actionable things are sabotaged.

We’re being played.

40 posted on Sunday, March 23, 2014 9:44:41 AM by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=""/)

**bsteadman** · 03-24-2014, 02:29 PM

Attorney Klayman Responds: Alabama Case Will Likely Be Taken To U.S. Supreme Court

Birther Report
3/24/2014

Excerpt:

Attorney Larry Klayman writes @ WND:

Excerpt: Last Friday, one of the few great judges in this land, Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court – the jurist who was first impeached for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and then overwhelmingly elected by the people of the state to be their chief justice – had the courage to write a compelling dissenting opinion validating our challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be president. While seven of his nine fellow justices took the easy way out perhaps to show that Alabama is no longer the state once governed by George Wallace and rejected my ballot challenge, Chief Justice Moore without political correctness and without the disingenuous and cowardly sensitivity to Obama’s race, told it like it is. He ruled that Alabama did have a legal duty to verify that candidates for the presidency are eligible to serve as natural born citizens if elected (see decision at FreedomWatch), Moore concluded:

“Furthermore, I believe the circuit court should have granted the petition for a writ of mandamus to order the Secretary of State to investigate the qualifications of those candidates who appeared on the 2012 general-election ballot for President of the United States, a duty that existed at the time this petition was filed and the object of the relief requested. Although the removal of a President-elect or a President who has taken the oath of office is within the breast of Congress, the determination of the eligibility of the 2012 presidential candidates before casting of its electoral votes is a state function.

“This matter is of great constitutional significance in regard to the highest office in our land. Should he who was elected to the presidency be determined to be ineligible, the remedy of impeachment is available through the United States Congress, and the plaintiffs in this case, McInnish and Goode, can pursue this remedy through their representatives in Congress.

“For the above-stated reasons, I dissent from this Court’s decision to affirm the judgment of the circuit court dismissing this action on the motion of the Secretary of State.”

This well-written and thoughtful opinion by Chief Justice Moore will hopefully give courage to other judges to tell it like it is. Indeed, I have appeals pending in Florida, and the majority decision of the Alabama justices will likely be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court under a petition for writ of certiorari.

We cannot quit. The imposter in the White House must be held accountable, and he should indeed be told to get up off his knees and come out with his hands up.

Few other judges in this nation have the courage of Chief Justice Moore. The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, who held the Clintons to account in the late ’90s and early 2000s and ruled that Bill Clinton had committed a crime, and Richard J. Leon, who just ruled against the National Security Agency’s “almost Orwellian” surveillance on all Americans, are among the most endangered of species. But if they and more judges like them come forward to represent the interests of the American people, rather than the corrupt legal and government establishment, then there is hope. [...] - Continued @ WND.

View the complete Birther Report presentation at:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/03...bama-case.html

**AMERICAN ADVOCATE** · 03-25-2014, 03:05 AM

LARRY KLAYMAN is the man . He is a tenacious bulldog fighter for the rule of law , fair elections and our Constitution . He is the founder of " Judicial Watch ", and " Freedom Watch " , both of which are very successful at filing the needed lawsuits and Freedom of Information Requests . Now , the best action he must take next is to file the same lawsuit with our dubious SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES . Fortunately , I am in direct touch with Larry ' s administrator , and I will make the suggestion to her . Larry Klayman is also the man who successfully filed impeachment proceedings against " slick willie clinton " .

Announcement

Larry Klayman: Alabama court case likely to be taken to Supreme Court

Larry Klayman: Alabama court case likely to be taken to Supreme Court

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment