AL – McInnish v Chapman – Klayman responds

Klayman, the attorney whose case was recently ‘dismissed’ all the way up to the Alabama Supreme Court has mentioned that the case may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

While this would certainly please some of the birthers, it seems fair to point out that the issue that remains is extremely narrow and that the Supreme Court would not be interested in hearing about the claims that President Obama is somehow ineligible. As even the dissenting Judge Moore observed, that time has long since passed when he became President Elect.

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.

Moore told it like it is: It’s over… Next time, the Secretary of State is still under no obligation to determine the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, although she may, in certain cases do so. Alabama and California are on the record, with other states to follow these precedents.

While Klayman may have ‘cases on appeal’ they too will fail to successfully raise the issues the birthers so desperately are seeking even though the courts, and the Department of Health of Hawaii have ruled, verified and certified as to the eligibility of President Obama.

There is btw no majority decision in this case. But we should wait to see if Klayman figures it out.

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.

Ah, Judge Lamberth whose rulings in various cases have all rejected the birther claims. Yes, he too has been very courageous. But perhaps Klayman is confusing courage with ruling in a pleasing manner?

As to Florida, they too ruled that any relief to be found lies with Congress. Good luck to Mr Klayman on that.

AL – McInish v Chapman – Reply plaintiff [Updated]

The Fogbow reports (HT: Obamalaw)

Klayman has filed a Second Motion to Strike the ADP’s response to his initial motion to strike. It is hilarious. It argues that the ADP’s filing is “scandalous” for attacking Zollo’s qualifications and “unbecoming” of the President, while simultaneously referencing the IRS and Benghazi.

Yes, the court will be impressed by these irrelevant references while taking notice of the description by the defendants of Zullo who signed the affidavit as a private person.

Poor Klayman, again he appears to have fallen for the trap set…

Document will be uploaded once the Fogbow reports on it.

SCOAL 2013-05-24 McInnish|Goode v Chapman – Appellants’ Second Motion to Strike

Oh boy did Klayman take the bait and bite. And he still does not explain why, if Zullo signed as a private citizen, instead trying to ‘argue’ that Zullo holds any law enforcement position… In the end it does not matter as the ADP has clearly outlined what the issue to be decided is, and it is not about the eligibility of our President…

Continue reading

AL – McInnish v Chapman – Second Motion to Strike

 

Regrettably, Appellants have again been compelled, due to Amicus Curiae the Alabama Democratic Party’s disrespectful and offensive conduct, to move this court to now strike its Response of Amicus Curiae Alabama Democratic party Motion to Strike. Specifically, and for the second time, the Alabama Democratic Party uses its privilege to file an amicus brief to wage an ad-hominem attack on the integrity of the appellants and an official source who provided evidence that Defendant Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent.

NBC: Klayman fails to outline how the amicus brief was an ad hominem attack on the integrity of the appellants, who include McInnish. Furthermore, Klayman fails to explain why the Court should consider Zullo to be an official source when he files an affidavit as a private citizen. Finally, Zullo has not provided any evidence that President Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent. What the work by the Cold Case Posse’s volunteers attempt to show is that a highly compressed copy of the original document contains certain artifacts which they claim can only be explained through human intervention. No attempts have been made to show that the document is fraudulent, let alone that the original document is fraudulent.

While the Appellate Rules do not state specific criteria to strike pleadings,  Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provide guidance and the appropriate standard. It holds:

(f) Motion to strike. Upon motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by these rules, upon motion made by a party within thirty (30) days after the service of the pleading upon the party or upon the court’s own initiative at any time, the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.

In the Alabama Democratic Party’s Response, entity attack occurs particularly in paragraph 9 wherein this political entity attacks Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and his investigator Michael Zullo and states:

All that being said, the ADP assumes that it is unnecessary to further address whether this Court should consider the rambling screed that pases for an “affidavit” attached to the Appellants Motion to Strike. Virtually none of the information contained in the affidavit is admissible or credible, except where the affiant admits that he is a “former” law enforcement officer and not acting with any legitimate legal authority. The Appellants have gone from relying on the unsubstantiated, unverified and politically-biased beliefs of one county sheriff out of the 3,000 such sheriffs in America, to relying on the unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, politically-biased beliefs of one private citizen of the 313 million such private citizens in this country. The “affidavit” is inadmissible on its face and is composed of hearsay, speculation, and unsupported conclusions. Virtually none of the information in the “affidavit” could possibly be within the affiant’s personal knowledge and serves merely to demonstrate the depths to which these conspiracy theorists have resorted to try to de-legitimize a President that they quite obviously despise. The “affidavit” should be disregarded in its entirety.

This ad-hominem attack is “immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous” and should be stricken from the Alabama Democratic Party’s response. It is unbecoming of a political party that purports to represent the interests of a President of the United States.

NBC: Perhaps Klayman does not understand the meaning of ad hominem, which is not what the ADP is arguing. The ADP points out why the affidavit is irrelevant and inadmissible. Klayman may not like how the ADP describes the Sheriff and Zullo, but it is accurate to observe that the affidavit remains inadmissible, whether submitted by a county Sheriff from Arizona, or a private citizen like Zullo.

In addition, it is clear from Michael Zullo’s affidavit itself that he was deputized by the official source, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse, to conduct an investigation into the authenticity of Mr. Obama’s purported birth certificate.

NBC: At best Arpaio allowed Zullo to present information as to the authenticity of a highly compressed document. To claim that he was ‘deputized’ leaves much to be desired as to the official status of Zullo. Needless to say, Zullo did not pretend to be talking in any official capacity but rather as a private citizen.

Paragraphs 6-8 of Zullo’s affidavit y states under oath:

NBC: Which merely means that Zullo believes this, not that it is accurate. If Klayman wants the court to believe that Zullo is acting in an official capacity then why not submit the affidavit as such. Instead they chose to submit it as a private citizen, describing what the MCSO Cold Case Posse has done.

6. Under the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes, the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County has the authority to request assistance from a volunteer posse to assist the Sheriff in the execution of his duties, working under law enforcement authority of the Maricopa County Sheriff.

NBC: Nothing about being deputized or being able to represent oneself as an official source. Nothing that suggests that law enforcement authority is delegated to said posse. The posse can work under law enforcement authority of the Sheriff, not replace such authority.

7. Upon activation the Maricopa County Sheriff, certified Posse members are empowered to act as if the Sheriff himself were present when called upon to do so. Posse members of the MCSO are delegated their law enforcement authority by the Maricopa County Sheriff.

NBC: It that were the case, then why was the posse accompanied by a real MCSO law enforcement officer when visiting Hawaii?  Worse, Klayman has failed to show, beyond a mere claim by the affiant, that such enforcement authority can be ‘activated’ by the Sheriff.

8. Under that activation Sheriff Arpaio granted fully law enforcement authority of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office to conduct this investigation and to report back to the Sheriff our findings for his ultimate dispensation.

NBC: Nothing to support this assertion and nothing to support the claim that Zullo is acting in official capacity.

Accordingly, the Alabama Democratic Party’s response, like its original Amicus Curiae Brief, is also untruthful.

NBC: It merely observes that Zullo signed the affidavit not in any official capacity but as a private citizen. Whatever Zullo believes his powers may have been, they do not apply to his private capacity.

In addition, the Alabama Democratic Party’s Response is also misleading, when it suggests that it was a party to the lower court action. In fact, its motion to intervene was never granted and the birth certificate which proffers as genuine was never submitted to the court below.

NBC: The ADP did not suggest that it was a party to the lower court action, it was correcting a flawed assertion by Klayman. Nor does the ADP argue that the birth certificate was submitted to the court.

Finally, if the Alabama Democratic Part wishes to continue with its ad-hominem attacks on official source Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case, it should not be allowed to use and waste the valuable resources of this court to advance the political agenda of the administration — which of late regrettably has beeen exposed for the entire country to see wit1 scandals from “Fast and Furious-gate,” to “IRS-gate,” to ”Benghazi-gate,” to “Associated Press-gate,” to “Fox News-gate,” and more. Thus, the Alabama Democratic Party’s uncalled for ad-hominem politically-biased attacks are akin to the pot calling the kettle black.

NBC: Not a very logical conclusion. Klayman has bitten…

WHEREFORE, Appellants respectfully request, regrettably for the second time, that Alabama Democratic Party’s pleading be stricken in its entirety.

 

AL – McInnish v Chapman – SCOA – (In)admissible hearsay

Recently we have seen two filings in this case that are of some interest. The first one is an Amicus Brief by the Alabama Democratic Party (ADP), the other a motion to strike this brief by Klayman et al, which includes an affidavit by a private citizen named Mike Zullo.

I’d like to explore why the ADP’s brief which mentions the newspaper birth announcements and various other documents is admissible while the affidavit by Zullo is not.

Klayman attempts to argue that in name of fairness, if the court were to allow the Amicus Brief, he should be allowed to enter Zullo’s affidavit. But Klayman may be unaware of something relevant here. The first issue is judicial notice, the second is admissibility of evidence which involves hearsay and authentication.

Continue reading

AL – McInnish v Chapman – George Miller

At the ObamaBallotChallenge (sic), George Miller responds with some interesting claims. I will try to examine them to see if they add any relevant information.

We reported on the Zullo affidavit recently and were wondering why new evidence was being submitted for an appeal, which isn’t usually permissible. Well, some of you may remember the Democrats’ recent submission of an “Obama” “birth certificate,” along with other falsehoods and nonsense. Since they did not attempt that before in the original case, it would seem that it was not admissible, since appeals are not supposed to accept new evidence.

First of all it is important to understand the difference between evidence and exhibits. The ‘argument’ raised by the plaintiffs is that the Secretary of State had DUTY to follow up on the ‘research’ by the Cold Case Posse which they claimed shows evidence of fraud. However, as the ADP points out, far more credible evidence contradicted these claims. Note that under Alabama law, the SOS has to act if she receives “knowledge from an official source arising from the performance of her duties”. The ‘research’ by the Sheriff’s office cannot be considered as such. Certainly the ‘evidence’ is at best speculative and does not reach any conclusion that our President is ineligible. Note also that in their motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs themselves brought up the PDF document of the Long Form Birth Certificate. So this is not ‘new evidence’. The motion also mentions the statements made by Hawaiian officials, claiming that they are inconsistent. So again, this is not new evidence.

Continue reading

AL – McInnish v Chapman – SC AL – Appellants’ reply brief

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

Please tell me that this is not how Klayman’s briefs read like… Have we been punked. This reads more like something a 15 year old would write, full of circular logic.

Wow… I thought that the Alabama case was going to settle it once and for all. Of course, the issue raised was quite limited and the Court rules do not allow for new information to be introduced, which would exclude any affidavit by the Cold Case Posse knitting club.

Sigh… I was hoping for some real fireworks in Alabama… But it’s all a dud…

Continue reading

AL – McInnish v Chapman – Affidavit Zullo

As I had predicted, the affidavit was not signed by Sheriff Arpaia but rather by the volunteer Mariscopa County Cold Case Posse which has no investigative powers. In fact, as such it does not differ much from a knitting club.

So far the affidavit appears to raise no relevant issues, and will be rejected per the rules of the Supreme Court of Alabama.

Continue reading

AL – McInnish v Chapman – Orly comments

Orly Taitz sometimes does get it right.

I agree with everyone who commented here previously. There is nothing Arpaio and Zullo can do in front of the Supreme Court of AL. The supreme court of AL does not allow any witness testimony or any new evidence. The only thing Arpaio can do and has to do, is file a criminal complaint in Maricopa county AZ, where he is a Sheriff. He could have done it a year ago. For a year he has been talking and promising, but did not do his job as a sheriff. It is noteworthy that when Arpaio could testify in trial court in CA, GA, MS, when I subpoenaed him to testify, he refused to do so. Now, when testimony is forbidden by the rules of the Supreme Court he says he will help. This is just noise for fundraising purpose, no real action. Everyone should tell Carl Gallops-PPSimmons, Zullo and Arpaio to stop talking and file the criminal complaint immediately or refund the donors who were mislead and believed that Arpaio will file a criminal complaint before the election

Hear hear…  Why is Arpaio refusing to take the findings by the Cold Case Posse and start an official investigation and file a criminal complaint? I think the answer is self evident.

AL – McInnish v Chapman – Extended Orly

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=418995

Some very insightful comments. First of all addressing the fact that the Supreme Court is bound by the lower case decision and will not hear testimony beyond the rulings of that case.

WND and ORYR are posting articles saying that Sheriff Arpaio is going to get involved in the oral argument in Obama eligibility case, which is on appeal before the Supreme Court of AL.

I posted here a decision by the AL Supreme Court, which was just released. It is a different case but it shows you how the court works. AL Supreme Court, as 49 other Supreme Courts, are looking at the evidence that was in front of the trial court in deciding whether the judge in the lower court, the trial court, erred in granting his decision based on the evidence that he had at a time.

Oral argument in any Supreme Court of any State is extremely rare. Less than one percent of any cases goes for oral argument and typically it is to clarify the points of law. No witnesses are allowed during those arguments, no new testimony is allowed. Arpaio and attorneys in AL case know it. Democratic party of AL filed an Amicus brief. The courts rarely even look at Amicus Briefs. Amicus briefs are briefs of the friends of the court and typically those briefs include argument on the points of law considered in the lower court. No new evidence brought in the Amicus briefs, such as one produced by the Democratic Party of AL, are ever considered.

In the lower court the case by McInnish and Good was dismissed after the Sec of State of AL Beth Chapman argued   via her motion to dismiss that she had no duty to demand the certified birth certificate for Obama and that the case is moot. Supreme Court will decide whether she had to request a certified copy of Obama’s BC and whether the matter was moot. They will not address any other arguments, any new facts or any new testimony.

Then she hits the nail with her observations about the MCSO Cold Case Posse

Third: if you noticed, arpaio himself nver said anything. He is using his proxy, Mike Zullo, who is not even employed by the Sheriff’s department, who is just a volunteer with the cold case posse to make claims. ORYR an WND are not saying that they interviewed Arpaio, they are saying that they heard something posted on other blogs, such s PPSimmons-Carl Galllups.  Why didn’t WND, which claimd to be a reputable Internet publication, interview Arpaio directly and ask: how can you get involved in AL Supreme Court, where no new testimony is allowed and why didn’t you file a criminal complaint in the county where you are a sheriff and have a duty to file? You can see one big scheme, where a number of people are doing PR and fundraising, but nothing of substance is being done.

Arpaio very carefully isolated himself from the Cold Case Posse’s follies.

Call WND, ORYR and Carl Gallops from PPSimmons and tell them to stop peddling nonsense and start asking Arpaio and his investigator Zullo tough questions: why didn’t they file the criminal complaint for over a year? Why are they just talking instead of filing the criminal complaint.

Yes, why is Arpaio remaining quiet here :-)

AL – McInnish v Chapman – AL Supreme Court – False hopes?

[Update: Changed to McInnish v  Chapman. Oops, so many Klayman failures to keep track of.]

At OBC, a smart contributor explains why Arpaio’s work will have little relevance to the issue before the Court which is straightforward. First of all President Obama is not even a party to the case, second of all, the issue is limited to a single issue question. There have been rumors that Arpaio will be completely collaborating with the AL court, however I doubt that Arpaio himself will involve himself in these matters as it is not even an official investigation. Furthermore, the affidavits have already been submitted in the case, and have no relevance. And finally, I doubt that they are even ready to share all this ‘new evidence’ they have been speculating about. I understand that Zullo and Gallups had another love fest of much of the same. Any updates on what they discussed?

This is an appeal of the lower court ruling. The only appellee is Alabama SoS Chapman, President Obama isn’t even involved. There will be no witness, no trial and no new evidence will be allowed. The only question will be did the lower court err when it said that the SoS has no duty to investigate the eligibility of Presidential candidates? It is only a question of the interpretation of Alabama law. Seems to me there is very little assistance the Zullo can provide to the appellants.

IMO, they are just raising a bunch of false hopes.

Source: william Rawle at OBC

The MCSO Cold Case Posse surely is making a lot of noise but so far we only hear about how VIP’s are dropping :-)

I expect that this will be going until until well after the next Obama lives in the Whitehouse :-)

Others at OBC are similarly unimpressed

So now we have breaking news that actually is old news. Klayman as I understand it, has been using Arpaio’s and Zullo’s affidavits in Florida & Alabama. This is nothing new. The whole premise for requesting the Arpaio investigation was for the purpose of determining whether the Obama Certificate of Live Birth is a criminal forgery. The main thrust of the request was to bring criminal charges to the forefront. We still are waiting for Arpaio & Co. to seek criminal charges. When that happens it will indeed be worthy of the phrase “breaking news.”

Source: Brian Reilly

AL – McInnish v Chapman – AL Supreme Court – False hopes?

[Update: Changed to McInnish v  Chapman. Oops, so many Klayman failures to keep track of.]

At OBC, a smart contributor explains why Arpaio’s work will have little relevance to the issue before the Court which is straightforward. First of all President Obama is not even a party to the case, second of all, the issue is limited to a single issue question. There have been rumors that Arpaio will be completely collaborating with the AL court, however I doubt that Arpaio himself will involve himself in these matters as it is not even an official investigation. Furthermore, the affidavits have already been submitted in the case, and have no relevance. And finally, I doubt that they are even ready to share all this ‘new evidence’ they have been speculating about. I understand that Zullo and Gallups had another love fest of much of the same. Any updates on what they discussed?

This is an appeal of the lower court ruling. The only appellee is Alabama SoS Chapman, President Obama isn’t even involved. There will be no witness, no trial and no new evidence will be allowed. The only question will be did the lower court err when it said that the SoS has no duty to investigate the eligibility of Presidential candidates? It is only a question of the interpretation of Alabama law. Seems to me there is very little assistance the Zullo can provide to the appellants.

IMO, they are just raising a bunch of false hopes.

Source: william Rawle at OBC

The MCSO Cold Case Posse surely is making a lot of noise but so far we only hear about how VIP’s are dropping :-)

I expect that this will be going until until well after the next Obama lives in the Whitehouse :-)

Others at OBC are similarly unimpressed

So now we have breaking news that actually is old news. Klayman as I understand it, has been using Arpaio’s and Zullo’s affidavits in Florida & Alabama. This is nothing new. The whole premise for requesting the Arpaio investigation was for the purpose of determining whether the Obama Certificate of Live Birth is a criminal forgery. The main thrust of the request was to bring criminal charges to the forefront. We still are waiting for Arpaio & Co. to seek criminal charges. When that happens it will indeed be worthy of the phrase “breaking news.”

Source: Brian Reilly

AL – McInnish v Chapman – AL Supreme Court – False hopes?

[Update: Changed to McInnish v  Chapman. Oops, so many Klayman failures to keep track of.]

At OBC, a smart contributor explains why Arpaio’s work will have little relevance to the issue before the Court which is straightforward. First of all President Obama is not even a party to the case, second of all, the issue is limited to a single issue question. There have been rumors that Arpaio will be completely collaborating with the AL court, however I doubt that Arpaio himself will involve himself in these matters as it is not even an official investigation. Furthermore, the affidavits have already been submitted in the case, and have no relevance. And finally, I doubt that they are even ready to share all this ‘new evidence’ they have been speculating about. I understand that Zullo and Gallups had another love fest of much of the same. Any updates on what they discussed?

This is an appeal of the lower court ruling. The only appellee is Alabama SoS Chapman, President Obama isn’t even involved. There will be no witness, no trial and no new evidence will be allowed. The only question will be did the lower court err when it said that the SoS has no duty to investigate the eligibility of Presidential candidates? It is only a question of the interpretation of Alabama law. Seems to me there is very little assistance the Zullo can provide to the appellants.

IMO, they are just raising a bunch of false hopes.

Source: william Rawle at OBC

The MCSO Cold Case Posse surely is making a lot of noise but so far we only hear about how VIP’s are dropping :-)

I expect that this will be going until until well after the next Obama lives in the Whitehouse :-)

Others at OBC are similarly unimpressed

So now we have breaking news that actually is old news. Klayman as I understand it, has been using Arpaio’s and Zullo’s affidavits in Florida & Alabama. This is nothing new. The whole premise for requesting the Arpaio investigation was for the purpose of determining whether the Obama Certificate of Live Birth is a criminal forgery. The main thrust of the request was to bring criminal charges to the forefront. We still are waiting for Arpaio & Co. to seek criminal charges. When that happens it will indeed be worthy of the phrase “breaking news.”

Source: Brian Reilly

AL – McInnish v Chapman – AL Supreme Court – False hopes?

[Update: Changed to McInnish v  Chapman. Oops, so many Klayman failures to keep track of.]

At OBC, a smart contributor explains why Arpaio’s work will have little relevance to the issue before the Court which is straightforward. First of all President Obama is not even a party to the case, second of all, the issue is limited to a single issue question. There have been rumors that Arpaio will be completely collaborating with the AL court, however I doubt that Arpaio himself will involve himself in these matters as it is not even an official investigation. Furthermore, the affidavits have already been submitted in the case, and have no relevance. And finally, I doubt that they are even ready to share all this ‘new evidence’ they have been speculating about. I understand that Zullo and Gallups had another love fest of much of the same. Any updates on what they discussed?

This is an appeal of the lower court ruling. The only appellee is Alabama SoS Chapman, President Obama isn’t even involved. There will be no witness, no trial and no new evidence will be allowed. The only question will be did the lower court err when it said that the SoS has no duty to investigate the eligibility of Presidential candidates? It is only a question of the interpretation of Alabama law. Seems to me there is very little assistance the Zullo can provide to the appellants.

IMO, they are just raising a bunch of false hopes.

Source: william Rawle at OBC

The MCSO Cold Case Posse surely is making a lot of noise but so far we only hear about how VIP’s are dropping :-)

I expect that this will be going until until well after the next Obama lives in the Whitehouse :-)

Others at OBC are similarly unimpressed

So now we have breaking news that actually is old news. Klayman as I understand it, has been using Arpaio’s and Zullo’s affidavits in Florida & Alabama. This is nothing new. The whole premise for requesting the Arpaio investigation was for the purpose of determining whether the Obama Certificate of Live Birth is a criminal forgery. The main thrust of the request was to bring criminal charges to the forefront. We still are waiting for Arpaio & Co. to seek criminal charges. When that happens it will indeed be worthy of the phrase “breaking news.”

Source: Brian Reilly