Replies

I agree. This appears to me to be Sven’s narrative...with absolutely no credible source of documentary or witness evidence offered that I have seen, unlike Zullo’s filing which included both open and sealed claims of evidence.

I believe you are missing the point of Moore's amicus brief. He does not need to show evidence of what he is saying, that is what discovery is for. Moore is providing a narrative that the court can weigh when it makes it's ruling.

What evidence is there that Moore's narrative is invalid? We have evidence from the CCP that shows the LFBC is fraudulent - and that would fit into the narrative. So, as the court looks at it, Moore's narrative would seem more likely than one that the SOS provided - that Obama has released multiple BC's that show he is eligible.

The narrative provides an important legal purpose, even if you do not believe it's true. It allows the court to weigh the possibility that the people of the state of Alabama were injured by the lack of the SOS performing her legal duty. And argues that the case should be sent to discovery, so that the plaintiffs can prove to the court that the SOS's lack of performing her required duties, resulted in such harm.

So, assume the court rules against the SOS, and says she is legally required to verify the eligibility of Presidential candidate Obama, what is to keep the SOS from simply sending a letter to the Hawaii DOH and receiving a letter like Bennett, and calling that sufficient? That would be the likely outcome of such a ruling.

I believe it's important that the plaintiffs do not simply get a ruling in their favor, they need the case to move to discovery phase so that they can verify that the SOS lack of verification resulted in harm to the plaintiffs, and the people of Alabama.

“I believe you are missing the point of Moore’s amicus brief. He does not need to show evidence of what he is saying, that is what discovery is for. Moore is providing a narrative that the court can weigh when it makes it’s ruling.”

I see exactly what Moore is doing and I totally disagree with your characterization of Moore’s narrative.

Zullo disputes the evidence in the trial court record under review. He provides sealed new evidence in support which undermines narrative in the court record and undermines the constitutional requirement that a state honor the records of another state which it wouldn’t if the other state’s record can be proved to be forged if adequate discovery was ordered.

Moore provides no evidence that refutes the trial court record, and no new evidence of his new narrative. Moore’s filing is a giant hearsay which would be OK at the trail record when discovery is pending but inappropriate at the appeals level. Moore is asking for a pure speculative fishing expedition. Zullo has claimed trial-worthy evidence including an affidavit/report by document expert concluding that the WH BC is forged.

Big difference between Zullo’s filing and Moore’s, IMO! (IANAL)