Posted on 03/21/2014 10:25:55 AM PDT by Fractal Trader
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 onc
I do agree with Moore that since Alabama’s law stipulates that candidates be qualified there is an undeniably implied expectation that the Sec State would naturally carry out some level of evaluation to determine whether submitted candidates are, in fact, qualified.
I’m obviously not much of a pragmatist given the fact that I still care about this issue at all, but I do think sometimes it’s worth exploring the possibility that there may be a path of lesser resistance readily available. Given the written response of the state supreme justices, to me it’s somewhat plausible to think that the legislature could be pushed to draft a bill that explicitly outlines procedures and allocates powers for investigation of candidate qualifications.
If that could be accomplished, it makes me wonder whether the initiative couldn’t be pushed further to include a rider or addendum or follow-up that would ensure the same investigative powers be leveraged to determine whether Alabama was already the victim of an unqualified candidacy in 2012.
I admit that, for reasons that I still don’t understand, even most so-called conservatives are unwilling to touch Obama’s eligibility with a 10 foot pole. So, I realize that my proposed “go back and investigate Obama 2012” rider part stretches plausibility much more than the first part of this. However, I am persuaded that it’s more likely to be considered than a wholesale impeachment of 7 judges. As far as that goes, I’m not sure a bad decision rendered by justices is sufficient to justify impeachment particularly in a case where a person could argue there are some reasonable doubts about timeliness and where the full voice of the existing laws on vetting candidates amounts to a couple of brief arguably subtle phrases.
It may be that I’m still just too naive, but I’m not yet convinced this is a conspiracy whose fingers reach as far as corrupting 7 of the Alabama supremes. But even if they are corrupt — or if they are just typically timid and less than brilliant — I’m not sure impeaching them offers any hope that they would be replaced by a new set that isn’t prone to turn out the same as those they replace.
I read it as the SSA should have written “The [type of] records you requested are under the jurisdiction of our Office of Earnings Operations.”
IMO, they meant that all SS-5 records are held by the OEO and that’s were the FOIA request should have gone.
On another subject:
On Carl Gallups’ show he made this comment after the Zullo segment, in response to a question: [unofficial transcript]
“The criminal investigation that Sheriff Arpaio is going to bring forward is not directly related to the birth certificate. It came out of information that came through the investigation of the birth certificate. So, Sheriff Arpaio is not going to get up and talk about the birth certificate. What he has, what he’s going to bring forward, Mike Zullo has said is universe shattering information. It is huge, it’s monumental. And it came to us, to them, not, I say us because he reported on my channel, but it’s come to us through the birth certificate investigation. So, Arpaio’s going to deal with that separate from the birth certificate issue. And then a few, I guess, a few weeks later Mike Zullo will come forward and bring forward everything he has on the birth certificate and the two together are just going to be just mind blowing. And we’re going to hope and pray at that time that Congress will finally be shaken to the core and do something. And if they’re not than the American people who will know all about it need to put Congress out.”
@12:05
http://www.1330weby.com/media/com_podcastmanager/FreedomFriday/2014/3-21/Segment7.mp3
On the February 7th show Mike Zullo and Carl Gallups had several interesting exchanges: [unofficial transcript]
@7:47
Carl: Something was bad wrong with it [the birth certificate PDF] and that, you know, for the purpose of defrauding the American people. I mean that in and of itself is earth shattering to me, Mike. I don’t know that that’s ever been done in the history of the United States before.
Mike Zullo: Well it hasn’t Carl, and if you combine that aspect with the investigation that is on going on the criminal side of this, it will be universe shattering.
@14:20
Carl: We know that there are operatives out there, Obama loving operatives, and that’s okay to love Obama, that’s fine. But these people have interjected themselves all throughout this investigation in various ways, some to the point of actually, I think, interfering with the investigation. But they have interjected themselves on radio and internet and blogtalkradio and my radio program and all over the blogs and websites but isn’t it correct, is it my understanding that you know who some or most of these guys are, or the most important ones. I mean have you done some digging; you know who these guys are?
Mike Zullo: We have a pretty good idea who some of the ones who are anonymous are. One in particular, we know works in the field of artificial intelligence in projects that are funded by DARPA. So that tells you a lot right there. We have traced IP addresses going back directly to the administration. And we are counting those as very suspicious as to when logins happen and when things are posted.
@16:55
Carl: They [obots] are nothing but, what’s the word I am looking for, disinformation agents.
Mike Zullo: Well, I’ll tell the one thing I will commend them for. Throwing out the nonsense Xerox machine argument is what got us where we are today.
Carl: Well, yes it did. And that’s all we’re going to say about that. But I’m glad they did it and you’re glad they did it and Sheriff Arpaio is glad they did it, because that’s where everything started to branch off into some deep, deep, deep stuff.
Mike Zullo: Yes it did.
Carl: So you’re confirming that you guys are very, very sure, are, are very sure that you know who several of these people are?
Mike Zullo: Well I’m also Carl going to tell you here is the game play that is going to go out now, you’re going to hear a complete disavowment of any association with any agency within the White House or any agency within the federal government. They will start spinning a picture that this is nonsense yadda yadda yadda tin foil hat stuff. That’s going to be their play - deny, deny, deny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HvGEs98UqM
It sounds to me like the criminal investigation part only deals with some of the obots and their association with the administration. And since this is the stuff the two Maricopa County Sheriff detectives are working on and because they can only investigate things that happened in Maricopa County, IMO, the criminal investigation will involve claims that the White House/DARPA have interfered with the criminal investigation in a cover-up.
Maybe charges of obstructing justice or interfering with an investigation or such.
It doesn’t sound to me like the criminal investigation will deal with who is Obama’s parents or whether he is a Soviet plant.
YMMV
Wrong.
Taitz could not have gone straight to the OEO with her FOIA as it first had to go to the The Office of Privacy and Disclosure (OPD) who directs all FOIA activities. FOIAs all go into a centralized database for processing. Taitz submitted the requested FOIA there, a central office (OPD) where it processes the FOIA requests in their electronic Freedom of Information Act (eFOIA) system. OPD determine where it goes as is says here from the Social Security Administration:
- - - - - - - -
"FOIA Home / About the Office of Privacy and Disclosure
Mission
The Office of Privacy and Disclosure (OPD) is one of the major components within the Office of the General Counsel (OGC). OPD develops and interprets Social Security Administration (SSA) policy governing the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of personally identifiable information under the Privacy Act, section 1106 of the Social Security Act, section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, and related privacy statutes and regulations. Additionally, OPD develops policy for data exchange agreements governed by the Privacy Act and the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act (CMPPA).
OPD also directs all FOIA activities within SSA, including developing FOIA policies and procedures, establishing national guidelines for handling FOIA requests, publishing the Annual Report on FOIA activities, and reviewing FOIA and Privacy Act requests and appeals to determine the proper disclosure of records.
OPD Organizational Structure
SSA employs a “centralized” approach for handling all FOIA requests and appeals submitted to the agency. To accomplish our FOIA mission, OPD’s structure includes two Disclosure Policy Development Divisions, each aligned to specific SSA Regional Offices. This alignment helps us efficiently and consistently process FOIA requests, and handle disclosure and privacy matters. Regional staff may directly consult with the same core set of analysts on disclosure policy and procedure matters, instead of going through a clearinghouse process that randomly assigns inquiries to a “pool” of analysts.
This arrangement also allows the OPD analyst to become familiar with privacy and disclosure issues that may be unique to a particular geographic region due to State or local laws, or other influencing factors.
How We Process Requests
We receive FOIA requests via the internet, or by fax, email, and U.S. mail.
Regardless of the submission method, we capture all FOIA requests in our electronic Freedom of Information Act (eFOIA) system. We scan and image all paper requests (mail, email, and fax) into eFOIA, whereas requests submitted through our internet request form go directly into eFOIA. As soon as we enter a request into the system, or a person submits an online request, eFOIA generates an acknowledgement letter. While this letter confirms for the requester our receipt of their request, it also provides a reference number specifically assigned to their case, along with a voice mailbox telephone number, the requester can call to inquire on the status of his or her request. OPD maintains a policy of responding to all calls placed to this number within one working day.
Under FOIA, we may charge fees to process certain FOIA requests. The eFOIA system allows requesters to pay online for some routine requests, which accelerates our responsiveness to the public and reduces our administrative costs.
We strive to handle each request within 20 days from the date we receive it. We process requests under a “first in” “first out” basis. However, sometimes it may take us longer depending on the complexity of the request, the amount of records sought, where the documents are located, and how much other work we have.
A complex request may require us to obtain more information from either the requester, or from office(s) within SSA. A request may require us to seek paper records that we collectively maintain in multiple geographic locations, or in archived storage. ..."
- - - - - - - - - -
Oh darn it, the latest OBot myth blown up.
Kind of ties into this story this week about the White House re-directing any sensitive FOIA requests to political reviewers at the White House (you can be dang sure that anything related to Barry’s eligibility would be included, especially any requests by Orly Taitz!):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3134945/posts
“Most transparent’ White House ever rewrote the FOIA to suppress politically sensitive docs”
By Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner
It’s Sunshine Week, so perhaps some enterprising White House reporter will ask press secretary Jay Carney why President Obama rewrote the Freedom of Information Act without telling the rest of America.
The rewrite came in an April 15, 2009, memo from then-White House Counsel Greg Craig instructing the executive branch to let White House officials review any documents sought by FOIA requestors that involved “White House equities.”
Obama's words hardly ever matches his actions except when he's talking about leftist issues.
It’s Sunshine Week, so perhaps some enterprising White House reporter will ask press secretary Jay Carney why President Obama rewrote the Freedom of Information Act without telling the rest of America.
The White House lapdog poodle-press will first have to submit the question for review before their faux reality show cavorted by Carney the Carnival Barker.
The rewrite came in an April 15, 2009, memo from then-White House Counsel Greg Craig instructing the executive branch to let White House officials review any documents sought by FOIA requestors that involved “White House equities.”
Came in by April 15th, 2009? Less than 3 months in office and Barry was on this faster than he gets on with Reggie L his 'Body Man' in the upstairs White House.
“eFOIA generates an acknowledgement letter. While this letter confirms for the requester our receipt of their request, it also provides a reference number specifically assigned to their case, along with a voice mailbox telephone number, the requester can call to inquire on the status of his or her request.”
So why is there no “voice mailbox telephone number” on Taitz’s letter?
Well Zolty, the letter was redacted, and according to Taitz there is another page to the letter. I've posted her statement twice on this thread about her conversation with Dr. CON.
Here's one of them at number 99.
“Taitz could not have gone straight to the OEO with her FOIA as it first had to go to the The Office of Privacy and Disclosure (OPD) who directs all FOIA activities.”
Maybe she requested a copy of an SS-5 for a deceased person.
From the SSA website:
You may use Form SSA-711 to request a deceased person’s application for a Social Security Number (Form SS-5); however you do not need to use the Form SSA-711. To obtain a deceased person’s Form SS-5, send your request to:
Social Security Administration
OEO FOIA Workgroup
300 N. Greene Street
P.O. Box 33022
Baltimore, Maryland 21290-3022
http://www.ssa.gov/foia/request.html#a0=4
OEO stands for Office of Earnings Operations which is where the SSA letter says her request was forwarded to.
I suppose it comes down to who you want to believe Orly taitz or Susan Daniels.
I would have to wade through Alabama's law regarding the Secretary of State, and It isn't worth the trouble it would take to make the point.
From my perspective, implied powers are axiomatic.
I have a problem with government officials assuming powers they don't clearly have.
As Judge Moore noted, the laws of Alabama require qualified candidates. The enforcement mechanism is implied, and would seemingly fall under the office of the Secretary of State.
THAT is what I think the Judges of Alabama Supreme Court do not understand. I have become long accustomed to Judges not understanding some very simple things.
The bottom line is that if a national party convention nominates a candidate, the Secretary of State “SHALL” certify that candidate for the Alabama ballot. There is no discretion under the law.
And once again, I point out that any law in Conflict with Constitutional law is of null effect.
This may indeed be the case, but it is irrelevant to the point when such does not constitute real proof.
Again, Constitutional law trumps state law.
Only since Obama. Prior to him, States routinely threw off bad candidates. Some years back, California threw off a Columbian born candidate for the Presidency, and it caused nary a ripple.
Now the idea is completely UNTHINKABLE!! Because "OBAMA!"
They will assert the power when they wish to do so, and plead inability to do so when they do not wish to assert the power.
And ordinarily that confirming information would be a certified Birth Certificate, and for which Hawaiian State law specifically allows, to be sent to governmental officials who need it for official business.
Barack Obama’s statement was challenged and the court ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen. {Allen v. Obama}.
And this is merely proof that the court is incompetent, Nothing else. We have long become accustomed to incompetent courts. It is now rare when a court gets anything right. This is why I do not hesitate to promote disrespect for them, and the undermining of their authority.
They have become a collection of High Paid Clowns who are good for nothing but comic relief, but who have the power to force their nonsense on the rest of us.
I disagree that they don't clearly have these powers. Other Secretaries of State exercise these powers whenever they choose to do so. Are we to believe that with 49 other states in which these powers are assumed, that the legislators of Alabama never intended their Sec State to exercise them as well?
As James Madison said about the lack of detailed enumeration of what was to be the Common law in the Constitution:
" If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution. "
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a3_2_1s10.html
I understand that perfectly. They live in utter terror of the media calling them "RACIST" for poking into Obama's legitimacy. They regard it as a losing political tactic, and they are only interested in keeping themselves elected.
It has no appeal to them whatsoever.
It may be that I’m still just too naive, but I’m not yet convinced this is a conspiracy whose fingers reach as far as corrupting 7 of the Alabama supremes. But even if they are corrupt — or if they are just typically timid and less than brilliant — I’m not sure impeaching them offers any hope that they would be replaced by a new set that isn’t prone to turn out the same as those they replace.
Oh, I agree. Impeaching them is not really an option. A society in which they can render such nonsensical decisions is a society too naive and irresponsible to do anything about it.
If any government official at the state or federal level would like to see a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth, they can go to a judge and ask for a court order to release a certified copy of it or they can get a court order to inspect the original. That is permissible under the provisions of Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18(b)(point 9).
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.HTM
It would be better to have the document released under the auspices of a neutral party, a judge, rather than by Obama. Any release authorized by him would immediately be suspect.
I suggest that a government official in Alabama ask Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore or Associate Justice Tom Parker to issue such a court order tomorrow to back up the questions raised in their dissents in McInnish v. Bennett.
I very much doubt whether any governmental official in Alabama wants to touch this. I think they just want it to go away. But yeah, that would be a pretty good idea.
I’m not sure what government officials in Alabama would be afraid of. Alabama is among the ten most conservative states in the union. Obama only managed to get 38% of the vote in 2012 and he’d get even less today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.