We’ve not seen many amicus briefs on the defense side in birther lawsuits, but the Alabama Democratic Party chose to submit one to the Alabama Supreme Court in the case of McInnish v. Chapman, now on appeal before that court. McInnish is being represented by noted birther attorney Larry Klayman. The ADP justifies its intervention because it asserts that it has the right to determine that qualifications of its nominees for office and that:
…the Alabama Democratic Party has an interest in ensuring that future Alabama Secretaries of State are not allowed to disqualify a party’s nominees based internet rumors and unfounded assertions regarding their qualifications.
The case is interesting because not only is WorldNetDaily writer and Terry Lakin sympathizer Judge Roy Moore now heading the court, but previously Alabama Supreme Court Justice Parker wrote, in an unpublished concurring opinion in a previous McInnish case:
McInnish 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.]
It is perhaps these circumstances that led the Democrats to make sure that no stone was left unturned in defending against this appeal, already rejected by the Montgomery Circuit Court.
In addition to the usual arguments as to the inappropriateness of such a suit (with numerous citations and authorities) as that of McInnish, the ADP attacked the merits of the suit’s claims, calling the evidence proffered by McInnish “inadmissible and not worthy of belief” and adding:
A county sheriff from Arizona is not an “official source” of anything in Alabama.
Read the brief: