Main Menu

McInnish v. Chapman in brief

The lawsuit of McInnish v. Chapman is the birther’s best hope these days.

Sometimes it can take a while to locate exactly what you want. Here are the briefs before the Alabama Supreme Court in McInnish v. Chapman. The issue is whether Alabama Secretary of State Chapman has a duty to verify the eligibility of candidates for President of the United States and whether the Alabama “Jurisdiction-stripping statute” precludes the courts from hearing the case.

There is a long string of cases, going back to Donofrio v. Wells in 2008 where state courts have ruled that their secretaries of state do not have such a duty. Are the laws in Alabama different? Is the presence of birther sympathizers on the Alabama Supreme Court significant? We shall see.


1Spencer Connerat brought eligibility suits against Barack Obama in Florida.

2Jim Zeigler, songwriter and Mobile attorney, is a graduate of the Jones School of Law. The Alabama Republican Assembly is a chapter of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, who style themselves as the “Republican wing of the Republican Party.”

Print Friendly

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

24 Responses to McInnish v. Chapman in brief

  1. avatar
    KDLarsen May 25, 2013 at 2:14 pm #

    The answers to that is:
    No.
    and
    No.

    It’s showboating at its worst, with Klayman blowing the birther dogwhistle at every opportunity.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 25, 2013 at 2:45 pm #

    I must say that Mr. Zeigler’s brief isn’t much of a legal argument considering that he’s an attorney. He cites no cases, talks about his beliefs and how his organization feels. His argument, such as it is, is the assertion that the Alabama Secretary of State can afford to mail a letter.

  3. avatar
    Daniel May 25, 2013 at 2:50 pm #

    Do they not understand that even if they win this suit, it will only go against them? The last thing the birthers want is to have a SOS demand proof of Obama’s eligibility…. and get it.

  4. avatar
    Hermitian May 25, 2013 at 3:04 pm #

    Mr. C missed this one:

    141502606-SCOAL-2013-05-14-McInnish-Goode-v-Chapman-Appellants-Reply-Brief

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/141502606/SCOAL-2013-05-14-McInnish-Goode-v-Chapman-Appellants-Reply-Brief

    I had posted this one previously but there was little interest.

    [Thanks. Doc.]

  5. avatar
    nbc May 25, 2013 at 3:10 pm #

    It’s a fascinating display of failures.

    THe USJF cites a case which supports the Secretary of State’s position. Lucas Smith is back with his so called ‘Kenyan’ birth certificate, and Klayman is losing it over the Amicus and Reply brief filed by the ADP.

    Does he not realize that he is responding just as Ragsdale et al were hoping for? Especially fascinating are his attempts to suggest that Zullo somehow represents the MCSO or the Sheriff’s office even though he signed as a private citizen.. Where is Arpaio in all of this?…

    Fascinating and so hilarious and in the end only a single issue remains: Does the SOS of Alabama has the duty to investigate claims of ineligibility? And the answer, following the rulings in other cases, is that indeed she does not have such a duty.

    and of course, the whole case is totally moot as the President has been sworn in, so no relief can be granted.

    Such a bummer.

  6. avatar
    donna May 25, 2013 at 3:19 pm #

    a “star studded” birther effort: Obama eligibility appeal in Roy Moore’s court

    klayman, moore, goode, mcinnish, arpaio’s posse, justice tom parker, etc ….. all that’s missing is a red carpet

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/obama-eligibility-appeal-in-roy-moores-court/

    shouldn’t the “one honest judge” have recused himself?

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 25, 2013 at 3:21 pm #

    Also, does Klayman realize that the “affidavit” of Mike Zullo, signed May 13, 2013, did not exist at the time of the 2012 election, and therefore could not have provided “official notice” to the Secretary of State that there were issues to investigate. Nowhere in the Affidavit is there any description of any notification by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office to the Alabama Secretary of state. Talk about really stupid.

    nbc: Does he not realize that he is responding just as Ragsdale et al were hoping for? Especially fascinating are his attempts to suggest that Zullo somehow represents the MCSO or the Sheriff’s office even though he signed as a private citizen.. Where is Arpaio in all of this?…

  8. avatar
    nbc May 25, 2013 at 3:52 pm #

    Nowhere in the Affidavit is there any description of any notification by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office to the Alabama Secretary of state. Talk about really stupid.

    You do realize that Klayman’s hope is not that the Court will rule on the narrow issue but rather that the court may address the eligibility of our President, even though not before the court.

    But even the dissenting Judge could not argue that the issue is brought before them in a proper manner.

  9. avatar
    nbc May 25, 2013 at 3:55 pm #

    Hermitian: http://www.scribd.com/doc/141502606/SCOAL-2013-05-14-McInnish-Goode-v-Chapman-Appellants-Reply-Brief

    Yes, another great example of Klayman totally go off into legal lala land… Full faith and Credit clause, mootness… All quite poorly argued and showing a lack of understanding of what the clause is all about. No it is not about the musings of some county Sheriff who concludes based on an analysis of a highly compressed document that such document may have been ‘tampered with’.

    Really.. It blows the mind…

  10. avatar
    nbc May 25, 2013 at 3:57 pm #

    And even Orly understands

    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

    Source: OBC

    Good ol’ Orly… There are times where she does surprise me… Other times…

  11. avatar
    nbc May 25, 2013 at 4:06 pm #

    As to Sheriff Arpaio, he is now in the cross-hairs of the Court who found that the MCSO engaged in racial profiling

    The ACLU observes

    “What he says publicly either to constituents in response to their racist e-mails, or what he writes in his book, did set the tone and set policy for the Sheriff’s Office. The evidence showed that the sheriff does set policy. His response to overly racist letters led down the road to these immigration raids,” Wang said. “This is an agency where you saw a classic instance of a law-enforcement culture that led directly to a situation where all the Latino residents of the county who the sheriff swore to protect and serve were victimized by his law enforcement.”

    Read the full decision here

    The permanent injunctive relief ordered above is immediately effective. But, as the Court previously discussed with the parties at the end of trial, it will confer with them before ordering any further relief that the evidence demonstrates to be necessary to effectuate this relief. In considering the necessity and extent of such additional relief, and in addition to the other matters discussed at length during this order, the Court has determined that the MCSO is aggressively responsive to the wishes of a significant portion of the Maricopa County electorate that desires vigorous law enforcement operations against unauthorized residents by state and local law enforcement authorities. The MCSO continues to engage in law enforcement efforts against unauthorized aliens, and continues to aggressively assert its authority to do so. In doing so, the MCSO erroneously trained its patrol deputies that, despite the revocation of its 287(g) authority he MCSO nevertheless had authority to enforce federal immigration law. It further violated and continues to violate the terms of this court’s preliminary injunction entered
    on December 23, 2011 by enforcing its LEAR policy

    The Court will entertain any proposals that are mutually acceptable to the parties in implementing steps to ensure compliance with its above orders, but in the absence of such proposals will proceed to enter such orders as are necessary to effectuate the above relief. In determining what authority may be necessary to provide such relief, the Court is particularly interested in the views of the parties concerning the following questions:

    (1) To what extent, if any, should any law enforcement operations of the MCSO that have the potential to involve members of the Plaintiff class be subject to the direct oversight and pre-approval?

    (2) To what extent, if any, should the MCSO be required to provide training to all of its personnel including posse members concerning the inappropriate use of race as an indicator of legal violations?

    (3) To what extent, if any, should the MCSO be required to provide training to all of its personnel concerning the elements of the Arizona Human Smuggling Statute and the requirements necessary to have reasonable suspicion that the statute is being violated?

    (4) To what extent, if any, does the MCSO still hold itself out to the general public as enforcing laws against illegal aliens or as currently engaged in immigration enforcement?

    (5) To what extent should the MCSO be required to keep publicly available records of all persons with whom it has law enforcement contact in vehicles so long as it is engaged in the enforcement of state laws that have immigration-related elements such as the state Human Smuggling Act?

    (6) To what extent should those records be required to contain the purpose of any law enforcement stops, the names of persons contacted, and the resulting length of the stop?

    As further guidance for the proceeding, the Court asks the parties to consider the following stipulations of settlement in place in other jurisdictions:

    1) Daniels v. New York, No. 99 Civ. 1695 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2003), available at http://ccrjustice.org/files/Daniels_ StipulationOfSettlement_12_03_0.pdf

    2) United States v. Los Angeles, No. 00-11769 GAF (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2001), available at http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/final_consent_decree.pdf

    3) United States v. State of New Jersey, Civil No. 99-5970 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 1999), available at http://www.nj.gov/oag/jointapp.htm.

    One almost feels sorry for Arpaio but he remains repentless…

  12. avatar
    Arthur May 25, 2013 at 4:53 pm #

    nbc: Good ol’ Orly… There are times where she does surprise me… Other times…

    Orly’s critique of Zullo’s attempt to interject the CCP into Alabama suggests to me that she’s capable of understanding the rules. Therefore, the fact that she never follows the rules in her own cases seems to indicate that she does so not out of ignorance, but out of willful negligence.

  13. avatar
    G May 25, 2013 at 5:11 pm #

    That sort of puts a hindrence in Zullo’s little fantasy CCP Birther witch hunt right there…

    nbc: (2) To what extent, if any, should the MCSO be required to provide training to all of its personnel including posse members concerning the inappropriate use of race as an indicator of legal violations?

  14. avatar
    Rickey May 25, 2013 at 5:27 pm #

    Daniel:
    Do they not understand that even if they win this suit, it will only go against them? The last thing the birthers want is to have a SOS demand proof of Obama’s eligibility…. and get it.

    Not necessarily.

    Klayman may be thinking that if Obama were to produce his birth certificate pursuant to a ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court, he would then be in a position to challenge the authenticity of the birth certificate and open the door to the discovery which the birthers have been seeking for nearly five years.

    Of course, if the Alabama Supreme Court were to decide in Klayman’s favor, Obama could just ignore it since he didn’t win any electoral votes in Alabama.

  15. avatar
    gorefan May 25, 2013 at 6:04 pm #

    Rickey: Not necessarily.

    SoS Chapman could just have Hawaii DOH send her another verification.

  16. avatar
    Birther Weary May 25, 2013 at 6:35 pm #

    nbc:
    And even Orly understands

    Source: OBC

    Good ol’ Orly… There are times where she does surprise me… Other times…

    There’s no way on earth Orly wrote that, unless she intentionally dumbs down her posts at her site and in every single legal document she’s produced. The style is totally different.

  17. avatar
    nbc May 25, 2013 at 7:26 pm #

    G: That sort of puts a hindrence in Zullo’s little fantasy CCP Birther witch hunt right there…

    ROTFL…

  18. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG May 25, 2013 at 8:23 pm #

    nbc: One almost feels sorry for Arpaio but he remains repentless…

    That would require me thinking of him as a human being.

  19. avatar
    Dave B. May 26, 2013 at 3:38 am #

    Well that Spencer Connerat is really something.

  20. avatar
    MN-Skeptic May 26, 2013 at 10:38 pm #

    Rickey: Not necessarily.

    Klayman may be thinking that if Obama were to produce his birth certificate pursuant to a ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court, he would then be in a position to challenge the authenticity of the birth certificate and open the door to the discovery which the birthers have been seeking for nearly five years.

    Of course, if the Alabama Supreme Court were to decide in Klayman’s favor, Obama could just ignore it since he didn’t win any electoral votes in Alabama.

    Actually, in order to be non-partisan, they’ve written the lawsuit requesting birth certificates from all candidates. So my imagined scenario is that the court rules that the SOS should request the birth certificates. She requests them from Obama and Rmoney. Obama complies, Rmoney doesn’t. After all, why should Rmoney? The election is over for him. Shoot, maybe he doesn’t even have a valid U.S. birth certificate! So Rmoney is ruled ineligible, Obama is eligible, and all the electoral votes are vacated from Rmoney and awarded to Obama!

    Works for me!!

  21. avatar
    nbc May 26, 2013 at 11:36 pm #

    Not to mention that it is too late to challenge the votes as the electoral college has met and counted the votes and Congress has certified it.

    So what really remains is the question if the AL SOS has a duty to check the eligibility of all candidates.

    Worst case the Judge rules that she does, and that’s the end of that issue.

  22. avatar
    Rickey May 27, 2013 at 4:58 pm #

    gorefan: SoS Chapman could just have Hawaii DOH send her another verification.

    Absolutely. There really is no end game in Alabama which does anything for the birthers. The Alabama Supreme Court cannot rule that Obama is ineligible, as that issue is not before the Court. As NBC has pointed out, the Court could conceivably rule that the SOS has a duty to verify eligibility (although it is clear that Alabama law does not require verification by the SOS), which if it stood would only apply to future elections.

    Of course, Klayman is still soliciting donations so it may well be that his end game is simply to grift as much cash as possible.

  23. avatar
    JD Reed May 28, 2013 at 9:46 am #

    gorefan: SoS Chapman could just have Hawaii DOH send her another verification.

    Chapman should reach an agreement with the plaintiffs that she will go to Hawaii to request a look at Mr. Obama’s original birth records. The DoH won’t give her that, but might giver her what they gave the Arizona SoS. This would giver her a nice little Hawaiian vacation. Of course, she should require the plaintiffs to pay her expenses, not the taxpayers of Alabama.

  24. avatar
    Sef May 28, 2013 at 1:26 pm #

    MN-Skeptic: Shoot, maybe he doesn’t even have a valid U.S. birth certificate!

    In fact, the supposed one that we have seen says that it is invalid.

333333 44444
5555555
6666666