Main Menu

Tag Archives | McInnish v. Chapman

SCOTUS dumps birther lawsuit bin

Monday is trash pickup day at my house, and also today the Supreme Court announced dumping of birther lawsuits, most notably an appeal from the Supreme Court of Alabama in McInnish v. Chapman. Also denied was Rudy v. Lee (with amicus brief by Herb Titus).

CERTIORARI DENIED

H/t to gorefan.

Because of the holiday, the next pick-up will be on Tuesday.

Klayman files appeal of obscure ruling on Alabama law to the US Supreme Court

Late as usual

In a move that left Obots open-mouthed with incomprehension, birther attorney Larry Klayman (who has never been convicted of criminal failure to pay child support), started the process of appealing his loss in McInnish v. Chapman to the US Supreme Court on June 19, reports the Supreme Court docket. Klayman moved for more time to submit his appeal. Perhaps he is hoping to get some momentum by a favorable ruling.

The McInnish case dealt with an obscure provision of Alabama law, called the “jurisdiction stripping statute,” that prevents Alabama courts from getting involved in the conduct of elections. McInnish wanted to force the Alabama Secretary of State to investigate the eligibility of presidential candidates as a duty of office. Klayman lost the case before the Alabama Supreme Court last March on a 7-2 vote, Chief Justice Roy Moore and Tom Parker dissenting.

Klayman’s timing of this request for an extension is odd. An appeal must be filed within 60 days of the judgment (28 U.S. Code § 2101) and Klayman’s motion for more time (which the statute permits) was filed precisely on the 60th day; however, the rules of the Supreme Court require that the request for an extension be filed 10 days before the deadline. Supreme Court Rule 13 (5) states:

For good cause, a Justice may extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari for a period not exceeding 60 days. An application to extend the time to file shall set out the basis for jurisdiction in this Court, identify the judgment sought to be reviewed, include a copy of the opinion and any order respecting rehearing, and set out specific reasons why an extension of time is justified. The application must be filed with the Clerk at least 10 days before the date the petition is due, except in extraordinary circumstances. The application must clearly identify each party for whom an extension is being sought, as any extension that might be granted would apply solely to the party or parties named in the application. For the time and manner of presenting the application, see Rules 21, 22, 30, and 33.2. An application to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari is not favored.

The request for an extension was not even docketed until June 25, long after the deadline. I don’t even know if it is possible for a Justice to grant an extension after the deadline has expired, and if that’s true then the extension must have been granted on the 19th, or not at all; the Supreme Court docket indicates no extension granted. It is hard to fathom a reason for this case to be considered  having "extraordinary circumstances." Klayman could have filed the request for an extension any time he wanted to. There’s certainly no new evidence in the interpretation of the Alabama jurisdiction stripping statute. The election, which is the subject of the case, is long over, making anything to do with that particular election moot.

Read more:

Alabama chief justice may have tipped off birthers

Investigation requested

Photo of Moore with US flag in backgroundRC Radio reports that Birmingham Attorney Barry Ragsdale has notified the Alabama Supreme Court of a possible ethics violation. This came after Sharon Rondeau of the Post & Email wrote that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore had spoken to someone and told them the future date of the Alabama Supreme Court decision in McInnish v. Chapman. The correct prediction of the date was published at the P&E. Lest we jump to conclusions, Ragsdale in his letter to the court cautioned:

Needless to say, given the tenor and content of the on-line blogs in question, there is reason to doubt the accuracy or veracity of anything reported by them.

Judge Moore was previously an author for WorldNetDaily.

Read the details at RC Radio.

After thinking about this for a while, I feel it more likely that Judge Moore did not have the conversation claimed by Rondeau. The “face to face” detail seems contrived, something added to make the story more believable. This story is a bit like Orly Taitz’ complaint about extra-judicial remarks by Judge Wingate in Mississippi, one that is almost certainly bogus.

This is the way March ends

not with a bang but a whimper

Weather lore says that March comes in like a like a lion and goes out like a lamb. Applied to birtherism, March came in with bluster and high expectations of the great denouement of the “O-bots,” the shattering of their universe. Here on the last day of March, let’s take stock of the month:

  • Orly Taitz endorsed by Pastor Manning, only to find herself joined at the hip with his homophobic street sign
  • Tea Party Nation repudiates Taitz claim of endorsement
  • CalGuns repudiates Taitz claim of endorsement
  • Michael Shrimpton video gets no traction
  • FBI evidence of theft by threat, witness tampering and felony obstruction of justice by Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office reported
  • Former Cold Case Posse member Brian Reilly describes unprofessionalism within the Cold Case Posse
  • Congressmen Labrador and Huelskamp express disinterest in Sheriff Joe investigation
  • Doug Vogt’s mysterious “friendly judge” does not come through
  • McInnish appeal denied by Alabama Supreme Court (7 – 2)
  • Larry Klayman faces Bar disciplinary action in DC
  • Birther Walter Fitzpatrick III jailed
  • Birther Lucas Daniel Smith reportedly jailed in the Dominican Republic
  • More delays in Taitz’ Mississippi lawsuit, strengthening Defense case for sanctions
  • Supreme Court declines to hear Robert Laity appeal.
  • Birther Report doesn’t go live with its new super secure server
  • No announcement from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office about an Obama investigation
  • No press conference, charges, investigative reports, or anything else of substance from Mike Zullo and the Cold Case Posse
  • Dow Jones Industrial Average up 136 points for the month of March
  • Universe pretty much the same

Check out my 2009 poem, “We are the Birthers.”

Now, let’s play the birther theme song!

Continue Reading →

Taitz multiplies delays in Mississippi

On the eve of a decision by federal Judge Wingate in Mississippi, Orly Taitz filed something that delayed the decision in the long-running Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi case, including punking comments from her own web site. Now she’s filed even more “stuff” with a motion today for leave to file new facts and opinions (h/t to NBC).

Her motion is accompanied by one item we pretty much expected, the Dissenting Opinion by Chief Justice Moore from the Alabama Supreme Court decision in the case of McInnish v. Chapman. She thinks this minority opinion is something the Court should look at. While on the surface this might seem to be a tiny help to Taitz since Judge Moore opined that the presidential eligibility questions do not become moot after the election because the same issues are likely to repeat, and his view that in Alabama the Secretary of State has an obligation under law to investigate questionable candidates, it actually undermines her position because Judge Moore further states that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear eligibility cases, citing Hutchinson v. Miller:

Had the framers wished the federal judiciary to umpire election contexts, they could have so provided. Instead, they reposed primary trust in popular representatives and in political correctives.

The second item is one less familiar, the oral argument in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Lindsay v. Bowen case. In this case California Secretary of State Bowen denied a 2012 ballot position to Peace and Freedom Party presidential candidate Peta Lindsay because she was under age. Bowen argues that she has the authority to do this. Taitz argues that in Mississippi, the Secretary of State must investigate candidates and exclude ineligible ones.

While neither of these two items is precedential, I can understand why someone grasping at straws might submit them; however, what took me totally by surprise was the appearance of

The Orly Taitz Super PAC

“No one expects the Orly Taitz Super PAC!”

Orly Taitz on Los Angeles

Continue Reading →

McInnish Appeal denied in Alabama

mighty Klayman has struck out

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 dismissal, 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 to the decision, being cited not once, except that the dissenting opinion from Justice Parker made reference to materials submitted previously to the Secretary of State that were sufficient, in his mind, to warrant investigation. Those materials reference results of Zullo’s investigation and contain a brief statement from him.

Read more: