scoal 2013-05-13 - mcinnish goode v chapman - irelan amicus brief

7/30/2019 SCOAL 2013-05-13 - McInnish Goode v Chapman - Irelan Amicus Brief

1/8

Case No. 1120465

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

HUGH MclNNlSH, et al. ,

Appellants.

V.

BETH CHAPMAN , in her capacity as Secretary of State,

Appellee,

ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY

COUNTY, ALABAMA

CV 2013-1053

OPTIONAL MOTION FO R LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF

Comes now Dave Ireland and Kevin Cannon enjoined with the undersigned

ALBAMA civic organizations consisting ofALBAMA citizens of voting stature, pursuant

to Ala. R. App. P. 29, with his OPTIONAL MOTION FOR L EAVE TO FILE AMICUS

BRIEF, which also doubles a movant's Briefas Amicus Curiae Supporting

Appellants to be filed upon suc h motion being granted. These enjoined Alabama

organizations feel a pressing need for the voters of the Great State ofAlabama to have

their voice heard in regard to the integrity of the voting process that is the cornerstone of


2/8

our Constitutional Liberties and our American way of life that separates us from the rest

of the world.

Having read the Attorneys for proposed amicus curiae Alabama Democratic

Party (Herein called 'appellee') plea for dismissal we are extremely distressed at the

cavalierposition that has been taken regarding our rights as citizens to ensure the

promise of integrity of our right to vote-

Appellee would lead you to believe that the Secretary of State has no obligation,

nor requirement, to ensure the integrity of the candidate; but only to accept the word of

the issuing party - a party that has a vested interest in the result of the irrtemal

certification. Such an argument embraces a conflict of interest, is fundamentally flawed,

and invites mischief of the highest degree. Whi le the argument is based on a self

serving interpretation of the law, it is patently contrary to the spirit of the law that

guarantees a fair and just election.

While appellees cite Bryan v. Hubbard. 6 So.3d 491, 502 (Ala. 2008); "A political

party has the right to determine eligibility of its nominees and to refuse to issue a

certificate of nomination or to revoke a certificate of nomination if one has entered.";

they fail to prove : 1) the great State of Alabama is obligated to accept the nominee, 2)

the voters are obligated to accept the nominee, and 3) the people are prohibited from

questioning the party certificat ion.

To the contrary, the Al aba ma Elec tion Code (17-4-2; 17-5-11) holds that:

"... Both the board of registrars and the judge of probate shall keep a

current copy of the qualified elector list for the county open and subject to

public inspection...


3/8

The Secretary ofState and the judge of probate shall have the

following duties:

"(2) To make each statement and report filed by a any principal campaign

committee or other political action committee or elec ted official available

for public inspection."

This begs the question why does Alabam a Code require the elector list to be

open for public inspection if not to review, and subsequently question any in-egularittes?

The fact is that the process for calling a candidate into question is dea r and the

Secretary of State and the judge of the probate are the only officers with the duty to

investigate questions of eligibility, notwithstanding the assert ions from the political

parties that their self regulating system must be accepted by the Alat>ama voter.

Appe llees also smugly refer to this case as rising from 'internet rumors and

unfounded assertions'. They do so well knowing that 90% of news media is under the

control of six compa nies\ and if those six companies decide that questioning a

candidate that they supported through campaign contributions should not see the light

of day - well then it will not. This leaves the public on the 'outside' of any discussions

that question anyone as powerful as the candidate in quest ion. .. except for the internet.

The internet is the last avenue to the public for redress of grievances when there

is corruption that involves the union of both the government and large corporations.

Sudi is the case that we have here, as there is no government position more powerful

than the Chief Execut ive, and no corporations more dependent on the good favor of the

ChiefExecutive than the six media corporations controlling all public discourse.

^http://wnw.bustnessinsider.com/these-^-corpo rations-control-90-of-the-m
http://wnw.bustnessinsider.com/these-%5e-corpohttp://wnw.bustnessinsider.com/these-%5e-corpohttp://wnw.bustnessinsider.com/these-%5e-corpo


4/8

We should note that we are guaranteed the freedom ofspeech, but if the avenue

of this discourse is cut off to reach the public then, the Alabama voter has no voice at all

and the First Amendment is moot.

The appellees have called into question depositions of subject matter experts,

yet fail to see the irony in using a quote from a standup comedian (Jimmy Kimmel) as

an appropriate reference in a case with such gravity as the integrity of the Alabama

voting process. Yet, the mocking nature of the appellees are at the center of the

argument between the citizens of the Great State of Alabama and those v^o (errantly)

think that they hold all the cards, and are above question because of the power they

(think) they hold.

We have noted that the appellees do not choose to question the technical merits

of the 'fraudulent documents', but deflect their argument to emotive phrases of

conspiracy theories' and 'rumors'. Much the same cou ld be said about African

Americans being intimidated at the Alabama ballot box years ago - it was all a

'conspiracy theory* until proven true.

They ignore subject matter experts on the basis that they have no standing in

Alabama, but not the fact that these experts might be right. The fact is that, if true, a

fraud committed on a nationwide scale will likely have case relevant evidence

throughout the nation, not just in one state. The technical merits of fraud this case

touch Alabama in no less manner than in Arizona. If legal elected officials in Arizona

have admissible evidence directly impacting the voting rights of Alabama citizens should

that evidence not be examined - or should it be discarded on the bas is ttiat 'it wasn't


5/8

discovered here' as the appellees would argue? Or should the people of Alabama

suffer at the hand of their own arrogance?

Yet the appe llees pick and choose the i ssues they d iscuss in order to not raise

an issue they are weak to address. In as much as the appe llees have taken pains to

argue against various aspects of the case in question, we feel compelled to note the

omission of discourse on the subject candidate 's social security number. This is the

easiest element of this case to prove and the hardest to ignore, which is why we feel

that it was not addressed by the appellees.

As history has shown. The Great State of Alabama has weathered scandal at the

ballot box during those times when persons of African American descent were

prejudiced in access to the ballot box, and denied the right to vote due to schemes of

mischief.

Today we face a similar situation, where people of power try to commandeer the

voting process by torturing the rule of law, and ignoring its spirit of justice. We suffer not

because of the color of our skin, but because of the station that we hold in Irfe. We are

small and do not have the resources of the legal, political, and business organizations

that seem to be ubiquitous in Montgomery. It is a classic confrontation between people

in power, and those who are right but poweriess... and the US Constitution and the

Alabama Constitution were created so that the common man would not be crushed by

abuses of government and their friends.

The appellees make the argument that the Secretary of State has neither duty

nor obligation to certify the candidate in question, but fail to identify any representative

of the people that does. They argue that the people of the Great State of Alabama be


6/8

forced to accept their candidate{s) without question. Ar e we, the voters ofAlabama,

destined to be force fed whatever candidate that they choose? Is that the Americ a that

our Founding Fathers crafted and oursoldiers died for?

The appellees claim that this case is moot. This case is anything but moot... it

speaks to the very nature ofwho we are as a people. It directly addresses not only the

ability to redress government, but to hold our elected officials to their duty as prescribed

by law - and to address those who think that they are unaccountable to the law. This is

the heart ofthe Bill ofRights, and the basis ofour Constitution. This contest addresses

not only this case, but the future integrity ofall elections in the future and the rights of

the citizens ofAlatjama.

Should we not fully vet this case and do due diligence, the Great State of

Alabama will be dealt yet another blow to its integrity, and the voting process will be

forever viewed with suspicion that the voters were not in control oftheir elected officials.

We plea in the strongest terms that Your Honors do not allow such history to be

revisited on the Great State ofAlabama.

It is forthese reasons stated above that this case needs to move forward for

review at the highest court in Alabama.

Petitioner 1 of 2 : A.

Dave Ireland

3309 Qopton Ave

Huntsvilie, Alabama 35805


7/8

forced to accept their candidate{s) without question. Ar e we, the voters ofAlabama,

destined to be force fed whatever candidate that they choose? Is that the America that

our Founding Fathers crafted and oursoldiers died for?

The appellees claim that this case is moot. This case is anything but moot... it

speaks to the very nature ofwho we are as a people. It directly addresses not only the

ability to redress government, but to hold our elected ofTicials to their duty as presaibed

by law - and to address those who think that they are unaccountable to the law. This is

the heart ofthe Bill ofRights, and the basis ofour Constitution. This contest addresses

not only this case, but the future integrity ofall elections In the future and the rights of

the citizens ofAlabama.

Should we not fully vet this case and do due diligence, the Great State of

Alabama will be dealt yet another blow to its integrity, and the voting process will be

forever viewed with suspicion that the voters were not in control oftheir elected officials.

We plea in the strongest terms that Your Honors do not allow such history to be

revisited on the Great State ofAlabama.

It is forthese reasons stated above that this case needs to move fonward for

review at the highest court in Alabama.

Petitioner 1 of 2 ;

Dave Ifelan

3309 Oopton Ave

Huntsvilie, Alabama 35805


8/8

Petitioner2 of 2: aKevin CannonWe the People - Alabama

P.O. Box 3382Huntsvilie, Alabama35810

scoal 2013-05-13 - mcinnish goode v chapman - irelan amicus brief

Documents