scoal 2013-05-24 - mcinnish|goode v chapman - appellants' second motion to strike

7/30/2019 SCOAL 2013-05-24 - McInnish|Goode v Chapman - Appellants' Second Motion to Strike

1/7

E-Filed

05/24/2013 @ 04:56:00 PMHonorable Robert Esdale

ClerkOf The Court

Case No. 1120465

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

HUGHMCINNISH, etal.,

Appellants,

V.

BETH CHAPMAN, in her capacity as Secretary ofState,

Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY,

ALABAMA

CV 2013-1053

Appellants' Second Motion to Strike

Response ofAmicus CuriaeAlabama Democratic Party to Motion to Strike

L. Dean Johnson

L. DEAN JOHNSON, P.O.

4030 Balmoral Dr., S u i t e B

H u n t s v i l l e , AL 35801

T e l : (256) 880-5177

L a r r y Klayman

KLAYMAN LAW FIRM

2020 P e n n s y l v a n i a Ave, NW

S u i t e 800

Washington, D.C. 20006

T e l : (310) 595-0800

Attorneys for Appellants


2/7

R e g r e t t a b l y , A p p e l l a n t s have again been compelled, due

to Airiicus C u r i a e the Alabama Democratic P a r t y ' s

d i s r e s p e c t f u l and o f f e n s i v e conduct, to move t h i s c o u r t to

now s t r i k e i t s Response of Amicus C u r i a e Alabama Democratic

p a r t y Motion t o S t r i k e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , and f o r the second

time, the Alabama Democratic P a r t y uses i t s p r i v i l e g e to

f i l e an amicus b r i e f t o wage an ad-hominem a t t a c k on the

i n t e g r i t y of th e a p p e l l a n t s and an o f f i c i a l source who

p r o v i d e d evidence t h a t Defendant Barack Obama's b i r t h

c e r t i f i c a t e i s f r a u d u l e n t .

While the A p p e l l a t e Rules do not s t a t e s p e c i f i c

c r i t e r i a t o s t r i k e p l e a d i n g s , Alabama Rule of C i v i l

Procedure 12(f) p r o v i d e s guidance and th e a p p r o p r i a t e

standard. I t h o l d s :

(f) Motion to s t r i k e . Upon motion made by a p a r t y

before responding t o a p l e a d i n g o r , i f no

r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g i s p e r m i t t e d by these r u l e s ,

upon motion made by a p a r t y w i t h i n t h i r t y (30)

days a f t e r the s e r v i c e of the p l e a d i n g upon the

p a r t y or upon the c o u r t ' s own i n i t i a t i v e at any

time, the c o u r t may order s t r i c k e n from any

p l e a d i n g any i n s u f f i c i e n t defense or any

redundant, i m m a t e r i a l , i m p e r t i n e n t , or scandalousmatter.

In the Alabama Democratic P a r t y ' s Response t h i s a t t a c k

occurs p a r t i c u l a r l y i n paragraph 9 wherein t h i s p o l i t i c a l

I


3/7

e n t i t y a t t a c k s Maricopa County S h e r i f f Joseph Arpaio and

h i s i n v e s t i g a t o r M i c h a e l Z u l l o and s t a t e s :

A l l th at be in g s a i d , the ADP assumes t h a t i t i s

unnecessary t o f u r t h e r address whether t h i s Courtshoul d co ns id er the ramb ling sc ree d tha t passes

f o r an " a f f i d a v i t " a t t a c h e d to t he A p p e l l a n t s '

Motion to S t r i k e . V i r t u a l l y none of the

i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t he a f f i d a v i t i s

a d m i s s i b l e o r c r e d i b l e , except where the a f f i a n t

admits t ha t he i s a "former" law enforcement

o f f i c e r and not a ct in g wit h any l e g i t i m a t e l e g a l

a u t h o r i t y . The Appellants have gone from r e l y i n g

on t he u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d , u n v e r i f i e d and

p o l i t i c a l l y - b i a s e d b e l i e f s of one county s h e r i f f

out of the 3,000 such s h e r i f f s i n America, to

r e l y i n g on the uns ubs tan tia ted , uncorrob orated,

p o l i t i c a l l y - b i a s e d b e l i e f s of one pr i v a t e c i t i z e n

of the 313 m i l l i o n such p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s i n t h i s

country. The " a f f i d a v i t " i s i n a d m i s s i b l e on i t s

fa ce and i s composed of hearsay, s p e c u l a t i o n , a n d

unsupported c o n c l u s i o n s . V i r t u a l l y none of the

i n f o r m a t i o n i n t he " a f f i d a v i t " c o u l d p o s s i b l y be

w i t h i n the a f f i a n t ' s p e r s o n a l knowledge and serves

merely to demonstrate the depths t o which these

c o n sp i r ac y t h e o r i s t s have re so rt ed to t r y to de-

l e g i t i m i z e a Pre si den t that they q u i t e o b v i o u s l y

despise. The " a f f i d a v i t " should be di sre ga rd ed i n

i t s e n t i r e t y .

T h i s ad-hominem a t t a c k i s " i m m a t e r i a l , i m p e r t i n e n t , o r

scandalous matter" and should be stricken from the Alabama

Democratic P a r t y ' s response. I t i s unbecoming of a

p o l i t i c a l pa rt y tha t pur por ts to repre sent the i n t e r e s t s of

a Pr es id en t of the Un it ed St at es .


4/7

In ad di ti on , i t i s cl ea r from Michael Z u ll o 's a f f i d a v i t

i t s e l f that he was d e p u t i z e d by the o f f i c i a l source.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse, to conduct an

in ve st ig at io n in to the au th en ti ci ty of Mr. Obama's

purported b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e .

Paragraphs 6-8 o f Z u l l o ' s a f f i d a v i t c l e a r l y s t a t e s

under oath:

6. Under the A r i z o n a Constitution and A r i z o n a

Revised Stat ute s, the el ec te d S he r if f of Maricopa

County has the a ut h o ri t y to request a s s i s t a n c e

from a v o l u n t e e r posse to a s s i s t the Sh e ri ff in

the e x e c u t i o n of his duties, working under law

enforcement au th or it y of the Maricopa County

S h e r i f f .

7. Upon a ct i va ti on by the Maricopa County S h e r i f f ,

c e r t i f i e d Posse members are empowered to ac t as i f

the S h e r i f f h i m s e l f were present when c a l l e d upon

to do so. Posse members of the MCSO are delegated

t h e i r law enforcement authority by the Maricopa

County S h e r i f f .

8. Under t h at a c t i v a t i o n S h e r i f f Arpaio granted

f u l l y law enforcement au th or it y of the Maricopa

County S h e r i f f ' s O f f i c e t o conduct t h i s

in ve st ig at io n and to r e p o r t back to the S he r if f

our fi nd in gs f or hi s ult ima te d i s p e n s a t i o n .

A c c o r d i n g l y , the Alabama Democratic P a r t y ' s response,

l i k e i t s o r i g i n a l Amicus Curiae B r i e f , i s a l s o u n t r u t h f u l .

4


5/7

I n a d d i t i o n , t he Alabama Democratic P a r t y ' s Response i s

a l s o m i s l e a d i n g , when i t suggests th at i t was a p a r t y t o

the lower cou rt a c t i o n . In f a c t , i t s motion t o i n t e r v e n e

was never granted and the b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e which i t

p r o f f e r s as genuine was never sub mit ted to the co ur t below.

F i n a l l y , i f t he Alabama Democratic P a r t y wishes to

c o n t i n u e w i t h i t s ad-hominem attacks on o f f i c i a l source

S h e r i f f Joe Ar pa io and h i s Co ld Case Posse, i t shou ld not

be a ll o w ed to use and waste the va lu ab le res ourc es of t h i s

court to advance- the p o l i t i c a l agenda o f t he a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

-- which of l a t e r e g r e t t a b l y has been exposed for the

e n t i r e cou ntr y to see wi th sca nda ls from "Fast and F ur io us -

gate," to "IRS-gate," to "Benghazi-gate," t o " A s s o c i a t e d

Pr es s- ga te ," to "Fox News-gate," and more. Thus, the

Alabama Democratic P a r t y ' s u n c a l l e d f o r ad-hominem

p o l i t i c a l l y - b i a s e d attacks are akin to the pot c a l l i n g the

k e t t l e b l a c k .

WHEREFORE, A p p e l l a n t s r e s p e c t f u l l y r e q ue s t , r e g r e t t a b l y

fo r the second time, that Alabama Democratic P a r t y ' s

pleading be s t r i c k e n i n i t s e n t i r e t y .

5


6/7

DATED: May 24, 2013

R e s p e c t f u l l y submitted.

4030 Balmoral Dr., S u i t e B

H u n t s v i l l e , AL 35801

T e l : (256) 880-5177Fax: (256) 880-5187

E m a i l : Johnson dean(abellsouth . net

L a r r y Klayman, Esq.

KLAYMAN LAW FIRM

2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

S u i t e 800

Washington, DC 20006

T e l : (310) 595-0800

E m a i l : leklaymanggmail.com

Pro Hac Vice

6


7/7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY t h a t on t he 24 day of May 2013, I

e l e c t r o n i c a l l y f i l e d the fore going wit h the C l e r k of theSupreme Court of Alabama using the ACIS f i l i n g system,

which w i l l send n o t i f i c a t i o n of such f i l i n g t o the

f o l l o w i n g :

Hon. Luth er Strange , At to rn ey General o f Alabama

Andrew L. Brasher, Deputy S o l i c i t o r General

Margaret L. Fleming

James W. Davis

Laura E. Howell

O f f i c e of the Att orn ey General o f Alabama501 Washington S t r e e t

Montgomery, Alabama 36130

Thomas A. Woodall

Barry A. Ragsdale

S i r o t e & Permut, P.O.

2311 Highland Avenue South

P.O. Box 55727

Birmingham, Alabama 35255-5727

scoal 2013-05-24 - mcinnish|goode v chapman - appellants' second motion to strike

Documents