Story Views
Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2013-2014
____________________

Hugh McInnish and Virgil H. Goode, Jr.

v.
Jim Bennett, Alabama Secretary of State
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court
   (CV-12-1053)

The crux of the matter at hand was to answer the question: Does the State of Alabama have statutory obligation to “vet” the qualifications of a presidential candidate before placing that name on the ballot in Alabama?  Also, it apparently was a matter of judicial review as to whether Alabama had obligation or authority to vet a presidential candidate after that candidate was already on the ballot, and in this case, had already won the presidential election.

 The decision is officially written as follows:

 

“The Alabama Secretary of State’s office is a non-judicial office without subpoena power or investigative authority or the personnel necessary to undertake a duty to investigate a non-resident candidate’s qualifications, even if such a duty could properly be implied (by Alabama Statute). – Justice Bolin

Justice Bolin went on to make a very noteworthy observation in the case:

“(Chief Justice Moore concluded in his dissenting opinion) that the Secretary of State has an affirmative
duty to investigate the qualifications of a candidate for President of the United States of America before printing that candidate’s name on the general-election ballot in this State. Although logically the Secretary of
State,being the chief elections official of the state,should be vested with such a duty, under our present constitutional and statutory framework addressing elections, including presidential elections, not
only is that not the case, but the Secretary of State would be bereft of written authority for such an action and ill equipped from a practical standpoint to carry out such an important duty.”

Chief Justice Moore’s dissenting opinion is extremely lengthy – but he goes into an in-depth explanation as to why he believes that State of Alabama did, indeed, have a responsibility to vet the presidential candidates and went into a detailed analysis of the spurious information surrounding the case of this particular president and especially the Natural Born Citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Read the entire decision HERE, as well as all of the opinions. We urge our readers to especially pay attention to Chief Justice Moore’s opinion. This is the FIRST official court opinion regarding the eligibility details of the man who is currently sitting in the White House in the office of president. Remember – as of this date there has been not a single identifying document presented to the American public as to the uncontested identity of Barack Obama.  

The only document ever proffered by the White House is his supposed long-form birth certificate posted on the White House website in .PDF format. That document, however, has been attested as a 100% fake, forgery, and fabrication by lead investigator Mike Zullo working under the auspices of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office – Sheriff Joe Arpaio. 

Our readers may also remember that Zullo submitted a 40 page affidavit, attesting to his findings of fraud, to the Alabama Supreme Court at the request of court officials. That document also contained the fact that Reed Hayes, a digital document expert often employed by Perkins-Coie law firm, submitted a lengthy sworn affidavit to the Zullo investigation that the Obama long form birth document was a fabricated forgery. Perkins-Coie is the law firm that Obama has used in the past in the defense of his birth certificate questions.