BREAKING NEWS – Obama eligibility appeal in Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore’s court

Many cases challenging Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility have come and  gone, but now an appeal has been filed with a state Supreme Court led by a newly  elected chief justice who has expressed doubt about Obama’s qualification for  office.

Roy Moore was elected chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court last  November, a decade after he defied a federal order to remove a Ten Commandments  monument from the state Supreme Court building.

Get Judge  Roy Moore’s classic book about his battle for liberty, “So Help Me God: The Ten  Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious  Freedom.”

Attorney Larry Klayman, founder of the Washington, D.C.-watch dog Judicial  Watch and now head of Freedom  Watch, filed the appeal Tuesday with the Alabama Supreme Court, asking for  oral arguments.

“We are hopeful that Chief Justice Moore and the rest of the jurists on the  Alabama Supreme Court will follow the law,” Klayman told WND.

Klayman says he and his team “have great respect for Chief Justice Moore and  his integrity and legal acumen.”

“He is one courageous and brave man. There are few in this country.”

The case is an appeal of a dismissal by the Montgomery Circuit Court.

In his brief, Klayman says “credible evidence and information from an  official source” was presented to Chapman before the election indicating Obama  might not have been qualified for Oval Office.

The complaint argues Chapman failed her constitutional duty as secretary of  state to verify the eligibility of candidates.

Moore is on the record questioning Obama’s eligibility.

In an interview with WND in  2010, he defended Lt. Col Terrence Lakin’s demand that President Obama prove  his eligibility as commander in chief as a condition of obeying deployment  orders.

Moore said he had seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a natural-born  citizen and much evidence that suggests he is not.

Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions  under the Constitution, he has a duty.”

“And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in  violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.

‘Affirmative duty’

Klayman asserts the secretary of state “has an affirmative duty that stems  from her oath of office under both the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions, to  protect the citizens from fraud and other misconduct by candidates.”

As a result of her refusal to investigate the qualifications of candidates  for president, Klayman says, “a person believed to be unqualified for that  office has been elected.”

The remedy, he said, “is to require each candidate to do what every teenager  is required to do to get a learner’s permit.”

“It is to produce a bona fide birth certificate … and the Secretary of State  is the official to cause that to happen.”

McInnish is a member of the Madison County Republican Executive Committee and  also sits on the state Republican Executive Committee.

Citing the investigation of Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold  Case Posse, Klayman says Chapman “gained knowledge from an official source that  there was probable cause to believe the Barack Obama had not met a certifying  qualification.”

The appeal brief notes McInnish visited the secretary of state’s office Feb.  2, 2012, and spoke with the deputy secretary of state, Emily Thompson, in  Chapman’s absence.

Thompson, the brief says, “represented that her office would not investigate  the legitimacy of any candidate, thus violating her duties under the U.S. and  Alabama Constitutions.”

As WND  reported, Arpaio and his team concluded that Obama’s long-form birth  certificate was a computer-generated forgery.

Klayman, in a previous brief, argued the secretary of state, “having the  power to certify candidates, can surely de-certify – in effect disqualify – them  if they are found to be ineligible.”

In his new appeal, Klayman points, as an example, to California Secretary of  State Debra Bowen’s rejection of Petra Lindsay on the 2012 California primary  ballot because she was 27 years old. The U.S. Constitution requires the  president to be at least 35.

In his conclusion, Klayman argues the fact that the election is over does not  make the case moot.

“It would be paradoxical beyond measure if the real and grave question of the  legitimacy of the de facto President, a question which lies at the very heart of  our American Constitutional Government, were left unresolved for want of the  simplest of documents, a birth certificate.”

If either a bona fide birth certificate is produced or an admission is made  that it does not exist, he writes, “this most important of legal questions will  have been answered, the purity of Alabama’s ballot maintained, and the anxiety  of Alabama citizens stilled.”

If the issue is not resolved, he said, citizens will be left with the  impression “that their government was dysfunctional and has ignored their real  concerns.

‘Certain documentation’

In an earlier step in the case one year ago, before a panel of Alabama  Supreme Court justices, one justice raised doubts about Obama’s eligibility.

The justices denied a  petition filed by McInnish seeking to require Obama submit an original birth  certificate before he could be placed on the state’s 2012 ballot.

Justice Tom Parker filed a  special, unpublished concurrence in the case arguing that McInnish’s charges  of “forgery” were legitimate cause for concern.

“Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which,  if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary  presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein  Obama that have been made public.”

The “certain documentation” is the findings of Arpaio’s investigation.

“The Alabama Constitution implies that this court is without jurisdiction  over McInnish’s original petition,” Parker explained. “The office of the  secretary of state of Alabama is not a ‘court of inferior jurisdiction’ that  this court may control through the issuance of a writ in response to a  petition.”

Now, however, the case is coming from a lower court.

‘Obama violated the Constitution’

Moore told  WND in an interview after his election last November that the country must  return to a standard in which the rule of law prevails over politics.

He said Obama violated the Constitution when he bombed Libya, because the  Constitution stipulates only Congress shall declare war.

“No president has the power to violate constitutional restraints of power,” Moore said.

“The Constitution is the rule of law, and [my job is] to uphold the rule of  law.”

Government’s job, Moore said, is to secure and protect those rights.

“There is little regard for the Constitution in the courts today, even the  U.S. Supreme Court.”

Related articles

• Will Alabama Supreme Court Rule Obama Ineligible? (theobamahustle.wordpress.com)
• Judge Roy Moore To Preside Over Obama Eligibility Case (godfatherpolitics.com)

Filed under: 2012 Politics, 2012 Presidential Election, Obama Care, Obama Family, obama fraud, Orly Taitz, Presidential Election, U.S. Congress, U.S. Government, U.S. Senate, wnd Tagged: alabama republican party, Alabama Supreme Court, Barack Obama, Beth Chapman, Chief Justice, current-events, Joe Arpaio, judge roy moore, Klayman, Larry Klayman, legal acumen, Obama, politics, Roy Moore, State supreme court, Supreme Court, Ten Commandments, virgil goode