Case No.

1120465

IN T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F A L A B A M A

H U G H M c l N N l S H , et al., Appellants.
V.

B E T H C H A P M A N , in her capacity a s Secretary of State, Appellee,

O N A P P E A L F R O M T H E CIRCUIT C O U R T O F M O N T G O M E R Y COUNTY, ALABAMA C V 2013-1053

OPTIONAL MOTION F O R L E A V E T O FILE A M I C U S BRIEF

Comes now Dave Ireland and Kevin Cannon enjoined with the undersigned A L B A M A civic organizations consisting of A L B A M A citizens of voting stature, pursuant to A l a . R. A p p . P. 29, with his OPTIONAL MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF, which also doubles a movant's Brief as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellants to be filed upon such motion being granted. These enjoined Alabama organizations feel a pressing need for the voters of the Great State of Alabama to have their voice heard in regard to the integrity of the voting process that is the cornerstone of

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 cavalier position that has been taken regarding our rights as citizens to ensure the promise of integrity of our right to voteAppellee would lead you to believe that the Secretary of State has no obligation, j 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. While 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)
j

j !

the voters are obligated to accept the nominee, and 3) the people are prohibited from questioning the party certification. To the contrary, the A l a b a m a Election C o d e (17-4-2; 17-5-11) h o l d s 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...

T h e Secretary of State 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 elected official available for public inspection."

This begs the question why does Alabama 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 d e a 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 assertions from the political parties that their self regulating system must be accepted by the Alat>ama voter. Appellees also smugly refer to this case as rising from 'internet rumors and unfounded assertions'. They do so well knowing that 9 0 % of news media is under the control of six companies\ 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 question... 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. S u d i is the case that we have here, a s there is no government position more powerful than the Chief Executive, and no corporations more dependent on the good favor of the Chief Executive than the six media corporations controlling all public discourse.

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

W e should note that we are guaranteed the freedom of speech, 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. W e 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 could 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 basis ttiat 'it wasn't

discovered here' as the appellees would argue? Or should the people of Alabama suffer at the hand of their own arrogance? Yet the appellees pick and choose the issues they discuss in order to not raise an issue they are weak to address. In as much as the appellees 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. A s 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. W e suffer not because of the color of our skin, but because of the station that we hold in Irfe. W e 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 U S 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

forced to accept their candidate{s) without question. Are we, the voters of Alabama, destined to be force fed whatever candidate that they choose? Is that the America that our Founding Fathers crafted and our soldiers died for? The appellees claim that this case is moot. This case is anything but moot... it speaks to the very nature of who 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 of the Bill of Rights, and the basis of our Constitution. This contest addresses not only this case, but the future integrity of all elections in the future and the rights of the citizens of Alatjama. 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 of their elected officials. W e plea in the strongest terms that Your Honors do not allow such history to be revisited on the Great State of Alabama. It is for these reasons stated above that this case needs to move forward for review at the highest court in Alabama.

Petitioner 1 of 2 :
Dave Ireland 3309 Qopton Ave Huntsvilie, Alabama 35805

A.

forced to accept their candidate{s) without question. Are we, the voters of Alabama, destined to be force fed whatever candidate that they choose? Is that the America that our Founding Fathers crafted and our soldiers died for? The appellees claim that this case is moot. This case is anything but moot... it speaks to the very nature of who 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 of the Bill of Rights, and the basis of our Constitution. This contest addresses not only this case, but the future integrity of all elections In the future and the rights of the citizens of Alabama. 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 of their elected officials. W e plea in the strongest terms that Your Honors do not allow such history to be revisited on the Great State of Alabama. It is for these 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

Petitioner 2 of 2:
Kevin Cannon

W e the People - Alabama

P.O. Box 3382 Huntsvilie, Alabama 35810