If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Sharon Rondeau

A case claiming that presidential candidates were not properly vetted has been in front of the Alabama Supreme Court justices since March of this year

(Dec. 16, 2013) — On Friday, The Post & Email contacted the Alabama Unified Judicial System to obtain the status on a case filed by Atty. Larry Klayman with the Alabama Supreme Court on Obama’s eligibility and documentation.

The case, #1120465, was appealed in March to the state’s highest court and includes a 57-page sworn affidavit from Michael Zullo, lead investigator for the Maricopa County, AZ Cold Case Posse.  Twenty-seven months ago, the posse launched an investigation into the authenticity of the long-form birth certificate image posted on the White House website purported to be Obama’s, declaring it a “computer-generated forgery” on March 1, 2012.

Zullo’s affidavit states that Obama’s purported Selective Service registration form was also found to be fraudulent and that many details of his life are inconsistent or missing.  Three different versions of Obama’s purported birth certificate have been submitted on the defendants’ side, one of which came from the Alabama Democratic Party.

Klayman contends that Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman failed to vet presidential candidates adequately prior to the 2012 election and that significant evidence exists to demonstrate that Barack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution for the president and commander-in-chief.  Klayman believes that Chapman can “de-certify” Obama or any other candidate if found to be ineligible even though the election already took place.

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was ousted from his position a decade ago for refusing to remove a monument to The Ten Commandments from court premises, has appeared sympathetic to the questions surrounding Obama’s eligibility and authenticity.  Whether or not Moore would be required to recuse himself is an open question.

The Post & Email left a message with a staff attorney who returned our call on Monday, stating that a power failure had prevented any messages from being received or responded to on Friday.  The power outage explained why the Alabama Unified Judicial System’s website had also been difficult or impossible to access that day.

In an earlier inquiry, The Post & Email was informed that the justices will not hear oral argument in the case, but rather, make a decision based on documentation submitted.

The attorney stated that no decision was rendered by the justices as of Friday.  Decisions are announced on Friday, but there is no indication of when one will be made in this or any other case.


Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. If Klaymon perseveres in Alabama it would set precedent to reopen the case in Georgia since Georgia did (or did not do) the same thing.
    However, Georgia election laws, uniquely, mandate that candidates be vetted to meet constitutional requirements. The SOS in Georgia did not (couldn’t) do this and is, therefore, in violation of election laws. AG Olens and Governor Deal of Georgia ignored these facts but could not now do so if Alabama becomes precedent for challenging the usurper’s credentials for POTUS.

  2. I am currently working on my U.S.Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the New York State Court of Appeals in Laity v New York seeking to de-certify the 2012 NY State Ballots for President.
    My papers must be filed by February 21,2014.

  3. Could the famous ’10 Commandments judge,’ Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court Roy Moore, be waiting for additional evidence to be presented–the ‘universe shattering’ upcoming evidence that is sooner or later to be released by Sheriff Joe’s volunteer Cold-Case Posse?

    Speaking of ‘recusing’ oneself from a case: Would not the two U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Kagan and Sotomayor, appointed by the usurper-in-chief while in the commission of his criminal usurpation of the presidency necessarily have to recuse themselves from any case were it to be brought before the Supreme Court?