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


by Sharon Rondeau

The Alabama Supreme Court decision in a case challenging Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility could be announced on Friday, according to a reliable source who spoke with Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore on Saturday

(Mar. 15, 2014) — A decision in the case of McInnish v. Chapman, which claims that former Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman failed to vet presidential candidates for the 2012 election, may be announced “this week,” a reliable source told The Post & Email on Saturday after a face-to-face conversation with Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore.

The case was filed by Atty. Larry Klayman on behalf of plaintiffs Hugh McInnish and Virgil Goode initially in October 2012, “asking the court to order that Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman verify president Barack Obama‘s eligibility – and all of the candidates — to be placed on or remain on the November 6, 2012 general election ballot.”  After a denial in Montgomery Circuit Court, Klayman filed an appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court last March.

Chapman resigned her post as Alabama Secretary of State on July 31 of last year despite having “garnered more votes than any other Constitutional Officer in state history and was elected as President of the National Association of Secretaries of State.”

Klayman is founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch and authored a challenge to the NSA surveillance program, which became public after former NSA contract worker Edward Snowden told Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian of its breadth and depth last June from a secret location in Hong Kong.

Klayman’s NSA case can be read here:  Klayman 131216-NSA Opinion

On December 16, 2013, a federal judge decided in Klayman’s favor, ruling that NSA warrantless surveillance is “likely unconstitutional.”

Klayman also filed a case challenging Obama’s eligibility in Florida which in January was still pending and on which The New York Times reported in December, however uncomplimentary to Klayman its coverage might have been perceived.

An affidavit signed by Mike Zullo, lead investigator of the Cold Case Posse which determined that Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form are “computer-generated forgeries,” was included in the lawsuit, the only civil action in which the posse has participated.

All decisions made by the Alabama Supreme Court are announced on Fridays.  Since last year, The Post & Email has contacted the court on numerous Fridays to inquire as to whether or not a decision had been made but was told “No decision yet” each time.

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was ousted from his post a decade ago for refusing to remove a monument of The Ten Commandments from the courthouse premises but re-elected to the position in 2012, has previously expressed support for those seeking the truth about Obama’s background and life story.  Moore specifically contended that Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who sacrificed an outstanding military career by asking that Obama prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president by producing an original, long-form birth certificate from Hawaii, “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.”

Four months after Lakin was court-martialed and imprisoned in December 2010, the White House released what it claimed was a scan of a certified copy of Obama’s long-form birth certificate, although it was quickly declared a forgery by graphics and computer experts.  On March 1, 2012, Zullo officially announced at the first of two formal press conferences that the image did not originate from a real, paper document.

Besides Moore, at least one other judge on the high court, Tom Parker, has expressed concern for Obama’s apparently fraudulent documentation as a result of the investigation of the Cold Case Posse.

Prosecutions are said to be coming in regard to the forgeries of Obama’s purportedly government-issued documents.

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. @Unbontir- It sure would, and they may have already done it once. While the above story represents the Alabama Supreme Court, one step down from the United States Court,they haven’t in this case yet.
    However, while the Cold Case Posse has submitted an affadavit in this case in Alabama, the findings of their investigation, and the investigation itself were submitted prior by myself to the Georgia Circuit Court, appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court, and then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in Judy v. Obama 12-5276 and Reviewed again in Jan.2013.
    So, indeed Obama’s appointments to the United States Supreme Court may already have had an affect upon this principle of the Constitution. It was dismissed without a hearing in the face of ALL that evidence!
    A huge disgrace to the Civil Rights of myself as a Candidate for President who ran in 2012 in the Democratic Party.

    I was just floored by the abandon of justice right in the face of over whelming legal professionally researched and documented evidence and standing.
    Truly a dark, evil, and haunting night for Justice who killed me in broad day light as the blind fold of Justice was removed,in justice for all.

    Cody Robert Judy

  2. It would be a cause for outrage if the two Supreme Court justices illegally appointed by Mr. Obama were permitted to participate in ruling on any case having to do with the fraud’s criminal usurpation. No greater conflict of interest could exist: The two justices, Kagan and Sotomayor’s, appointments were made while Obama was in the commission of a crime.