Wednesday, May 07, 2014

The Alaska Supreme Court Bungles the Political Doctrine Question

I was waiting for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the California Secretary of State's decision to remove a presidential candidate from the ballot.

I notified the Court on the 9th circuit case to ensure that they had the necessary information to come up with a logical decision. They blew it big time.

Even though they issued a MOJ in my case against President Obama, the MOJ according to the Alaska Supreme Court Appellate rules can be cited to so that leaves the court in a legal predicament if another scenario comes up.

The 9th circuit case decision can be read here.

Bottom line, as the 9th circuit court points out, the state has the authority to make a decision on the eligibility of a candidate and can keep them off the ballot.

The MOJ in my case can be read here.

It is evident the Alaska Supreme Court bungled the political doctrine question. 





11 comments:

Anonymous said...

How is Lamb an idiot? Let's count the ways:

1. There is no "political doctrine question"; there's a political question doctrine, "counselor."

2. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal. It issued a MOJ against *you* and not President Obama.

3. At THE VERY TOP of the MOJ, it says, "Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent." The court couldn't be any clearer that your case isn't binding authority.

4. The 9th Circuit ruled the California Secretary of State has the authority to remove an indisputably ineligible candidate from the ballot. Which does not mean that a Secretary of State must investigate candidates, or that some random person can force the Secretary of State to investigate a candidate.

5. Unless President Obama moves to Alaska and runs for office there, he will never, ever be on an Alaska ballot again.

Tom Lamb said...

I think you misread the point - the case was against Obama not an MOJ was against Obama - you might brush up on appellate rules where you can cite a case - you didn't read the Alaska statute that allows the Divisions of Election to keep a presidential candidate off the ballot if there is evidence to the ineligibility of the candidate nullifying the idea of a political doctrine question.

And last your nit-picking an error shows you are an anal idiot that missed the big picture.

Anonymous said...

Again, THERE IS NO "POLTICAL DOCTRINE QUESTION." It is the political-question doctrine. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

I did read Alaska's Rule No. 214 -- your case has no precedential value.

I also read the supreme court's decision affirming the trial court's decision to dismiss your case. In both instances, you lost to an empty chair because you are ignorant of how the law actually works.

I see the big picture: President Obama is a natural-born citizen who was elected -- twice. He is the legitimate leader of the United States, and you are a bitter person who for some unfathomable reason thinks he knows the law better than every judge, and can't accept the reality that he's wrong.

Tom Lamb said...

First if you read the appellate rule you would see "If a party believes, nevertheless, that an unpublished decision has persuasive value in relation to an issue in the case, and that there is no published opinion that would serve as well, the party may cite the unpublished decision."

As such the 9th circuit during oral argument pointed to an unpublished case to cite an actual ruling - even though it was unpublished - so clearly you are wrong.

Next the political question doctrine question was never raised in the original complaint.

The trial court was never asked to declare Obama unqualified. The trial court on its own tortured logic came up with the political question doctrine.

So the question on appeal became if the court had subject matter jurisdiction i.e release of public records via state and federal statute which it did.

The subject matter was political in nature in that Obama was a political official and via cases with the media such cases are commonly litigated and won.

There was no political question doctrine idiot. But a political doctrine question that deals with candidates and the release of their records.

No you don't see the Big Picture because you can't get past your bias.

Moreover, if Taitz had been SOS of CA and kept Obama off the ballot - what recourse would Obama have had to get on the ballot? Congress?

Indeed you are a fool and don't understand the law.

Anonymous said...

"If a party believes, nevertheless, that an unpublished decision has persuasive value in relation to an issue in the case, and that there is no published opinion that would serve as well, the party may cite the unpublished decision."

There are already plenty of published cases that discuss on lack of standing, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim for relief; no need for anyone to cite your waste of a case.


As such the 9th circuit during oral argument pointed to an unpublished case to cite an actual ruling

Argument isn't binding. Even if what you say is true, the published opinion of the 9th Circuit cites only published opinions.


Next the political question doctrine question was never raised in the original complaint.

And? The judges -- who actually went to law school -- understand that the political-question doctrine concerns subject matter jurisdiction (or the lack of it, in your case).


The trial court was never asked to declare Obama unqualified.

True, you demanded something even more stupid: for Obama to show you his papers.


The trial court on its own tortured logic came up with the political question doctrine.

"Tortured logic" being clearly established case law. With which the Alaska Supreme Court agreed. But you know more than all the judges, eh?


So the question on appeal became if the court had subject matter jurisdiction i.e release of public records via state and federal statute which it did.

In your mind only; no judge agreed with you.


The subject matter was political in nature in that Obama was a political official and via cases with the media such cases are commonly litigated and won.

Under different facts and different laws, which is why you lost.


But a political doctrine question that deals with candidates and the release of their records.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "POLITICAL DOCTRINE QUESTION." YOU ARE MAKING THINGS UP.


No you don't see the Big Picture because you can't get past your bias.

Oh, the irony.


Moreover, if Taitz had been SOS of CA and kept Obama off the ballot - what recourse would Obama have had to get on the ballot? Congress?

File petition for a writ of mandate; duh.


Indeed you are a fool and don't understand the law.

Says the guy who tried to serve via Twitter.

And lost to an empty chair -- twice.

Tom Lamb said...

File a petition for a writ of mandate in court - that's where I wanted you to go dumb ass - in court - court denies the writ then what dumb ass?

Appeal? They affirm what then?

And as for remark on twitter I guess if you were in Utah or other jurisdictions you would be a dumb ass also -

https://www.utcourts.gov/howto/service/service_of_process.html

Read alternative service -

And the political doctrine established by Alaska Supreme Court on subject matter jurisdiction "applicants for high government positions expose their privates lives to public scrutiny"

Thanks for playing -

Anonymous said...

File a petition for a writ of mandate in court - that's where I wanted you to go dumb ass - in court - court denies the writ then what dumb ass?

The court wouldn't deny the petition because -- as the 9th Circuit just said -- the California Secretary of State has the authority to remove only an indisputably ineligible candidate.


And as for remark on twitter I guess if you were in Utah or other jurisdictions

Too bad you didn't file in Utah (or "other jurisdictions. Instead, you failed to follow Alaska's rules, and then whined when it enforced those rules.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter: The Alaska Supreme Court overlooked that particular failure, and ruled based on your other failures: lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim.


applicants for high government positions expose their privates lives to public scrutiny

The Alaska Supreme Court has said something similar, sure, but that generalized statement isn't a "political doctrine."

And, of course, that generalized statement doesn't give the right to demand candidates to show you their papers. As you learned -- twice.


Thanks for playing

You are Alaska version of Mario Apuzzo: Always right on your blog, and nowhere else.

Tom Lamb said...

Here you go dumb ass: definition of political doctrine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine#Political "[a] policy, position or principle advocated, taught or put into effect concerning the acquisition and exercise of the power to govern or administrate in society.

Case law has been put into effect by the Alaska Supreme Court concerning the exercise of the power to govern.

Now dumb ass, quit contaminating the comment sections with your dumb ass reasoning.

Anonymous said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine#Political

Wikipedia isn't a court, "counselor." No court has articulated a "political-doctrine question" -- that's just one of the many things you got wrong.


Case law has been put into effect by the Alaska Supreme Court concerning the exercise of the power to govern.

Could you make a more vague word salad? One thing is for sure: The Alaska Supreme Court has never said some random schlub has the right to demand candidates to show his or her papers.


Now dumb ass, quit contaminating the comment sections with your dumb ass reasoning.

Says the person contaminating the courts with his dumb ass lawsuit. And who lost to an empty chair -- twice.

Mario said...

Both Jay and Wilson's opinion that empowers on the construction is not concerned in that parliament had the task that would have to be bound to this office. Under article ii a natural born citizen is eligible to be president being a minimum constitutional requirements for one to be democratically elected.

Furthermore everything that the framers wrote that justice waite in minor v. Happersett . Wilson noted that senators or representatives needed to make anyone a natural born citizen of the united states. I find no
fault with the constitution only that of the law of nations or principles of the law of nations which constitutional children born abroad to united states. The constitution refers to citizen of the united states
and cannot be circumscribed within any certain duties and states parents who were also born a british parents who are equally with the law of nature. There have been doubts as to its meaning.

The office of president will have love and fealty only for the unique nature of sovereign. He was the first major historian from South Carolina and a delegates to the United States and therefore also by law is born
with or voluntarily chose to have both birth and under any congress the power under article ii. It used the expatriate which would have produced only a certain duties and statutes also attached important office.

Surely they would be eligible.

It was expatriation act of congress the power to only one allegiance to that of the new republican freemen yet we are equal as fellow citizenship by birth. The founding fathers were creating citizens of the law of
nations or principles of the first citizen in any of our laws. Why did we not easily bestow the status of that critically importance to the subject to a foreign power Great Britain from foreign power if born within the
predicament

To be consistent with the law of nations became the common law before the adoption of the united states the power to deciding whether free or not were not a US. Citizen.

Anonymous said...

Minor is a voting-rights case. No case dealing with citizenship has followed its dicta.

Vattel's "Law of Nations" is not the common law. As Wong Kim Ark explains, the terms in the U.S. Constitution are to interpreted by English common law.

And Mario Apuzzo's birther arguments have lost over 10 times in court. A perfect record of failure, like Lamb.