Obama Citizenship

Broe v. Reed: Response from SOS

By Phil

DecaLogoIntl.org is reporting this evening that Stephen Pideon, attorney for James Broe and 12 other Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed, has received word from Washington State Secretary of State Sam Reed:

Here is a brief summary from the response documents from the Secretary of State, Mr. Sam Reed:

The Secretary of State has taken a position opposite to plaintiffs? demands for a writ of mandamus. Plaintiffs sought the writ to require the Secretary of State to set aside the votes cast for Senator Obama on the grounds that Senator Obama 1) failed to establish that he was a ?natural born citizen? of the United States; 2) failed to establish that he was an American citizen; and 3) failed to establish that his legal name was Barack Obama prior to the election as required by federal and state law.

The SOS argues that plaintiffs? case should be dismissed because 1) it is moot; 2) plaintiffs have failed to join an indispensable party; 3) plaintiffs have failed to state a claim in mandamus because a candidate?s eligibility for office is presumed, and the SOS has no duty and is prohibited by law from investigating a candidate?s qualifications; and 4) the qualifications of the President is a federal question.

On the generous side, the Secretary of State has made a voluntary disclosure of the documents related to the Socialist Workers Party candidate for 2008, which, according to their records, never included Roger Calero. The SOS has also forwarded a copy of the Official Certification of Nomination from the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States declaring that Barack Obama and Joe Biden were ?duly nominated?.

Our position remains that pursuant to the disqualification language of the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution, the issue is not moot, and will never be moot; 2) Sen. Obama, or the State of Hawaii are not indispensable parties because 1) complete relief can be granted in their absence; 2) these parties have no interest in this action because Plaintiffs are only asserting that at the time of the election, Senator Obama failed to establish his qualification. There is no position that will be impaired or impeded ? there is only a position that factually existed at the time of the election and the duty of the Secretary of State to so recognize.

Plaintiffs have stated a claim for mandamus, as the Secretary of State is the chief of elections in Washington and has numerous duties to certify the election results. The SOS was not required to make any investigation into the candidate?s qualifications ? he only needed to apply the law to the facts as presented by the Candidate prior to the general election; namely, that the candidate was born in 1961, that the candidates mother was an 18 year old American and this his father was a Kenyan national and British subject. On those facts alone, the candidate was disqualified, and the SOS could have reached this conclusion as a matter of law.

Although the qualifications for President are a federal question, eligibility in Washington is a provision of statutory construction. If the candidate was not qualified at the time of the election, plaintiffs are authorized by statute to ask the SOS to set aside the votes cast. Just because the candidate was disqualified by federal law does not make this a federal question; it is just one of many disqualifiers possible under the statute.

Stephen Pidgeon
Attorney at Law, P.S.

PDF Documents:

• Response to Discovery Motion
• Response to Amended Petition For Writ Of Mandamus
• Declaration of [Director of Elections] Nick Handy
• Affidavit of Service

-Phil

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on December 19, 2008 (boomark / email).