Archived posts in ' "Broe v. Reed"

Back home

Broe v. Reed: Updates on WA State Case, Investigations

02/2/2009

Today, at the plainsradio.com forum, the following was left by Stephen Pidgeon, part of which covers the next step for Broe v. Reed:

Here is an update concerning Broe v Reed.

The plaintiffs have elected not to make an appeal to the US Supreme Court, but are considering other strategies. 

We have pursued our investigation, and have incurred over $30,000 in billing doing so. A complete dossier will be available as soon as we complete the remaining legs of our investigation.

As readers of this blog already know, we’ve been expecting some further news and/or details resulting from Mr. Pidgeon’s yeoman work RE: eligibility. Perhaps we will soon see the results of this investment of time and money.

-Phil

7 Comments

Broe v. Reed: Case Dismissed “Without Comment”; Going to SCOTUS!

01/8/2009

From the TriCityHerald.com, the Washington State case of Broe v. Reed has been dismissed:

The Washington Supreme Court today dismissed a lawsuit alleging Secretary of State Sam Reed had failed to confirm that President-elect Barack Obama was eligible to run for president.

A group of Washington residents filed the lawsuit in early December asking the state’s votes for Obama be set aside.

James E. Broe of King County and 12 others claimed Obama never established that he is a natural-born American citizen as required by the Constitution, and that Obama ran under a false name. …

The Broe lawsuit claimed that Reed had known about questions concerning Obama’s eligibility since September, but did nothing to determine whether Obama was a lawful candidate. …

The Supreme Court granted Reed’s request to dismiss the suit without comment.  

I’ll be watching for further comment from attorney Stephen Pidgeon.

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

Update: According to DecaLogoIntl.org, the following was excerpted from a posting entitled, “Washington Supreme Court clears hurdle to allow Broe v Reed to push for SCOTUS review:”

The Washington Supreme Court, without comment, has dismissed the claims of the 12 Broe v Reed plaintiffs, who sought to require the Secretary of State to do his constitutionally imposed duty and disallow the votes for Senator Obama on the basis that Senator Obama has failed to establish that he is a natural born citizen; that he is an American citizen, or that he was running under his legal name.

As Jim Broe put it to the Secretary: “If not you, who?”

STEPHEN PIDGEON
Attorney at Law, P.S.

Apparently this case is similarly headed to the Supreme Court.

Update: Here’s the dismissal information.

-Phil

19 Comments

Broe v. Reed: Supplemental Declaration Includes Key Affidavits

01/6/2009

Stephen Pidgeon, attorney for James Broe and 12 other Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed, has filed for the case two more documents: AMENDED MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY AND FOR AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SUBPOENA and AMENDED MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY AND FOR AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SUBPOENA.

The big news for this case is the second document; the declaration includes Exhibits from a number of key sources, including the following:

  • Affidavit of Jorge L. Baro inthe Keyesv. Haseman case in California (forensic audit of the Certification ofLive Birth posted by Sen. Obama on FactCheck.org; investigation results into the Obama residence set forth in the 1961 birth announcement; comparison with Certificate of Live Birth form)
  • Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae, with exhibits thereto (Obama’s background in Kenya; present sense impression of interview with Sarah Hussein Obama, Sen. Obama’s Kenyan grandmother, who insists she was in the delivery room in Kenya when Sen. Obama was born) filed in the Berg v. Obama case in Pennsylvania
  • Affidavit of Reverend Kweli Shuhubia, together with transcript of the S. H. Obama interview (present sense impression of same interview with Sarah Hussein Obama) filed in the Berg v. Obama case
  • Transcript of the “Mike in the Morning” interview with Kenyan Ambassador Nicholas Rateng Oginga Ogego (saying Obama’s birthplace in Kenya “is already an attraction” and that Obama’s birthplace is “already well known”)
  • Declaration of Sandra Ramsey Lines (Certified Dilomatel American Board of Forensic Document Examiners, etc.), together with all exhibits (finding that an original of the COLB must be examined)
  • Declaration of XXXXXXX, filed in Keyes v. Lingle (Hawaii) (forensic audit ofthe Certification of Live Birth posted by Senator Obama)
  • The Matrimonial Actions Information Sheet, Soetoro v. Soetoro (Sen. Obama’s mother’s divorce from Lola Soetoro, Sen. Obama’s adoptive father)
  • Complaint for Divorce, Soetoro v. Soetoro (showing two children, 1 under age 18, and 1 over age 18)

-Phil

P.S.: My comments mechanism is on the fritz, so it may be a while before comments start showing up.

21 Comments

This Week in the Courts

01/4/2009

For the Barack Hussein Obama presidential eligibility saga, this week presents a number of important milestones for both the Legislative and Judicial branches of the federal government as well as the great State of Washington:

  1. Thursday, January 8, 2009: Congress meets in joint session to count the Electoral College votes; from the National Archives: “Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009 from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008 presidential election.”
  2. Thursday, January 8, 2009: James Broe, Plaintiff pro se and one of 13 total Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed (attorney Stephen Pidgeon representing), is scheduled to have his case heard via oral argument at the Washington State Supreme Court.
  3. Friday, January 9, 2009: Philip J. Berg, Plaintiff in Berg v. Obama, has his case going to Supreme Court Conference, where they will privately discuss whether or not to grant a writ of Certiorari (“Rule of Four“: 4 of 9 Justices required to grant). Remember the following concerning these writs, per Wikipedia: “the legal effect of the Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is commonly misunderstood as meaning that the Supreme Court approves the decision of a lower court. However, such a denial ‘imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times.’ Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995). In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created, and that the lower court’s decision is authoritative only within its region of jurisdiction.”

Furthermore, regarding the Supreme Court’s private Conference, it is a private meeting (per the link on the Conference). That means nobody knows what the discussions entail except for the Justices and the Supreme Court is not obligated in any way to issue any kind of explanation for why they choose to deny or grant writs on cases.

Other notable links include the following:

A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

-Phil

10 Comments

Broe v. Reed: Reply to SOS, WND Reports

12/30/2008

As reported by DecaLogosIntl.org:

Stephen Pidgeon, attorney for Plaintiffs James Broe and 12 others in Broe v. Reed, has filed a response to Washington State’s Secretary of State’s original response. In part (the full presser (PDF) follows):

Washington’s Secretary of State claims he has no duty to determine if a presidential candidate is even an American citizen running under his legal name.   Yet, there is not a single document in the public record available for inspection that could establishes as a matter of law that Obama is 1) a natural born citizen of the United States; 2) an American citizen; or 3) that his legal name is Barack Obama. …

Because the court could order the Secretary of State to set aside the votes cast for Senator Obama in the State of Washington because the Senator never established his eligibility, the case is not moot.

We did not fail to join an indispensable party.  Complete relief can be accorded among those already parties.  Obama has never claimed an interest in this action.  Obama has no interest in this action, because even if the Secretary of State were to set aside the votes cast for him, Obama would still prevail in the Presidential election.  The outcome of Washington’s vote is irrelevant to Senator Obama.

We stated a claim in mandamus.  The Secretary claims that we have the burden of establishing that Obama is not qualified to assume the office!  We have proved that Obama did not establish that he was a “natural born citizen” of the United States at the time of the election.  He has not produced a single piece of credible evidence that he is an American citizen, let alone a natural born citizen, and he has not produced any document showing a change of his legal name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama.  

WorldNetDaily has also picked up on this story (in part, below):

In Washington state’s Broe v. Reed case, however, plaintiff’s attorney Stephen Pidgeon says a unique state statute grants everyday citizens the required standing.

“These lawsuits have pointed their fingers at the various secretaries of state and said, ‘You handle the elections, it’s your job [to verify Obama's eligibility],’” Stephen Pidgeon told WND, “and the secretaries of state have said, ‘No, it’s not our job. You the voter have to prove he was ineligible.’ But when the voters try to do it, the courts tell them they have no standing. So it presents a catch-22.

“Here, we have standing by means of statute,” Pidgeon continued. “This particular statute provides for any registered voter to challenge the election of a candidate if the candidate at the time of the election was ineligible to hold office.”

Further, Pidgeon explained, “In Washington we also have a constitutional clause in Article 1 that says the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of land, so it’s very much a state issue that the secretary of state has a duty to enforce the U.S. Constitution.

“He doesn’t think he does; we think he does. That’s really the issue before the court,” Pidgeon said.

Read the rest of this post »

4 Comments

Broe v. Reed: Response from SOS

12/19/2008

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.

Read the rest of this post »

9 Comments

Broe v. Reed: Motion for Expedited Discovery, Subpoenas

12/16/2008

Yesterday, DecaLogosIntl.org reported that James Broe, one of 13 Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed, has filed a motion for expedited discovery and authority to issue subpoenas in Washington State Supreme Court:

Names and Designation of Persons Filing Motion

COMES NOW, James E. Broe, Kenneth R. Seal, Robert Baker, Mark Sussman, Stan Walter, Bill Wise, Andy Stevens, Ed Crawford, Jason Lagen, Louise Workman, Jocelyn Murcelli, Mike Murcelli and Kevin McDowell, by and through counsel of record Stephen Pidgeon, pursuant to RAP 17.3(a), the Rules of Discovery, CR 26-37, and CR 45 governing the issuance of subpoenas, and Move this Honorable Court for an order allowing the issuance of two subpoenas for the purpose of obtaining admissible evidence in this case, and expediting discovery pursuant to the proposed schedule.

Relief Requested

Plaintiffs seek an Order allowing plaintiffs expedited discovery by means of two subpoenas, one to be served on the Secretary of State of the State of Washington, to discover the following items: I) the Declaration of Candidacy of Barack Obama as filed in the State of Washington; 2) all records concerning the candidacy and disallowance of Socialist Worker’s Party candidate Frank Colero within the Secretary of State’s office; and one to be served upon the Director of the Department of Health in the State of Hawaii, to discover the following items: 3) the Birth Certificate of Barack Obama in Hawaii, and 4) all supporting documentation regarding the registration of the birth of Barack Obama in Hawaii.  Plaintiffs seek an order which establishes the following schedule.

  1. Plaintiffs are to serve the Secretary of State of the State of Washington with a Subpoena in the form attached hereto as approved by the Court no later than the close of business on Friday, December 19, 2008, and responses shall be served upon Plaintiffs’ counsel Stephen Pidgeon no later than the close of business on December 28, 2008.
  2. Plaintiffs are to serve the State of Hawaii Department of Health with a Subpoena in the form attached hereto as approved by the Court no later than the close of business on Monday, December 22, 2008, and responses shall be served upon Plaintiffs’ ‘counsel. no later than the close of business on December 28, 2008.

Associated PDF documentation:

-Phil

16 Comments

Broe v. Reed: Date Set for Oral Argument

12/10/2008

Stephen Pidgeon, attorney for 12 Plaintiffs including James Broe in Broe v. Reed, issued the following press release, showing that the Plaintiffs are set to be heard January 8, 2009 (the presser says “2008,” but I think that’s a typo)…

-Phil

Read the rest of this post »

12 Comments

Broe v. Reed: Summary of Arguments, Presser

12/10/2008

DecaLogosIntl is reporting that Stephen Pidgeon, attorney representing James Broe, Plaintiff in Broe v. Reed, has released a summary of arguments. Here’s a very brief recap:

Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed claim standing pursuant to the authorization given them by the legislature of Washington in RCW 29A.68.020(2).  This statute creates standing for Plaintiffs to challenge the election of a candidate who has been elected but was ineligible at the time of his election to run for the office. …

[Duties of SOS] The Secretary of State is declared, under RCW 29A.04.230 to be “the chief election officer for all federal, state, county, city, town and district elections.”  The Secretary of State is “required by law” to . . . coordinate those state election activities required by federal law. …

The Secretary of State has a duty to designate the presidential candidates ninety days prior to the primary election, pursuant to WAC 434-219-060.

The Secretary of State has a duty to certify the final list of candidates who will appear on the presidential primary ballot, pursuant to WAC 434-219-120.

The Secretary of State has a duty to certify the result of the presidential primary fifteen days following the primary, pursuant to WAC 434-219-290.
The Secretary of State has a duty to supervise election review staff employed by the Secretary of State for the purpose of conducting election reviews, including election policies and procedures and includes the review of any documentation of those procedures pursuant to WAC 434-260-020.

The Secretary of State has a duty to develop an “election review checklist” which is the basis for any election review or special review, pursuant to WAC 434-260-110.

The Secretary of State is the officer of the state delegated with the duty of presenting the election results to the state legislature under Article III, Section 4 of the Washington State Constitution.

The Secretary of State has these duties under the Washington Administrative Code pursuant to an express delegation by the Article III, Section 17 of the Washington State Constitution. …

[Washington Supreme Court jurisdiction] The Washington Supreme Court is expressly authorized pursuant to RCW 29A.68.011 to order “any personcharged with error, wrongful act, or neglect to forthwith correct the error, desist from the wrongful act, or perform the duty and to do as the court orders.” [Emphasis in italics added]. …

[Arguments] Barack Obama is ineligible for the office of the presidency because he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. …

Barack Obama has failed to establish that he is an American citizen …

Barack Obama did not run under his legal name …

Barack Obama’s candidacy is a violation of WAC 434-215-012, which requires that declarations of candidacy contain the following affirmation:

I declare that this information is, to the best of my knowledge, true.  I also swear, or affirm, that I will support the Constitution and laws of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington.

Senator Obama either failed to sign such a document, or has misled the Secretary of State as to the affirmation in paragraph 2 of the required Declaration of Candidacy which declares that “and, at the time of filing this declaration, I am legally qualified to assume office if elected.”

What follows is the complete presser released today…

-Phil

Read the rest of this post »

4 Comments

Broe v. Reed: Writ for Mandamus Filed State Supreme Court

12/5/2008

Hat tip to DecaLogosIntl.org for the heads up:

Stephen Pidgeon, attorney at law, released the following statement on Saturday, December 6:

James Broe and 11 other Washington voters have filed in Washington’s Supreme Court to have the votes cast for Senator Obama set aside, because he failed to establish that he was even an American citizen running under his own name at the time of the election, let alone a “natural born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution. Unlike other cases that have been dismissed for lack of standing, these plaintiffs have standing under a unique Washington statute that allows any registered voter to challenge the election of someone who, at the time of the election, was ineligible to hold the office.

The Secretary of State’s office has already admitted it did nothing to determine Senator Obama’s eligibility, and Senator Obama hasn’t produced a single piece of evidence to prove he was born in the United States that would establish his eligibility, although the burden to prove his eligibility was placed on him by the rules of the national Democrat Party. Counsel for the plaintiffs Stephen Pidgeon had only a two word comment: “case closed!”

STEPHEN PIDGEON
Attorney at Law, P.S.

Case: 8-2-473-8. The following PDF documents have been released in conjunction with this suit:

This case was originally reported via the Tri-City Herald:

James E. Broe of King County and 12 others claim Obama never established that he is a natural-born American citizen as required by the Constitution, and that Obama ran under a false name.

A similar suit before the election was dismissed in King County.

Obama is set to receive the state’s 11 electoral votes when the Electoral College delegates meet in Olympia on Dec. 15.

Dave Ammons, spokesman for Secretary of State Sam Reed’s office, said in an e-mail to the Herald that the state’s position is that Reed is not required and does not have the authority to investigate the qualifications of candidates for president and vice president. …

The suit also claims Obama was adopted by a stepfather in Indonesia and took the legal name Barry Soetoro, and that Barack Hussein Obama was not his legal name when he filed as a candidate in Washington. The claims are based on school records published on the TV show Inside Edition, according to court documents.

Steve Marquis had brought up the first case known to exist in Washington State; it had been dismissed on October 27.

A listing of known lawsuits can be found here.

1 Comment