No.87837-4

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Linda Jordan )

Appellant ) STATEMENT OF GROUNDS

v ) FOR DIRECT REVIEW

Secretary of State Sam Reed )

Respondent ) ____________________________________________________________

Appellant Linda Jordan seeks direct review of the COURT’S

OPINION AND DECISION and ORDER DISMISSING CASE entered by

Thurston County Superior Court Judge Thomas McPhee on August 29th,

2012. Both were attached to the Notice of Appeal.

1. NATURE OF CASE AND DECISION

On the afternoon of Friday August 24, 2012, Secretary of State Sam Reed

(Secretary) certified the names of candidates who will be on the

Washington State 2012 General Election ballot. That same day the ballot

printing process began.1 Early Monday morning, August 27, citizen Linda

Jordan (Jordan), a registered voter, challenged the placement of Candidate

                                                            1 Jordan Affidavit Ex 6 

2  

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org

Barack Obama’s name on the General Election ballot under RCW

29A.68.011(1)(3)2 . The challenge must be filed within three days of the

certification. The Court is directed to resolve the matter within five days

of receiving the complaint. The same day Jordan filed the timeframe for

the proceedings was set.3 The State’s Response Brief was due by noon on

Tuesday August 28th. Jordan’s Reply Brief was due by 9:30 am on

Wednesday August 29th and the hearing would be held that afternoon at

3:00pm. Judge Thomas McPhee dismissed the case with prejudice on

August 29, 2012.

II. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

                                                            2 RCW 29A.68.011   Prevention and correction of election frauds and errors. Any justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of appeals, or judge of the superior court in the proper county shall, by order, require any person charged 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 or to show cause forthwith why the error should not be corrected, the wrongful act desisted from, or the duty or order not performed, whenever it is made to appear to such justice or judge by affidavit of an elector that: (1) An error or omission has occurred or is about to occur in printing the name of any candidate on official ballots; or (2) An error other than as provided in subsections (1) and (3) of this section has been committed or is about to be committed in printing the ballots; or (3) The name of any person has been or is about to be wrongfully placed upon the ballots; or (4) A wrongful act other than as provided for in subsections (1) and (3) of this section has been performed or is about to be performed by any election officer; or  (5) Any neglect of duty on the part of an election officer other than as provided for in subsections (1) and (3) of this section has occurred or is about to occur; …. 3 Email from Thurston County Superior Court JA Trina Wendell 

3  

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org

No. 1 Did the trial court error by receiving an exhibit and declaration, ex

parte, that was then used to formulate the Court’s Opinion and Decision?

No. 2 Can convention, ballot printing and mailing schedules render RCW

29A.68.011(1)(3) effectively null and void, thereby denying citizens their

right to make use of it?

No. 3 Can the Secretary, on his own initiative and outside the legislative

and rule making process, create a new way of certifying the names of

major party candidates for President and Vice-President, to the General

Election ballot, that violates current laws and rules governing the process?

4 5

                                                            4 WAC 434‐215‐165 Agency filings affecting this section Presidential nominations by 

l 

 

stent with 

the  f all 

rtified 

l parties or 

major political parties. Nominations for president and vice‐president by major politicaparties are conducted at each party's national convention. Immediately following the convention, each party must submit a certificate of nomination and list of electors to the secretary of state in order to place the nominees on the presidential general election ballot. RCW 29A.04.620  Rules. The secretary of state as chief election officermay make rules in accordance with chapter 34.05 RCW to facilitate the operation, accomplishment, and purpose of the presidential primary authorized in RCW 29A.56.010 through 29A.56.060. The secretary of state shall adopt rules consithis chapter to comply with national or state political party rules. [2003 c 111 § 162; 1995 1st sp.s. c 20 § 4; 1989 c 4 § 7 (Initiative Measure No. 99). Formerly RCW 29.19.070.]  RCW 29A.56.360  Slate of presidential electors.  In a year in which president and vice president of the United States are to be elected, the secretary ofstate shall include in the certification prepared under *RCW 29A.52.320 the names ocandidates for president and vice president who, at least fifty days before the general election, have certified a slate of electors to the secretary of state under RCW 29A.56.320 and have been nominated either (1) by a major political party, as ceby the appropriate authority under party rules, or (2) by a minor party or as independent candidates under chapter 29A.20 RCW. Major or minor politica

4  

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org

No. 4 Did the Trial Court error by deliberately misrepresenting material

facts on which this case pivots?

No. 5 Can the Secretary and the Court ignore the findings of a law

enforcement agency concerning a forged identification document that has

been presented, by a presidential candidate, as an offer of proof that he is

eligible for the office?

No. 6 Is the Secretary bound to uniformly apply, to all presidential and

vice presidential candidates, the requirement to swear the eligibility oath

that write in candidates for president and vice president have to swear?

III. GROUNDS FOR DIRECT REVIEW

                                                                                                                                                    independent presidential candidates may substitute a different candidate for vice president for the one whose name appears on the party's certification or nominating petition at any time before forty‐five days before the general election, by certifying the change to the secretary of state. Substitutions must not be permitted to delay the printing of either ballots or a voters' pamphlet. Substitutions are valid only if submitted under oath and signed by the same individual who originally certified the nomination, or his or her documented successor, and only if the substitute candidate consents in writing. [2003 c 111 § 1429. Prior: 2001 c 30 § 1. Formerly RCW 29.27.140.]  5 RCW 29A.04.611 Rules by secretary of state. The secretary of state as chief election officer shall make reasonable rules in accordance with chapter 34.05 RCW not inconsistent with the federal and state election laws to effectuate any provision of this title and to facilitate the execution of its provisions in an orderly, timely, and uniform manner relating to any federal, state, county, city, town, and district elections.  

5  

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org

Pursuant to Rap 4.2(A)(4), direct review is permitted in [a] case involving

a fundamental and urgent issue of broad public import which requires

prompt and ultimate determination. The issues raised go directly to the

integrity and stability of our election process. This Court has previously

accepted direct review in cases like this one that involve issues of voters’

rights and election law. See Becker v County of Pierce, 126 Wn.2d 11, 15

(1995) (granting direct review pursuant to RAP 4.2(a)(4) and (5) in case

involving statutory limits on procedures for vote counting and

canvassing). In Becker, the appeal was brought directly from a superior

court order dismissing the plaintiff’s claim. The Court granted the review

noting that the direct appeal presented “issues of broad public importance

involving a state officer.” (direct review granted where plaintiff’s action

commenced two years after the election had taken place). The need for

direct review is of greater urgency here than in Becker. The General

Election is fast upon us and ballots do need to be printed and mailed.

Appellant did ask the Superior Court to prohibit a public official, the

Secretary of State, from certain acts. (RAP 4.2(a)(5)) The Court can order

an accelerated review (RULE 18.12). This appeal is expedited under

controlling statute RCW 29A.68.011(1)(3) RAP 5.2(d.). Without this

Court’s accelerated direct review Jordan will be denied effective relief.

6  

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org

IV. FACTS PERTAINING TO ISSUES PRESENTED

No. 1 Before walking in to the courtroom on August 29th at

approximately 2:45 pm, Solicitor General Jeffery Even, representing the

Secretary, handed citizen Jordan a Declaration from Shane Hamlin with an

attached exhibit A. Inside the courtroom Jordan saw Even hand a copy of

a document to the clerk of the court for the Judge and heard him say that it

was the same one he had just given me. Exhibit A was a letter from the

Democratic National Committee (DNC) to the Secretary which included a

“Provisional Certification” for candidate Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Jordan objected to the late entry of the declaration and exhibit but the

Judge allowed it. In the verbatim report of the hearing6 Judge McPhee

says, “I have written out my opinion conditioned upon what I heard here

in closing arguments, and nothing I’ve heard in those arguments have

convinced me to change that decision. So I will read this decision and then

I will have it immediately available as a written decision for the parties…”

The decision was already written when he walked in to the courtroom and

he was not going to change it. Then McPhee continues, “I will first

address part of this case that is not in that opinion, and that is the issue

                                                            6 Verbatim Report Of Proceedings p15 L22 through p16 L18 

7  

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org

of the Hamlin declaration….The declaration of Hamlin and the

attachment in the form of the letter dated July 24 from the

Democratic National Committee Chair is important evidence.”

(Emphasis added) This is the document that we both had just received

right before the hearing and the Judge is saying that he is going to address

it first orally because it is not addressed in his written opinion. How could

it be? He had never seen it. However McPhee goes on to read his written

opinion which includes a verbatim recitation of the DNC letter that

was attached as Exhibit A to the Hamlin declaration.7 The written

opinion included the same verbatim recitation of the DNC letter.8

No. 2 On the afternoon of Friday August 24, 2012 the Secretary certified

candidate names for the general election ballot. That same day counties

could begin printing ballots. Before Jordan could even file a challenge,

early Monday morning, counties were already going forward with printing

ballots. By the time the court ruled they were three and a half days in to

the process. Ballot printing schedules influenced the Court’s decision9 but

should they trump the law? And was their really a “printing” crises? In

                                                            7 Verbatim Report of Proceedings, P 22 L19 through p23 L20   8 Court’s Opinion And Decision, p4 L14 9 Verbatim Report of Proceedings, p15 L19  

8  

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org

response to the late entry of the Declaration of Shane Hamlin, Jordan

filed, on August 29th, a FOIA request with the Secretary’s Election

Division for any and all communication between their office, the DNC and

the Republican National Committee (RNC), relating to “provisional

certifications”.10 The major party conventions this year were held on

August 27-30 (RNC) and September 4-7 (DNC). In a letter from Katie

Blinn,11 to the RNC dated July 6, 2012, she responds to concerns the RNC

raised in May about making sure the submission of their Certificate of

Nomination would comply with Washington’s legal requirements. The

RNC had cited RCW 29A.56.360. Blinn details that military ballots must

be mailed by September 22, that she understands the RNC will nominate

their candidates for president and vice president on August 30 and

requests that the RNC issue their Certificate of Nomination no later than

September 4, 2012. She knew all the facts concerning mailing deadlines

and convention schedules and set September 4th as the deadline to receive

the nomination certificate. So why were ballots in the process of being

printed on August 24? And why did the Secretary argue, on August 28,

that the deadline for being included in the Voter’s Pamphlet was August

                                                            10 Jordan August 29, 2012 FOIA to SOS Elections 11 Katie Blinn is a lawyer and the Co‐Director of Elections for the Washington Secretary of State’s Office. 

9  

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org

29?12 Why set September 4th as the deadline when Blinn knew the DNC

nomination would not occur until September 7th? Why set September 4th

as the deadline when major party president and vice president candidate

names can be submitted, by law, up until September 17th and major party

vice presidential candidates may be substituted up until September 24th ?

(RCW 29A.56.360) The end result of changing the deadline from

September 4 to August 29 was that citizens were effectively denied their

right to challenge under RCW 29A.68.011(1)(3). Ballots were already

being printed and the pressure was on to keep things moving.

No. 3 In the same July 6, 2012 letter, Blinn offers the RNC the option of

sending in a “provisional certificate” “earlier in the week of the

convention” because the identity of the nominees “will be obvious by

then”.13 On August 14, 2012 Blinn notified the DNC14 that she planned to

certify the DNC nominees for President and Vice President on August

24th, 2012 even though she knew the nomination would not take place

until September 7th. She makes no suggestion in this email to the DNC to

                                                            12 Secretary of State’s Response Memorandum Declaration of Tami Davis and Sheryl Moss 13 The RNC provided one but it was curious that the “Provisional Certification” had an August 20, 2012 notary date on it while the letter from the RNC it was attached to was dated August 14, 2012. 14 8/14/12 email from Blinn to DNC Kip Wainscott, Counsel for Obama for America 

10  

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org

send in a “provisional nomination” like she did earlier with the RNC.

However Wainscott responds on August 15th that Blinn’s plan to certify

DNC candidates on August 24 is fine but then asks, “Can you confirm that

you received the provisional certification that I asked the DNC to mail

over to you?” On August 16 Blinn responds that, “We did. I apologize; it

had not made its way to my desk yet. I have it now.” This “provisional

certification” process violates every single law, procedure and rule in

Washington State for the placement of major party candidate names, for

president and vice president, on the general election ballot. It violates the

rules of the DNC convention procedure for nominating candidates.15 The

Secretary has known for four years when military ballots needed to be

mailed. I can find no evidence that the Secretary adopted this new method

of certifying candidates to the general election ballot through established

Rule Making Procedure (RCW 34.05.310-365) It certainly was outside the

legislative process. Did the DNC Convention schedule dictate this new

procedure? Purportedly, in a last minute effort to comply with the MOVE

Act, the Secretary engaged in the abject violation of Washington State

election laws and procedures. This was not the answer to whatever mess

they thought they were in. One I think was contrived.

                                                            15 See Plaintiff Jordan’s Reply to Secretary of State’s Response Memorandum p.2 L31 

11  

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org

No. 4 Judge McPhee grossly and I think deliberately misrepresents the

affidavit of software expert Mara Zebest.16 McPhee writes that Jordan

offered a report by “a part-time computer programmer last employed in

May 2077, who examined a copy of the pdf image of President Obama’s

birth certificate and concluded that the original was forged.” No where in

the Affidavit and Report that Jordan offered from Zebest, did Zebest say

that she was a part time computer programmer or that she was un-

employed. No where did she say that she concluded that the original [birth

certificate] was forged. Please see the attached declaration from Mara

Zebest correcting this misrepresentation.17 McPhee also based a good deal

of his opinion on the false assertion that Jordan had asked the Secretary to

determine if Obama was a natural born citizen. Quite the contrary Jordan

never asked the Secretary or the Court to ascertain if Obama was a natural

born citizen. Jordan argued that we could not even get to the citizenship

issue because the forged identity document was in the way. “However,

Plaintiffs’ first focus is on the forged identity document that Candidate

Obama is using in an attempt to prove his eligibility to be a candidate.

Plaintiff would directly address the Constitutional eligibility issue if the

                                                            16 Court’s Opinion and Decision, p6 L9 17 Declaration of Mara Zebest 

12  

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org

Secretary or Candidate Obama introduced an authenticated birth certificate

but at this stage the forged document is the matter at hand. A forged birth

certificate can not be used to prove anything except that someone has

engaged in the act of forgery and, in this case, that Candidate Obama is

using a forged birth certificate to gain access to the ballot.”18 19 20 The

Secretary is allowed to be influenced by the media and is authorized to act

on that influence concerning the placement of names on the primary ballot

for president and vice president. (RCW 29.A.56.030) It is not outside the

pale to conclude that the Secretary can also be influenced by the media

concerning the identification document Candidate Obama revealed on the

White House website on April 27, 2011.

No. 5 Is there reciprocity between states concerning findings of forgery?

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department spent nine months conducting

a full fledged investigation of the PDF file revealed by the White House

on their website on April 27, 2011 purporting to be an image of a scanned

photo copy of Barack Obama’s original birth certificate. Investigators                                                             18 Jordan Memorandum and Appendix of Law, p4 L66 through p5 L72 19 Court’s Opinion and Decision, p6 L16 through p7 L1‐8 20 Clarification:  Jordan Affidavit (p11 L203, p14 L261): Of course a scanned document can be saved as a PDF file. What reveals the forged nature of the PDF file on the White House website is that the file did not originate from a single source scanned document. It is a file that originated in the computer, containing multiple layers and manipulations resulting in an image that was compiled or fabricated. 

13  

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org

concluded that the file is a completely manufactured and manipulated file,

made up of many different layers and that the image it contains never

existed in paper form. It is a forgery. The Secretary ignored this finding

and Judge McPhee dismissed it as “the musings of the infamous Arizona

sheriff Joe Arpaio”.21 This forged document and the use of it is a violation

of the Federal Wire Fraud Statute 18 USC 1343 and 18 USC 1028 (Fraud

and related activity in connection with identification documents,

authentication features, and information) Is Washington State required to

follow federal laws on fraud and forgery? The use of a forged

identification document also violates RCW 9A.60, RCW9A.60.020.

No. 6 The Secretary is required to uniformly apply election procedures.22

Courts have upheld that “Treating candidates equally is, as a matter of

law, an important state interest.”23 The Secretary developed a write in

candidate form for president and vice-president that include an eligibility

oath that candidates are required to swear or the form will not be accepted.

The oath states, “I declare that the above information is true, that I am a

natural born citizen of the United States residing at the address listed

                                                            21 Court’s Opinion and Decision p6 L9 22 RCW 29A.04.611 23 See, e.g., Council of Alternative Political Parties v. Hooks, 179f3d. 64, 78 (3d. Cir.1999) 

14  

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org

above, that I am a write-in candidate for the office as indicated above, and

that, at the time of filing this write-in declaration, I am legally qualified to

assume office.” The natural born reference is an assertion that the

candidate meets the Constitutional qualifications. All presidential and vice

presidential candidates should have to swear at least the same oath. This

lack of uniformity breeds confusion. For example the DNC Certificate of

Nomination for Barack Obama and Joe Biden, submitted to the Secretary

in 2008, stated that, “…the following were duly nominated as candidates

of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States

respectively.”24 No mention of being qualified much less qualified per the

United States Constitution. The 2012 Certificate of Nomination submitted

by the DNC states, “…the following are the nominees of said Party for

President and Vice President of the United States respectively, and that the

following are legally qualified to serve as President and Vice President

respectively under the applicable provisions of the United States

Constitution.” (attached) (Emphasis added) Does this mean that the

definition of “applicable provisions’ is open to debate? We need

uniformity on this issue of Constitutional qualifications not confusion.

                                                            24 See Jordan Memorandum In Support of Motion for Order to Show Cause, Exhibit 4 

15  

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org

Respectfully submitted,

September 18, 2012

Linda Jordan, Appellant Pro Se

16  

Copy provided courtesy of: ProtectOurLiberty.org

Protec

tOurL

iberty

.org