Introduction Pursuant to Alaska Rule of Appellate Procedure (ARAP) 402 and ARAP 504 (b), Petitioner Thomas A.

Lamb submits this Emergency Petition for Review of the October 17th and 24th, 2012 1 order denying the Petitioners motion for reconsideration and to use Twitter as a method of service. Both orders are within the date set by ARAP 403 (a) (1) (a) for appellate review and the October 24th, 2012 order is based on a response to the superior court denying the Petitioners motion for reconsideration on October 17th, 2012. Moreover, in the motion practice denied by the superior court on October 24th, 2012, evidence was sent to the superior court indicating that a Respondent Mitt Romneys campaign staffer stated that the documents sent as the Petitioner had sent them, was sufficient. And that Respondent Barack Obamas staff would notify the appropriate people that the complaint and summons was sent on October 4th, 2012 and the Petitioner left his contact information so he could be contacted.2 I. Statement of the Facts The 2012 Presidential election will be held on November 6th, 2012 and Alaskans have been subjected to political ads and public figures making accusations about the presidential candidates and the various media outlets are reporting on the accusations as fact or discounting certain accusations by claiming the accusations to be false when there is no concrete evidence to back up the claims being made and reported on. The Petitioner seeks to find out what the facts are with each presidential candidate and as such, on September 9th, 2012 sent a demand letter requesting documents from the Respondents and if they did not respond, the Petitioner may seek litigation in obtaining the requested documents in an expedited manner. No response was received from the Respondents, so the Petitioner filed a complaint on September 25th, 2012 in the Alaska superior court seeking the Respondents tax records, personnel records from Bain Capital
1 See
2

Exhibit A and Exhibit B See pg. 9 at http://www.scribd.com/doc/110809456/Motion-for-Twitter-Memorandum-inSupport-Affidavit-in-Support

1

and ACORN, medical records and educational records. 3 The Petitioner also sent on the same day, an electronic message to the Respondents official campaign Twitter accounts listed as @barackobama and @mittromney. The Petitioner used a filtering method by including the hashtag4 #Alaska, #tcot and #teaparty. 5 The filtering system reduces the chance the Respondents or their campaign staffers who can monitor the hashtags, would miss the notice of the complaint being sent to their Twitter accounts. It is known that the Respondent Barack Obama was using his Twitter account the day that the Petitioner sent the notice. 6 The Petitioner via the United States Postal Service certified mail, mailed a complaint and summons on September 26th, 2012 to the Respondent Barack Obamas campaign headquarters address as listed on their campaign website and through an internet search, an address listed to contact Respondent Mitt Romney. 7 After 14 days had passed, on October 9th, 2012, the Petitioner received the certified receipt indicating the Respondent Barack Obamas campaign staff signed for and picked up the complaint and summons on October 4th, 2012. On the same day, because of an error by the Petitioner mailing the summons and complaint to an incorrect address, the Petitioner received the certified receipt that Respondent Mitt Romney had not received the complaint and summons. On October 9th , 2012, the Petitioner called Respondent Romneys headquarters notifying them a complaint and summons had been mailed to them and requested who the complaint and summons should be sent to via restricted mail. The Petitioner left his contact phone number and no attempt was made by Respondent Romneys campaign headquarters to notify the Respondent. 8

See http://www.scribd.com/doc/110730616/Lamb-v-ObamaRomney See https://support.twitter.com/groups/31-twitter-basics/topics/109-tweetsmessages/articles/49309-what-are-hashtags-symbols# 5 See http://www.scribd.com/doc/110663739/Exhibit-a-Motion-to-Use-Twitter 6 See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/obama-nfl-lockout_n_1913507.html 7 See paragraph 6 of http://www.scribd.com/doc/110757099/Affidavit-in-Support-ofMotion-to-Use-Twitter-as-Method-of-Service 8 Id.at paragraph 7-9 Affidavit in Support of Motion to use Twitter as Method of Service
4

On October 11th, 2012, the Petitioner motioned the superior court in an expedited manner to order the Respondents to immediately release their educational, personnel records, tax records and medical records.9 On October 12th, 2012, the Petitioner sent an electronic message to the Respondents Twitter accounts alerting them that a motion to immediately release their records had been filed. 10 According to the State of Alaska CourtView, on October 15th, 2012, the superior court denied the Petitioners motion by stating before the plaintiffs motion could be considered, plaintiff must provide the court with legitimate Civil Rule 5 proof of service of the summons and complaint and pending motions and supporting documents on defendants. The date of when the order was mailed was left blank. 11 On October 16th, 2012, the Petitioner motioned the superior court for reconsideration and in the supporting affidavit, indicated that Civil Rule 5 proof of service was met on October 11th, 2012 when the Petitioner served notice to the court the Petitioner sent the summons and complaint via the United States Postal Service certified mail on September 26th, 2012, and in the same affidavit, was served notice that all motion practice had been sent via the United States Postal Service certified mail on October 11 th, 2012. 12 The Petitioners memorandum supporting the motion for reconsideration stated that the affidavit supporting the motion for expedited consideration fulfilled Alaska Civil Rule 4 (e) and 5 (f). The Petitioner called the clerks office at 264-0441 on the morning

See http://www.scribd.com/doc/109803555/Memorandum-PDF See paragraph 12 of http://www.scribd.com/doc/110757099/Affidavit-in-Support-ofMotion-to-Use-Twitter-as-Method-of-Service 11 See http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/eservices/?x=4gn2nNtE5tKlSOyysNwYoCDKfbpyZOt8eSUNIulNsi2YVnQ39p1hhFAURudyZ6z2XtkH6JosXa*7VhozoDGA 12 See paragraph 15 of http://www.scribd.com/doc/110757099/Affidavit-in-Support-ofMotion-to-Use-Twitter-as-Method-of-Service
10

of October 16th, 2012 and asked if the motion for reconsideration had any deficiencies and the clerk stated they didnt see any. 13 On October 17th, 2012, the superior court issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration. The court stated in part that Plaintiff has not followed Civil Rule 4 (d) or Civil 4 (h). There has been no personal service. Plaintiffs service by mail was directed to Romney for President and Obama for America. These mailings are not proper service by mail under Alaska law. The motion for reconsideration is denied. 14 On October 18th, 2012, the Petitioner filed a notice to the superior court with a supporting affidavit indicating that a Romney campaign staffer stated that the pleadings sent to their addressed headquarters was sufficient and the documents when received would be sent to the appropriate lawyers. The Romney campaign staffer indicated that there was no one person to send the restricted delivery to. It was indicated by the Respondent Mitt Romneys staffer that security picks up their certified mail. 15 The Petitioner then called the campaign headquarters of Respondent Barack Obama and an Obama campaign staffer indicated that many people signed for certified mail. The Petitioner informed the staffer that documents had been signed for on October 4th, 2012 and asked who he could send restricted mail to on behalf of the Respondent Barack Obama and the staffer stated they didnt know. The Petitioner left his name, phone number and e-mail so the appropriate people would contact the Petitioner. The Petitioner was never contacted. 16 It must be noted that according to the return receipts from the Respondent Barack Obama only one person has signed for the return receipts. 17And likewise, there has been only one person who signed for the return receipts for Respondent Mitt Romney. 18
13

Id. at paragraph 16-17 Affidavit in Support of Motion to use Twitter as Method of Service 14 supra Exhibit A page 2 15 See paragraph 23 http://www.scribd.com/doc/110809456/Motion-for-TwitterMemorandum-in-Support-Affidavit-in-Support 16 See Exhibit C Notice to the Court page 4 paragraph 5-6 17 See http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab86/210thars/certificateobama.jpg
4

In response to the superior court denying the Petitioners motion for reconsideration on October 17th, 2012, the Petitioner filed a motion to use Twitter as a method of service on October 22nd, 2012. In the motion, the Petitioner included the October18th, 2012 notice to the court. supra The superior court was aware the staffer with Respondent Mitt Romneys campaign stated the method of service the Petitioner was using via the United States Postal Service was sufficient and the staffer with Respondent Barack Obamas campaign was made aware of the October 4th, 2012 return receipt and said they would notify the appropriate people and would send them the Petitioners contact information. supra On October 24th, 2012, the superior court denied the motion. supra On October 25th, 2012, the Petitioner received the return receipt of motions sent to Respondent Barack Obama on October 11th, 2012. The date stamp of when the Respondent Barack Obamas campaign staffer picked up the documents was October 16th, 2012. supra On October 26th, 2012, to fulfill ARAP 504 (f) the Respondent called the Respondent Barack Obamas headquarters at 312-698-3670 to notify that the Petitioner was filing a petition of review on Monday, October 29th, 2012. The Petitioner informed the staffer that there has been no response to the documents sent to the campaign headquarters, the staffer for Respondent Barack Obama said that if the documents were sent to the campaign headquarters by certified mail, the documents would be sent to the appropriate people. 19 The Petitioner made numerous calls to the Respondents headquarters at 857-2883500 to notify them that an emergency petition of review was being submitted on Monday, October 29, 2012. Unfortunately no contact has been made via the telephone. The Petitioner then on Sunday October 28th, 2012 notified the Respondent Mitt Romney

18
19

See http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab86/210thars/certificateromney.jpg See Petitioners Affidavit in Support of Motion for Emergency Petition for Review
5

via his campaign website that the Petitioner was filing an emergency petition for review.
20

II.

Statement of the Question Did the superior court err and abuse its discretion when is stated that the

Respondents have not been properly served.

III.

Statement of the Trial Date No trial date is set. The case involves disclosure of records through a request made

through motions. IV. Discussion of why this Court Should Grant Review This presidential election has been full of accusations reported in the media. High profile public figures like Senator Harry Reid made the accusation that Respondent Mitt Romney hasnt paid any income taxes. 21 Even David Letterman has made the accusation.22 There have been accusations questioning why Respondent Barack Obama has spent millions of dollars fighting to keep his school records sealed 23 and accusations that the birth certificate of the Respondent Barack Obama has been manipulated. 24 Just recently Donald Trump waged 5 million dollars if the Respondent Barack Obama would release his school records. 25 In a recent court case in Massachusetts, The Boston Globe

20
21

Id. at paragraph See http://www.examiner.com/article/harry-reid-bain-investor-said-romney-paid-notaxes-for-10-years-no-proof-given 22 See http://www.examiner.com/article/david-letterman-accuses-romney-of-not-payingincome-taxes-calls-him-a-felon 23 See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC8FXrUilxE 24 See http://times247.com/articles/israeli-science-group-obama-birth-certificate-fake 25 See http://fox2now.com/2012/10/24/donald-trump-offers-5-million-to-reveal-obamasprivate-past/
6

was able to successfully litigate the lifting of sealed divorce records where Respondent Mitt Romney testified. 26 The Petitioner has pointed to case law and facts in his memorandum that are compelling enough that it requires full disclosure of the requested records. 27 This Court should grant review because it involves a public interest, a question of law on serving a legal notice that has not been decided by this court. And if the superior courts decision is not reviewed, then the public is left in the dark on what the facts are with the presidential candidates and will cause immediate and irreparable harm. Moreover, the timelines require that this petition be expedited as the presidential election is held on November, 6th, 2012. This petition for review satisfies the requirement of Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure 402 (b)(1)-(2) and (4). V. The Superior Courts Abused its Discretion and its Decision was Erroneous Because the Intent of Alaska Civil 4 Rule was Satisfied by the Plaintiff The intent of Alaska Civil Rule 4 is a supposed safeguard over the due process rights of litigants. This Court stated that [The] purpose of serving a summons is to provide the defendant with notice of the proceedings against him. 28 The logic in Alaska Civil Rule 4 and the intent of the civil rule to provide notice to a defendant should be tested and argued. The safeguards to make sure a defendant is served notice starts with the method of service and the safeguards require that a peace officer or certified or registered mail is a method of service. 29 Alaska Civil Rule 4 (d) sets the guidelines for personal service.

26

See http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/26/163741204/romneys-testimonyin-1991-trial-gives-new-glimpse-of-work-at-bain 27 See page 4 http://www.scribd.com/doc/109803555/Memorandum-PDF 28 See Anderson v. Dept of Highways, 584 P.2d 537,541 (Alaska 1978) 29 Alaska Civil Rule 4(c)
7

It requires that individuals be served a summons and complaint at the same time and it be directly served to the individual or left at the individuals house with a person of suitable age and discretion or an authorized agent to receive service of process. 30 Arguably, since this complaint is against the Respondents who are acting as presidential candidates, security requires that minimum contact be made and public information be kept to a minimum about who is residing at their personal places where they live. Since the Respondents live outside the state of Alaska, Alaska Civil Rule 4 (d) (12) instructs the movant to serve the Respondents as if service was being made in the state of Alaska and the service being done in accordance with subsection (f) and (h) of Alaska Civil Rule 4. 31 Subsection (f) states that Within 120 days after filing of the complaint, the party shall file and serve an affidavit identifying the parties who have been served, the date service was made and the parties who remain unserved. If service is made by a person other than a peace officer, the person shall make affidavit thereof, proof of service shall be in writing and shall set forth the manner, place, date of service, and all pleadings or other papers served with the process. Failure to make proof of service does not affect the validity of the service. (emphasis added) In emphasis, the safeguard to make sure a defendant has been served has a does not affect validity of the service clause. Subsection (h) states: In addition to other methods of service provided for by this rule, process may also be served within this state or the United States or any of its possessions by registered or certified mail, with return receipt requested, upon an individual other than an infant or an incompetent person and upon a corporation, partnership, unincorporated association, or public corporation. In such case, copies of the summons and complaint or other process shall be mailed for restricted delivery only to the party to whom the
30
31

Alaska Civil Rule 4(d)(1) See http://www.courts.alaska.gov/civ.htm#4

8

summons or other process is directed or to the person authorized under federal regulation to receive the party's restricted delivery mail. All receipts shall be so addressed that they are returned to the party serving the summons or process or the party's attorney. Service of process by mail under this paragraph is complete when the return receipt is signed. (emphasis added) With schedule changes and the hour by hour movement on the campaign trail of the Respondents, trying to mail the Respondents the summons and complaint on the campaign trail and have them sign the return receipt is impossible. As the Petitioner pointed out previously in this petition, it took days for the mail to be picked up by the Respondents agents who evidently are authorized to pick up certified mail sent to the Respondents campaign headquarters. supra The most plausible method of service would be to send the summons to the campaign headquarters via restricted mail to an individual who is authorized to receive restricted certified mail. The Petitioner made attempts to find out who was authorized to receive restricted mail as stated in Alaska Civil Rule 4 (h). supra But the Respondents agents did not respond. supra The question is why? In this case it was known by the superior court that according to Respondent Mitt Romneys campaign staffer, the Petitioners method of service while not addressed to an individual and restricted service, the certified mail would be sent to the appropriate lawyers. supra The superior court in its order dated October 24th, 2012 stated the mailing of the summons and complaint is done by registered or certified mail with restricted delivery to the defendant who must sign off on the receipt. That was not done in this case. See Exhibit B page 2 The superior court arguably abused its discretion by ignoring the fact that a staffer with the Respondent Mitt Romneys campaign indicated that the legal documents sent
9

certified mail to addressed to Romney for President at the listed address on the Respondents campaign headquarters address would be sent to the appropriate lawyers. The superior court arguably abused its discretion by ignoring the fact that a staffer with the Respondent Barack Obamas campaign was made aware that a summons and complaint was received by the campaign headquarters on October 4th, 2012 and would notify the appropriate people to contact the Petitioner. Neither Respondents have responded to the pleadings in this case. So the question has to be asked again why? According to the Respondents campaign agents, the appropriate people would be notified that a summons and complaint was served. The superior court in its order stated The Alaska Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on whether service of process via the internet is an appropriate method for effecting service, and this court declines to reach that issue here. The superior court did reach the issue by denying the motion and stating why Twitter was not an appropriate way to effect service. See Exhibit B page 4 Arguably the superior court erred in denying the use of Twitter. In Alaska Civil Rule 4 (d) (13) (i) Personal Service in a Foreign Country it is stated with regard to a method of service in the manner prescribed by the law of the foreign country for service in that country in an action in any of its courts of general jurisdiction; The superior court addressed the issue on serving notice to a person in a foreign country when it stated plaintiff argues that other jurisdictions and other nations have allowed service via social media websites, such as Facebook and Twitter. See Exhibit B page 2 In Australia, a couple was served notice via Facebook 32 In New Zealand, the high court allowed Facebook to be used in serving notice. 33 The use of social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter in serving notices in foreign countries have been adjudicated 34

32

See http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCAfam/2010/509.html See http://www.hgmlegal.com/Articles/Internet/43/41/Service-via-Facebook---Pickyour-%E2%80%9Cfriends%E2%80%9D-wisely.aspx

33

10

Given the Respondents could have been on an overseas campaign trip in the countries listed above to include Canada, the service under Alaska Civil Rule (d) (13) (i) would be a valid method of service. The question is; should social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter be used as a method of service? The logical argument is yes.35 There have been court cases where the release of the identity of a Twitter account holder have been successfully litigated. 36 So the identities of those holding a Twitter account can be validated. The next question is, does the Twitter account holder use the Twitter account? That can be easily ascertained by reviewing the activity of the Twitter account. The next question has to be asked is would the Twitter account holder be served notice that an electronic message has been sent? On most Twitter accounts the Twitter account has both a direct message field and @ Mentions field37. Both fields will alert the account user how many mentions have been sent and how many direct messages have been sent. 38 To clear the notice of mentions and direct messages, the account holder has to go through the fields and actively view the mentions and then delete them. The Twitter account holder also has the ability to search Twitter to see an issue that is an interest to them. 39 There are also filters that are placed on political Twitter accounts and this is done to reduce the traffic noise. And it allows the campaign to maintain control of the

34

See http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/lexishub/blogs/legaltechnologyandsocialmedia/ar chive/2011/11/09/service-of-process-through-facebook.aspx 35 See http://www.scribd.com/doc/111290250/Are-You-Being-Served-the-IncreasingRole-of-Social-Media-in-Service-of-Proceedings-September-2012-2 36 See http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/technology/news.html 37 See https://support.twitter.com/groups/31-twitter-basics/topics/109-tweetsmessages/articles/14023-what-are-replies-and-mentions# 38 See http://www.twitip.com/concise-guide-to-understanding-replies-mentions-anddirect-messages-on-twitter-part-1-of-2/ 39 See https://support.twitter.com/groups/31-twitter-basics/topics/110search/articles/132700-how-to-search-on-twitter#
11

account and not be inundated with Tweets of no significance. 40 The account holder can also ban Twitter accounts, this will also cut down on the traffic noise. 41 The movant who would be trying to serve notice to a Twitter account, would be blocked if their account was known to the person they were trying to serve. The block can be overcome by creating another Twitter account, thus giving the person who is serving notice an effect means to notify the defendant. supra The superior court based its decision to deny the Petitioners motion to use Twitter on pure speculation when the facts of using Twitter as a method of serving notice to the Respondents, favor the Petitioner. The use of Twitter as a method of service should be settled by this Court.

a.

The Petitioners Immediate and Irreparable harm The October 17th and October 24th superior court order is having a procrustean

effect in that irreparable and immediate harm is being placed on the public in their endeavor to make an informed decision when they vote for the presidential candidates. Accordingly, (RAP) 504 states an emergency motion is appropriate to avoid irreparable harm, relief is needed in less time than normally would be required for the court to receive and consider a response. And it clearly appears from the facts that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage would result. b. The Respondents Due Process Rights are Protected Given the Respondents agents stated that they would notify the appropriate people that a complaint has been filed, the Respondents have been served notice. The Respondents for whatever reason have not responded to the complaint and given the circumstances, the Respondents have had time to look at the motion practice.
40 41

See http://www.scribd.com/doc/111290432/Filtering-Political-Twitter-Accounts See https://support.twitter.com/groups/31-twitter-basics/topics/108-finding-followingpeople/articles/117063-how-to-block-users-on-twitter#

12

c.

The Plaintiff is likely to Succeed on the Merits This case is likely to succeed. This Court has stated that the applicants for high

government positions expose their private lives to public scrutiny. International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1264 v. Municipality of Anchorage and Anchorage Daily News, 973 P.2d 1132, 1136 (Alaska 1999) (IAFF), citing City of Kenai, 642 P.2d at 1324. Moreover, it was stated by the Respondent Barack Obama that when you run for president, your life becomes an open book. 42 The Petitioner, precisely, is trying to obtain the records that are the pages of the Respondents life. VI. Statement of the Precise Relief Sought Because of the time constraints, the Petitioner requests that this Court grant this emergency petition of review and maintain jurisdiction in this case. VII. Statement of the Date Which a Decision is Needed The Petitioner respectfully requests a decision to be determined by this Court. Since the presidential election is November 6th, 2012, time would be needed to allow the Respondents to produce the requested records and let the public digest what is in the records so they can make an informed decision when they vote. VIII. Notice of this Petition was Provided The Petitioner provided notice by telephone to the Respondent Barack Obama campaign staffer that this petition was going to be filed on October 29th, 2012. The Petitioner could not make telephonic contact with respondent Mitt Romneys campaign

42

See http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/president-obama-on-call-forromneys-tax-returns-says-hes-not-being/
13

headquarters after numerous attempts so the Petitioner sent a message via the campaign website. IX. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons stated, the Petitioner respectfully requests that this Emergency Petition for Review be granted and this Court maintain jurisdiction. Respectfully submitted on October 29th, 2012.

________________________________ Thomas A. Lamb pro se

14