In the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska

Thomas A. Lamb, Petitioner, v.

) ) ) ) )

Supreme Court No. S-14936

FO AK T FB D IV
Petition for Review Presidential Candidates Barad( Obama & Mitt Romney, Respondents. ) ) ) Date of Order: 1/4/13 Trial Court Case # 3AN-12-09961CI Before: Fabe, Chief Justice, Carpeneti, Winfree, Stowers, and Maassen, Justices On 11/18/12 this court issued an order to petitioner seeking an explanation as to why the petition for review is not moot. The petitioner has failed to provide an explanation.
IT IS ORDERED: The petition for review is DENIED AS MOOT. This petition is

Order

DismiSSED.

Entered at the direction of the court.

Clerk of the Appellate Courts

cc:

Supreme Court Justices Judge Pfiffner Trial Court Clerk / Anchorage

Distribution:
Thomas Lamb 2806 Howe Place 111 Anchorage AK 99517 Barack Obama P.O. Box 803638 Chicago H. 60680 Mitt Romney P.O. Box 149756 Boston MA 02114-9755

1
2 3 4

Thomas A. Lamb 2806 Howe Place #1 Anchorage, Alaska 99517 E-mail: tlamb775@aol.com Telephone: 907-306-5855

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA

5

THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE

6 7

FO AK T FB D IV
8 ) THOMAS A. LAMB a Resident of the State \ ) of Alaska, acting as pro se, Plaintiff;
9 10

vs.

Case No. 3AN-12- 09661 CI

11

12 13 14

) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK ) ) OBAMA, ) ) Defendants )

15

NOTICE TO THE COURT

16 17 18

Plaintiff Thomas A. Lamb files this notice to the court in preparation of a ruling from the

Alaska Supreme Court on the Plaintiff's pending motion to stay the Petition for Review of this

19

court's October 22nd, 2012 order.

20 21 22

As of December 28th, 2012 Director Fuddy and the Attorney General of Hawaii have not

responded to an inquiry to verify an amended birth certificate of Defendant Barack Obama

(herein Barack Obama) . And Barack Obama has not responded to the complaint and summons that have been sent to The White House.

23 24

The Plaintiff files this notice to start to impeach the credibility of allegations that Barack

25

()barna was not adopted, an Indonesian citizen at any time or practiced the Muslim faith at any

26 27 28

time.

Amended Lawsuit ()barna- 1

1 2 3 4 5 6

The fruit on the tree of Barack Obama's eligibility has been plucked over 160 times and the defendants have cited dismissed cases (160 bites of the apple) to bolster their arguments to dismiss. The Plaintiff has stated this was not about challenging the eligibility of Barack Obarna and having Barack Obama moved from the ballot. The Plaintiff believes in the power of being fully informed when casting a vote and through the vote you remove an incumbent.

FO AK T FB D IV
7

In a federal court case adjudicated in the United States District Court for the District of

Columbia, the Department of State through counsel with the Department of Justice, denied the allegation that Barack Obama was adopted, an Indonesian citizen or practiced the Muslim faith,

10

The denial made in brief was not supported by any factual evidence and the Muslim issue

11

was irrelevant to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president, but nonetheless, the Department of State arguably made a misrepresentation of a material fact to the court.

12

13 14

The evidence to support the fact that Barack Obama as a young adult practiced the

Muslim faith is overwhelming and it is directly tied with his going to school in Indonesia.

15

Respected author and Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has laid out the facts in the public

16 17 18

arena that indeed, Barack Obama did practice the Muslim faith 2 as a young boy and reaffirmed the practice as an adult.
3

Moreover, the denial made by the Department of State that Barack Obama was not an

19 20

Indonesian citizen as listed on a school record of Barack Obama, implicates the deceased mother

of Barack Obama as a mother who lied about the citizenship of her son.

21 22 23 24 25

As for the issue if Barack Obama was adopted, accordingly, to be listed as an Indonesian

citizen and go to the Indonesian public school, Barack barna would have had to have been adopted.

26 27 28

I See paragraph 37 & 38 at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118087892/strunk-department-of-state (last visited December 28'1'2012) See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/10/barry-was-muslim/ (last visited December 28" 2012) ' See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/11/obama-my-muslim-faith/ (last visited December 28 th 2012)
Amended Lawsuit ()barna- 2

1
2 3 4 5 6

In another case in Kentucky, Barack Obama through private counsel, denied ever being an Indonesian citizen. 4 And again the implication of Barack Obama's denial of having an Indonesian citizenship is; his mother lied about the citizenship of his son on a school record of Barack Obama. If school records of Barack Obama indicate that he was enrolled as a foreign citizen, then there are serious legal problems for Barack Mama.

FO AK T FB D IV
7

If there is an amended birth certificate showing an adoption, then there are serious legal

implications against the Department of State since they proffered the material fact that Barack Obama was not adopted.

10 11

This instant case has been amended and as stated in Paragraph 6, the Full Faith and

Credit Clause in the federal constitution is controlling any order issued by this court, it has the respect of another state. And in Paragraph 7, Article 1 to the federal constitution is controlling the Plaintiffs right to redress the issues and facts ascertained through this court.
5

12 13

14

This means the Plaintiff can petition the State of Alaska legislature to enact laws that

15

safeguard the voting process and initiate a congressional inquiry.

16 17

The standing issues on releasing documents of federal candidates have been set in cases

that involved Alaska U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller, Jack Ryan and presidential candidate Mitt

18

Romney.

19

In the case with U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller, it was a rumor published by a blogger

20 21

that initiated the start of a legal process where the Alaska Dispatch had standing.

22

Respectfully submitted, dated this 2911 day of Decem

2012

23 24

25

as A Lamb

26 27

28

' See paragraph 26 http ://www. scribd. com/doc/105295107/KY-House-v-0 barn a-Answer-toComplaint (last visited December 28th 2012) See http://www. scribd.com/doc/41131059/CRS-Congressional-Internal-Memo-What-to-TellYour-Constituents-Regarding-Obama-Eligibility-Questions (last visited December 28th 2012
Amended Lawsuit (Mama- 3

3 4

Cc: Chief Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court Rep. Don Young Fax 907-27 1-5950 Governor Sean Parnell Fax 269-7461

FO AK T FB D IV
7

Rep. Lindsey Holmes - Representative_Lindsey_Holmeslegis.state.ak.us

10 11

19

13 14

15

16 17 18

19

20

21 29

23

24

25

26 27 28

Amended Law8uit ()barna- 4

Note to File No. S-14936 11/7/12: I called Mr. Lamb today (306-5855). I asked whether yesterday's election had mooted his petition for review. He said it did as to the Mitt Romney claims, but not the Barack Obama ones. However, he plans to file an amended complaint and get a new summons in the superior court, and he's going to serve them on President Obama's house in Chicago. He's also hying to contact an attorney who has represented the president to see if he will accept service. He will work on those documents, and wait to see if there is a response by 11/12 (if the service of the present PR was successful). If no response by then, he'll file a motion to withdraw the PR, or maybe to stay it and ask that if he files another one, he could have his filing fee waived. I'll send a notice indicating that we'll dismiss the PR if we don't hear anything from either party by 11/30/12. He thought that sounded fine.

FO AK T FB D IV
Marilyn May

FILED STATE OF iALAS" COURTS

IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA

20I2 NOV -5 AM II : 37

THOMAS A. LAMB Petitioner, vs. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES BARACK OBAIVIA and MITT ROMNEY, Respondents

CLERK

APPELLATE COUI.-

DEPUTY

Case No.: 3AN-12- 09961 CI Supreme Court No.:S-14936

FO AK T FB D IV
NOTICE TO THE COURT The Petitioner Thomas A. Lamb files this notice to the court to inform this Court that the Petitioner is waiting on a response from the Respondents before filing an amended complaint. Since the election will take place November 6th, 2012, it is the intent of the Petitioner to file an amended complaint under Article 1 of the federal constitution. It is the intent of the Petitioner to seek a congressional inquiry based on the disclosure of the Respondent's records through a court order. Dated this 5 st day of November, 2012 cc: judge Pfiffner Trial Court Clerk/Anchorage

FILED

STATE OF ALASKA
APPELLATE COURTS.

2012 NOV -5

II : 37

1N THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OFAVAWAATE THOMAS A. LAMB Petitioner, vs. Case No.: 3AN-12- 09961 CI Supreme Court No. :S-14936
Y DEPUTY

FO AK T FB D IV
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES BARACK OBAMA and MITT ROMNEY, Respondents MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE TO THE COURT The Petitioner Thomas A. Lamb files this memorandum in support of his Notice to the Court. With the election occurring on November 6th 2012, and Respondents have until 11/12/12 to respond to the Trial Court Interlocutory Order dated 10/31/12, the Petitioner will examine which issues are rendered moot with the passing of the November 6 th election. If Respondent Mitt Romney is elected, the probability that he will run for office in 2016 is high and the same issues brought forth by the Petitioner in the lower court would resurface.' Moreover, it is the intent of the Petitioner to seek a congressional inquiry and as such has a cognizable interest in the outcome of a decision in the lower court even with the passage of the November 6th, 2012 election. 2 In cases where a congressional inquiry is being made by a person other than by the individual whose records are to be disclosed, the person who is making the congressional inquiry 3I must have written consent of the individual whose records are being disclosed.

Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 333 n.2 (1972) (quoting Moore v. Ogilivie, 394 U.S.
.

814, 816 (1969)

Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969): see also Alaska Center for Environment v. U.S. Forest Service, 189 F.3d 851, 854 (9th Cir. 1999)

The Petitioner has already sought the disclosure of records through a demand letter and the Respondents did not respond.
4

The Petitioner now waits for the Respondents to respon Dated this_ st day of November, 2012 5_

this court and the lower court.

FO AK T FB D IV
cc: Judge Pfiffner Trial Court Clerk/Anchorage See http://www.whitehouse.govisitesidefault/files/omb/inforegilymtl 975'.pdf See paragraph 2 at http://www.scribd.com/doc/110730616/Lamb-v-ObamaRomney

Se tc,
ev 0.

(NI; Z.0

nCb C-

rhe
ei4/

cA.C> IeLZOZS)),%'

IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA

FO AK T FB D IV
THOMAS A. LAMB a Resident of the State of Alaska, acting as pro se, Petitioner (Appellants), vs. Case No.: 3AN-12- 09961 Cl Supreme Court No. :S-14936 PRESIDENTIAL CAN BARACK OBAMA and MITT ROMNEY, Respondents (Appellees)
NOTICE TO THE COURT

The Petitioner Thomas A. lamb files this Notice to the Court to inform this Court that the

last set of legal documents sent filed in the Alaska Superior Court have been refused by

Respondent Barack Obama. The Petitioner called the campaign staff to notify them that legal

documents have been sent that were submitted to this Court and they had 10 days to respond to

the petition for review.

The campaign staffer indicated that she would notify t legal team for the campaign.

Dated this_l st day of November, 2012

FLE0 Nn\I 701 IN THE SUPREME COURT F

%r cs,,

_, a

TE OF ILA KA

of the, S. ta;e :.!

04 0 68400441'"

THOMAS A. LAMB a Resident of the State of Alaska, acting as pro se, Petitioner (Appellants), vs. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES Case No.: 3AN-12- 09961 CI Supreme Court No.:S-14936'
-

FO AK T FB D IV
BARACK OBAMA and MITT ROMNEY, Respondents (Appellees) AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE TO THE COURT Thomas A. Lamb, pro se, duly sworn, deposes and states: 1. I am the Petitioner in the above captioned case. 2. On October 30 th , I came home at 10:00 P.M. and found a returned priority mail addressed to Obama for America, P.O. Box 803638 Chicago, II 60680. The reason for the return was it was refused for security reasons. On the front a label is and label attached by the President Obama campaign stating that "For safety reasons. We do not accept unsolicited packages." See Exhibit A 3. This is the first time I have received a refusal of legal documents submitted to the Alaska Superior Court sent to the address of barna for America, P.O. Box 803638 Chicago, 11 60680. Two previous times I have sent legal documents and they have been accepted. 4. Because of the concern over legal documents recently submitted in the Alaska Supreme Court possibly being refused, I called the phone number 312-698-

3670 listed on the attached label and I spoke with a campaign staffer indicating that legal documents submitted in the Alaska Superior court had been returned. The staffer seemed surprised that they were returned. I explained that it was important that the campaign not refuse the next set of legal of documents because they were submitted in the Alaska Supreme Court.

FO AK T FB D IV
5. The phone connection was bad and she asked again what court did I say and I repeated the Alaska Supreme Court. She asked what was it over and I said it is over Alaska Civil Rule 4. 1 also informed the campaign staffer that PresideT Obama had 10 days to respond to the petition of review and also an order was issued -1)3'i the Alaska Supreme Court. 6. The campaign staffer became concerned and stated that she would immediately notify their attorneys. 7. On October 29`h , 2012 02:10 P.M. I sent legal documents that were submitted in the Alaska Superior Court to both Respondents at the UPS store #55. Tracking #7010 1060 0000 5051 9847- #7010 1060 0000 5051 9854. There was concern that Hurricane Sandy would have an effect on the delivery of mail to the east coast but the UPS store indicated that there should be no problem with the zip codes listed. 8. According to the news accounts, the Respondents have changed their scheduling on campaign events but their campaign headquarters would still operate. 9. 1 did send notification to both Respondents official twitter accounts.

FO AK T FB D IV
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this I day of
c42012
6,4.1.01.10.0.1.4444-44.64.11/64.61.1. .1444/41,1111,101.1,11144,64,11.1.10.

OFFICIAL SEAL

, Veronica Adams `NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF ALAS. My Comm. Expires: 9/1/2015

Al.'

Notary Public in and for Alaska. My Commission Expires:

4.011014,14...V./bIreelMeniolirleygrolo1A1P4.201014.1.10/.4

ICC

PLEASE PRESS FIRMLY

lull

Ill

II

?ESS FIRML`
o0o20416 P 1 0 0 Oa . "370 0 4' "-S 4328 n CT Al Al LED PROM

7010 1060 1 00AZ,5051 9724

Na

m DDICIPITir ----------,

6 2012 c ODE 99503-

FO AK T FB D IV
US POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

it;..

6,1141e/ UOLVES

Oct 16 2012 Mailed from ZIP 99503

Priority Mail Flat Rate Envelope

$ 005..150 02 1P - 000464312 3 OCT 17 9012 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 99503

CommercialBasePrice

071500848492

'

TOM LAMB DeC 2806 HOWE PLACE APT 1 Anchorage AK 99517

USPS PRIORITY MAIL

.,-..,.., --,,

0006

SHIP OBAMA FOR AMERICA

OVAMA Q SIDEN

Thank you for supporting Obama for America. For safety reasons, we do not accept unsolicited packages. Please share your ideas at Barackobama.com/ ask or call us at 312-698-3670.

(D .< CD

II Ui 9405 5102 0082 18520 7075 91 If IT 1

Whe,e

%St

491r

Please Recycle

REVERSE log o.onspm..,,MUS,Aypuc.(. RegMEMIcm,M)...

autivoies UNS to LICA aS 1Grwailling dgent. eapoo cow. DY ecouToJales,leallaiogyotsrnewereexpone.rom..0.c.ancernmExpoi......

WQ,,

PLEASE PRESS FIRMLY

11

III

II

7ESS FIRMLI
:

do--77,t7:27-
0

--,-7-!------,

7010 1060 i.o INA, 505, 1_ 9724

02

wows D17111PITY

00530 0004643128 OCT 6 MAILED Frzom ZIP COD1 2012 E 99503

1P

Ft rrucv tr nry vves

FO AK T FB D IV
c.)

.9 POS

US POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

a 6"

CD CD

Oct 16 2012 Mailed from ZIP 99503

Priority Mail Flat Rate Envelope

00515 02 1P 0004643128 OCT 17 2012 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 99503

PlYCJEV tiOWES

CommercialBasePrice

071S00848492

TOM LAMB DeC 2806 HOME PLACE APT 1 Anchorage AK 99517

USPS PRIORITY MAIL

0006

SHIP OBAMA FOR AMERICA

PC

BIDE

CD

0 "< a) cr)

Thank you for supporting Obama for America. For safety reasons, we do not accept unsolicited packages. Please share your ideas at Barackobama.com/a sk or call us at 312-698-3670.

[El Ii

9405 5102 0082 8520 7075 91

II

=========r========= ,

%St Recycle

4rik Please

PLEASE PRESS FIRMLY

11 II

HMO III
ET,JR,, ,

-,skt ii.., ,..-

II

. .:,./.4.,A, - 02 1P ."''---- .,-,-,,tV bow-rvEi.:

4.

7ESS FIRML:

7010 1060 orwq 5051 9724

wo

D17111 PI 7Y

0004643198 OCT 16 201.9 'MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 09503

00

FO AK T FB D IV
US POSTAGE AND FEES PAID'

rVt_f

, PITNEV LatOVJE:,,

crja-KV I,

Oct. 16 2012 flailed from ZIP 99503

Priority Mail Flat Rate Envelope

02 1P 0004643123 OCT 17 2012 MAILED FROM ZIP CC I DE- 99503

500515

CommercialBasePrice

071500848492

ec

TOM LAMB 2806 HOWE PLACE APT 1 Anchorage K 99517

USPS PRIORITY MAIL

0006

(,)
0 0 0 0) CO (D 0 5 C CO , CD O. 0 CD ,< 0. 'a

',.. 07 -

SHIP OBAMA FOR AMERICA

. a =a _i

M 0

K al
a)

2 `()

01-)AMA BIDEN

:4 a

CD

Om Du m gO` -ri p
1.1 .---

u 0El R
3 0
SJ (4
CD

.('
CD

"-1 2
=

a a

a' D.1 0

9(

m -a
0 CD

0- 3 a i 3

Thank you for supporting Obama for America. For safety reasons, we do not accept unsolicited packages. Please share your ideas at Barackobama.com/ ask or call us at 312-698-3670.

co
C) a , a) CD

= ck En'

0.

Do

DD

Z -<

0>> 0_ (10 0 a m CO 0

'"" c,
CD

,-Z

II I I

9405 5102 0082 8520 7075 91

y, p

Dl

Repiallons.

A.M. ON MERSE Qpreung un 1.n,rne ..uon Wt.. m $, . JuKwfJus tR, 4ct as mulm,,...nu oporte../1 certdres camM ,edl.ogy software wale uporW horn
f

PLEASE PRESS FIRMLY

7010

II III 1060 00-14,.5051 9724

II

7ESS FIRML'
02 I P

mew

mAILED

0004643128 OC
FROM 'ZIP

r 16 2017 CODE 99503

FO AK T FB D IV
5 0 1:0 0
0

REIT

-.(e9P01,

4k.

4:1 4-11

m 33

US POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

Pi7fr,thY EtOWE,"",

.<

CD 5: * c

'D in co -! 03 3 0 Om CD M CD 7 - 7 7 7. 7. a) o cn
m " g

Oct 16 2012 Mailed from ZIP 99503

Priority Mail Flat Rate Envelope

02 1P 41'UU 3. 3 0004643123 OCT 17 2012 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 99503

.m.; a o o CL
c A.)
CD

po

Ti

ET ':1T g = 3 0 c,
-4: 0 a
-* 0

CommercialBasePrice

071500848492

>

a co

5 g 0 3 ,L) co 0 .Q 3
< CP ,

0- 0 (I) ,(

CD

TOM LAMB pec 2806 ROLE PLACE APT 1 Anchorage AK 99517

USPS PRIORITY MAIL

tg,

0006

Fo"' o co

ci

(/) (I)

. "P

sn

SHIP OBAMA FOR AMERICA

. OBAMA0( BIDE

Thank you for supporting Obama for America. For safety reasons, we do not accept unsolicited packages. Please share your ideas at Barackobama.com/a or call us at 312-698-3670.
sk

Fp<

11

9405 5102 0082 8520 7075 91

by law, sn,W1

11

Ell

ILO

Please Recycle

t i

SEE NOTICE ON REVERSE leg.. UPS Nuns, ona nos. os Gowan:on o: Tango, Mese aloweo s /NW, or Gu.. nnJoslnd lha TS,. /SPE. censlinG thal Ne Gorn. RegGiolions. Olvwsion co.. to law ss poshibisnd. P E."

num., US, so ea as sorwasong agent ser expo. cantos ono wese.aned loon Use US in accordance wills. OdalinialiallOSI


PLEASE PRESS FIRMLY

II

III

II

7ESS FIRML`

7010 1o60_floq0.5051 9724

1. .r t..: .

yams D17.1101217Y

-5- ' --t--., 1r howes 02 1P ,,, 000,643128 .'300 k1AILED FROM 21 OC1 16 2012. P CODE 99503

IT Z

n
. ,...... ....

'''''
b ,

FO AK T FB D IV

> FD- D 0 3 ,- 0 - ' st 3 9 .) ..< 4,-.

:V!

II 0/ 1:i ,.., ,-S 0 :-3 . 0 0 D3 .-I. j

K.)

0->

US POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

'FAINVi4091/ES

5
-......
r-12: (-7

a mq*E=4F,-

..

"<-

al 0 0 0 a) 7.n 1 m 2' ' 0 m b. "'' ,.. z 3 z., . 3 :4; ,-,- CD 0 2 1 0 '''' (D 0 fir -.,.
co .

Oct 16 2012 Mailed from ZIP 99503

Priority Mail Flat Rate Envelope

-4- 02 1P `: 0004643128 OCT 17 2012 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 99503

$ 005:15

P3

r-
-Z--

0
6-'

co r'
,,)

(1) 0 (7 3 !.-. ,4-

,-.

3 0- 0 .1..,)
z z
Ty

GommercialBasePrice

071S00848492

>

9 2 1) 3 (4? m( (Lio
= 0

E"--

En

W -..

) c,, , F -.-

3 g 0 FP (0
,.., <

(r) '.< Et

a' ' (Dg

a 0

a `01)

5,,

c-7,-

, , TOM LAMB

USPS PRIORITY MAIL

oec

-a-

.C3

2806 HOWE PLACE APT 1 Anchorage AK 99517

0006

O (D

CO Ca

O. 0 M

ce. a. 4. Eli

00D s,,i) m 0 50 o
CD

SHIP OBAMA FOR AMERICA _

013AMA Q BI DEN

C7gi7D O m pp.< 3 ED;

M ,

-a-

0
Fp<

Thank you for supporting Obama for America. For safety reasons, we do not accept unsolicited packages. Please share your ideas at Barackobama.com/ ask or call us at 312-698-3670.

ale

CD

5
CD

II

9405 5102 0082 8520 7075 91

Please tiSt Recycle

0,,,,,rno, n us as loiwaming dont eqa. ms.,1 115,11,.er cerlif ies the connod..,, leclrnogy salwaf e wefe exp....he. in accordance will, ihe on Adromrn Regulations. Diversion ntrary la law i5 probilmed.

PLEASE PRESS FIRMLY

II HMH III

II

3ESS FIRML`

7010 1060 ./ 004.Z 5051 9724

moan DDinRisTir

0 2 1P 0004643 128 ' MAILED FROM

hoive.s

ZIP

OCT 16' 7012 CODE 99503

'300

-C7

FO AK T FB D IV
E, 4

US POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

"6721

1>

Oct 16 2012 Mailed from ZIP 99503

Priority Mail Flat Rate Envelope

fr. 00 e 1 1P 0004643128 OCT 17 2012 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 99503

02

J. 3

CommercialBasePrice

071800848492

TC)11 LAMB ,Dec 2806 HOWE PLACE APT 1 Anchorage AK 99517

USPS PRIORITY MAIL

,

0006

SHIP OBAMA FOR AMERICA

V't

OSAVIA

et

ID E. 1,3

0 Fp<
CD

Thank you for supporting Obama for America. For safety reasons, we do not accept unsolicited packages. Please share your ideas at Barackobama.com/ ask or call us at 312-698-3670.

9405 5102 0082 8520 7075 91

IF

1111 II

too

Please Recycle

SEE NONCE ON REVERSE regarding UPS terms, sea notice et tr lisavon at hammy. wnese anew. oy taw, snippet eusneseei UPS to act as lotwarasig age. r r expo canvas rnu or software were expelled /ram the US Ilaccossiance with ineEsportkanisistrytion P a a e VS. t aPe eer .. r S Regulations. Miamian contrary le law* paNalted. s sr

car., as asas. er s.. Vsleols

y N t y ilylas.r.. sRPPNr. tr....

Note to File No. S-14936 Tom Lamb called on 11/2/12 to let us know he had provided an incorrect 4ddress for Mitt Romney. The correct address is YOB 149756, Boston, MA, 02114-9755. mailed copies of the 10/30/12 order and 10/31/12 notice to that address and changed the address in CMS. Beth Adams

FO AK T FB D IV

EMERGENCY

HLED SIATE OF ALASKA 1-\PP 1 ATE COURT(,

IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THOMAS A. LAMB a Resident of the State of Alaska, acting as
pro se, a/0A. fa)0 13111 \ocv\

2012 OCT 29 PM 1

: 146

CLERK. (kfTELLATE COURT

DEPUTY

Petitioner (Appellants), vs.

FO AK T FB D IV
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES Supreme Court No. :S- t 9

Superior Court No.: 3AN-12- 09961 CI

9 3t-:

BARACK OBAMA and MITT ROMNEY, Respondents (Appellees)

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR REVIEW

Thomas A. Lamb 2806 Howe Place #1 Anchorage, Alaska 99517 Phone: (907) 276-4244

Filed in the Supreme Court for the State of Alaska on this day October, 2012 Clerk of the Appellate Courts By: --Deputy Clerk

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction

I.

Statement of Facts Statement of the Question L 6 6

HI. W. V.

Statement of the Trial Date Discussion of why this Court Should Grant Review

FO AK T FB D IV
.6 The Superior Court's Decision was Erroneous Because the Intent of Alaska Civil 4 Rule was Satisfied by the Plaintiff .7 a. The Plaintiff's Immediate and Irreparable harm 12 b. The Defendants' Due Process Rights are Protected 12 c. The Plaintiff is likely to Succeed on the Merits ... 13 13 13 VI. Statement of the Precise Relief Sought VII. Statement of the date by Which a Decision is Needed VIII. Notice of this Emergency Petition for Review was Provided IX. Conclusion 13 14

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 24 th , 2012 1 order denying the Petitioner's motion for reconsideration and to use Twitter as a method of service. Both orders are within the date set by ARP 403 (a) (1) (a) for appellate review and the October 24 th , 2012 order is based on a response to the
th superior court denying the Petitioner's motion for reconsideration on October 17 , 2012.

FO AK T FB D IV
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 Romney's campaign staffer stated that the documents sent as the Petitioner had sent
them, was sufficient. And that Respondent Barack Obama's staff would notifj) the appropriate people that the complaint and summons was sent on October 4 th, 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 6 th, 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 111 and as such, on September 9 , 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 25 th , 2012 in the Alaska

superior court seeking the Respondents' tax records, personnel records from Bain Capital

I See Exhibit A and Exhibit B 2 See pg. 9 at http ://www. scribd.corn/doc/ I I 0809456/Motion-for-Twitter-Memorandum-inSupport-Affidavit-in-Support

and ACORN, medical records and educational records. 3 The Petitioner also sent on the same day, an electronic message to the Respondent's 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

FO AK T FB D IV
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 26 th, 2012 to the Respondent Barack Obama's campaign headquarters address as listed on their campaign website and through an
7

intemet search, an address listed to contact Respondent Mitt Romney.

After 14 days had passed, on October 9 th, 2012, the Petitioner received the

certified receipt indicating the Respondent Barack Obama's campaign staff signed for and picked up the complaint and summons on October 4 th, 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 Romney's 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 Romney's campaign headquarters to notify the Respondent.8

com/do c/110730616/L amb-v-Ob amaRomney 3 See http ://www 4 See http s ://support.twitter. c in/group s/31-twitter-basics/topics! 109-tweetsme s sage s/article s/49309-what-are-ha shtag s- symb ols# 5 See http ://www. seri bd. c oin/doc/110663739/Exh ibit-a-Motion-to-U se-Twitter 6 See http://www.huffingtonpost. com/2012/09/25/obama-nfl-lockout_n_1913507.html " See paragraph 6 of http://www.scribd.com/doc/110757099/Affidavit-in-Support-ofMo tion-to-U se-Twitter-as -Method-of-S e rvice 8 Id.at paragraph 7-9 Affidavit in Support of Motion to use Twitter as Method of Service
2

On October 1 l th, 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 Respondent's Twitter accounts alerting them that a motion to immediately release their records had been filed. 1

FO AK T FB D IV
According to the State of Alaska CourtView, on October 15 th, 2012, the superior court denied the Petitioner's motion by stating "before the plaintiff's 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 ll th, 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 11th, 2012. 12 The Petitioner's memorandum supporting the motion for reconsideration stated that the affidavit supporting the motion for expedited consideration fulfilled Alaska Civil Rule 4 (e) and 5 (0. The Petitioner called the clerk's office at 264-0441 on the morning 9 See http://www.scribd.com/doc/109803555/Memorandum-PDF 10 See paragraph 12 of http://www.scribd.com/doc/110757099/Affidavit-in-Support-ofMotion-to-Use-Twitter-as-Method-of-Service 11 See littp://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/eservices/?x----4gn2nNtE5tK1SOyysNwYoCDKfbryZ0t8e SUN WIN si2 Y VnQ39plhhFAU RudyZ6z2XtkH6J osXa*WhozoDGA 2 See paragraph 15 of http://www.scribd.com/doc/110757099/Affidavit-in-Support-ofMotion-to-Use-Twitter-as-Method-of-Service
3

of October 16th, 2012 and asked if the motion for reconsideration had any deficiencies and the clerk stated they didn't 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. Plaintiff's service by mail was directed to "Ronmey for President" and "Obama for America". These mailings are not proper service by mail under Alaska law. The motion for reconsideration is denied."
14

FO AK T FB D IV
On October 18 th, 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 Romney's staffer that security picks up their certified mail.'5 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
4

1h, 2012 and asked who he could send restricted mail to on behalf of the Respondent

Barack Obama and the staffer stated they didn't 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://vvww.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/certificateobamajpg
4

In response to the superior court denying the Petitioner's motion for reconsideration on October 17 111 , 2012, the Petitioner filed a motion to use Twitter as a method of service on October 22 nd, 2012. In the motion, the Petitioner included the Octoberl8th, 2012 notice to the court. supra The superior court was aware the staffer with Respondent Mitt Romney's campaign stated the method of service the Petitioner was using via the United States

FO AK T FB D IV
Postal Service was sufficient and the staffer with Respondent Barack Obama's campaign was made aware of the October 4th, 2012 return receipt and said they would notify the appropriate people and would send them the Petitioner's 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 11 th, 2012. The date stamp of when the 16 111 , 2012. supra Respondent Barack Obama's campaign staffer picked up the documents was October On October 26th , 2012, to fulfill ARAP 504 (f) the Respondent called the Respondent Barack Obama's headquarters at 312-698-3670 to notify that the Petitioner was filing a petition of review on Monday, October 29 th, 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 Respondent's headquarters at 85 7-288-

3500 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 See http://i852.photobucket.com/albtuns/ab86/210thars/certificateromney.jpg " See Petitioner's 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

IL

Statement of the Question

Did the superior court err and abuse its discretion when is stated that the Respondents have not been properly served.

FO AK T FB D IV
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 hasn't paid any income taxes. 21 Even David Letterman has made the

accusation. 22 There have been accusations questioning why Respondent Barack barna

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

id. at paragraph 21 See http://vvww.examiner.com/article/hany-reid-bain-investor-said-romney-paid-notaxes-for-10-years-no-proof-given 22 See http://www.examiner.com/article/david-lettemian-accuses-romney-of-not-payingincome-taxes-calls-him-a-felon 23 See http://www.youtube.com/watch?vMC8FXrUilxE 24 See http://times247.com/articles/israeli-science-group-obama-birth-certificate-fake 25 See littp://fox2now.com/2012/10/24/donald-trump-offers-5-million-to-reveal-obamas private-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 coml. And if the superior court's decision is not reviewed, then the public is left in the dark on what the facts are

FO AK T FB D IV
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 Court's 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/ronmeys-testimonyin-1991-trial-gives-new-glimpse-of-work-at-bain 27 See page 4 http://www.scribd.com/doc/109803555/Memorandurn-PDF 28 See Anderson v. Dep't of Highways, 584 P.2d 537,541 (Alaska 1978) 29 Alaska Civil Rule 4(c)
7

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

FO AK T FB D IV
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 Respondent's agents did not respond. supra The question is why? In this case it was known by the superior court that according to Respondent Mitt Romney's campaign staffer, the Petitioner's method of service while not addressed to an individual and restricted service, the certified mail would be sent to the appropriate /cntyers. supra The superior court in its order dated October 24 th , 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 Romney's campaign indicated that the legal documents sent
9

certified mail to addressed to "Romney for President" at the listed address on the Respondent's 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 Obama's campaign was made aware that a summons and complaint was received by the campaign headquarters on October 4 th, 2012 and would notify the appropriate people to contact the Petitioner.

FO AK T FB D IV
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 countTy 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

See http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCAfam/2010/509.html See http://www.hgmlegal.com/Arti cl es/Intern et/43/41/Service-vi a-FacebookPickyour-%E2%80%9Cfriends/0E2%80%9D-wi sely.aspx

32 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

FO AK T FB D IV
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.lexi snexi s. com/community/lexi shub/blogs/legaltechnolog,yandsocialmedia/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 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/conci se-guide-to-understanding-replies-mentions-anddirect-me ssages-on-twitter-part-l-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

FO AK T FB D IV
The superior court based its decision to deny the Petitioner's 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 Petitioner's Immediate and Irreparable harm The October 17 th 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." The Respondent's Due Process Rights are Protected b. Given the Respondent's 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/3 1 -twitter-basics/topics/108-finding-followingpeopl e/articl es/117063-h ow-to-bl ock-users-on-twi tter#
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) ("TAFF"), citing City of Kenai, 642 P.2d at 1324.

FO AK T FB D IV
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 6 th , 2012, time would be needed to allow the

Respondent's 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 Romney's campaign

" See http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20l 2/08/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 web site.
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 29m, 2012.

FO AK T FB D IV
14

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE THOMAS A. LAMB, a Resident of the ) State of Alaska, acting as pro se, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ) BARACK OBAMA and ) MITT ROMNEY, ) ) Defendants. ) )

FO AK T FB D IV
Case No. 3AN-12-9961 CI
ORDER

On October 16, 2012, plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the court's

October 12, 2012, order denying expedited consideration of his motion for

immediate disclosure of records. In its October 12, 2012, order the court required

proof of service of the summons and complaint and the underlying motion and request for expedited consideration on the defendants Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

Plaintiffs basis for reconsideration is that he did serve the defendants. In

fact, plaintiff has not perfected proper service on defendants. Civil Rule 4(d)(1) requires personal service of the summons and complaint on defendants. Civil

Rule 4(h) provides for alternate service by mail if the mailing of the summons and

Order Lamb v. Obama and Romney 3AN-12-9961 CI Page 1 of 2

Ekt-k ibk 1

complaint is done by registered or certified mail with restricted delivery to the defendant who must sign off on the return receipt. Plaintiff has not followed Civil Rule 4(d) or Civil Rule 4(h). There has been no personal service. Plaintiff's 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. Dated this

FO AK T FB D IV
/-7-4 day of October, 2012, at Anchorage, Alaska. FRANK A. PFIFFN Superior Court Judg I certify that on n0-y:::_\ 2, a copy of the above was mailed to the following at his address of record: T. Lamb B. Cavanaugh, Judicial As Order Lamb v. Obama and Romney 3AN-12-9961 CI Page 2 of 2

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE THOMAS A LAMB, Plaintiff,
VS.

FO AK T FB D IV
BARACK OBAMA and MITT ROMNEY, Defendants.

) ) Case No. 3AN-12-9961 CI

ORDER

Before the court is plaintiff Thomas Lamb's Motion to Use Twitter as a

Method of Process and Motion for Expedited Review of the Motion to Use Twitter

as a Method of Process. For the reasons discussed below, the court grants

expedited consideration and denies the Motion to Use Twitter as a Method of

Process.

Plaintiff filed a complaint on September 25, 2012, seeking access to

educational, medical, personnel, and tax records of President Barack Obama and presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The purpose of access to these files is for the public to have more information in selecting a candidate in the upcoming

November 6, 2012, presidential election. Expedited consideration is appropriate

when there are exigent circumstances that necessarily require the parties to

Order Lamb v. Obama and Romney 3AN- CI Page 1 of 6

X1-160--

respond and/or a decision from the court in a shorter time period than would normally be appropriate. Based on the time sensitive nature of the plaintiff's claims, and less than two weeks until election day, the court finds that, expedited consideration is appropriate. Mr. Lamb first attempted to effect service of the Complaint by sending a

FO AK T FB D IV
copy of the complaint via first class mail to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney's respective campaign headquarters. In an October 17, 2012, order this court explained that plaintiff's attempt at service was not effective because Rule 4(d)(1) of the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure requires personal service of the summons and complaint on the defendants. Under Rule 4(h), a plaintiff may alternatively serve the complaint by mail if 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 return receipt. That was not done in this case. The plaintiff now requests that this court recognize a post to each of the candidate's accounts on the social media website Twitter as effective service of process. In support of this request, plaintiff argues that other jurisdictions and other nations have allowed service via social media websites, such as Facebook and Twitter. In particular, plaintiff relies on and unsigned order uploaded to a document sharing website in the case of Mpafe v. .Mpafe, a family law case out of Order Lamb v. Obama and Romney 3AN- CI Page 2 of 6

Minnesota.' In Mpafe, in the order the court made a finding of fact in a family law case that the petitioner had been unable to physically locate the respondent, and under Minnesota's Rules of Civil Procedure, which permit service by publication, use of the social networking websites frequented by the respondent were an acceptable method of service. 2 The court does not find the unsigned Mpafe order persuasive. This court is not bound by decisions from Minnesota courts, and notes

FO AK T FB D IV
that locating an individual who has made efforts to ensconce himself from the courts is distinguished from locating two individuals who are public figures, who are not personally attending to their social media personas, and whose schedules and whereabouts are public and well-known. In Alaska service by publication is limited to unknown parties and individuals who cannot be served under Rule 4(d) after diligent inquiry. 3 Diligent inquiry includes a reasonable effort to search for the whereabouts of the absent party. 4 When service by publication is allowed, it is generally limited to
Mpafe v. Mpafe, No. 27-FA-11 (Minn. Dist. Ct. May 10, 2011) (unsigned) (available at http://www.scribd.conildoc/70014426/Mpafe-v-Mpafe-order)

2 Id
3

Alaska R. Civ. P. 4(e).

4 Alaska R. Civ. P. 4(e)( I).

Order Lamb v. Obama and Romney 3AN- CI Page 3 of 6

publication in a newspaper once per week for four consecutive calendar weeks.5 The court may, in its discretion, "allow service of process to be made upon an absent party in any other manner which is reasonably calculated to give the party actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard."6 The Alaska Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on whether service of

FO AK T FB D IV
process via the Internet is an appropriate method for effecting service, and this court declines to reach that issue here. The plaintiff argues that publication in a newspaper is antiquated, and that he served defendants by posting a link on their certified Twitter accounts that the candidates use to send messages to their millions of followers. Plaintiff argues that this is no different than sending a fax or e-mail. In this particular case, the court disagrees. "[T]he core function of service is to supply notice of the pendency of a legal action, in a manner and at a time that affords the defendant a fair opportunity to answer the complaint and present defenses and objections."7 The twitter handle @BarackObama has posted 7,315 tweets as of this order, is following 671,330 5 Alaska R. Civ. P. 4(e) (2). 6 Alaska R. Civ. P. 4(e)(3).
7

Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 671 (1996); see also Anderson v. Dep't of Highways, 584 P.2d 537, 541 (Alaska 1978) ("[T]he purpose of serving a summons is to provide the defendant with notice of the proceeding against him.").

Order Lamb v. Obama and Romney 3AN- CI Page 4 of 6

other Twitter users, and has 21,301,965 followers.' Tweets directly from the President are signed "-bo," while the account is generally managed by his campaign staff.9 Followers are tweeting links and statements that reference "@BarackObama" at a rate of several per second: 13 The twitter handle @MittRomney has posted 1,298 tweets as of this order, is following 274 other Twitter users, and has 1,573,577 followers." Followers are tweeting links and

FO AK T FB D IV
statements that reference "@MittRomney" every couple of seconds: 2 It is clear that neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are actually posting the majority of messages to their Twitter accounts, and it is even clearer that they are not reading the hundreds to thousands of tweets directed at them every day. Service of process in this case, to both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, via Twitter is inappropriate because it would not supply notice to either defendant of the pendency of this action. Accordingly, the motion is denied. 8 Barack Obama, https://twitter.com/BarackObama president are signed bo."). 10 Id. (last visited Oct. 24, 2012). 9 Id. ("This account is run by #0bama2012 campaign staff. Tweets from the ' I Mitt Romney, https://twitter.com/MittRomney (last visited Oct. 24, 2012).
'21d.

Order Lamb v. Obama and Romney 3AN- CI Page 5 of 6

Thomas A. Lamb 2806 Howe Place #1 Anchorage, Alaska 99517 E-mail: tlamb775@aol.com Telephone: 907-306-5855

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE ) Thomas A. Lamb a Resident of the State of ) ) Alaska, acting as pro se, ) Plaintiff,
)

FO AK T FB D IV
VS.

) ) Case No.: 3AN-12- 09961 CI

) )

Presidential Candidates Barack Obama and

Mitt Romney,

Defendants

\ ) ) ) )

NOTICE TO THE COURT

Plaintiff Thomas A. Lamb, pro se, files this Notice to the Court in response to the Court

denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration for Expedited Consideration on October] 6th, 2010.

(http://www.courtrecords.alaska.govieservices/?x=BqScsEYoi6MjHLOiNJ9KcijkvM22EuVtyZ1

XvVRPR4PH1WQuXQmWuRWDBU*C96rtldwGfWxg0XNwUjsUbYG*Cg)

Trying to serve the Defendant Barack Obama a summons and have him personally sign

the receipt is impossible.

The same applies to Defendant Mitt Romney both have a busy schedule and are in

numerous places.

Accordingly the proper method of sending pleadings would be sent to an authorized

person to receive the restricted mail.

Lawsuit RomneyObama- 1

1 2 3

5.

On October 18111, 2012 I called the Obama for America campaign

headquarters at 7:33 A.M. and spoke with a staffer named Janet. She would not give out her last name. 6. I told her that legal documents had been signed for on October 4 th , 2012

and asked who would sign for the certified mail. She said many do. I then asked who would sign
6

FO AK T FB D IV
for restricted certified mail and she had no answer. She took my name, email and phone number and stated she would have someone contact me.
9 10 11 12

Thomas A. Lamb

13 14

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this

day of

15

2012.

16 17

CO

61\i

18

Notary Public in and for Alaska. My Commission Expires:

19

20 21

22 23

24

25

26

27

28

Lawsuit RomneyObama- 4

rillit FIJI III

r Pcti

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA

DOCKETING STATEMENT B

L1J5) OF ALASKA APPE) LATE COURT

f ti

c()16 s4

2012 OCT 29 F11

FOR USE WITH PETITIONS FOR HEARING, PETITIONS FOR REVIEW, AND ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS
INSTRUCTIONS FOR MULTIPLE PARTIES OR ATTORNEYS: If there are multiple parties or attorneys, repeat the appropriate box. This may be done on a separate page Please clearly indicate which attorney represents which party.

LIE

CLERK, A PPELLATE COURT BY:

No.

Fr

FO AK T FB D IV
a.

1. TYPE OF PETITION
Petition for Hearing n from Superior Court Type of Petition

Superior Court Case Number

Date of Distribution of Decision or Order to be Reviewed

su

. penor C ourt c Judge

Subsequent Proceedings

Petition for Rehearing: not filed 111 filed. Date filed: Date of distribution of order denying petition:

b. M Petition for Review

3AN-12-09961CI

October 17th, 2012 Frank Pfiffner

Motion for Reconsideration: I 0(2-21r 2_ LI not filed x filed. Date filed: Octo er16th,2012 X denied by order distributed: 1 0/17/1 2 w 2 LI deemed denied under Civil Rule 77(kX4).

/ (-11 1 L

c.

n Original Application

from trial court case No. Other. Explain:

. Judge

2. PETITIONER
a. Name

b. Status in the Trial Court

Thomas A. Lamb c. Petitioner Mailing Address (not attorney's address) 2806 Howe Place #1
City Slate

x Plaintiff

Defendant

LI Other Specify:

Zip Code

d. Telephone

Anchorage

AK

99517

907-306-5855

3. PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY
a. Name Pro Se c. Attorney Mailing Address City

Court Apptd

b. Bar Number

d Telephone

e. Fax

State

Zip Code

1 Firm/Agency

c,t(

4. RESPONDENT
a. Name

Barack Obama

b. Status in the Trial Court Plaintiff LI Other Specify:

X Defendant

c. Respondent Mailing Address P.O. Box 803638 City state Chicago II

Zip Code 60680

d. Telephone 312-698-3670

U. !

COA-B (rev. 8/10)

\ (\ie.

(V) -

5. RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY
a. Name unkown
c. Attorney Mailing Address City State Zip Code

El Court Apptd

b. Bar Number d. Telephone I Firm/Agency e. Fax

6. ATTACHMENTS
The following items are submitted with this form: a. The original petition and FIVE copies. El A copy of the judgment or order from which relief is sought attached to the original petition and ALL copies

FO AK T FB D IV
C.

A $150 filing fee or El a motion to appeal at public expense (financial statement affidavit form must be included).

El a motion to waive filing fee (financial statement affidavit form must be included).

no filing fee is required because appellant is El represented by court-appointed counsel.

LI

the state or an agency thereof.

d. e.

E< submitted A motion for expedited action A motion for stay of trial court proceedings

II not submitted.

submitted

I I not submitted.

October 29th, 2012

Date

ignatur

etitioner or Pen

s Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

certify that on ?2- a copy of this docketing statement and all attachments (except fili ig fee) were mailed delivered to All parties in the trial court (listed) 3 PA.71-1

1.6
El LI LI

El

Signature:

COA-B-2 (rev. 8/10)

Irrini r01111 * , I

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA

DOCKETING STATEMENT B FOR USE WITH PETITIONS FOR HEARING, PETITIONS FOR REVIEW, AND ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS
INSTRUCTIONS FOR MULTIPLE PARTIES OR ATTORNEYS: If there

F
qpifip-PE Tiff nAtteA S 1,C A ,1,0r171.1...ATE COURTS

2012 OCT 29 PM I: t7 7
CLERK. APPELLATE COURT BY: No.

are multiple parties or attorneys, repeat the appropriate box. This may be done on a separate page. Please clearly indicate which attorney represents which party.

S \4\9

DEPUTY C ERK

FO AK T FB D IV
Type of Petition Superior Court Case Number
Date of Distribution

1. TYPE OF PETITION

of Decision or Order to be Reviewed

. S u per or Court i Judge

a. Petition for Hearing

from Superior Court

Subsequent Proceedings Petition for Rehearing: III not filed 0 filed. Date filed: Date of distribution of order denying petition:

b. [XI Petition for Review

3AN-12-09961O1

October 17th, 2012 Frank Pfiffner

Motion for Reconsideration: 0 C.TE-roDeL z_.1 Wrz. [I not filed

x filed. Date filed: October16th,2012 X denied by order distributed: 10/17/12 deemed denied under Civil Rule 77(k)(4).

c.

1 Original Application

from trial court case No. Other. Explain:

. Judge

2.

PETITIONER

a. Name

b. Status in the Trial Court

X

Thomas A. Lamb

Plaintiff

r] Defendant

c. Petitioner Mailing Address (not attorney's address)

E] Other Specify:

2806 Howe Place #1 Anchorage

City

State

Zip Code

d. Telephone

AK

99517

907-306-5855

3. PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY
a. Name

Pro Se

Court Apptd

b. Bar Number d. Telephone

c. Attorney Mailing Address City

e. Fax

State

Zip Code

f. Firm/Agency

4. RESPONDENT
a. Name

b. Status

Mitt Romney c. Respondent Mailing Address

P.O.

in the Trial Court D Plaintiff E] Other Specify:

Defendant

Box 55239

City

State

Zip Code II

d. Telephone

Boston

MA

02285:5239

857-288-3500

COA-B (rev. 8/10)