The Appellate Division of the High Court presided over by Associate Justice John L Ward, Chief Justice Michael Kruse and Associate Judges Mamea Sala Jr and Fa’amausili Pomele has denied a motion filed by Lucia Bartley’s attorney to supplement the record in accordance with local statute (full details of that motion in yesterday’s edition, Court Briefs).

The Appellate Court did however take under advisement the dismissal motion (full details of motion in September 19 edition) filed by the Election office regarding the petition filed by Tualauta Candidate Lucia Bartley.

During the hearing, Election Office Attorney Gwen Tauili’ili Langkilde said “the Election office is being held hostage” by the petition.

She said the petition filed by Tualauta Candidate Lucia Bartley against the Chief Election Officer has stalled the work of the election office. Langkilde pointed out that because of this petition the election office has not printed or sent out absentee ballots for voters off island who are from the Taulauata District.

Tauili’ili Langkilde called Bartley’s petition an “absurd obsession”.

She repeatedly asked as to why Bartley waited until the last minute, why did she not pursue this with the government agencies that deal with documentation of birth certificates?

Instead, she noted that Bartley waited till it was close to election time, and then she filed a complaint.

She also pointed out that Bartley had two years to do this, but instead, she waited till now, and this is causing suffering to the Tualauta voters.

Marcellus Talaimalo Uiagalelei joined the Election Office’s motion to dismiss, pointing out that his client is a US National, who has obtained her US passport by submitting her birth certificate as one of the documents to obtain a US passport.

He said that Bartley waited for two years to file this petition, and claimed that this is “wholly inappropriate.”

Bartley’s attorney Richard DeSaulles said the issue is not with Florence Saulo, rather it is with the Chief Election Officer (CEO) as it appears that he did not conduct an investigation as requested by Bartley.

He said the CEO is the gatekeeper, and if someone presents evidence or offers resources to launch an investigation on the validity of a birth certificate, the CEO should have reacted.

DeSaulles said the day the petition was filed was the same day the CEO filed his decision — and it was clear that he did not conduct any investigation. He could have called Saulo and asked her to present her birth certificate and make it all go away, but no, he just looked at the file and made his decision there, denying the petition.

After the hearing, Ward said the Appellate court will issue a written ruling in this matter.