UPDATE 10.03.09: THE NEW SC COMPLAINT IS POSTED AND IT’S DYNAMITE. I KNOW I SAID THAT ALL COMPLAINTS OF ELECTION FRAUD NAMING NP WOULD BE POSTED ON, “THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE,” BUT I HAD TO GIVE THIS SC COMPLAINT ITS OWN POST. READ IT; YOU WILL SEE WHY. “UP TO HERE IN ELECTION FRAUD IN SC, FROM THE CHAIR OF THE 2008 DNC CONVENTION TO THE CHAIR OF THE DNC.”
UPDATE 10.02.09: HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS. BASED ON NEW INFORMATION, I NEED TO REVISE THE SC COMPLAINT. IN FACT, I NEED TO GIVE IT ITS OWN POST. LOOK FOR IT.
UPDATE 09.24.09: THE GEORGIA MODEL COMPLAINT FOR ELECTION FRAUD IS NOW POSTED, ON THE NEXT SITE, “THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE.” JUST LIKE THE VIRGINIA COMPLAINT, GEORGIA, TOO, IS DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE NANCY PELOSI, ACTING IN A NON-GOVERNMENTAL ROLE AS CHAIR OF THE 2008 DNC CONVENTION. BECAUSE IN BOTH OF THOSE STATES, MS. PELOSI FORWARDED THE CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION TO THE STATE ELECTIONS OFFICIALS AND, THEREFORE, IS NAMED AS THE PERPETRATOR OF THE FRAUD. ALL COMPLAINTS NAMING HER WILL APPEAR ON THE OTHER SITE.
UPDATE 09.22.09: CALLING ALL TEXANS WHO SENT COMPLAINTS OF ELECTION FRAUD TO TEXAS AG ABBOTT: COULD YOU PLEASE CHECK IN WITH ME? I NEED A ‘NUMBER’ SO THAT I CAN DETERMINE BEST STRATEGY AT THIS POINT TO COMPEL A RESPONSE. (IF ANY OF YOU HAS RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO YOUR FILING OR, INITIATED FOLLOW-UP CONTACT WITH THE OFFICE OF THE AG, PLEASE, LET US KNOW.)
UPDATE 09.17.09: I ADDED THE SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTION FRAUD COMPLAINT BELOW TEXAS AND HAWAII. PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU ARE SENDING THE CORRECT COMPLAINT.
UPDATE 09.18.09: PLEASE READ MY LENGTHY REMARKS POSTED IN “COMMENTS,” REGARDING THE THEFT AND SUBSEQUENT DISTRIBUTION OF WORK PRODUCED HERE ON THIS BLOG, AS RELATES TO THE BROUHAHA THIS THEFT HAS INCITED OVER WHETHER A VIABLE COMPLAINT OF ELECTION FRAUD SHOULD ISSUE IN NH.
UPDATE 09.17.09: I ADDED THE SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTION FRAUD COMPLAINT BELOW TEXAS AND HAWAII. PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU ARE SENDING THE CORRECT COMPLAINT.
****************************************************************************************************************************************************
If you live in a state with a law that requires the candidate for POTUS from the major political party to be eligible for the job before state elections officials will print his or her name on the general election ballot then, Certifying BO is the D nominee without ascertaining whether he is a NBC, just to get his name printed on the ballot, is election fraud. Here’s how you can compel your elected Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer in the state, to do something about it.
The Model Complaint of Election Fraud immediately below is tailored specifically to the Attorney General in the State of Texas. (HI immediately follows TX.) If you live in Texas and use this complaint, make sure you fill in your name and address in the space marked “From.” Also, remember to distribute copies to Hope Andrade, the SoS; and Boyd Richie, the state D party Chair.
Here is the Model Complaint of Election Fraud tailored specifically to the Attorney General of Hawaii, citing Hawaii Revised Statutes and fitting the set of facts involved with the Hawaii Certifications to the law. To send, download by clicking on the Scribd link below the image. Make sure to fill in your name and address in the space marked “From.” Also, remember to distribute copies to Brian E. Schatz, Democratic Party of Hawaii; and William Marston, Chairperson, Election Commission.
The Model Complaint of Election Fraud immediately below is tailored specifically to the Attorney General in the State of South Carolina, citing South Carolina Code Annotated and fitting the set of facts involved with the Certifications submitted in South Carolina, to the law. If you live in South Carolina and use this complaint, make sure you fill in your name and address in the space marked “From.” Also, remember to distribute copies to Carol Fowler, Chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party; and Marci Andino, Executive Director, South Carolina Election Commission.
Hold onto your hats. Based on new information, I need to revise the SC complaint. In fact, I need to give it its own post. Look for it.
September 8, 2009 at 19:48 |
To everyone living outside of TX, in a state with a law requiring the candidate for POTUS must be eligible for the job to have his or her name printed on the general election ballot, please, if you would rather not wait for me to post a complaint tailored specifically to your state, use this TX letter as a model to file your election fraud complaint but just substitute the facts in your state. That is, fill in the appropriate names of the state officials; cite to the correct law; and, most importantly, determine whether the Certification of BO’s nomination got to your state elections officials via NP or the state D party Chair. And charge the appropriate person with election fraud. Of course, count on me for whatever additional assistance you need.
As for you TX patriots, I forgot to propose that you send copies of your complaints to the local (and national) press. No one reading this complaint in good faith could reasonably find there is no basis for doubt as to whether BO is a NBC.
September 8, 2009 at 23:48 |
jbjd – this Memorandum is outstanding and exposes the DNC leadership for election fraud. We’ve all known it but couldn’t put the pieces together like you have.
Frankly, it’s about damned time someone focused resources on this disastrous heist. We all knew who the true victor was of the 2008 primary and it wasn’t 0!
Thank you, jbjd, for needling the thread so to speak b/c this is where it all begins – the DNC’s leadership hubris is beyond recognizable to the average American. Their uppity selves think we American’s were too stupid to figure it out. You’re the best. I plan to print your letter and Treason 1 and 2 and hand it off to the appropriate athorities in my state.
Applause!!!
d2i: Thank you so much for your comments and for your editing assistance. You of all people know how hard I worked to pull this memo together; and, having accomplished that, how many more hours I spent trying to figure out how to post it, intact, so that people could use it exactly ‘as is.’ (Don’t you just love that screen shot of the DNC ad from August 2009, still sending people to FTS? I saw that on NQ and rushed to save it but could not figure out how. So I posted an immediate call for help and thank goodness, one of their readers responded immediately. I knew this information would come in handy.)
I feel more optimistic about exposing BO than I have felt in a long time. Because much of my frustration was rooted in the fact, I could not construct the narrative that explained what happened. Now that I have, I know it is only a matter of time until the truth ‘outs.’ Know what I mean?
Now, if someone from TX or any other state with a candidate eligibility law, would just file the complaint… ADMINISTRATOR
September 9, 2009 at 03:52 |
C’mon Texans!!! America needs you. I’m doing what I can to ensure your AG has support. So c’mon one of you Texans, Red Hank, let’s roll!
d2i: Thanks for trying to lasso those Texans back to the corral. I expect we will hear from them shortly. ADMINISTRATOR
September 9, 2009 at 13:05 |
Hi jbjd…the letter is very well done. I intend to print it off and send it…(Can you tell me what font you used…don’t want to have to retype the whole thing). I am going to wait a day or so to see if I get a response from Richie, although I don’t expect to.
Do you think the following from Texas’ Election code (Title 16, Chapter 273) is applicable? ie they will be required to investigate if we get two registered voters to send in the complaint? I realize this was intended for incidents that occur more locally.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/?link=EL
Finally…and I am not getting cold feet…what do you think the ramifications will be to me personally if they choose to go after me? Just want to have a clear idea of what to expect. Thanks!
redhank: Hey, pardner, nice to see you. Thank you for the compliment; yes, the letter is well done in that it conveys exactly what it is intended to convey, unambiguously. However, if there is anything you want to change, just let me know so that I can be sure, this does not alter its meaning.
Okay, let me answer your questions. First, you are correct in saying that, Title 16, ch. 273 is unrelated to this issue. This section of the election code directly relates to conduct at the time of the election, intended to alter the bona fide results of the vote. Rather, here we are arguing, an investigation needs to be carried out not based on the conduct of any individuals involved in the physical process of casting and counting votes, which process could be witnessed by 2 (two) registered voters; but rather, in the state authorized function of printing the names of candidates appearing on the ballot, a function clearly obscured from the public view.
I don’t want you to re-type the letter; I think I enabled you (and anyone else) to print out the letter from the Scribd site. If you have any problems with this, please, get back to me and we will figure out something else. MAKE SURE YOU FILL IN YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. However, AFTER you send this, block that information and distribute.
I hear your concerns about retribution for citizen activism but, absolutely no one has any basis for going after you. First of all, you are not the only Texan contacting the AG to complain about voter fraud in your state. (Remember, the federal court just authorized the lawsuit filed against the DNC for unequal allocation of delegates per voters!) Besides, you are not carrying out any investigation; and you have no information critical to any such investigation that is not in the public domain.
I am so proud of you. ADMINISTRATOR
September 9, 2009 at 15:43 |
Couple of other questions…when you say block my details, do you mean when I send copies to Mr. Ritchie and the SoS? Should I send a copy through the mail as well or only send it via fax? Thanks and I am only doing what I think is right…even if we can not fix what has already occurred we can lay the ground work for, hopefully, future enforcement.
Finally, thank you, jbjd for your efforts to frame these issues so logocally and eloquently
redhank: No; you must identify yourself to both the SoS and Mr. Richie. Your ’standing’ to compel action derives from your legal residence in TX. However, in the same way I block personal information before posting readers’ materials, I am suggesting, so as to avoid uninvited public contacts, take your name off the letter before you distribute this publicly. Yes; send however you want. But fax, first.
Also, please get your friends and neighbors to send this, too. ADMINISTRATOR
September 9, 2009 at 13:06 |
I hope the fraud goes down in flames.
sirmrks: I allowed the word “fraud” to remain in the posted comment because I could not say for certain whether by using that word you were referring to the whole situation. I deleted the remainder of your comment as it was totally unrelated to the work that goes on here. Are you from a state with a ballot eligibility law, such as the one described herein, in TX? If so, are you planning on filing a complaint to your AG to ensure that the whole ‘fraud’ goes up in flames? ADMINISTRATOR
September 9, 2009 at 17:00 |
Hi jbjd – Beautiful job! This puts everything together very well! The “Conclusion” is great!
Would the “Paid for by Barack Obama” screen shot of the FTS/BC help or have on file for this letter. A commenter named “bho boo” has a screen shot – “I have the original site and artwork archived which says paid for by BO,” …
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/wall-street-journal-via-james-taranto-continue-propaganda-lies/#comment-7880
Also, in my experience here in AZ, it took nine of us to file complaints to the AG at the same time against persons who committed ‘big money’ consumer fraud against all of us. Initially, a couple of us filed individually and got no response. We had to actually meet with an official at an AG satellite office with other concerned citizens and he was immediately overwhelmed but became very concerned, so then they took the case to investigate. Unfortunately, in our case we had to create a ’shock and awe’ situation to get the attention of the AG.
Hopefully this won’t be the case in TX as your letter is very well written and demands attention by the AG. (Maybe plan ‘B’?)
redhank, I found this to be a little scary at first, but realizing these people were still committing fraud against other people, which they were and retired people too, made it easy to commit myself and actually lead our little group.
d2i – Yeppers, what a great inspiration you ’shure as ‘ell are’!
Thanks again, jbjd!
azgo: The screen shot could be useful if and when any of the A’sG undertake an investigation of election fraud. As to plan “B,” individually, compelling our state officials to look into election fraud is the best route to address the issue of BO’s eligibility to be POTUS. Otherwise, individuals can exercise their rights to initiate court cases for fraud against the various players. However, I strongly recommend asserting our (collective) energies as citizens and compelling our elected officials to do the jobs for which we elected and are paying them. And, given the clarity in this model letter, I imagine, the media would be hard pressed to disparage the sanity of anyone advocating such an investigation.
As for strength in numbers, I urge everyone to put out a call to all Texans, to file this complaint, which can be accessed by clicking on the link to Scribd underneath the memo on my blog; and downloaded from that site.
Finally, thanks for the compliment.ADMINISTRATOR
September 9, 2009 at 18:22 |
Just checked the mail and nothing from Mr. Richie in response to my letter from last week. I decided not to wait and have faxed the letter to the appropriate parties…we shall see…
redhank: Wonderful. (By “appropriate parties,” do you mean Mr. Richie, too?) Now, for at least a few days, we wait.. In the meantime, get your correspondence in order so as to be prepared if the AG contacts you, first, to discuss your filing ADMINISTRATOR
September 9, 2009 at 18:47 |
Yes…it has been faxed to Mr Richie and the SoS, as well. I called the TDP to get a fax number for him. As you said…now we wait. In terms of release to the media, Austin is a funny place…the one real pocket of “alternative” everything in Texas…Dallas press might be a better outlet…
redhank: Yep; people are going to take that memo seriously. (Just an aside; I wonder whether that Notary who signed NP’s Certification in CO and, whose stamp appears on the Certification Mr. Richie ostensibly signed, on which he replaced the DNC letterhead on NP’s version, with the TDP letterhead, on his; actually witnessed Mr. Richie sign that Certification. ADMINISTRATOR
September 9, 2009 at 19:16 |
I agree jbjd…given that they already knew that they had missed the Texas deadline, I suspect all manner of corner was cut…
redhank: Do you get the significance of this? When you examine the process, there is ample opportunity for fraud and malfeasance. Unbelievable. ADMINISTRATOR
September 9, 2009 at 21:06 |
That is a good question about the Notary and the Chair.
Would it be helpful for those in other states, if you could post the names of the other known states that have a law that requires the candidate for POTUS from the major political party to be eligible for the job before they are put on the general election ballot?
azgo: Here’s the problem with relying on someone else to carry out the chores of citizenship. How does my checking out laws in other states help to acquaint voters in those states with the content of legislation impacting their lives in areas other than the printing of the general election ballot; or with the voting record of their elected state officials? Democracy is not a spectator sport. And while I am proud to be able to provide guidance in this situation of first impression, this does not abrogate the responsibility of each of us to regain control of our government by becoming knowledgeable citizens and voters.
I asked redhank to look up the laws in Texas and get back to me; he did. And I have already identified GA and HI as states whose laws trigger charges of election fraud. If anyone wants to send me a legal cite to review, I would happy to do that. And then, if applicable, I will draft the letter for that state, with names and contact information provided to me. ADMINISTRATOR
September 10, 2009 at 01:25 |
GA and HI are also among the states identified as other known states whose laws prompt charges of election fraud and as identified on your prior posts. That’s all I wanted to know but thanks for a most meaningful explanation of the responsibility of being a citizen.
States are changing their election laws and may be more difficult to dig up the applicable laws of the 2008 election time, so we will have to keep this in mind.
Thank you, again!
azgo: I will be posting additional fraud letters in the next few days. I think filing these complaints will change everything, for all of us. ADMINISTRATOR
September 10, 2009 at 02:27 |
first page has typo “as the of the” nominee is in wrong place
markcon: Thank you! You have no idea how many eyes have read that page, and missed that typo. ADMINISTRATOR
September 10, 2009 at 11:05 |
I haven’t followed the fraud since Hillary was abused of her rights but I’m very glad I came across this site.
Well done all of you.
Jason: Thank you so much; the more, the merrier. Tell your friends. ADMINISTRATOR
September 10, 2009 at 15:28 |
Redhank,
Should this action be done by multiple parties? or have you got Texas covered? I’m going to get on this next week. The news is keeping me insane.Busy week.
Thanks for the excellent work Jb and the approach here I believe is meaningful because we need to tighten the integrity of the process itself. Thanks Again.
Magna Carta: Nice to hear from you! I assume redhank gave you the same answer I am giving you, which is this. Until the AG commences a formal investigation into this matter, your request for such investigation remains timely. So, send it. ADMINISTRATOR
September 10, 2009 at 16:36 |
I agree jbjd…we need multiple voices, so please, Magna Carta, try to find the time…only took me 15-20 minutes to fill in my name and address and fax it….Thanks!
redhank: Could not have said this better myself. Thanks again. ADMINISTRATOR
September 10, 2009 at 16:01 |
jbjd – The bold print appears to be messed up on the letter or is it just my computer?
azgo: Did you print off of Scribd? Click on their link, below the image on my blog. ADMINISTRATION
September 10, 2009 at 16:39 |
btw the fax number for SoS is 512 475 2761 and Boyd Richie is 512 480 2500
redhank: Did you have any trouble downloading? Other comments indicate the “bold” is messed up. (This is the first time I used Scribd; I wanted to preserve all formatting from my original because it looked so professional, including the header.) ADMINISTRATOR
September 11, 2009 at 01:34 |
No jbjd my download was clear…
redhank: I think I figured out what happened…anyway, I uploaded an updated version, dated September 11, for those TX filers who follow your lead. ADMINISTRATOR
September 10, 2009 at 16:46 |
Yes, I did print as a Adobe PDF 7.0 and it still shows the bold print messed up. I don’t have a printer hooked up to this computer.
azgo: See my reply to redhank. ADMINISTRATOR
September 10, 2009 at 17:25 |
Hi jbjd,
I’m reporting back. Unfortunately, I do not think I can help with anyone in Texas (I live in a completely different part of the country). If it would be helpful, I can ask on the CW blog if anyone there lives in Texas and would be willing to send the letter. Would that work?
On another note, I know that you do not like CFP, but check out the following article there today. It seems to fit in fairly well with your legal theory.
(cite omitted)
Patriot Dreamer: Please do not send anything from these people again. I looked at that article; they copied the narrative about the process relating Certifications, to elections officials, from my blog but misstated the facts/conclusions. (As to their theories well, they are entitled to these.) Swearing BO was “duly nominated” is tantamount to swearing, he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. Because DNC rules require, the nominee must be Constitutionally eligible for the job. No other state except HI requires that the party must explicitly say, our nominee is Constitutionally eligible for the job. But this is a distinction without a difference.
Oh, and thank you, anyway about TX. We are all set. ADMINISTRATOR
September 10, 2009 at 19:07 |
Looks like the word is out there now!
(cite omitted by jbjd: the ‘publication’ you cited is nothing but a front for Douglas Haggman. Google his name, along with Northeast Intelligence Network, or “NEIN,” for “no” in German, get it? )
Interesting…..
azgo: The ‘information’ has been ‘out there’ for some time and I have been posting the information both on my blog and in comments on other blogs. That is, way back in December 2008, Justin Riggs was contacting state elections officials all over the country to obtain Certifications of Nominations. HI sent back both the DNC and RNC Certifications, which he posted, along with the cover letter from elections officials. A blogger who has helped me on several projects, including distributing the memorandum I wrote proposing military Plaintiffs could gain standing in federal court to survive a Motion to Dismiss; thought I might be interested in Justin’s work and emailed the link. As soon as I saw the document, I noticed the extra line regarding BO’s Constitutional qualification. Then, I looked at the cover letter from HI elections officials; this contained a cite to Hawaiian Revised Statutes. I checked with Justin; no, he hadn’t cited this law to obtain the Certifications. So, I looked up the law. And sure enough, this was the requirement that party officials must Certify the candidate for POTUS is Constitutionally eligible for the job. I also noticed there was no “Received” stamp on the Certification from HI, as well as the signature anomaly. But none of these details was material to creating any cause of action that could halt the Congressional ratification of the EC vote; or, after such ratification, that could prompt Congress to initiate Impeachment proceedings.
Now, if a state AG finds fraud in that state’s general election, implicating DNC officials with placing the name of a Constitutionally ineligible candidate on the ballot then, these details might come up to support such a finding. ADMINISTRATOR
September 10, 2009 at 21:05 |
jbjd,
That’s a very interesting question regarding Ms. Williamson (the Notary Public from Denver) and Mr. Richie. I live here in Denver, and believe that I can actually get access to Ms. Williamson’s records, if there’s a reason to (for example, there is the appearance that a D Party State pasted his statement on a document that bears her signature but wasn’t witnessed by her).
I’ll poke around and see what I can find.
juriggs: You know how these ‘details’ jump out at me… I would love to see what you find. But understand what is significant about any irregularity is this: see how easily one can rig an election? ADMINISTRATOR
September 10, 2009 at 23:06 |
my computer too- spaces in bold print through out paper- somebody messed it up– did not print- dont see how printing can fix it
markcon: I re-posted. Should be okay now. ADMINISTRATOR
September 10, 2009 at 23:39 |
jbjd, Over at citizen wells, is an article by JB Williams, where he shows proof of two different letters of nomination by the DNC. The link is at CW site, “Protocol Be Damned”, in the comments section, go to Zach Jones 9/10/09 @ 2:24 pm see link to canada free press.
This may be what you have been looking for. Looks as if one form of the letter said, the parties nominated, met the legal requirements to be POTUS, and VPOTUS, and the other letter, sent to the various states, left out the part about being qualified.
bob strauss: They are copying me. That is, they are reading my blog and, in some cases, porting images posted there onto their sites. Only they are dramatizing their ‘findings’ as if they thought of something no one else had. FYI, I am the person who noticed the difference in the Certifications; and realized this resulted from a requirement of HI state law. LAST DECEMBER, 2008. And I can prove it. I have been posting this information since that time. I highlighted this distinction in “IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS un-AMERICAN THEN, IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS IS un-AMERICAN, TOO,” posted August 13. And again, I mention this difference in this letter of election fraud to state A’sG. ADMINISTRATOR
September 11, 2009 at 02:19 |
jbjd, It seems as if the issue of eligibility is picking up steam. I read your treason articles, but I didn’t pick up on the fact the DNC had two forms for the same purpose. Sometimes fraud is hard to detect, just the way it was intended.
bob strauss: But it is featured prominently visually on the “un-AMERICAN” article. And I began mentioning this on the blog a long time ago. I am in touch with the person who retrieved the HI Certification. And I pointed out the problems with that Certification, to him. I am just saying, it is disingenuous for these people to feature this issue suddenly in their blog posts and then not credit the source of this information.
I just went back and checked; there have been a substantial hits on my blog today and yesterday from CFP. And an uptake in searches for “HI Certification,” for example. They got their info from me. ADMINISTRATOR
September 11, 2009 at 04:05 |
Good job Bob,
I am interested in filing a complaint with the Texas AG. Can you PM me the details? I will cc Congressman Burgess and anyone else I can.
Need to find PDF to print complaint, do I just use the Scribd doc on this page?
Thanks
Ed Sunderland: Who is “Bob”? To print out a Complaint, just click on the Scribd underneath the document posted on this blog; this will take you to the Scribd site, from which you can download the document. I salute another fellow citizen activist. ADMINISTRATOR
September 11, 2009 at 05:02 |
Ok …guys I’m going to map this for next week when the kids are away at school.
I can probably get others to do it also.
I want to really get straight on the EVIDENCE issue.That is the type of evidence they used to put BO on the ballet.Do I need to be an expert in this area?
Also the Canada Free Press has an article on this front too. Did you read it?
Tell me what to read and study so I can really internalize this info.
Many Thanks.
Magna Carta: No, you don’t need to be an “evidence” expert. Let’s see whether the DNC used any ‘evidence’ to determine whether BO is a NBC before swearing, he is. Then let’s see whether a reasonable person would have used this ‘evidence’ as the basis for swearing anything. The CFP is just a front for Douglas Haggman and his Northeast Intelligence Network, or “NEIN,” which means “No” in German. They copied their stuff from my web site. Notice, they did not reveal where they obtained this information about the Certifications; but you will find these documents posted and/or referenced throughout my blog, beginning last December, when I first noticed the difference between the HI Certification and the SC Certification, and discovered the HI law that requires an explicit statement of Constitutional eligibility. ADMINISTRATOR
September 11, 2009 at 12:41 |
jbjd…I also got a ton of hits from CFP yesterday; they were looking at the Texas Certs. Although annoying to have your work usurped, ay least it increases the exposure of your idea.
redhank: I know; but it’s still stealing because it is a direct usurpation and not an inadvertent one. Besides, this CFP is a front for Douglas Hagmann, whose ‘politics’ I find repugnant. ADMINISTRATOR
September 11, 2009 at 13:34 |
Let me know if you would like help (in the future) proofreading things. Just send me an e-mail.
Patriot Dreamer: Thank you; I will. ADMINISTRATOR
September 11, 2009 at 14:02 |
jbjd, my apologies about the link earlier. I only scanned the article quickly and did not read it closely before sending it to you. I certainly did not know that they had stolen your work. The least they could have done is some attribution to you. Again, my apologies.
Patriot Dreamer: No problem. And it’s not the theft of my work per se that bothers me. Rather, it is that this unscrupulous group will unjustly benefit from the caliber of the work, my work. And people will tend to credit other tripe that comes out of this group, assuming it has any intrinsic value whatsoever, which it does not. CPF is not a news organization; it is a front for the rants of a sinister man no one could rightfully credit as proposing any ideas or conduct that could uplift the human condition. ADMINISTRATOR
September 11, 2009 at 17:31 |
JBJD,
When I read that piece I knew it was your stuff.That was your idea to go for the outer ring all along. I am rallying many people by phone and person today to go to your site and get busy. I know I can get more people here to do this. I am psyched up! Plus I have e-mail contact with Leo Berman and US REp. Louie Gohmert of Tylet,Tx,used to be a Federal Judge. I’m going to get my papers out (after I am clear on 1-2-3- steps). Going to call his office and talk to a very listening-type secretary from his office. I know they will help if they can.I.E. contact-influence with Greg Abbott. Plus I now tons of activist group folks all active with the Republican party.Do not worry I will nail this bigtime!
Now…the paperwork.Tell me if I’m correct.
1.Fax a copy of the complaint listed above to SOS Hope Andrade and Mr. Ritchie.
2. Do I need to create a cover sheet with my info? If so what should it look like?
3.Send in complaint certified mail to Attorney General’s office or is fax OK?
I’m sorry I’m not very knowlegeable about these little protocols.
Thanks So Much!
3. Do I wait a bit before forwarding
Magna Carta: Thank you for your stellar citizen activism. (I wonder how many other people have actually filed this? Several people have downloaded this from Scribd.) As redhank has posted, just print out the Complaint and, assuming you don’t want to make any other changes, just fill in your name and address on the front and fax it to the AG. redhank posted the fax numbers for the SoS and, Chair of the TX state party; but you can also mail their copies. If you want to make any changes, just let me know; I want to make sure these don’t alter the meaning of the text.
I just posted this comment on a couple of blogs featuring the CFP work.
ADMINISTRATOR
September 11, 2009 at 17:35 |
Ok…I think I see now on the header of page one where to fill in my personal info.Anything else?
September 11, 2009 at 17:50 |
jbjd and redhank,
I need your help. I’ve contacted the Colorado SoS to gain access to Shalifa Williamson’s notary public journal, and have been invited to have a conversation with a representative from that office. Before I have that conversation, though, I need a couple of things.
First, I am confused as to why there are two D Party documents on your website, redhank. Which one was submitted to TX state officials? jbjd, maybe you can help out here as well. I’m not familiar with any other state where two documents exist. I need to make sure that it’s the second document that was submitted, as that’s the one where it appears Mr. Richie pasted his letterhead, blocked out the secondary signature line, and submitted the form.
Second, I need high quality copies of those forms. Redhank, can you send me the pdf’s that you received from the state? I’m going to need to submit these to the SoS’ office, and the quality on your site won’t be suitable. You can contact me through jbjd – she has my information.
Thanks, and I’ll look forward to hearing back from both of you.
juriggs: Whether the state D party Chair or, the DNC submits the Certification of Nomination to state elections officials is determined by state law. Presumably, in TX, state law required the Certification to come from the Chair. (redhank, can you get this law for juriggs, either by looking it up or asking your SoS?)
But even in those states wherein the state D party Chair was required to submit the Certification, what usually occurred is that, the Chair submitted a letter announcing BO was the party nominee, along with a copy of NP’s Certification. This situation in TX is the first time I have seen NP’s Certification ‘replaced’ by a Certification from the state party Chair.
juriggs, it would appear that now is the time to raise the issue of the anomalous NP signature on the HI Certification, which I first pointed out to you last December! ADMINISTRATOR
September 11, 2009 at 20:10 |
jbjd,
Here’s the relevant statute…
Sec. 192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE ’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT. A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States
placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:
(1)the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;
(2)before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party ’s state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of:
(A)the names of the party ’s nominees for
president and vice-president;
So you’re right, it had to be the party’s state chair. My question isn’t answered, though. At http://falseflagrag.wordpress.com/, redhank posted copies of all the docs that TX sent him; there are two docs from the D party, both of which appear to be Certifications of Nomination. I need to know which one was submitted in compliance with the above statute.
Also, I noticed that the “cut and paste” copy isn’t just cut and paste. There are significant changes to the language. For example, it states “the following are the nominees of the Texas Democratic Party…”. In other words, Mr. Richie didn’t just paste his header on the document; he also changed the text in order to meet the regs of the law.
I’m not taking this to my SoS’ office until I’m convinced that there was some malfeasance on the part of Mr. Richie. At this point, I’m not entirely convinced. Are we leaning completely on the “duly nominated” argument?
juriggs: I am not sure what you are asking. Both documents were submitted; I checked with redhank. And it makes no difference to the analysis of fraud whether Mr. Richie Certified BO was “duly nominated” or just “nominated.” TX state law requires the nominee to be eligible for the job. Mr. Richie Certified BO was the nominee. Therefore, Mr. Richie Certified BO was eligible for the job. I want to know on what basis he determined such eligibility. I have no idea whether he ‘borrowed’ a Certification from NP and then tailored this to satisfy TX state law.’ I noticed the problems with the constructions of the Certifications and pointed this out; but this does not affect my analysis of election fraud. When you indicated you were looking into this aspect of the Certification, that is, these physical attributes, I assumed you were curious to find an explanation as to why the Certifications from both BR and NP reflect different letterhead but the same Notary. But your work has no bearing on my allegations of election fraud resulting from putting a candidate on the ballot before deterrmining his eligibility to be there.ADMINISTRATOR
September 11, 2009 at 22:45 |
If you look at what I posted, I posted all the docs I received from the SoS with respect to the Certifications…5 docs. The Republicans actually used a “form” and I queried the SOS with respect to whether there was a specific “form” required and they responded “no”. The Deomcrats sent in two docs. One, the Official Certification, and the other more of a letter form. I believe the letter was in effect a cover sheet and as much as a form was not required, there was intent to comply with guidance from the State with respect to an “Official Certification”.
I am also reading some stuff into this as both Parties missed the filing deadline. The pre-certification on my site from the republicans is I believe a way of showing thier “intent” to comply with the law which required Official Notification 70 days prior to the election.
redhank: Yes; you are absolutely right. And Libertarian candidate Bob Barr filed lawsuit arguing both the D’s and the R’s had missed the filing deadline. the court dismissed the suit, noting that Barr had waited to file until 2 or 3 days before the absentee ballots, already printed, were scheduled to be sent out. (cite omitted) (The suit would have failed, anyway, because the law merely says, the party is “entitled” to have its nominee on the ballot if it gets the name in on time. This does not mean, the state cannot exercise its discretion to include late names on the ballot, anyway.) ADMINISTRATOR
September 11, 2009 at 19:24 |
jbjd,
I have looked extensively at the AZ election laws (as I believe you have as well). From my research that I conducted in February of 2009, here are the three critical points that I found in AZ election law.
1.A Presidential candidate had to sign Presidential Preference Election Form (A.R.S. § 16-242) attesting he or she is a Natural Born Citizen.
2.In accordance with Qualifications for ballot nomination paper (A.R.S. § 16-242), the Arizona Secretary of State “shall certify to the officer in charge of elections, the names of the candidates who are qualified for the presidential preference election ballot.”
3.A major party chairman must submit a candidate nomination form following the respective party’s national convention in order to have their Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates placed on the general election ballot.
As a result of my research back in February, I made two FOIA requests to the SOS of AZ to obtain both Barack Obama’s signed Presidential Preference Election Form A.R.S. § 16-242 in part attesting to his natural born citizenship status and the document submitted by the DNC chair as the Democratic Party’s nomination form. I noted when I received the document that the DNC’s nomination form in AZ did not contain any eligibility language.
As a result of my findings, I concluded that the AZ SOS seemed to be protected by the Candidate’s signed A.R.S. § 16-242 form. I concluded that the AZ SOS seemed to follow the election laws in that the nomination paper language in AZ law does not require the chairman of a party to submit eligibility language in their nomination form, thus I concluded the SOS was able to take Barack Obama’s signed Presidential Preference Election Form as enough to satisfy any SOS requirement to confirm eligibility.
Is my analysis here correct? If my analysis is correct, I would like to follow up with another post posing a question for you specific to AZ law and pending legislation in the AZ State Legislature.
Cites of interest:
http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/PPE/Nomination_Paper_PPE_Feb_5_2008.pdf
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00242.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS
AZ Conservative: Sounds good to me. Just a technical point… “qualified candidate” here means, the candidate whose paperwork is in order in accordance with AZ law; and not the candidate who meets the qualifications of office. ADMINISTRATOR
September 11, 2009 at 22:28 |
I’m not an attorney, nor do I completely understand election law, but is it possible that all of the certifications for all 50 states were done in Denver as part of the convention, thus utilizing the individual states Democratic Party letterhead and the same Notary? Maybe you can ask asgo if the Az docs submitted were on Az Democratic Party letterhead.
linder: Welcome. First, let me reiterate, for the purpose of alleging and finding election fraud, issues as to who signed these Certifications, and where and when these were signed, is inconsequential. Now, to address the substance of your question. The problem is, somehow the name of the party’s nominee must get to the state elections officials in time to print on the state’s general election ballots. How the party’s nominee is presented to state elections officials to place on the ballot in that state, depends on the requirements of state law. So, in some states, a Certification signed by NP was used to get BO’s name on the ballot. In TX, Boyd Richie submitted the Certification. Your guess as to how these Certifications ended up with the same Notary is as good as mine. However, it makes no sense to me that the TX state Chair had to get a CO Notary to verify she saw him sign that Certification in CO, amended to suit TX laws; when he could have just as easily typed up a Certification in TX, and had someone in the office Notarize it there. ADMINISTRATOR
September 11, 2009 at 23:01 |
I think we are off on a tangent…as we have said, both the Republican and Democratic Parties missed the deadline in Texas…I think the Dems signed and notarized in Colorado only because they were under the gun and were trying to show best intent to meet the deadline even though they it had already passed. This is just my speculation…While the notary is interesting, she is only noting that she witnessed the swearing, not that she had confirmed what had been sworn to.
redhank: juriggs is undertaking to look into this, at his initiative. This does not reflect on the Complaints of Election Fraud against Boyd Richie to the TX AG. But in the course of our work here, we happened to uncover details that evoked questions from readers. ADMINISTRATOR
September 11, 2009 at 23:09 |
jbjd,
My previous comment remains in moderation even though your comment within it states that you agree with my conclusions. So now, I wish to move on to my further legal question for you. As we both seem to have concurred, the citizens of Arizona DO NOT appear to have a complaint that they can file with the AZ Attorney General with regard to the 2008 general election and the placement of the names of Barack Obama and John McCain on the ballot for President.
It may appear that the AZ State Legislature has come to a similar conclusion. In January of 2009, the Arizona Legislature introduced bill SB 1158 An Act Amending Sections 16-341 and 16-507, Arizona Revised Statutes; Relating to Conduct of Elections. The bill focuses on adding the following language in an attempt to make presidential candidates prove that they are natural born citizens:
“Within ten days after filing the nomination paper, a presidential candidate shall submit an affidavit in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in ARTICLE II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.”
As of 6/4/09, the bill is being held in committee and that status has not changed. In my analysis of the changes SB 1158 introduces to the current AZ election law, I find the following problematic. If the term “natural born citizen” has not been defined adequately and indisputably (which appears to be the present day case), then how can a candidate determine what supporting documents they must include? More importantly, how can the legislature make additional requirements on a term that is undefined within the legislation?
It seems to me that the AZ State Legislature needs to define what their understanding of the term natural born citizen means. Without such a definition, they appear to create even more potential problems.
So my legal question for you, jbjd, is this, would the AZ State Legislature be allowed to include language in their election laws that defined what their understanding of the term natural born citizen means? And if so, wouldn’t this seem to be the preferred method for ultimate resolution of this matter (should the matter not already be resolved by the 2012 election or at least the primary season in 2012) meaning someone could then contest the AZ Legislature’s definition and hopefully get the case heard by the Supreme Court.
I will continue to watch this legislation closely, and dependent on your answer to my question above I may be attempting to contact the AZ Representatives sponsoring the bill to further discuss the matter.
Cite of interest:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1158p.htm
AZ Conservative: Wonderful question. Recall that I said, even if an AG in only 1 (one) state finds election fraud, that is, determines that the D party perpetrated fraud in order to get BO’s name on the state election ballot, this only means, they failed to ascertain whether BO is a NBC before swearing he is. So, how does this impact on getting BO out of office? Well, as I said, news of this finding of election fraud will hit Congress. Remember, they told their constituents it was okay to ratify the EC vote for BO because APFC said, he’s for real. A finding of fraud means, that ‘documentation’ is insufficient to base a finding, BO is a NBC. At that point, I anticipate Congress would be compelled to begin an Impeachment investigation. Now, if BO can prove to their satisfaction he was born in this country to a Kenyan father then, Congress could determine he is not a NBC. (Based on my understanding of the intention of the founding fathers, given birth in America to an American mother and a Kenyan father, BO is not a NBC. But given the partisan legal opinions expressed thus far, for example, Larry Tribe’s strained opinion that JMc is a NBC; I cannot predict the tenor of such hearings.) At any rate, assuming Congress votes to Impeach based on BO’s failure to fulfill that definition of NBC, certainly BO would appeal and the case would be decided by the federal court. That’s one way to get a legal definition of NBC, predicated on fraud related to this past election.
What you propose is tenable in the future. That is, the state may define what is a NBC FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE NOMINEE’S NAME PRINTED ON THE STATE’S GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT, in the same way it already determines who has access to the state ballot, for example, enacting law that says the nominee from the major political party is entitled to be on the ballot. (Note, this is a little different from determining as a matter of law, who is a NBC.) If the party wants to contest the state’s right to define NBC for the purpose of getting onto the ballot, the definition of NBC would come up almost as an incidental issue.
Sorry about the Moderation. Total oversight. ADMINISTRATOR
September 11, 2009 at 23:48 |
jbjd,
Thank you very much for answering my question. I will be pushing my State Legislature to define NBC in SB 1158. I find it a very viable option because if they use de Vattel’s definition born on U.S. soil to citizen parents, then surely someone will bring a case disputing that claim and maybe finally the Supreme Court will hear the case (if they have not already heard a case under other means such as cases arising from your thoughtful post here).
AZ Conservative: Of course, you are welcome. At some point, I will be posting model legislation. ADMINISTRATOR
September 11, 2009 at 23:52 |
I very much look forward to reading that post jbjd.
AZ Conservative: Thank you. I very much look forward to writing it. ADMINISTRATOR
September 12, 2009 at 00:04 |
To AZ CONSERVATIVE,
I would encourage those reps to write up the requirements based on the recent legal research of Donofrio,Kerchner and the Undead Revolution.If a nominee has a problem with AZ.’s definition of NBC they can do what we all are having to do now…the states can really run their own rodeos and only until the SCOTUS steps in do they need to revise their laws so I say GO FOR IT!
JB…I’m having trouble getting a cursor to type in my info on your gorgeous document. Can I BLOCK PRINT by hand my personal info onto it and fax away. I will fax copies to AG,Andrade and Ritchie.
Magna Carta: Of course, you can print that information. I appreciate your concern for altering the visuals of the document. I like your characterization of the election vetting as a “rodeo.” However, I see no need to conduct endless research into finding ‘best definitions’ of NBC. ADMINISTRATOR
September 12, 2009 at 01:03 |
I will be at a Sheriff Joe Arpaio event tommorrow and I plan where possible to distribute the 12 copies I have onhand with border-fighters.I know many people there so I feel I can lasso them into obedience.
Magna Carta: Good luck. I will be there on the airwaves, as I have been asked to speak on Constitutional Radio. If people have questions about the issues, please send them here. Reading the comments alone is an education. ADMINISTRATOR
September 12, 2009 at 01:40 |
Question, about the Memorandum of Complaint of Election Fraud Against Boyd Richie,
I printed this out, now can we hand write our Name and address in, is anyone sending copies of same to their elected Reps so they know what is going down?
I looked over AG Gregg Abbots website and would like to know which department to send it to. I couldn’t find “election fraud” but I know there has to be a venue.
Are you mailing these?, Registered mail, return receipt requested, and how many do you think Gregg Abbot needs before he does something?
Has anyone sent one in yet and received any response?
Forgive me please if some of these questions have been answered, I am a little late finding this site but wish to participate quickly.
I sent a letter to the editor of the Texas Insider to see about sending in a story to them. They have about 54,000 subscribers here in Texas. So I was thinking if we needed numbers, that might be a news site for an editorial from someone to get support. There are a lot of Patriots there if you read the comments.
Thanks, Ed.
Ed Sunderland: Forgiven. People have been faxing the letter to the AG; and yes, hand writing your name and address are fine. I also urge people to send copies of the complaints they send to the AG, to the press, afterward. (You may want to block out your identifying information.) Obviously, the person who sends this well-crafted letter is no right-wing crazy mobster. At some point, a member of the MSM will pick up this story. No responses from the AG so far; but it is early. ADMINISTRATOR
September 12, 2009 at 03:32 |
Thank you sir.
Ed Sunderland: You are welcome. ADMINISTRATOR
September 12, 2009 at 13:54 |
Another story, using your work product, at WND, this AM.
bob strauss: Thank you, bob; let me take a look.
Wow; WND copied my work wholesale, and credited Mr. Williams from CFP but not me. Having read my work, you know they fabricated the nuances, for example, they omitted the fact that, HI law required the extra line in the Certification. Well, from now on, I trust you will assume that, WND is stealing other people’s hard work, too. But this would only make sense. Because in the same way that CFP is the front for Douglas Hagmann; Center for Western Journalism is the front for WND and Farah. They can label their propaganda however they want; but essentially, they are in the business of shaping opinions and not investigating and reporting hard ‘news.’ ADMINISTRATOR
September 12, 2009 at 16:36 |
EVERYONE, I AM LOOKING FOR PEOPLE FROM MARYLAND TO FILE A COMPLAINT. FIRST, I NEED TO KNOW WHETHER NP OR THE MD STATE D PARTY CHAIR SUBMITTED BO’S CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION TO ELECTIONS OFFICIALS IN THAT STATE. ANYONE FROM MD?
September 12, 2009 at 19:18 |
I feel I made a lot of headway today at the Sheriff Joe Arpaio event. Lots of politically involved and active politicians. I got out 12 copies of your complaint plus gave out to many more your blog info. Many promised to fan out the info via e-mail lists. These people are fed up they will act.An asst. for Senator Kay Baily Hutchison took a copy as well as a very prominent Rep. Party lobbyist. They are all weell-channeled folk. One guy knows Abbotts right-hand man who he claims will be most interested in this approach.I will be getting in touch with aides to Culberson,State Rep. Berman and Rep. Riddle and Congressman Louie Gohmert as well.
Magna Carta: This networking sounds promising. I have found that people tend to think these elected officials have access to more information than we do; and are generally more savvy than us. But this is not necessarily so. For example, I know that the DNC Call, the document that governs the rules of the Convention, says that when delegates vote, they should use their “good conscience” to represent the voters who elected them. http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:jgT0TJaGb8oJ:s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/c313170ef991f2ce12_iqm6iyofq.pdf+2008+dnc+call+to+convention&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a But through research I conducted before the nomination, I discovered, 13 (thirteen) states have enacted laws that say, the pledged delegate elected in the party primary is bound to vote at the party convention for the candidate she was elected to represent (through at least the first round of voting). (For states with these delegate binding laws, I penned the name, vote binding states.) I watched Governor Rendell of PA say on FOX, there’s no such thing as a pledged delegate because the DNC rules only require delegates to use their “good conscience.” I knew without researching, PA was not a vote binding state! (Interestingly, several days later, after my work was distributed in letters to A’sG, party chairs, and S’sofS in those vote binding states, Howard Wolfson was on FOX explaining, there really is such a thing as “pledged” delegate! I was howling.
Anyway, I say all of this to point out, synthesizing the ’story behind the story’ as I have done in the last several posts, hopefully takes the reader, whether lay person or elected official, through the election process to the point of understanding the wrong(s) that occurred during this past election cycle and determining how best to redress these wrongs, balancing the least harm to the country. ADMINISTRATOR
September 12, 2009 at 20:47 |
Well said and indeed in general the grassroots activists are charged with educating the politician.It will be the case here and you are doing a great service by giving the grassroots the ammo.My work today was to get the ears so that the feeding of this info can occur.It seems the winds and climate are favorable for your work as I am hearing from my mom (I do not have cable) that 20,000 appeared in Ft. Worth Texas alone. I would hope this will bolster a cowardly AG.I have also posted your site on ALIPAC forum announcing for Action! Texas Voters!
Magna Carta: Great news about TX! I remain cautiously optimistic. I really appreciate your marketing efforts. I am much better at identifying the problem and then formulating the solution. ADMINISTRATOR
September 12, 2009 at 22:03 |
The Canada Press story is also on Obama File blog. I was trying to figure out how to get to the guy running this blog to notify about your efforts over the last several months.If anyone knows…tell me where to click.
Magna Carta: Before I forget, I had inadvertently held one of your comments in Moderation, even though I had responded with quite a lengthy reply. Have you seen it?
Please, people, if you see my work repeated without attribution, tell the owners of the blog! The integrity of the information I post here can be destroyed by one bogus presentation. It’s like inadvertently buying a knock-off Gucci bag that falls apart after one use; luckily, the name Gucci has been well-established to mean quality, and can survive random usurpation. But these issues I am presenting represent first impressions, that is, situations that have not been examined before. As one commenter wrote, I discuss these issues “sans” the drama. Because once these issues become mired in hyperbolic rant, they lose their import and we who discuss these issues and seek explanations and solutions lose our credibility outright. For example, knowing the Certifications of Nomination presented by the D party to elections officials in SC and HI were different, could be explained by screaming words like conspiracy, or cover-up. Or, noticing the difference in the forms could lead to a discussion that each state legislates the process by which the political parties can get the name of their nominee for POTUS onto the state’s general election ballot. (This means, the people in that state determined how the party would submit the name of its nominee to state elections officials.)
You get what I mean. ADMINISTRATOR
September 13, 2009 at 00:47 |
Magna Carta ———
The Obama File – ABOUT
contact info:
http://www.theobamafile.com/ReadMe.htm
GORDO: Thank you (for M C). ADMINISTRATOR
September 13, 2009 at 00:43 |
jbjd Says:
Saturday, 12 September 2009 at 16:36
Yes from Maryland, lived here all my life. please contact me if I can help
Eagle: Welcome. And thank you so much for volunteering right away to help. Here’s what I need; and I need this ASAP. Presumably, having read this blog, you already understand that some states require in order for the name of the nominee for POTUS from the major political party to be printed on the ballot, he must be Constitutionally eligible for the job. Well, MD is such a state. Thus, Certifying BO is the nominee – according to DNC rules, this means, he is Constitutionally eligible – to get his name printed on MD’s general election ballot BEFORE ascertaining whether he is a NBC constitutes election fraud. But before you can file a complaint with your AG and request an investigation, you need to know whom to charge with fraud. And this depends on who submitted the Certification of Nomination to your elections officials, NP or the state D party Chair.
I need you to submit a written request – this can be done via email – to your state elections officials, asking them to provide you with copies of all documents submitted by the D party to Certify BO was the party nominee so that his name could be printed on MD’s general election ballot, including any cover letters that accompanied any such certifications.
Can you do this on Monday? ADMINISTRATOR
September 13, 2009 at 03:56 |
Eagle,
If you’d like a sample of the type of letter jbjd is asking you to send, let me know. I’ve sent several, so I know the format works. Should just be a cut and paste job. You can contact me at juriggs@yahoo.com.
Thanks for being willing to step up to the plate on this. It’s important work. There’s lots of people here to support you!
Justin Riggs: Thank you. Thank you so very much.
Eagle, please email Justin. He writes letters to state officials with respect for the office, that elicit favorable responses. Email him ASAP to get a sample. As soon as you receive back the Certifications, post the results here.
ADMINISTRATOR
September 13, 2009 at 14:59 |
emailed you Justin
Eagle: Hooray! Thank you so much. Cannot wait to see who submitted that MD Certification of Nomination, so that I can post the MD complaint of election fraud to the AG. ADMINISTRATOR
September 14, 2009 at 12:47 |
emailed at 8:40 AM today. Now we wait
Eagle: Whoa, you gave me a little scare. I did not instantly understand ‘what’ you had emailed. I scrolled down to find your state; and when I came to a previous comment and saw MD, my heart skipped. Oh, no, did he email a Complaint tailored to TX, to MD? And then I READ the prior comment. Of course; you had emailed the request for documents. Phew! You should not have to wait long. State public records laws generally require the state to comply with the request within 10 (ten) days. Don’t worry; HI is being proofed as we speak, and will be posted later today. (I MIGHT get VA today; if so, they will be next. I will do MD as soon you receive the documents you requested.) ADMINISTRATOR
September 13, 2009 at 16:07 |
Thanks Gordo. I wrote him a friendly note and encouraged him to come over and see JBJD’s work.Also, let him know Texas voters are letter-ready and Maryland is in progress.
Magna Carta: Please, when referring to me, use small letters (“jbjd” but not JBJD). There is enough confusion already about my work.
Also, FYI, getting out the additional complaints would be much quicker if people in those states with laws requiring the candidate to be eligible for the office, before his or her name will be printed on the ballot; would just obtain the Certifications of Nomination from their elected officials, through state public document laws, so that I can know who sent these to state elections officials and address the complaint accordingly. (The documents for MD and VA are in progress as we speak. Anyone from GA?) ADMINISTRATOR
September 13, 2009 at 17:13 |
Are you from HI and, if I post the model complaint of election fraud letter to the AG of HI, will you file this? (I already have the D Certifications of Nomination presented to HI elections officials.)
September 13, 2009 at 17:33 |
jbjd I have been following your blog for a while now and have seen the work you and other people are putting into this effort and I wanted to inform that there is an article written in THE POST AND EMAIL out of New Hampshire about the NH SOS investigating election fraud by NP,BO and the DEMS. In article they were crediting the Canadian Free Press with all of your work. I sent them an e-mail to inform them they had it wrong. Thought you might be interested!!!
Sheila: Thank you so much. (Remember, Justin Riggs put in the work to obtain the HI documents; I merely noted the difference with other Certifications and ‘interpreted’ that difference to be required by state law.) Are you from NH? Does NH law require the candidate to be eligible to get onto the ballot? ADMINISTRATOR
09.13.09
OMG. This theft of my intellectual property could completely undermine all of our hard work.
CFP copied my blog, making a big deal about the ‘newly’ discovered difference in signatures on Certifications of Nomination, concluding these differences in Certifications meant, the party had committed fraud. They failed to mention, state law dictates what goes on each Certification; and whether the Certification must originate with the DNC or the state D party Chair. Of course, all of this information is on my blog. No; for CFP, the fraud was proven merely by the different versions of the Certification. Then, WND copied my work wholesale, and credited Mr. Williams from CFP but not me. Just like CFP, WND also omitted the fact, HI law required the extra line in the Certification. (This makes sense, since in the same way that CFP is the front for Douglas Hagmann; Center for Western Journalism is the front for WND and Farah. They can label their propaganda however they want; but essentially, they are in the business of shaping opinions and not investigating and analyzing hard ‘news.’)
Now, a state Rep. in NH – he is a Plaintiff in one of Orly’s cases – was given the information from CFP. He contacted the SoS in NH to look into fraud; evidently, she agreed. But no fraud occurred in NH. As I have been saying since last summer, no provision of any law, federal or state, requires any state official to check whether the nominee for POTUS from the major political party is Constitutionally eligible for the job. This is the reason that any lawsuit predicated on Mandamus was doomed to fail. That is, the court – judicial branch – will not order the SoS – executive branch – to perform a specific job function unless such function is spelled out in the law – legislative branch. Most state laws also fail to require the nominee to be Constitutionally eligible for the job. In fact, most laws entitle the name of the nominee to appear on the ballot. All the party is required to do is to Certify the name of its nominee, to appropriate state officials. And since NH law does not require the nominee to be a NBC, having legally Certified he is the nominee, no fraud occurred.
We have begun filing election fraud complaints with A’sG in those states with laws requiring the candidate must be eligible for office to appear on the ballot. The complaints make clear, the D party submitted the Certifications that were required for the SoS to place BO’s name on the ballot. And the SoS did exactly what she was supposed to do, by placing his name on the ballot. In fact, by law, the party nominee is entitled to be on the ballot. However, the law in this state also requires the candidate to be eligible for the job. Now, we have no idea whether BO is eligible for the job; but we have a pretty good idea that based on the documentation in the public domain, as well as admissions by both the candidate and the party, the person signing the Certification on behalf of the party could not have ascertained whether BO is a NBC before signing the Certification submitted to the state.
It is this false meaning underlying the true Certification that is the election fraud; and the job of the AG is to investigate that fraud.
But let’s say, the SoS of NH reports, no fraud occurred. A’sG in other states will hear this and figure, no fraud occurred. So, what are these people filing these 4-page complaints of election fraud talking about?
Does this mean, the D’s did not commit election fraud in states other than NH? Absolutely not. But, tragically, because of the malfeasance of people associated with CFP and WND, and Leo and the NH state Rep., only readers of my blog will ‘get’ that distinction.
Leo Donofrio also posted this stolen information about the NH Rep., AFTER I alerted him CFP had stolen this from me. Here are the first two lines of the comment I sent him today, which comment he refuses to post. No surprise there.
“I cannot believe you posted this after I alerted you that CFP had stolen my work.”
“By stealing my work, CFP and WND have jeopardized the success of the project.”
By the way, NH has no law requiring the nominee from the major political party to be eligible for the job in order to appear on the ballot. ADMINISTRATOR
September 13, 2009 at 18:00 |
jbjd
Several days ago I sent you a request on CWs blog requesting if BO and NP besides committing fraud have they committed a felony? ( Don’t know if fraud and felonies are the same in court?) Examples I gave was BOs application of Certification in Az and NPs verification of BOs eligibilty in HI. Requested from you if you had other examples and it appears you do. I know you put a lot of work into election fraud and treason on this site. Don’t agree with these bozos taking your info for their oun use. Might want to check another site “thebirthers.org” We need to stick together on this mess until Barry gets tossed out.
Keep up with your good hard work.
hapnHal: What conduct constitutes fraud, or a felony, is determined on a state by state basis, according to locally enacted legislation. Most states have adopted the definition of fraud contained in the Restatement, which is a thesaurus of sorts of causes of action. If adopted by the states into their laws then, several states share the same definition of the infraction. Specifically, election fraud is defined in each state as a crime. In order to be considered a crime, the complained of conduct has to be greater than merely negligent, for example, it has to be reckless or intentional.
The problem with “taking” my info for their own use is this. (This has already happened in NH.) CFP stole my work; a state Rep. in NH saw their work and contacted the SoS in NH to look into fraud. Now, as I have been saying since last summer, no provision of any law, federal or state, requires any state official to check whether the nominee for POTUS from the major political party is Constitutionally eligible for the job. This is the reason that any lawsuit predicated on Mandamus was doomed to fail. That is, the court – judicial branch – will not order the SoS – executive branch – to perform a specific job function unless such function is spelled out in the law – legislative branch. Most state laws also fail to require the nominee to be Constitutionally eligible for the job. In fact, most laws entitle the name of the nominee to appear on the ballot. All the party is required to do is to Certify the name of its nominee, to appropriate state officials. So, unless a NH law requires the nominee to be a NBC, no fraud occurred. Let’s say, the SoS of NH reports, no fraud occurred. A’sG in other states will hear this and figure, no fraud occurred. So, what are these people filing these 4-page complaints of election fraud talking about?
Does this mean, the D’s did not commit fraud in other states? Absolutely not. But, tragically, because of the malfeasance of people associated with CFP and WND, only readers of this blog will ‘get’ that distinction. ADMINISTRATOR
September 13, 2009 at 23:56 |
Do you know what the actual text is in the NH election laws since that is a new hot spot? Is it the case where they do not have the same verbiage as Texas or Maryland?
Magna Carta: NH has no law that requires the nominee for POTUS from the major political party to be eligible for the job as a condition of appearing on the general election ballot. But the people who stole my work – CFP, WND, Leo Donofrio, etc. – are unaware of the implications of these laws. No; guess why a NH Rep. took the CFP article to the SoS? Maybe because he is a Plaintiff in one of Orly Taitz’s cases. And the ’smoke’ coming from the hyperbolic rants of people associated with CFP tricked some people into thinking, the information they posted means ’something.’ But nothing in the law in NH requires the Certifications to be notarized in the first place. And while technically faulty notary stamps might jeopardize the license of the Notary, fraud related to submitting these Certifications to state elections officials would only vest under these conditions: 1) if the party could not have obtained places on the ballot without a notarized certification; AND 2) if the party could not have otherwise obtained a Notary stamp on those Certifications except through fraud.
In sum, NH wasn’t chosen because the law we are using to file complaints of election fraud to the AG,apply there; it does not. Rather, the NH Rep. was chosen to pursue this ‘fraud,’ by people associated with both him and CFP, who are obviously more interested in gaining notoriety for themselves than in pursuing a responsible strategy to resolve this Presidential eligibility dilemma in a way that could produce favorable results. ADMINISTRATOR
September 14, 2009 at 01:02 |
Magna Carta,
Here’s the relevant NH language:
655:17-b Declaration of Intent; Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates Who File Nomination Papers.
I. Declarations of intent for each candidate for president and vice-president who seeks nomination by nomination papers shall be in the form provided in paragraph II. Declarations of intent required by this section shall be filed with the secretary of state, signed by the candidate, and notarized by a notary public.
II. I, ________ declare that I am domiciled in the city (or town or unincorporated place) of _______, county of , state of ______________, and am a qualified voter therein; that I intend to be a candidate for the office of to be chosen at the general election to be held on the day of ; and I intend to file nomination papers by the deadline established under RSA 655:43. I further declare that, if qualified as a candidate for said office, I shall not withdraw; and that, if elected, I shall be qualified for and shall assume the duties of said office.”
Here’s 655:43
“655:43 Filing Deadline.
I. Nomination papers shall be filed with the secretary of state no later than 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday one week before the primary. Nomination papers to be filed shall be grouped by municipality. No nomination papers shall be accepted by the secretary of state unless the candidate shall have met the age and domicile qualifications for the office he or she seeks at the time of the general election and meets all the other qualifications at the time of filing”
A couple of questions I have:
1) Who files the nomination papers?
2) If the individual who files the nomination papers is saying to the state that the candidate “meets all the other qualifications” at the time of filing, isn’t this saying that the Presidential candidate is a NBC?
Justin Riggs: 1. BO files the papers to get onto the state ballot for the party primary. (Recall that, HE pulled his name from the MI ballot; HRC left hers on.) Going after him for election fraud is not an option. 2. NH has no law requiring the nominee for POTUS from the major political party to be Constitutionally eligible for the job in order to have his name printed on the general election ballot. ADMINISTRATOR
September 14, 2009 at 02:09 |
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
Justin Riggs: You are very welcome. ADMINISTRATOR
September 14, 2009 at 01:03 |
To Administrator;
Faxed Election Fraud complaint form to TX ATTY General Greg Abbot 07:57 this eve.
FYI
Ed Sunderland: Excellent. Good for you! (I trust you read this, first, and understood and agreed with its contents.) ADMINISTRATOR
September 14, 2009 at 01:04 |
jbjd
Sent Kentucky info to you before. Just looked at this: http://sos.ky.gov/elections/qualifications/
For President, straight from the Constitution Article II, 35 yrs old, NBC, and resident for 14 years.
Rocknee: I recall we went over this; sorry, but if I am remembering correctly, while KY would have been a great place to file due to its political climate, no law in KY requires the nominee for POTUS from the major political party to be eligible for the job before elections officials will print his name on the general election ballot. This chart you linked merely informs prospective candidates, say, people who might want to run in the party primary, what are the qualifications of the job. ADMINISTRATOR
September 14, 2009 at 03:18 |
Yes sir, I read it a several times, understand and am on board. In my view however, regardless of whether or not a State has a requirement that a candidate meet constitutional muster, the mere fact that those “two” Official Nomination forms worded as they are should cancel each other out, thus making the candidates null and void.
Those are like writing a law that says, “you are licensed drive on this road” and another that says, you are just a driver! This whole thing is so adolescent in it’s simple stupidity it’s beyond imagination. “Much like Congress and the Senate in general”.
The question I have is “why oh’ why” “wasn’t there a single election official that didn’t question the basic validity of these two notarized instruments?”
This act was either a raw cynical disregard for this country, our Constitution, and it’s people, or total blind biased ignorance! I submit that our Attorney General needs to ferret out the answer.
Ed Sunderland: Let me try to explain. The steps the major political party is required to satisfy in order to get the name of its nominee for POTUS printed on the ballot depends on the laws in the state. As I wrote in the Complaint for Election Fraud, even without explicitly writing, its candidate is Constitutionally eligible for the job. the D party warranties he is eligible for the job by making him their nominee. That is, D rules require the nominee for POTUS to be Constitutionally eligible for the job. So, having this line in the Certification of Nomination is actually superfluous. However, at least theoretically, the DNC could change its rules, and omit that requirement. In HI, there’s still that law requiring the line of eligibility to be on the Certification.
Please keep in mind, the authority of the state in relation to candidate eligibility only extends to determining under what circumstances the state agrees to pay to print the name of the candidate selected by the party, on the state’s general election ballot. But remember, you are not voting for the candidate in the general election but for the Electors for the party of that candidate. So, theoretically, the candidate’s name doesn’t even have to be on the ballot, anyway. And you only vote for these Electors because the U.S. Constitution says, the states will appoint Electors on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November; and each state decided to hold a general election on that day to allow the citizens of the state to choose those Electors, and then enacted laws to carry out this selection process. ADMINISTRATOR
September 14, 2009 at 19:44 |
If there are any Texans on this blog interested in contacting the Austin American-Statesman…its an idea..I have their e-mail.I would prefer we notify as a group in some way.The telephone is:(512)445-3679.
I filed today and I believe my husband will also. Also contacted U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert’s office in Tyler. Sent his secretary there all relevant links both to educate and refer directly to jbjd’s work posted here.
September 14, 2009 at 19:45 |
ooops not e-mail ..telephone number.
September 16, 2009 at 18:13 |
Hello jbjd,
I don’t know if you have seen this regarding SC law requiring written certification by the political party the qualifications of the candidate for office to be placed on the ballot.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19783291/Obama-South-Carolina-Sec-of-State-DNC-pdf-MINUS-any-certification
Note the date of August 14, 2008 on the SC Democratic Party letter from the political party chair as being two weeks prior to the DNC Convention’s official nomination paper by NP.
And please also note according to the state law, “The written certification required by this section must contain a statement that each candidate certified meets,… the qualifications for the office for which he has filed.”
Did the political party chair mislead the SC State Election Commission by this so called written certification as especially written in advance of the DNC nomination?
Should the SC State Election Commission have accepted this information from the state political party and the DNC official nomination paper as verification according to the SC law as to “…must verify the qualifications of those candidates…”?
From “Democratic Party Rules (pdf)”:
http://www.scdp.org/actioncenter/
“South Carolina Democratic Party Rules
XI. CANDIDATE FILING – NOMINATIONS – PRIMARY ELECTION
Candidate filing, nominations, primary elections, and election protests shall be governed by the laws of the State of South Carolina.”
Interesting, I want to say, ‘election fraud’…..
azgo: I just got home. Let me take a look at this and I will get back to you. ADMINISTRATOR
azgo: This is the same stuff that has been out there since last year. Recall, the only way I knew the HI Certification of Nomination had that extra line about Constitutional eligibility was that I had already seen the SC Certification, which did not. But now that I have the SC law, yes, this is another state, like HI and TX, that needs a fraud complaint. There are many more states with these laws; we are just awaiting the Certifications to know whom to accuse of election fraud, the state D party Chair or, NP, the Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention.
I will begin drafting SC. Thanks for feeding me the specifications; it makes looking up the law that much easier. (Yes; I always do my own research when you send the cites.)
Finally, please recall, other federal offices are voted on, on the same day as the POTUS. But in SC, they use different ballots. The only candidate Certified ‘late’ is the POTUS (and VPOTUS) and Electors.
ARTICLE 3.
BALLOTS FOR GENERAL AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS
SECTION 7-13-310. Kinds of general election ballots; different colored paper shall be used.
In the general elections provided for in Section 7-13-10, there shall be four kinds of ballots called, respectively: “Official Ballot for Presidential Elector”; “Official Ballot for State Offices, United States Senator and Members of Congress”; “Official Ballot for State Senator, Member of the House of Representatives, County, Circuit and Other Offices” and “Official Ballot on Constitutional Amendments or other Propositions Submitted.” Each such kind of ballot shall be printed upon different colored paper as shall be provided for by the executive director. Candidates ADMINISTRATOR
September 17, 2009 at 00:35 |
Hi jbjd…just got back from being away and have had no response as of yet to our TX complaint…Also wanted to say that I have read some of the other blogs and I hope you keep your spirits up…there is a lot of amateur hour going on out there (and regrettably self service)…and it jeopardizes all of us who only want the truth even if we are proven wrong…
redhank: You have no idea how nice it is to hear this from you. I am in the midst of preparing the SC complaint – I am still waiting on MD and VA – and in your absence I posted HI, which clearly spells out that the Certifications specifically comply with HI state law. (Unfortunately, I have no information that anyone from HI has filed this election fraud complaint.) I have also begun to consider what is an appropriate time to re-contact the TX AG. Understand that usually, when you write to someone requesting a service, you say something like, ‘I will expect your response by (date),’ or some wording like that. But in this case, anything we said would sound like we were ordering compliance. And we are not. However, we expect compliance. If the AG exercises discretion not to investigate, we need to get this in writing. I will get back to you with ideas; let me know your thinking on the subject. (BTW, I believe several other people have now filed in TX. Check out comments from Magna Carta.) ADMINISTRATOR
September 17, 2009 at 00:53 |
Well I agree we need to have a followup…I have not contacted newspapers as I think we should try not to box them in yet…but a respectful followup and then perhaps consider seeking press…I look to you for guidance as I am an ex-banker, not a lawyer…
redhank: I hear you but, this is a whole new ball game. ADMINISTRATOR
September 17, 2009 at 01:08 |
I called the Texas AG office today and they didn’t know which department to direct me to-to find a case worker. I was passed around but was told someone would call. No name or case in the database.
They didn’t know which department “election fraud” would be filed under.
Admin, if you have info or a request contact me. Maybe a conference call or something like that would be good to get everyone on the same page.
Ed Sunderland: Funny you should say that. We are trying to figure out how to do a once-a-week live chat. Believe me, I am dancing just as fast as I can. Interesting about the AG not knowing who is handling these complaints. But they had better be ‘docketed.’ ADMINISTRATOR
(Note: I answered this yesterday and somehow forgot to post. I am so sorry.)
September 17, 2009 at 02:53 |
A secretary said that someone would call and she asked for my number, so we’ll see about that. In any case, when you go to the AG site there is no category for political issues.
I am wondering if we shouldn’t check with the Secretary of State like New Hampshire?
You know, the more I think about this, the more irritated I get. I have to wonder if Acorn is running the DNC?
Ed Sunderland: Interesting how A’sG set up their separate divisions for anticipated or previously encountered examples of ‘consumer fraud’ perpetrated in their state. Guess this election fraud is a newly discovered crime. I am curious to see how these A’sG will respond to so many complaining witnesses: ’sorry we cannot help you, we have not assigned our attorneys to a unit with this title and so, we cannot investigate this heretofore unreported crime.’
As for ‘reporting’ this crime to the SoS, well, that would be like calling the city trash collector to put out a house fire. Apples and oranges. As I have been posting in comments throughout the blogosphere for over a year now, no law in any state required the SoS to vet the candidate as to Constitutional eligibility. Plus, in NH, no election fraud was committed viz-a-viz S’s of S because all documents were submitted to the SoS in accordance with the law, and the SoS put the nominee’s name on the ballot as he was required to do, by law. What happened in NH resulted from only 2 (two) things: 1) CFP (and others) stole the work being done on this blog and thought they could make a name for themselves by ‘running’ with my idea but, having failed to do the leg work, had no idea what we meant by the use of the term, ‘election fraud’; and 2) the NH state representative whom they got to pitch the ‘investigation’ to the SoS is a Plaintiff in one of Orly’s cases and, because of this prior association, was specifically targeted to bring charges of election fraud raised on this blog. In other words, he did this because someone who stole my work but had no idea what it entailed, asked him to. ADMINISTRATOR
If going to the S’s of S was a possible solution to this issue, I would have already proposed this solution months ago. ADMINISTRATOR
September 18, 2009 at 00:05 |
I am going to contact my State Representative and see if I can get some traction there.
(sent request for info on venue to State Rep)
Awaiting reply from State Rep and TX ATTY, General.
Ed Sunderland: I just want to point out, you are overlapping 2 (two) branches of government, the legislative and the executive. What party is your Rep.?
Has anyone in TX heard back from the AG? ADMINISTRATOR
September 18, 2009 at 00:37 |
Yea, I know about the overlapping, and I haven’t received anything from the AG yet.
Ed Sunderland: Think I will post a ‘call for comments’ from Texans, on the blog. Let’s see how many of you are out there. ADMINISTRATOR
September 18, 2009 at 01:04 |
Hi jbjd,
Re: SC Model Letter.
Part 1. (A):
Would it be wise to also include the line prior the one quoted from SC election law, “Political parties nominating candidates by primary or convention must verify the qualifications of those candidates prior to certification to the authority charged by law with preparing the ballot.”? (I like the words, ‘must verify the qualifications’ and it is underlined in the SC State Election Commission letter from Garry Baum as to Garry is making a point and the AG will be reading this letter. What do you think?)
Part 2 of the SC model letter:
The SC Official DNC Certification of Nomination is the “duly nominated” only version, not the “legally qualified” version (HI version).
Doesn’t Carol Fowler’s initialed ‘Certification of Candidates’ email dated August 14, 2008 serve as written certification as required by state elections law? This email is then the only certification that uses the language, “meets the qualifications for the office…” as NP certification only states “duly nominated”. If so, should this SC letter be written similiar to the TX letter as to “…submitted 2 (two) documents…”?
Also the Georgia model letter may be next as a blogger has sent info to the Georgia SoS and who then referred to the AG regarding the “famous” DNC certification letter article. I left a message directing this person here, jbjd web site, to review the information and to file a formal complaint to Georgia AG using the model letter format.
azgo: In general, your suggestions point to language that makes a distinction without a difference. For example, you want me to add to the section of law quoted in the SC complaint, the lines from that law which are underlined in the letter that the SC elections commission sent to (?) along with copies of the party’s certifications for lesser offices, right? You think this will bolster the case for fraud presented to the AG, correct? Let me start backwards. Under SC law, submitting the name of the nominee to election officials to place his name on the ballot already means 1) he is qualified for the job sought; and 2) the party ascertained his qualifications. The reason the line, “Political parties nominating candidates by primary or convention must verify the qualifications of those candidates prior to certification…” was added to the law was so as to make clear, vetting the candidate is the job of the parties, not the state. Think about it. The state cannot order the parties to vet party candidates; that is interfering with internal party operations. But the state can legislate conduct involving the state. So, it said, parties handing us names they want included on our ballots must only hand us names of eligible candidates or, nominees. For the purpose of establishing fraud, since the law requires the party to submit only eligible candidates to the state for publication on the state ballot then, the party would have to determine such eligibility before certifying the name of the nominee, to the state.
On August 14, SC did not know who was the D nominee for POTUS. According to SC law, the Certification for POTUS is in September.
As for comparing the TX complaint to the one filed in SC, in TX, no NP signed Certification was submitted, but only a Certification and letter signed by the state D party Chair. In SC, we have the NP Certification but not the cover letter. But since SC law requires the Certification to come from the state party Chair, we know., that Certification of Nomination signed by NP and stamped Received by SC had to have come from the state party Chair. It doesn’t matter what she wrote in that letter; the mere submission of the Certification of Nomination evidences the fraud.
Let me know if you have any more questions. And thank you for making sure I haven’t missed something.
As for GA, well, that is a very special state to me. Because during the primary, I learned about vote binding states, that is, states that enacted laws requiring delegates elected to represent certain candidates had to follow those candidates into the Convention. But I documented before the convention a pattern of harassment of HRC delegates by BO’s people, in vote binding states, trying to get them to pledge to vote for him. I reasoned that they were enticing HRC pledged delegates to break the law. So, I reported these activities to the A’sG of these states. The GA AG wrote a letter to pledged delegates reminding them, by law in GA, they had to vote for the person they were elected to represent on at least the first round of voting at the Convention! So, I look forward to getting the GA Certifications. ADMINISTRATOR
September 18, 2009 at 01:18 |
Woops, regarding Georgia, the blogger forwarded the info to the local election supervisor requesting an investigation and she forwarded it to the GA Secretary of State. Sorry!
azgo: That’s okay. Get me the GA documents. ADMINISTRATOR
September 18, 2009 at 05:47 |
Hello jbjd,
Thank you for your answers above!
This one needs to be addressed as I stated above re:
“Part 2 of the SC model letter:
The SC Official DNC Certification of Nomination is the “duly nominated” only version, not the “legally qualified” version (HI version).”
The South Carolina “DNC, Official Certification of Nomination” letter says:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were (duly nominated) as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:” [emphasis added]
In your “The Model Complaint of Election Fraud” letter for South Carolina in part 2., paragraph 2, it says:
Carol Fowler submitted….. contained the line, he was “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”
The last part of this statement is from the Hawaii DNC, Official Certification of Nomination” letter. This last part needs to be changed to reflect the South Carolina “DNC, Official Certification of Nomination” letter – “duly nominated”.
azgo: Good catch! Thank you. ADMINISTRATOR
September 18, 2009 at 01:33 |
jbjd, please check http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/nh-sos-refers-rappaports-complaint-to-nh-attorney-general/
New Hampshire Secretary of State refers Rappaport’s complaint to NH Attorney General
kamikaz: I cannot click on that site. After CFP (JB Williams) stole my work and somehow Rep. Rappaport, Orly’s Plaintiff, misused it to pursue a fraud complaint in NH, where no such fraud occurred, with the SoS, who has no authority to investigate fraud, anyway, I wrote to that web site to explain JB Williams stole my work, and to point out the danger to the bona fide cases we are filing with A’sG, of having a SoS rule there was no fraud. The author refused to post my comment. (He did mention my name.) Now, your news is even worse. With CFP’s (JB Williams’) misplaced focus on fraud as the difference in Certifications of Nominations between HI and other states – HI law requires an extra line explicitly saying the candidate is Constitutionally eligible for the job – the AG will find no election fraud. And all the other A’sG will point to that decision to justify refusing to investigate the real election fraud we are reporting. (Assuming the reports in the article you cite are true.)
JB Williams was on Sentinel Radio and other programs repeating he had obtained the work from an anonymous source. ADMINISTRATOR
September 18, 2009 at 02:35 |
jbjd,
(I’m getting back to you from another site)
Sweet site you have here as well as amazingly detailed research. Hats off to you sir.
Question:
Must one hold the status of Permanent Residence/Registered Voter in said state?
If so, I may not qualify, as I hold dual Residence, however, I do have contacts who would qualify.
DABIG: Boy, am I glad to see you here. (Thank you for the compliment. I am better than I would otherwise be, because of the contributions of my readers.) As a resident, you are entitled to the services of the state. In this case, you are a complaining witness to the election fraud. The state is the investigator/prosecutor. Just make sure to fill in your HI address instead of your other address. Please, file away; and tell your friends! ADMINISTRATOR
September 18, 2009 at 02:43 |
I sent an E-Mail to the AG in Michigan, asking who was responsible to make sure nominees were natural born, I have not received a reply. Anyone have the knowledge here about it in michigan?
Margie: Welcome. No provision of any federal or state law requires any state official to vet the nominee for POTUS from the major political party as to Constitutional eligibility for the job. But some state laws say, the nominee must be eligible. Can you look up MI laws to see whether they contain any such provision? To get a better idea of what I am talking about, just read the complaints already posted. These cite to laws in those states. (Not all states have such laws; we are only filing complaints of election fraud in states with these eligibility laws that apply to nominees from the major political parties.) ADMINISTRATOR
September 18, 2009 at 11:45 |
Readers, I want to edit my response to Justin Riggs, on his comment submitted on 09.14.09, at 1:02 am. He sent to the attention of Magna Carta, the law from NH regarding candidate participation in NH’s Presidential primary. Then, he asked me these questions:
Here was my reply.
I want to clarify something. When I said, going after BO for fraud was not an option in NH, what I meant, is this. In order to go after him, you would have to alert the AG that BO submitted a fraudulent affidavit of eligibility for the primary. This allegation differs from the charge in the present complaints. In the case we present to the AG, we are defining the fraud was in swearing something was true, before ascertaining whether it was, for the benefit of getting the name of the party nominee printed on the ballot. But with BO, we would have to allege, he lied to get himself on the ballot. Because he certainly knows whether he is eligible to be POTUS. I have no evidence, he lied. But I have a pretty strong circumstantial case to establish, no one else could have determined his eligibility given the public records. See the difference?
UPDATE ONE HOUR LATER: I just got a ping back from another blog whose author, John Charlton, had previously posted the story that NH Rep. Rappaport had asked the NH SoS to look into charges of election fraud related to the NH ballot. As you know, information stolen from my blog has been appearing everywhere, without attribution to me. I complained to Mr. Charlton not only that, he was printing information stolen from my blog, but also that, he was enabling the thieves to jeopardize the success of the whole project. That is, having failed to study the work that goes on here, the thieves had failed to grasp the nuances of our mission; thus, just by bringing this ‘complaint’ to the SoS, they had sabotaged our complaints to state A’sG. (Since there was no election fraud in NH, a ruling would issue from the SoS saying, there was no fraud. But an AG in, say, TX, where fraud occurred, could hear this ruling from the NH SoS, and have a convenient excuse not to pursue our legitimate charges in his state.) Not surprisingly, my comments were not posted.
Well, now I see, the people associated with the initial theft – CFP writer JB Williams, who claimed on Sentinel Radio he received the information he would talk about on the show, “anonymously”; and Orly Taitz, whose Plaintiff in other of her cases, Rep. Rappaport, somehow got hold of this bootleg material and decided to petition the NH SoS to look into election fraud – have now come up with a variation on a theme of fraud. Now they allege, the fraud in NH occurred when BO signed the written oath required of candidates seeking to enter the NH Presidential primary, swearing they are eligible for the job. And this time, the ‘author’ refers to me, saying, their claim is valid notwithstanding my statement, in NH there is no basis to charge fraud. (Of course, when I say, there is no basis to charge election fraud, in any state, I mean, under the same legal theory that applies to the complaints I have been drafting in applicable states. However, there is no basis to bring a charge of fraud under their theory, either.) Here is the reply I left on that blog, which may or may not get posted.
UPDATE ONE HOUR AFTER THAT: Well, Mr. Charlton printed my comment. And here is his response.
UPDATE ONE HOUR AFTER THAT: Mr. Charlton has now removed from his blog, both my comment and his reply. And he has added these remarks at the end of his article.
September 18, 2009 at 16:17 |
jbjd,
Thanks for that clarification. I now better understand the distinction between the type of fraud you are alleging, and the type of fraud that might have occured, but that we have no proof of.
As for Mr. Charlton, his remarks are unfortunate. Civility is a desirable character trait, but his comments show no such grace. I would hope that we could disagree, but do so in a pleasant manner.
juriggs: You are welcome. And this only makes sense; if we could prove BO is not a NBC, we would be petitioning our elected officials to commence Impeachment hearings, immediately, and not devising election fraud complaints against Chairs of the state D parties. ADMINISTRATOR
September 18, 2009 at 16:55 |
Post&Email has an update article on NH.
“Basis for Election Fraud in New Hampsire?”
azgo: Thanks. I had just updated my comments, before reading this one, from you. ADMINISTRATOR
September 19, 2009 at 22:29 |
Thanks for the reply, I will keep investigating. God Bless America.
Margie: No need to thank me; that is what I am here for. After what happened during the D primary in MI, I would love to be able to file a complaint for that state. Just look at the laws; use the sample complaints to get an idea what language I am looking for. ADMINISTRATOR
September 19, 2009 at 22:37 |
jbjd,
You asked how many Texans are out here. I am one
who has followed your site and is considering filing
a complaint. I am very familiar with your premise and completely agree. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote in,
before you wrote the complaints, and have been too busy
recently to do anything more that try to keep up with your progress. If you feel another complaint should be
sent in Texas at this time, I will send one. If FAX numbers are available, that would help expedite this.
Let me know. By the way, thanks for all your energy and concern. This has to be very time consuming, and if everyone could put in what time they have available, a lot could be done. Thanks again.
HLC
HLC: Hello. You are most welcome. Yes, by all means, send a complaint; the FAX number is on the front. Soon I will do a round-up of Texans who have filed complaints, to determine next steps. ADMINISTRATOR
September 19, 2009 at 23:59 |
jbjd,
Thanks for the reply. I will print out and get mine
ready to send on Monday morning. Start their week off
right! I will keep a close eye out for a ’round-up”
of Texans (a very appropriate term!). I’ll let you know when I send the complaints. I’m also thinking about sending one to the Governor, Rick Perry, who has talked
about Secession over several issues. Maybe he would put
his money where his mouth is and encourage the AG to act on this. What do you think?
HLC
HLC: Keep it simple. The AG is an elected position. This complaint rightly belongs with the AG, with copies only to the people mentioned in the complaint. Let him do his job. The FAX number to the AG is on the front of the complaint. Somewhere in the comments is the FAX to the SoS, I believe. And remember to send one to the state D party Chair. Of course, you can always send copies to the press. ADMINISTRATOR
September 20, 2009 at 20:01 |
jbjd
I just found your site yesterday (a little slow) I stayed up all night and read you entire site. OMG you are brilliant!!!! I have been going from site to site for a very long time reading and trying to find what needed to be done. This is it. You are correct about other sites using your stuff. I recognized it after reading your site inforation. Anyway,to the point. I live in Texas and have my complaints ready to mail certified mail tomorrow. I have all my friends ready to do the same thing. Then in mass, we are going to get this out to the media…Yee Haa. Great work you are doing. I’m not a lawyer, but a darn good pack mule. Let me know how to help.
Alecia: Welcome. Thank you for appreciating my hard work. Yes, please send a complaint to your Texas AG. Soon, I will be brainstorming with all of you to figure out next steps. In the meantime, I had to post the complaint to VA because, this one is against The Honorable Nancy Pelosi. ADMINISTRATOR
September 21, 2009 at 00:42 |
Just finished reading your Texas complaint; its fascinating, extremely well done. You always come up with the interesting angles! The thread has also been very interesting. I’m so sorry that you’re hard work and innovative ideas have been stolen over and over. This has become a real problem all over the web. I don’t like CFP or WND, and have found them to be untrustworthy (sorry to any conservatives here…no offense…& I’m indy myself); however, do you want us to leave comments on these sites about your work, & if so, anything specific? Thanks for all your time & hard work jbjd!
socalannie: Hello. People like you who have followed my work know which work product is mine, from the impostors. I object less to the theft of my work than to the fallout from that theft, which could be, sabotaging a viable solution to this dilemma of whether our POTUS is Constitutionally ineligible for the job. The fact that I posted a well-reasoned and drafted lengthy article on my blog and then, days later, that work was re-posted on CFP – I have written extensively in comments to my readers that this ‘publication’ is nothing more than a front for unsavory characters of extreme political persuasion – by JB Williams, is not coincidental. Yes; unfortunately, we share the first two initials. There is a discussion going on over at Free Republic right now, where I just posted “THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE,” as to who first came up with the idea to target NP. One reader posted, JB has this idea on the blog last December. Of course, he means, I had this idea posted; and I am jbjd.
Have you read, “THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE?” This contains the Virginia complaint of election fraud against NP. This is the first time we could actually name her as having committed the fraud. Let’s see what AG Mims does with this. He is not running for re-election for AG but will be running for Governor. ADMINISTRATOR
September 22, 2009 at 17:13 |
jbjd, Sent mine to gregg abbott and others on Monday (yesterday) Confirmation sig.required. Will let you know when I receive reply to delivered. Then let you know if any reply from Attny Gen (if I get one)
Talked with Congressman Ralph Hall’s office today. Linda in McKinney Texas is very interested in this. I am sending to her today. She promised she will get this out to all in North Texas. Will make sure Ralph Hall has it, and he contacts Attny Gen office to pressure action. Ralph is a Repub. but use to be a Dem. One of those Blue Dogs. He knows everyone and will work both sides to get this straight.
Alecia: Nothing like being late to the party and getting right in to the thick of it! I would be interested in their take on the problem that is, not their opinion of BO’s eligibility, which is not at issue here, but the problem of establishing the D party in TX has complied with state law, when no one associated with the party will reveal on what basis s/he issued the Certification of Nomination confirming BO is a NBC. ADMINISTRATOR
September 22, 2009 at 23:13 |
jbjd, I explained in about 20 minutes what you had set up. They liked what they heard and wanted to see the complaint. They said this was the most interesting thing they had heard of so far. They promised to get back with me after reading it. They promised to call the Attny Gen office and stay updated. I don’t think they would promise and not follow through. Ralph Hall took my Uncle’s place in Congress many years ago and they were very good friends. My Uncle was H.Ray Roberts. Ray was my father’s,sister’s husband,s brother….ooooh that even confused me
It does not sound like it, but we were a fairly close family. We all campaigned for him. Anyway.. I don’t think he will put me off. If he sees a problem or expects a problem…I’ll let you know. If he lets me know what the AG says…I’ll keep you updated.
Alecia: You might also want to point these people to the next blog post, which is the VA complaint. Because in this one, Nancy Pelosi is the accused; and in this complaint, I actually link to refusals by both her and former DNC General Counsel Joe Sandler to produce documents requested by voters anxious to see the basis on which the DNC Certified BO is a NBC. ADMINISTRATOR
September 23, 2009 at 01:19 |
Well, it’s been over a week now since I submitted my complaint, and a follow up phone call has been ignored. So, tomorrow I’ll personally deliver a copy to Congressman Burgess’s office and my State rep. I’ll also send a hard copy as well to the AG.
From reviewing the blog here I’ve not noted any return communication from the AG,
So,
I plan to contact the AG office by phone again tomorrow to see if there has been a case worker assigned.
FYI
Ed Sunderland: Unbelievable. I am working on drafting a press release; I would like to coordinate filers in all states, so that we release the statement on the same day. ADMINISTRATOR
September 23, 2009 at 01:40 |
jbjd,
I contacted you Sunday about sending complaints. Just
an update. My Fax machine was not working, so I sent them this morning, return receipt by priority mail.
Sounds like no responses by others so far, so it will be time soon for another strategy, like press releases.
I am reluctant to release to the press here with my name
on this, as I know a lot of people in the Austin area, and I am on a couple of boards, and it could cause repercussions, and if I redact it, the press will probably ignore it. I don’t mind this coming out through the AG’s office, as that would lend it credibility, but right now that prospect seems doubtful. Thoughts?
HLC
HLC: Oh, no, there is no need for EVERYONE who filed a complaint to appear at a press conference. Knowing how many people have not received a response is important but identifying all of these people to the press, is not. (Let me assure you, some filers both in Texas and in other states are similarly situated. I am so angry that this fraudulent conduct has placed so many of you in uncomfortable situations.) ADMINISTRATOR
September 23, 2009 at 02:00 |
jbjd,
I will keep you informed, and will keep an eye on
this blog for updates as well. Thanks again.
HLC
HLC: I am a teacher. I had time during the summer to do all of this work; I worked all day on this stuff. Now, I am back at school; but I am dancing as fast as I can. ADMINISTRATOR
September 23, 2009 at 23:46 |
jbjd, Talked with 3 more people today that mailed their complaints. I also e mailed a short note, your site info, and a copy of the complaint to about half of the counties in Texas. I asked them to read, give to friends and family and send to AG’s office. Im tryng to set some fires. Let’s see if this heats up. Will call congressman’s office back tomorrow. They have had time to read the complaint.
Alecia: I am so proud of your efforts. If you scan my work since the summer before last, in comments I wrote on other people’s blogs for months before I set up my own, I kept saying, it’s not up to us to prove the man who would be our POTUS is not eligible for the job but rather up to him to prove, he is. Finally, in this case of first impression, people like you have read the argument I synthesized; understood it; and, believing they have been victims of a massive fraud, brought this to the attention of the people who should have prevented this from happening, and who need to step up to the plate now.
According to reader feedback, the Texas AG has not even acknowledged receipt of any of these complaints. Does this mean he has not begun an investigation? We will know soon.
Just a quick question; you said it takes you about 20 minutes to explain what we are doing here. How do your listeners respond? Do they ‘get it?’ ADMINISTRATOR
September 24, 2009 at 17:07 |
Sadly, most do not. But some do. I will continue to share. The people that “get it” are working hard. Each day, a few more “get it” Slow but steady. Drip,drip,drip. People are so frustrated that “someone is not doing something” That is my “in” to explain this. Most do not have to do anything because simply, it is not in their job discription. When they realize this…they start to understand your position and say “brilliant!”
Alecia: The reason I ask whether people understand your explanation of this election fraud complaint initiative, is this. Perhaps they might read a summary or overview of this election fraud, in “NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON” (1 and 2). The links in this article will take the reader to several other useful articles, especially, “IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING VIEWS IS un-AMERICAN THEN, IGNORING UNPLEASANT VIEWS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO.” Sometimes, it takes more than 1 (one) explanation to see the whole picture. But once this comes into focus, the reader will ask, why didn’t I see this sooner? That’s when you know, s/he ‘gets’ it. ADMINISTRATOR
September 24, 2009 at 19:58 |
jbjd, Oh yes! the first thing I send them to is your site to read. Without reading your site…it could take years of explaining. I just need to get their attention to get them to read. Have you noticed that the one of the biggest problems we have in the US is that people do not read….They depend on the media. I ask them to promise not to send the complaint until they read your site. The 20 minute short is only to get them interested.
Alecia: This is wonderful; because as you imply, it does no good to get someone to do the right thing just because you tell him or her to do it. Because if persuasion motivates the person to act then, when the next more persuasive person comes along and says, do this, but ‘this’ is the wrong thing… But once you understand how your government works or, is supposed to work then, no one can undermine your Constitutional republic ever again. You have no idea how long it took to synthesize the story; because once I was through, it really looked so simple. Thank you again for all you have done and continue to do to get the word out. I think ‘knowing’ what happened at least eases the frustration of those people who could not put their anger into words.
Over the week-end, I will post THE END GAME, to explain what comes next. (I intended to get that out today but, one of my Georgians, Susan, obtained her state’s documentation today and so, I got up that Complaint, instead.) ADMINISTRATOR
September 25, 2009 at 00:25 |
jbjd, Just received return receipt from Attnorny General Gregg Abbott. Dated received in mail center on September 23,2009 by Office of the Attorney General. Now, no excuses. Game on.
Alecia: AG Abbott will step up to the plate. He has to. More than 30 (thirty) citizens of the great state of Texas, from red hank and now, to you, have filed this complaint of election fraud with his office. The theory of the case was developed for him; the leg work was laid out at his feet. All he has to now is his job. ADMINISTRATOR
September 26, 2009 at 02:14 |
jbjd,
First-timer here.
Looking for a bit of legal perspective on a subject that is tangental to your discussion, but related.
Topic: Security Clearance of Elected Officials.
Any insights or links?
Thanks in advance.
g. amos: Welcome. Quick answer: well, there is no quick answer. Just a reminder that, the CIC is a civilian position. Thus, the founders wanted a civilian in charge of the armed services. Also, the POTUS is elected by the people, through state appointments of Electors and, Congressional ratification of the EC vote. Thus, s/he is not required to undergo any additional security screening. If we had concerns as to whether the candidate for the Oval Office was to be trusted with our contry’s secrets then, we should have not elected him or her. ADMINISTRATOR
September 26, 2009 at 04:01 |
Called the AG’s office again today to see if there was a case worker assigned yet, got another telephone shuffle then dropped into someones voice mail box where I left my phone number for the second time.
No response by phone from AG’s office but I am undeterred.
Will call again Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of next week until I get a response.
Their phone number is 512-463-2100. Punch it into your cell. If they start getting tons of calls they have to do something. FYIA
Ed Sunderland: Thank you; this is so important. I am planning an action for next week. No elected official can be allowed to ignore the voters who elected him, with impunity. None. ADMINISTRATOR
September 26, 2009 at 15:10 |
I’m moving to Texas! That’s it, y’all are AWESOME!!!
Still quiet in Virginia. Hand delivered and emailed complaint Monday and Sunday respectively. Follow up is critical and will be making the rounds this upcoming week.
d2i: I know, these Texans are fabulous. On the other hand, the complaint for South Carolina has not been downloaded once. And the HI complaint was downloaded only once. ADMINISTRATOR
September 30, 2009 at 20:19 |
d2i boy Texas really has steped up to the plate.
Has anyone downloaded GA other than me. Anything to help you out in VA?
I sent an email to my daughter in law and asked if she could send jbjd’s website around to some of the folks in SC.
Nothing on Ga yet, I know it was delivered to the AG.
Susan: Yes, 5 (five) downloads in GA, including yours; but still, only 1 (one) in HI and 0 (zero) in SC. And my MD reader hasn’t gotten back to me with news of the Certifications. This is so sad. I wish I knew better how to ring the bells and whistles about this election fraud strategy (and this blog). Ideas? ADMINISTRATOR
September 30, 2009 at 21:28 |
That’s great, what I have been doing is leaving a tease on website I think might have some of the states we need. Like this
Here’s how you can compel your elected Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer in the state, to do something about it, if you want answers…. visit http://www.jbjd.wordpress.com.
I have even left them some SC sites and GA sites.
Susan: So that was you! Thank you so much! Also, I found, saying something like, ‘By filing posted complaints of election fraud to the Attorneys General in selected states, you can help to clear the path to Articles of Impeachment.’ … (Did you read “THE END GAME”?) ADMINISTRATOR
September 30, 2009 at 22:02 |
I also use Was Government fraud allowed to happen in your state?
If you are from Md,SC,VA or Hawaii and would just like to know the
truth and get some answers, visit this site the Truth is out there.
I use this one more, I like yours too, will add to my collection, but please remember to put the website underneath what you say like.
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/model-complaint-of-election-fraud-to-state-attorneys-general/#comment-1221
Susan: Good ideas! Thank you. (I would just add to the states, an “etc.” or “…”) ADMINISTRATOR
September 30, 2009 at 22:15
Thank you, I will
September 26, 2009 at 19:43 |
Thanks for the quick reply and the welcome. A couple of thoughts down this avenue, if you have the time to consider them:
1) “Just a reminder that, the CIC is a civilian position.”
You jumped the gun on me,. but true, “CIC” was a possible punchline. Still, I’d like to keep my question more general here, as in “any elected officials.” If you could refresh my memory on the particulars of the constitution in regard to the CIC, that would definitely be noteworthy, and I’d be obliged.
However, it seems that you are under the impression that a security clearance is synonymous with a pseudo military rank, and therefore mutually exclusive with the idea of “civilian.” That would be incorrect, though I wonder how many more of us share the same view. Indeed, this is the first salient point that has seized my attention and inquisitiveness.
2) “Thus, the founders wanted a civilian in charge of the armed services.
Is that in the language of the constitution, or in the logic of the constitution? I think the language will lead us into original constitutional intent much better than the logic alone will, and I think that perhaps you’d agree. Is there language in the constitution that gives us a scope for the office of CIC, or must we look elsewhere? (e.g. “NBC”)
It ought to be pointed out that there is, at the least, an apparent fusing of two distinct executive roles into one office, which operates under the name “president.” But I’m not so convinced right now that that is how the framers saw it. “Separation of powers” was in the constitution’s DNA. Rolling more power all up into one big ball was not. I’m more than curious. But before we climb that rope ladder, I’d like to discover more details in the venue of security clearances for any elected official. That is really the right place to search the field for provocative questions.
3) “The POTUS is elected by the people, through state appointments of Electors and, Congressional ratification of the EC vote.
Interesting to me the response from Virginia AG (or commonwealth attn. office?, not sure) to VA resident’s petition for redress. Something to the effect of “besides, the citizens of Virginia do not actually cast a single vote for the POTUS – whether eligible or not – the Constitution establishes the electoral college for such a purpose…” Apparently, Virginia voters are only informing the state for the purpose of the legitamate vote, hence a citizen can not possibly have standing in court, per the Constitution, because they do not have voting authority for the POTUS. Please tell me if I’m wrong about this. Otherwise, please add the entire citizenry of the Commonwealth of Virginia to your “off the hook” list – by the declaration of that state’s AG (?) office.
I thought to be more cursory and terse at the first as I venture into new legal/constitutional blog sites like yours, but since you’ve been so accommodating….allow me to swing for the fence at your last pitch, maybe I can get a lucky hit and drive it home….
4) “Thus, s/he is not required to undergo any additional security screening.
Exactly what I have surmised up to this point, though I still hope to find out that I’m wrong and sadly mistaken. The upshot to this present line of thinking, jbjd, is that our constitutional republic rewards elected officials with non-disclosure, when in fact we say we stand for the opposite.
We are pragmatically in opposition to our so-called professed ideal of freedom and equality.
If this be true (and I hope not), we have exchanged the notion of the “Divine Right of Monarchs” for nothing more than the “Divine Right of Elected Officials.” I honestly hope I’m overstating things a bit. Time will tell.
So I swing for the fence: Is there anyone out there who is not o.k. with a citizen denied a security clearance for a valid reason, while an elected official with the identical statutory issue and condition is absolved merely by the fact of being “elected or appointed?”
Usually when I’d swing for the fence in little league, I’d completely miss. Here’s hoping that I can keep my lousy batting average intact.
g. amos: Wow. It is my pleasure to respond to another informed citizen. Here goes.
1. I never intended to give the impression, I perceived the CIC/POTUS as anything other than a civilian role. On the contrary, I understand the founders purposefully placed civilians in charge of the military. (See Article II of the U.S. Constitution.)
2. See my response to 1, above.
3. Well, yes and no. Yes, citizens do not elect the POTUS but rather, they elect the Electors (“appoint” is the word in the Constitution). However, given that the ballot only displays the name of the nominee and not the Electors, citizens understandably could equate voting for the (Electors for) the nominee with, electing the POTUS. And, given his appearance on the ballot in concert with VA laws only allowing the names of eligible candidates to appear, citizens could assume he was Constitutionally eligible for the job. This means, by alleging fraud occurred with getting his name on the ballot, I am saying, had citizens known the nominee was not vetted then, they would not have voted for (Electors for) him.
4. Ha; we all have our opinions as to the absurd results of various tenets of our Constitutional Republic, taken to the extreme. Fine tuning the Constitution is what amendments are for.
Still batting 1,000. Any more questions? ADMINISTRATOR
September 26, 2009 at 20:01 |
d2i
We will have more Hawaii’s filed very soon
DABIG: I am thrilled you filed this complaint of election fraud in HI. As you know, the Certification of Nomination filed in HI is unique, not just as the result of HI Revised Statutes requiring that line explicitly saying, BO is Constitutionally eligible for the job but also for the anomalous NP signature. ADMINISTRATOR
September 26, 2009 at 22:25 |
JB, read your article over on TB and it ’s pretty good. I’ll shoot it over to some people I know in Hawaii.
Can you track that to see who picks it up?
I will send it to my those I know well on my email list.
Thanks.
JB, read your article over on TB and it ’s pretty good. I’ll shoot it over to some people I know in Hawaii.
Can you track that to see who picks it up?
I will send it to my those I know well on my email list.
Thanks.
Ed Sunderland: Sorry, Ed, I have no idea what you are talking about. Who is “TB”? (And who is “JB”? I am “jbjd.”) ADMINISTRATOR
Ed: I just did a search for “jbjd” and Hawaii and came up with, The Betrayal at Oil for Immigration. Geesh! David Crockett at OFI copied a complete post of mine, in August, and not only changed my name to “JBJD” but also changed a link in my article, with THEIR site. Now, guess what he did? He referenced my work crediting JB Williams from CFP, the neo-Nazi rag founded by Douglas Hagmann. (I have written about this group in comments to this blog.) And JB Williams is copying updates appearing on this blog since his initial theft. I write; he plagiarizes. Some racket.
Please, Ed, do not give away the work that goes on here to people who steal it already. And make sure everyone on your email knows the difference between JB Williams, the thief from the neo-Nazi rag, CFP; and me, “jbjd,” of the blog by that same name. ADMINISTRATOR
P.S. I wrote a comment to David Crockett at OFI but, as he did not print my last accusation he had stolen my work, I suspect he will refuse to print this charge as well, accusing him of posting my work which was stolen by JB Williams from CFP. ADMINISTRATOR
September 27, 2009 at 05:06 |
Enough said and will do, I am trying to find ways to help you get the message out and see who is picking up your articles posted here. Also, I am looking to see if there is any activity in other states looking at election fraud and see what they are doing. It seems New Hampshire is the only one moving forward so far but man, there are a lot of people who are craving this information.
At lest half this country didn’t vote for Obama in the last election and I am sure they would like to know they were fleeced. Millions and millions of conservatives, independents, just plain folks were not told the truth about this fake and fraud. More evidence is cropping up each day from your tremendous contribution and other evidence not seen here.
I am sending this site link to associates that I know. I’ll also be sure to let them know who developed this information and advise them to stay at this site for the latest.
I often use letters to name sources because I am not sure I want to spread a link until I am confident of the source. Yea, they credited JB Williams for your information.
I understand and know the feeling, I’ve written some trade articles that were picked up by other commercial sites that did not reference me as the writer. I don’t mind if someone else uses my work it’s for everyone, but the terms of service from the site they pulled it from requires them to credit the author but some do not.
This is entirely different in scope and scale and I wish to help all I can here.
Ed Sunderland: Appreciate the help. Note that in NH, the fraud that Orly’s Plaintiff, Rep. Rappaport; and JB Williams from CFP, who stole my work, are alleging, is now directed at BO and the SoS. That is, they are alleging he committed fraud by lying on his application for the NH Presidential primary that he fulfilled the requirements of office. And they wanted the SoS to investigate. Of course, in order to prove fraud, these thieves must prove, he is not a NBC. And they can’t. They (said they) brought their fraud charges to the SoS, although this made no sense. Nothing in his job description includes investigating whether applicants wanting their names printed on the ballot are actually eligible for the job. Sure enough, some days later, these people claimed, the SoS had forwarded their charges against BO, to the AG. But he cannot initiate an investigation into whether BO committed fraud based only on accusations, he is not a NBC.
Merely stealing the work that goes on here on this blog, without doing the leg work – reading through the posts and comments, and my replies to readers’ questions – only makes a person a thief but not a well-informed citizen. Being willing to jeopardize our efforts to compel A’sG to investigate our well-written complaints of election fraud, just to get attention, makes them something else altogether. ADMINISTRATOR
September 28, 2009 at 18:02 |
jbjd, Just talked with Donna @ Texas Attorney Generals office. 512)463-2100.
1. She asked me for my name and my address (guess she wanted to know that I lived in Texas.)
2. She asked if I sent a copy to Secretary of State. I said yes and to Boyd Richie and congressman, and media. She said that the SoS could “certify” a complaint to the AG’s office to prosecute.???
3.Donna said “all complaints will be reviewed”
4. Donna said: We will not comment on any complaint unless the AG’s office decides to prosecute. Then it will be released to the medfia (I asked the Mainstream media and she said ..yes) And it will be posted on the AG’s site. She said we could subscribe to the postings.
5. I asked Donna…so we will not hear anything about this unless you decide to prosecute. She said yes. I said….So we will not get any letters to inform us what happens to our complaint….She said no.
jbjd, I think we have a right to know…do we not??? I am scouring the AG website for procedure….I’m not good at this….Has anyone else gotten any info on this subject? I will keep trying.
Alecia: This is fabulous. Now, just so that I have this right; Donna from the AG’s office did not acknowledge receipt of your complaint, correct? (FYI, you are on absolutely the right track. Most A’sG have broad discretion whether to initiate investigations. However, their ministerial duty is to acknowledge receipt of complaints from voters. So, until I received this comment from you, I was considering, if we cannot even obtain verification these complaints were received, I might have to draft a mandamus complaint!) Can you just find out whether the office received the complaint. If she refuses to provide this information, please ask her to point you to the law or regulation that authorizes this silence. Thanks. ADMINISTRATOR
September 28, 2009 at 23:11 |
jbjd,
No she would not discuss even recept. I did get the return recept from the post office.
Here is something else I found.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.273.htm
Sec.273.001. Investigation of Criminal Conduct.
a. If two or more registered voters of the territory covered by an election present affidavits alleging criminal conduct in connection with the election to the county or district attorney having juisdiction in that territory, the county or district attorney shall investigate the allegatons. If the election covers territory in more than one county,the voters may present the affidvits to the attorney general, and the attorney general shall investigate the allegations………
c. On receipt of an afficavit under Secion 15.028, the country or district attorney having jurisdiction and, if applicable, the attorney general shall investigate the matter…….
e. Not later than the 30th day after the date on which a county or district attorney begins an investigation under this section, the cuonty or district attorney shall deliver notice of the investigation to the secretary of state. The notice must include a statement that a criminal investigation is being conducted and the date on which the election that is the subject of the investigaion was held. the secretary of state may disclose information relating to a criinal investigation received under this subsection only if the county or district attorney has disclosed the informaton or would b required by law to disclose the information.
There is more…but I’m not sure what you need. Looks like they MUST (SHALL) investigate, and notify the secretary of state..Then it is up to that office. It did say “or would be required by law to disclose the information. I’ll work and try to find the “law”
Alecia: Okay, I know this looks like it afford a means for redress. But it doesn’t. (Someone else from the great state of Texas had brought this same provision to me, previously.) The requirement that 2 (two) or more registered voters must submit affidavits alleging criminal conduct is the hint as to the scope of this law. That is, this refers to an act seen or experienced by these 2 (two) voters, impinging on their ability to vote. The law requires the AG to conduct an investigation; by definition, this investigation would include contact with these 2 complaining witnesses. In the present situation, the diminished ability to vote was caused not by conduct occurring at the polls but, out of sight. Sorry.
Could you – this means, anyone from TX – look up the enabling statute for the AG, that is, the law that set up the office and described the function and responsibilities of the AG, and send me the cite? Thanks.
I am working on how to proceed. ADMINISTRATOR
September 28, 2009 at 23:52 |
I’m not very good at this…Is this what you need?
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/AG_Publications/txts/2002adminlaw5.shtml#N_200_
Alecia: Thank you so much; I will take it from here. FYI, for every executive office, like the AG, a law was passed authorizing or, “enabling” that office to be. This is called the enabling statute. It spells out the purpose of the office, the personnel running the show, and the responsibilities of the major players. I wanted to see whether some language in the law required the AG to acknowledge receipt of complaints. (The language might have been broader than this but, the Office of the AG would have enacted rules and regulations to carry out the statute and these could provide better guidance of procedures.) This is different from the evidence you possess that tends to prove the complaint was received.
The information you provided led me back to the office of the AG, a consumer friendly site that summarizes the office and its functions. I found a form for requesting public records. Now, I need to find out 1) must the AG acknowledge receipt of citizen complaints; and 2) are such complaints public records. I will reveal what I have in mind after I have completed this research.
Everyone, sit tight. I work on these issues as zealously as time allows (outside of my regular job and, my parental responsibilities). ADMINISTRATOR
September 29, 2009 at 01:08 |
jbjd – having this information is so important to those of us who have filed said complaints w/our AGs.
I have chosen not to contact AG Mims, Virginia, due to the fact that he may need time to study the law to ensure your legal argument stands on solid ground, which you and I, and the rest of the good citizens who have filed their respective complaints to their AGs, know it does. Yet, we the citizen who takes such action has little to no opportunity to learn what the AG has received, what he/she is doing with the complaint, etc.
Do I need to look up Virginia code? If so, let me know.
d2i: Yes, please. In order to appropriately gauge next steps, I need to know whether the Office of the AG is legally obligated to acknowledge receipt of a citizen complaint; and whether such complaint is obtainable through the state’s freedom of information laws. Thank you.
At this point, I am weighing options as to how best to proceed to accomplish our goal, which is getting A’sG to exercise their discretion to investigate these well crafted yet potentially explosive charges of election fraud. The means we exercise to achieve this goal must not sabotage the mission. ADMINISTRATOR
September 29, 2009 at 15:22 |
jbjd,
I believe I’m stumbling over my own words by broadening my comment rather than narrowing it. My mistake.
[jbjd says: "On the contrary, I understand the founders purposefully placed civilians in charge of the military."]
My original question on this blog, restated:
How is it than an elected official does not require a security clearance BY LAW, when a civilian with
access to the exact same information requires one by THE SAME LAW?
jbjd, can you answer this?
And I shall reread you blog.
g. amos: This one is easy. Based on contemporaneous writings of the Founders, it appears that the vetting of a POTUS is designed to be accomplished through appointed Electors; security clearances for contract employees have nothing to do with electing a CIC as prescribed by the Constitution. (It still amazes me that so many millions of people voted for BO with only the belief he is a NBC.) ADMINISTRATOR
September 29, 2009 at 22:07 |
jbjd,
Very good. It appears that I was able to make my question distinguishable enough, terribly hard to do for some reason.
Just gotta say that your thoughtful responses are encouraging. It’s a unique moment in time, I’d say, when people can freely converse in an open forum about their very own government and the meaning of law, and when people offer their professional advice just as freely – unique, and appreciated, regardless of the cause, I’d like you to know. I’m sure that I’m not alone.
Cognizant that I’m jumping in here with things at full tilt, and hesitant that any kind of counter-inertia might be viewed by even the most noble-minded with suspicion, I thought that I’d still give it a go, as I am truly beginning to think that a golden opportunity might yet be hidden among us. But it might only be a fool’s golden opportunity, that’s what I’d like to find out. When and if I do, I shant think twice about it – it’s not like I haven’t been in the possession of false conclusions before. Easy to overcome, I try to make it a habit. Truth be told, I’ve even played the part of Chicken Little…..maybe more than once, but I’m not going to say exactly how many times….enough times to decide that Hysteria is a fair weather friend at best, and at its worst, a boisterous yet fantastically disoriented travel guide. It’s as lost as we are, and zero fun to hang out with. But to each his own.
Since you have been more than polite, and seemingly willing to dialogue over genuine questions outside the present scope of your blog, I am encouraged to proceed. (I follow you so far on your take of the state ballot fraud, and think that it significantly reveals how election things work in the u.s. Felt questions spring up on that thread, but I’ve promised to refrain and reread all your posts.)
However, jbjd, my mind would be much more clear and prepared to absorb your work if you’d do me the honor of disabusing me of this silly notion (if you needed anymore motivation than mere politeness, this ought’a do).
My silly notion: Yes, you gave me a concise answer. Just what I was hoping for. And no, it isn’t an answer that will yield closure for me. That, my friend, is what I need from you, if you’re willing. So allow me to follow up:
The kernel of your response, as I see it, is this:
“…security clearances for contract employees have nothing to do with electing a CIC as prescribed by the Constitution.”
Your answer is fair enough. The textbook dosen’t address it. This is precisely where I fear that any friendly ship seeking harbor in the bay of the constitution will run aground among the shoals, or be seen as an enemy encroaching the sacred port, and fired upon without question, until sunk. The remains might be discovered centuries later. And not just my question mind you, but any valid question, whether you, or I, or any citizen has in earnest, so as to hear what the constitution has to say to the people for which it is purported to exist. Sounds way too philosophical for my taste, honestly, but I don’t know how to say it any other way. That’s why I beg your patience, but not your pardon. Not yet, at least.
Perhaps I need to be more risky here, I just don’t want to come off the wrong way, that’s all. The political climate is way too conspiratorial-steeped and polarized these days. Not many believe in legitimate questions anymore, seems like, unless its your favorite pundit’s question, and then it’s the only legitimate one in existence. Too bad.
Consider this, jbjd. Could it be that what the authors of the constitution meant to provide by chiseling into the bedrock, ‘nbc’, actually exists today among us, though that name has long ago been forgotten? (Sounds so mysterious and spooky, dosen’t it? I am actually having fun writing this….) Could we speak of ‘nbc’ as if a progenitor of an idea? If so, question: Could it be that the conceptual DNA of ‘nbc’, if you will, is quite alive and well among us today, and in full health and operation?
Who cares, and why even ask? someone might ask. Valid responses. We all might care if and when it becomes apparent that there is no true remedy in our life time to the defining of the phrase, “natural born citizen.” That would become a runaway train if the courts refuse to even establish that POTUS must be at least be a citizen. Illogical? yes. Absurd? not a doubt. But my intuition tells me that IF the ’separation of powers’ doctrine is so firmly set and strongly built, logic and reason might have a tough time scaling that wall. Now the second, why ask? Easy. If what I think might be so factually is (though I don’t have a clue how to prove it…), then copious, ample examples of NBC abound all around, no need to even hazard a SCOTUS decision that might create a whole new level of obfuscation. And think of this…, might it not even be seen as a blow to the commonsense of our constitution, not to mention the notion of what is and is not a self-evident truth, if we all are biting our nails as we wait for SCOTUS to define ‘nbc’ for us? I believe we might be asking the Wizard of Oz to certify that we indeed have a brain.
O.K. Getting way too long here. Can we gloss over the players for the sake of argument. Not just BO, put NP too. Fraud, could be. Exploitation, for sure. But before we plug up the leaks and keep going, can we pause to consider the implausible?
For the sake of argument, I’ll take the luxury of defining the terms myself. It’s the deductive process that you ought to analyze. I’ll make it as tantalizing to you as I possibly can.
Yankee White security clearance = highest level security issued. No foreign entanglements, absolutely no dual citizenships, extremely restrictive, irrespective of civilian/military roles.
Any citizen seeking a position which requires access to certain sensitive information, must undergo a corresponding mandatory background check. He waives his constitutional “right to privacy” voluntarily and under no compulsion, by nature of his seeking a sensitive position. Everyone is presumably checked the same, whether civilian or military. The requirements are about the position, not the person seeking to fill it.
If this isn’t the photographic negative of NBC, then I wouldn’t know what it is. The deal is, all the mechanisms, all the procedural guidelines, all the information routing, the network operandi, the case history of appeals for denial, judicial opinions, everything is in place today. Its like the entire electrical circuit is in place, all that remains is for someone to throw the switch, and the whole playing field will suddenly light up.
The switch might be this: an elected official is most definitely a fellow citizen and is most definitely applying for a “contractor employee” position, if that’s what you think it should be called – the idea is identical. They call themselves public servants – they offer they services under contract with a termination – that’s exactly what a term is; it’s a time delineated agreement between the candidate and the constituents, there’s no way to turn that on its head and come up with any other ‘beast.’ It’s not just logically the same, it’s legally the same. I bet the IRS has a nice, simple outline on how to define ‘contractors’ for tax purposes. See, can’t we be fairly confident that everything has already been defined and is on the books, starting with maybe some statutory guidelines on how to go about defining terms for the purpose of proceeding with the proper security clearance.
Right now, I’d feel pretty safe to guess that BO (name gloss, please) would be stripped of his Yankee White security clearance while still in the Oval office. No, seriously. What does the Constitution say about a duly elected POTUS that was denied any security clearance whatsoever by the clear guidelines laid down within the very executive branch of government that he is the present head of?
This might be a mirage of my own making. True. I’ll quickly acknowledge that when I am aware of it. Please make me aware, I ask you. But in the meantime, rather than think it a gross juggernaut of a constitutional conundrum as I did at first, I now see it differently: it might be a huge, magnificent opportunity for anyone/everyone at one time to follow the yellow brick road. Could it be that it’s all laid out with pavers?
Or try this different angle I first thought of when I happened upon your blog.
Unbeknownst to the voters, and unintended by the authors of the constitution, they have the dubious honor of bestowing the designation of ‘Yankee White’ (i.e. clean as a whistle’) upon any individual they so choose.
But it gets even better. To recompute this formula using jbjd’s conversion factor for ‘who’s behind all this mess’, the New Reality is:
In 2008, BO was granted full Yankee White security clearance by NP, and the constitution will help keep it that way.
There. I said it. I can’t for the life of me think up a single scenario derived from the tenets of our constitutional republic taken to the extreme that could approach the above. Not that I’ve been accused of overt creativity.
Now, please jbjd, rattle my cage, before I run off somewhere to find a monarch that I could swear allegiance to, to protect me from “yankee-white-carte-blanche” electoral republicanism.
g. amos: Don’t go anywhere, just yet. Even though I reject your characterization of the POTUS qua “contract employee,” let us proceed with the analysis of the issue you present applying that definition. In order to establish whether the candidate?/nominee?/POTUS-elect?/name-on-the-state-primary-ballot-wannabe? could pass a given level of security scrutiny, the procedure for such scrutiny would have to be spelled out in law. (When facing a multi-faceted legal question, if eliminating the problem can be accomplished by erecting procedural barriers, why not start there. If we get past implementation then, we can discuss substantive issues.) If the Constitutional requirements for POTUS are seen as a floor then, theoretically, legislation could be crafted requiring some sort of security vetting. On the other hand, if these requirements are construed as the ceiling then, the Constitution could be Amended to include some sort of security vetting as a 4th requirement.
Who would perform such a security check? Contrary to your assertion, NP sets the bar, the only body authorized to elect the POTUS under the Constitution are the Electors. Presumably, these would be the natural choice for undertaking such an investigation. (For a discussion of the role of Electors, see “NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON.”) And, as no provision of the Constitution spells out to Electors on what basis they cast their votes for the POTUS, this same scenario spelled out for adjusting eligibility requirements for POTUS, must be repeated as applied to Electors.
Now, a general disclaimer. Any analysis I provide on discerning the intent of the Founders is necessarily constrained by my reason for setting up this blog. I have read extensively the words of the ‘original’ documents; and these have formed my opinions on many of the issues you mention. But I cannot produce a legal treatise on this blog; this is, to paraphrase you, “outside of the scope” of my work here. Suffice to say, there was an ideal inherent in the 3 (three) requirements for POTUS echoed in those writings. Specifically, the Founders wanted as POTUS/CIC a person so imbued with all that was America that his loyalties would not for a second be diverted or suspect.
Finally, I want to take exception to one of your assumptions.
ADMINISTRATOR
September 29, 2009 at 23:30 |
I talked to the AG’s office again today on a follow up (apparently word is getting out because when I mentioned “election fraud” I didn’t get the usual telephone rodeo). “I was directed to Bill”, and to check status of my complaint. He said I needed to contact the Secretary of State.
I asked some specific questions about this and and he still referred me to the Secretary of State. “All election fraud charges go through the SOS I asked?”, “yes” he said, “want their phone number?”
I read above where Alecia was asked if she’d contacted the SOS. I’ll call tomorrow and see what I can dig up.
Ed Sunderland: Good for you! I am going to give you a brief answer. It could legitimately be the case that, under TX laws, any complaints alleging problems related to elections must come to the AG from the SoS. (d2i sent me VA laws to research and I happened to catch out of the corner of my eye something about original jurisdiction, meaning, complaints on certain issues must be referred from other agencies.) I hadn’t considered that, as I was almost thinking of these complaints as consumer fraud complaints. So, having not researched the TX laws, re-directing these complaints of election fraud to the SoS might be just procedural. I will research more and wait till I hear from you to apply the facts to law.
When you contact the SoS, please ask whether s/he has been forwarded the dozens of complaints filed with the AG; and whether s/he must give his or her official imprimatur that fraud could have taken place before referring the charges back to the AG. ADMINISTRATOR
September 30, 2009 at 01:59 |
“Roger,Copy that, will do”.
Ed Sunderland: Good luck. ADMINISTRATOR
September 30, 2009 at 11:33 |
I hardly blink and you respond. You’re fast, like quicksilver.
It’s marvelous that you’re taking me to task on this. I would like to fell this tree as fast as possible, if weedy by nature. A clearer view it would bring to me, as right now I can only see the limbs and leaves of this thing.
It’s a darn shame that I have to use words in order to attempt the communication of a decent idea, I always used to say. I can see that I’m butchering just about every point I was trying to make with my handy word-hatchet.
My last comment was a run-on. Too diffuse. Here’s the gist of my assertion: the nbc POTUS requirement is translatable into the language of ‘the security clearance’.
But before this phrase causes a black out, let me draw attention to the ‘c’ in ‘nbc’, just as you have, in your citing the logic of “minimally a ‘c’. At the beginning of the day, all through the day, and at the end of the day, the POTUS is a citizen. Period. (‘She/He’ – abbv. to ‘he’ in ff.) is a citizen presiding over the government of citizens. Isn’t this true? Is there any other classification known to the constitution? If that statement is debatable, please tell me how. I’d be sadly mistaken about my own country’s constitution.
So let’s forget for a moment that ‘nbc’ even exists in the constitution at all. Just for my comment’s sake. Easy to do, seeing that for most of us, it’s been invisible for as long as we can remember.
Now look at it this way: does the constitution make provision for citizens with ‘elected’ status to have special entitlements and immunities that other citizens without ‘elected’ status do not possess? Wouldn’t we all call that unconstitutional? Where is that statute that says ‘elected’ civilians opt out of a background check? Bring that statute forward, let’s hear it’s own explanation…or place it before the constitution for examination. The constitution knows nothing of security clearances, but it dosen’t have to. It can hammer that nail home just as well as any other “each citizen is on equal footing, and therefore entitled to the same rights, benefits and privileges as any other citizen is” kind-of nail. Am I missing something?
You said:
“Finally, I want to take exception to one of your assumptions.”
[g. amos:" Unbeknownst to the voters, and unintended by the authors of the constitution, they have the dubious honor of bestowing the designation of ‘Yankee White’ (i.e. clean as a whistle’) upon any individual they so choose."]
jbjd:
“If ‘electing’ a POTUS about which even his ability to obtain a security clearance would be doubtful… this voting for BO … evidenced the will of the people.”
Please help me understand your exception. You’re conceding my assertion that ‘nbc’ = security clearance. That is my assertion. If the ‘will of the people’ runs roughshod through the constitutional requirements for POTUS, then you’re satisfied that, “… this result illustrates precisely what the Drafters intended?” I don’t think you meant to say that. Or I’ve missed the point of your entire blog.
No, please reconsider. Since you concede my assertion for the sake of argument, my point still must stand:
To elect BO as POTUS EFFECTIVELY means issuing a clearance that legally should not be granted through such a manner. Just as the ‘nbc’ should not be violated b/c popular vote EFFECTIVELY overrides the constitution. It’s that same argument that I’m using. I hope you can see that.
g. amos: No; drop the assumption for the separate paragraph. For the sake of argument regarding whether the POTUS can be considered as a contract employee, I discussed how such a scheme could be implemented. At the end of that last response, when I addressed your point that the Drafters could not have intended a person who could not obtain a security clearance to become POTUS, I was going back to my belief, which I had expressed in previous remarks and, at the beginning of my last reply, that no security clearance requirement is appropriate as applied to the POTUS qua contract employee. Thus, I am saying, given that the Founders and Drafters set up a system whereby the people do the vetting; if the people give a ’security clearance’ to a nominee for POTUS who, were he a contract employee, would not pass a security clearance, that is how our Constitutional Republlic was intended to work. ADMINISTRATOR
September 30, 2009 at 20:07 |
I am prepared to concede, jbjd.
If this is indeed your real belief:
“Thus, I am saying, given that the Founders and Drafters set up a system whereby the people do the vetting…”,
then I shall cease and desist upon ideological grounds.
But maybe this is for you a mere hypothetical belief for the purpose of discussion…I’m getting so confused. You really got me spinning.
Sure, if the Founders had set up the election in such a way that they expected the citizenry to vet each and every candidate, then of course A=B=C.
I thought that we AGREED that they did not set it up that way. I was under the impression that your opinion was that the Founder’s established the electors to vet, no?
I shall relent, and ask no more. Perhaps this is not the time for such a discussion, but I do appreciate your consideration of it.
g. amos: Not all citizens need to be natural born to vote but only to be POTUS; thus, this undermines your implication with regard to ’security clearances,’ that all citizens should be created equal. You indicated in remarks which I quoted in my last response, that citizens unwittingly ‘elected’ a POTUS who could not pass a security clearance, a result neither envisioned nor desired by the Founders and Drafters. I merely pointed out, through an expression of their preference for POTUS at the general election, people indicated, they did not care that BO could not pass a ’security clearance,’ were he theoretically obligated to undergo such scrutiny for the job. ADMINISTRATOR
September 30, 2009 at 20:40 |
“And my MD reader hasn’t gotten back to me with news of the Certifications.”
Sent the first request by email on 9/14. Followed up today with a fax of my original request. If I don’t hear anything soon I’ll deliver the request in person
Eagle: You bring a smile to my face. Listen, I am certain that MD public records law requires a quicker turnaround than 15 (fifteen) days. Can you call them? Especially given the shenanigans in MD regarding ACORN, I would really like to include a complaint of election fraud to their AG. Thank you. ADMINISTRATOR
September 30, 2009 at 20:58 |
Yes, I’ll call them this Friday if I haven’t heard from them by then. I will not let this just go away.
Eagle: Thank you for that reassurance. ADMINISTRATOR
September 30, 2009 at 23:09 |
Contacted SOS this afternoon. They said if we prepare a “compelling” case they would review it and pass it on to the AG’s office if it passes muster.
I guess it is up to the SOS to determine if State laws were broken or not (and I suppose that hinges upon the party affiliation of the SOS, just my view).
This took several minutes and several questions to get to the first sentence above. At first the conversation appeared as if getting judicial satisfaction on this objective was impossible and too late. But, I reminded the spokesmen that legal challenges were brought forth prior to the election.
I asked to speak to her supervisor who was a staff attorney and was out of the office. Dammit!
So it appears we need to work through the SOS and I would like to chat with you about the horsepower needed to get that done.
My Texas State Congressmen responded to my email by snail mail and said if we exhaust all opportunities through the SOS, to contact him to seek other contacts.
If you have my email address shoot me a message, I’d like to respond by phone if possible when you have a couple minutes. I have an idea or two.
Thanks.
Ed Sunderland: I am so glad you said this:
Understand, this complaint of election fraud has absolutely nothing to do with whether BO is a NBC. No ballot challenge timely submitted before the general election has anything to do with this. We are not alleging BO should not have had his name on the ballot on the grounds, he is not a NBC. Remember, on the front of the complaint is a disclaimer that says:
We are charging Boyd Richie with election fraud. That is, we allege that at the time he swore to TX election officials BO was a NBC in order that these officials would print BO’s name on the TX general election ballot, Mr. Richie hadn’t ascertained whether BO really is a NBC. That’s the fraud. And that’s criminal. So, citizens are only complaining witnesses; they are not Plaintiffs. The AG would be prosecuting on behalf of the citizens of TX. But long before that, as soon as the AG finds fraud, we will be petitioning Congress to file Articles of Impeachment.
I anticipated state officials would try to fob people off. Don’t let them. As for suggestions on how to proceed, tell me what you have in mind; if you don’t want me to post this, just say so. ADMINISTRATOR
October 1, 2009 at 01:24 |
Do not post this message—
I am aware of all of the above in your response. I prefaced my conversation with “I am speaking for myself”. I asked if I needed a petition of grievance or what is needed to get an investigation underway.
My initial conversation with the SOS spokes person was regarding the DNC certification of candidates to the State of Texas that meet the letter of the Constitution and the response was that the DNC was not required to verify citizenship! On it’s face that sounded like a dodge to me.
I responded, then even Osama Bin Ladin could qualify under that thinking!
I wanted to know what the “procedure” was in filing election fraud charges. When asked why and for what I explained “I felt (and I said speaking for myself)
I had been defrauded by the DNC not certifying Obama properly.
I am thinking we might need some legal help in effort to craft an effective complaint, not that yours is imperfect, I agree with it or I wouldn’t be spending time working on this. And, I really appreciate you launching this site and I say again I wish to help all I can within my constraints.
There is a retired Judge in Carrollton, (I live in Flower Mound, TX) that has been posting on Orly’s site and I am wondering if he may be of assistance.
I don’t know you or your background specifically JB, but I have been in court rooms in legal battles before in Real Estate stuff fighting suits and levying them, and have been an expert witness against my piers. It isn’t easy as you know. Details that may seen inconsequential are used against you in defense even if they have no defense.
What appears to be done now is to deliver your draft to the SOS and my question is “does this have the gunpowder to get this through the SOS review and on to the Attorney General?” Would a legal opinion help in crafting the “compelling complaint?”
Since this is your site it’s your call and I will respect your lead. I work for myself and time and resources are limited as yours is.
Therefore, would you entertain some assistance if we can get it?
A lot of people posting and reading this site are willing to participate and my view is to extract all the best help there can be found. I would hate to see this effort flounder.
Warm regards,
Ed.
October 1, 2009 at 20:38 |
jbjd,
I love Texas!! Just got through to a lawyer with the Sos voters division. “Joe” spent an hour explaining things to me. Very,very nice. Hope I can get this on paper clearly.
1 The info you needed for Enabling Statue for AG.(He gave me site and chapter…www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us 402..028 On this page go to link (Tx Administrative code) That will be Title 1 part 3. He said info is in both places.
Joe said:
1. The complaint by law can go either to the Ag or Sos. The AG, because of workload, rather it go through the Sos. The Sos assumes the complaint is real and looks at voter law to see what law it breaks. Never making a determination as to if the law was broken. Sos then sends it to Ag with noted law (possibe) law broken and Ag determines (if)law was broken with investigation. Joe said that since Texas now only has 1 investigator (Texas Ranger) and 1 attorney..it will have to merit investigation balanced with available time,resources,and money.
2. Joe said that after a time, if we do not hear anything, that we should appeal to AG as to disposition of complaint and why it is not being investigated or prosecuted. He does not know that they must respond, but they should respond. Joe said that if their office knows anything, they will respond. Sos acts like a filter for AG with voter fraud cases.
Attorney for AG voter fraud investigation is Will Tatum.
3. Joe confirmed there is a time limit on contesting a vote, but not for constitutional procedure fraud complaints.
Joe asked what the complaint was and I gave him enough information so he could go and find it. I told him that there was at least 30 people sending in this complaint. He said that this “should” get the Ag’s attention.
Hope this helped.
Alecia: Yeehaw! Go Texas! Alecia, I cannot thank you enough for making that call to obtain this information. Note to other readers, sounding credible gets you ‘face time.’ So, make sure you understand what we are doing here. As ‘Joe’ indicated, the deadline has passed for contesting the vote; but not for complaining there was ballot fraud. ADMINISTRATOR
October 2, 2009 at 00:31 |
Good work Alicia!, and thanks for the response jbjd.
If enough of us forge ahead calling, asking questions, and seeking answers we’ll get them.
That’s good information. When I was scowering the Texas Election Code in preparation for my call to the SOS I came across a couple areas in Fair Campaign Practices that looked interesting. Most of the data there is geared toward the voters, polls, and the like.
Bottom line however, with regard to Fair Campaign Practices or not, you need to tell the truth regarding your candidate being presented to the citizens of Texas and do your job.
I will send my complaint out tomorrow to the SOS. I don’t know how many plan to send complaints but count me in as at least one. I’ll follow up by phone the middle of next week and post any further information. Texas SOS office 512.463.5650 FYI
I think maybe to cover the bases, send another one to the AG.
I for one am still furious that there was not proper vetting of the Democratic candidate and this crosses all political parties. It is further irritating that citizens have to do the heavy lifting when it comes to ferreting out shenanigans and seeking justice.
Our political leaders cannot be trusted nor can they be counted upon for support when it comes to election issues it appears. They’re afraid to tackle issues such as this and it’s a sad commentary on our political culture.
Ed Sunderland: It is amazing, isn’t it. Does it make you feel any better to know you are among fellow peeved patriots? Of course, you realize that, once we fix this mess, the work is not done. Next, we have to enact model legislation for vetting candidates. ADMINISTRATOR
October 2, 2009 at 17:05 |
jbjd, You are correct! As soon as we get this straight we have a lot of work to do. “We the people” have trusted our government “employees” for too long and have been asleep at the wheel. We “will” correct that. I will spend the rest of my life doing so… For the children and young people of this country. I lived free. I want them to live free.
Alecia: I hear you. ADMINISTRATOR
October 2, 2009 at 17:33 |
I just called the MD state board of elections. The operator put me through to “Christine” and she wasn’t available. I left a message and will call every day until I get an answer. It’s on!
Eagle: Yeah! And if you think it’s on in MD, wait till you see the article I am about to post, which contains the revised complaint for SC! ADMINISTRATOR
Eagle: I just re-read my comment and I want to add to it. In most states, the penalties are quite severe for state agencies that violate the public records laws. Make sure everything is documented; ha, I mean, that you document your efforts to obtain these records. Did you cite to the public records law in your request? ADMINISTRATOR
October 2, 2009 at 20:59 |
Are you going to post the article here too for us to view jbjd?
I’d like to read it.
Sent copy of my complaint to the SOS today and preparing others to go out on Monday soon as I can dig up proper addresses.
PS, How many and what States have actual fraud filings underway? I know there is Texas and New Hampshire but is anyone keeping a list of those States that can under their constitution and are?
Thanks
Ed Sunderland: Nope; nothing in NH. Remember? That was the guy who stole my post and then pretended he got it “anonymously.” He didn’t understand the nature of these complaints and so, he and Orly’s Plaintiff, state Rep. Rappaport, filed a complaint on their own – just words, no actual document – charging BO had committed fraud to get on the primary ballot in NH.
I am keeping track of these states but, there are many more out there. And next week, we will all need to put our heads together and figure out, where we go from here. ADMINISTRATOR
P.S. Ed, what article are you talking about? (Maybe I have been working too hard on these materials and the strain is getting to me.)
P.P.S. I just re-read some comments and I realized which article you were talking about. It’s the one I just posted, on SC.
October 3, 2009 at 21:20 |
“Not all citizens need to be natural born to vote but only to be POTUS; thus, this undermines your implication with regard to ’security clearances,’ that all citizens should be created equal.”
No, no, no. Please show me the same courtesy in reading/rereading my questions and comments as I show you in reading your blog posts. This above statement has never been ‘my implication,’ not for a second. It is actually your misunderstanding gleaned from reading my comment in only a cursory way. Who said anything about being an NBC to vote? That’s insane – why, you forgot to throw in that one would have to be 14 yrs a resident and 35 yrs old to vote too?
Your replies are to questions I’m not asking – I don’t think I even fully comprehend what question you mistakenly think that I am asking. This is not meant to be mean-spirited, but it’s clear to me that you aren’t grasping my question from the beginning. If there was a straightforward answer, then I presume that you’d have offered that immediately. I do think you’re in earnest. I suspected something was amiss when your first reply came back that the POTUS is a civilian, and therefore dosen’t need one. But by your willingness to respond, I felt invited to restate my question in another way. Please don’t offer up a textbook answer to an illegitamate question, unless it’s the only answer you have. Just state it that way. If you don’t know the answer, that’s no problem. I shall go elsewhere. Like I said, I think that there is probably some explanation that I simply need to unearth to settle the issue in my mind.
I, as a citizen (you’ll have to take my word), was hoping to talk to a fellow citizen (I admit, I must presume) who, in addition to some legal expertise, also appears to grasp the importance of maintaining federal government within the bounds of the Constitution, which was written BY CITIZEN-MINDED folks, call them founders or what you will. Their great object remains the same, regardless of how we view them or what we call them, or even how closely they followed their principles in their own lives. To wit, that the law maintains its own lawfulness, and can be changed lawfully when the need is apparent. Where it has come to serve expediency, procedure, and precedent, more than the citizenry which is it’s original cause for existence, then let’s talk about that. I have a genuine question that stems from this belief. Any hypothetical I was a party to was intended to clarify to the inquiree (you) what the inquirer (me) meant by the question.
You’re focused elsewhere. Understandable. A cause that touches on the belief that I stated above, as it seems to me. So yes, your blog platform is of interest to me. So we have grounds to dialogue, you and I. And if it’s the time that you don’t have, that’s cool, I think no ill. But if you take the time to reply in what appears to be constitutional sophistry, I might begin to not take you seriously. So before that happens, how ’bout we agree to take each other seriously. The question which I consider genuine has as of yet to be answered, and it still remains viable in my mind.
If you’d rather not rehearse it, I concede to your need for undivided attention elsewhere (i.e. ballot fraud – worthy of consideration).
If you’d like to rehearse it in earnest, I shall do my best to restate the matter in a way that avoids absurdities and hypotheticals.
with highest regards,
g. amos
g. amos: I did my best to decipher what I found to be your cryptic writing, and answered in good faith. If I interpreted incorrectly, this was due not to my “cursory” read or, as you stated, to my being preoccupied by other work. Perhaps I honestly had trouble figuring out exactly what you mean. Distilling your lengthy tomes, I concluded that the underpinning of it all was this. Given that regular citizens must satisfy security screenings in order to gain access to state secrets, why is it that the POTUS does not have to undergo similar vetting before gaining access to these same secrets, when he becomes the CIC? And my answer was, because electing him the CIC, wherein the people do the vetting, through the appointment of the EC who vote for POTUS and, election of Congresspeople who ratify the EC vote; as opposed to hiring him as a contract employee of the federal government, makes it different. As an example, I pointed to another function that could be enjoyed by all eligible citizens – voting – but reasoned that, just because a citizen may vote for (Electors for) POTUS does not mean that same citizen is Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.
Apples and oranges. ADMINISTRATOR
October 7, 2009 at 19:58 |
No offence was meant, jbjd. And none taken on this side, either. ( I am typically accused of being too brief, even to a fault; but now, what with my comments and all described as lengthy tomes…, well, it gives me new hope, and brought a smile.) I guess I felt more strongly about this than I care to admit. I shall keep my emotions in check and my questions short. Distilling is a good word for it.
So you summarize, “Apples and Oranges.” I see. Let me think about this some more before I say anything else.
g. amos: Yes. ADMINISTRATOR
October 4, 2009 at 02:45 |
I doubt Obama is even a legal “citizen” of this country.
The CLB he’s been touting as his birth certificate doesn’t cut it. His claim to be a “native” citizen is even questionable because there is no record of birth when you discount the CLB which could have been executed by BHO’s grandparants. Not the mother because she was probably in Kenya at the time. The CLB carries with it nothing that confirms a live birth and is more likely the equivalent of a “hot check”.
BHO has said he was born in two different hospitals in Hawaii. One Hospital official says, “yes he was born here and I’ve seen the records” and thus proclaimed BHO was a “natural born citizen”. Whoever the mouthy Maui moron was that said that has created another legal dust up that is now spinning it’s web of legal issues. There’s plenty of honest internet chatter on that.
The newspaper announcement of birth generated by the Health Department “was a matter of standard function” as they do with all claims of birth or CLB and proves nothing but that they were perpetuating a falsehood by the grandparents.
That is all the CLB or Certificate of Live Birth is, a simple proclamation a baby was born. Nothing more, nothing less, and most likely at best, a lie. A really big one that is being perpetuated by a brazen narcissistic ego driven individual and codified by an equally ego driven and narcissistic media and congress.
That’s why average Americans now have to carry the load as usual, in driving truth and light into this absurd political mess. Citizens are getting stuck with the TARP bill and other bailouts and now we gotta clean up this mess.
In January of this year when BHO said he was a “native citizen”, he in effect said himself that he was not qualified to sit as president. If he indeed was, then why didn’t he produce a real birth certificate?. He couldn’t because he doesn’t have one.
Ed Sunderland: Usually, I would not have posted all of this comment because it contains information we have already ascertained is not fact. And besides, the complaints of election fraud are in large part based on the words of the candidate himself, who told us, he is only a “native” citizen. So, you are repeating here what you already said in the complaint you filed! But sometimes, people just need to vent. ADMINISTRATOR
October 4, 2009 at 04:26 |
“Wow”, I just spent some time over at the Balckboxvoting site.
At first glance you think, “what the **ll is this?”.
The name of the site appears uninspiring, blackboxvoting.
But, being the curious sort that I am I had to take a look. “What an eye opener!” I suggest anyone viewing this site go to “Home” then over to the “link” box on the lower right and have a look.
Spend a few minutes and watch some videos, you’ll be glad, sad, and probably fighting mad about our voting systems.
Ed Sunderland: I am so glad you went there. Scary, isn’t it? I could only spend enough time researching that issue to conclude, we need to go back to paper ballots, counted in front of witnesses from interested parties. (I don’t mean just political parties but also, civic groups, etc.) But first, I had to fix what went wrong with the last election so that it never happens again. ADMINISTRATOR
October 5, 2009 at 17:51 |
jbjd,
I read misstickly site. I need some help. If you have time, please look at this. It seems odd, but I don’t know if it is “anything” http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/admrules/default.aspx
Rule 177 Vital Statistics, Registration & Records,
is unavailable on site because they are updating from Public Health Regulatory to Administrative Rules. Alvin Onaka name on it.
Rule 120 Foreign Born Person adopted in Hawaii is pending because of 117
Rule 123 Names of Natural Parents on Birth Certificate of Adopted Person pending because of Rule 117.
All by Alvin Onaka.
Could this be a lead?? Or am I just wishing…
Alecia: Generally, agency rules and regulations change all the time. These only spell out how the state agencies will carry out the state statutes, which are passed by the state legislatures. As for what the work done by other practitioners means, I have no idea; you would have to ask them. ADMINISTRATOR
October 5, 2009 at 23:11 |
jbjd,
This is great. Do you know if PA is a state (actually a commonwealth) like TX with regard to this matter? When I saw a couple of weeks ago the NH sec. of state was opening an investigation (at the request of a state congressman) into fraud because of the multiple docs signed by Pelosi, I fired off a terse email to all the PA state senators and the republican PA state congressmen asking each if they would approach our (PA’s) sec. of Commonwealth Cortes with the same request. Now, if I can send a PA version of the “model complaint” I can then follow up with these same state senators and congressmen to apply pressure.
Ray: Welcome. You have some catching up to do. 1. NH is not an appropriate state for these charges of election fraud. The people who stole my intellectual property – JB Williams, Postenmail, Devvy Kidd – had no idea what it was, because they hadn’t done the leg work. They thought they would get something for nothing; and this is what they got. Meanwhile, they almost sabotaged the work that goes on here. (Catch up on the last few articles, along with readers comments, and my replies to their comments. On this blog, everyone works.) 2. Do not violate the separation of powers. This action is about state election laws. Not federal law. Not Congress. Not BO. State election laws, and gaining access to our state ballots. And compelling our state officials to do their jobs.
Look up the laws in your state to find out whether PA is an applicable state. If you have problems understanding these, I will help to interpret. This is the first step. ADMINISTRATOR
October 6, 2009 at 19:50 |
Update from Maryland. I talked to them on the phone today and they tell me the records I requested were mailed to me yesterday
Eagle: Thank you so much. This means, MD is next. ADMINISTRATOR
October 7, 2009 at 18:28 |
Update – Hawaii resident advises me that her complaint has now been filed with the Attorney General in Hawaii.
Dawn: OMG! That makes 3 (three) for HI! Yahoo! ADMINISTRATOR
October 7, 2009 at 23:30 |
Received today from MD elections board official cert of nomination for BO and Biden, State of MD US pres candidate Contact person info, and Cert of Nominations state of MD for Mccain and Palin. Also got the business card of the director of candidacy and campaign finance with a note if I need further info… I’ll be happy to fax this to you tomorrow. You can use my email contact info here to let me know where to send it
Eagle: Okay but, I cannot wait any longer. Just tell me, who signed the Certification? Who sent it in to the state? ADMINISTRATOR
October 8, 2009 at 01:20 |
Re – HI – last time I heard, you knew of only one from HI. Did you get another in the meantime ? The one that filed is the one I’ve been “working” with:)
Dawn: I have 3 (three) downloads for HI; I am not certain when these numbers increased. ADMINISTRATOR
October 8, 2009 at 11:47 |
Hey jbjd,
I am wishing for permission to copy and paste your articles on Resistnet.com which I am the Tennessee State Creator…
We have almost 60,000 Patriotic Members that post blogs and discussion almost every day…
I would like to inform them of your blog here…(The members that do not know about you)
You may reply to me with my private email address if you wish…
Best Regards,
Phil D…
Phil D : You may copy my articles with these 3 (three) strict conditions. 1) All attribution must reflect that I am the author of this work – jbjd, small letters – and that I have given you permission to post my work. 2) Work that is attributed to me must be clearly delineated from any other work appearing on the post, whether editorial comments or, responses from readers of your blog. 3) You may not edit any language within the text, however large or small your excerpt. This condition applies to comments from my readers posted on the blog, too. (Taking things out of context not only dilutes the work but also can sabotage our mission.) Finally, understand this permission may be revoked at any time.
Please let me know when you post, so that I may take a look. ADMINISTRATOR
October 8, 2009 at 12:00 |
DNC cert signed by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Germond. Sent to MD board of elections by Joseph E Sandler of Sandler, Reiff and Young, P.C. Received by State Board of Elections on 8/29,2008
Republican Cert signed by John Boehner and Jean Inman, It looks like it was sent by Jennifer Sheehnan of the RNC Counsel’s Office
Eagle: Whoa! This is another one that will target NP and HD. ADMINISTRATOR
October 8, 2009 at 12:37 |
If you live in a state with a law that requires the candidate for POTUS from the major political party to be eligible for the job before state elections officials will print his or her name on the general election ballot then, Certifying BO is the D nominee without ascertaining whether he is a NBC, just to get his name printed on the ballot, is election fraud. Here’s how you can compel your elected Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer in the state, to do something about it.
OK, can someone tell me where I can find the resources from Tennessee to see if our state falls in the discussion above please…
Phil D.: Welcome. I think TN might be an applicable state. Look up your election laws; if you have a problem, call your election officials, usually in the Office of the Secretary of State. You are looking for a law that requires candidates whose names will be printed on the TN ballot to be eligible for the job. If your law contains any provisions regarding the eligibility of the nominee from the major political party, you want that, too. But start by reading the state laws cited to in the complaints already posted. This should give you a good idea what you will need in order to determine whether TN “falls in the discussion above…” ADMINISTRATOR
October 10, 2009 at 01:45 |
I called the SOS office today at 3:00 to check on status of complaint. After some fumbling around they found my complaint that they received on Monday.
Did a little computer search, not there, checked some paperwork and found it. Barbara said she would be sure counsel would see it this coming Monday morning but I have a feeling if I hadn’t followed up it would still be of little concern. (just my view)
Counsel was gone for the day as usual at 3:00 on Friday as I guess the SOS and the AG’s office have the same hours as far as their attorneys go. I was still at work.
I’ll touch bases Monday before noon and see what I can find and post.
“FYI Amigos”
Ed Sunderland: Just refresh my memory. As I recall, you faxed the original complaint to the TX AG and then sent a copy to the SoS. But you have communicated to the SoS. Is there a reason you are pursuing this office, when the complaint is ‘criminal’? ADMINISTRATOR
October 10, 2009 at 14:02 |
My understanding is that complaints such as this are referred to the attorney general through the SOS.
My understanding was from the direction I received from the Attorney General Office who has a copy of my complaint.
“Bill”, from the AG’s office said to me via phone call, “you need to propose this complaint through the SOS”.
I replied, “yes sir”, and proceeded to send the complaint via USPS to the SOS, where I was informed previously by a representative from the SOS office, “if the complaint is compelling it will be sent to the AG’s office for further action.
This by the way is similar to the response I received from my Texas State Rep.
You are correct, my first complaint was sent to the AG’s office via fax and three follow up phone calls. On the third call I was referred to the SOS office.
I then called the SOS office and asked, “exactly what do I do and what do you (the SOS) need to file a complaint regarding election fraud?”. I was instructed to send the complaint to the SOS and that if the complaint was “compelling enough” it would be sent over to the AG.
(I found the post that may be a reminder for you below)
Ed Sunderland Says:
September 29, 2009 at 23:30 | Reply
I talked to the AG’s office again today on a follow up (apparently word is getting out because when I mentioned “election fraud” I didn’t get the usual telephone rodeo). “I was directed to Bill”, and to check status of my complaint. He said I needed to contact the Secretary of State.
I asked some specific questions about this and and he still referred me to the Secretary of State. “All election fraud charges go through the SOS I asked?”, “yes” he said, “want their phone number?”
I read above where Alecia was asked if she’d contacted the SOS. I’ll call tomorrow and see what I can dig up.
Ed Sunderland: Ed, I need from you (or any other Texans out there) the provision of the statute that says, all election fraud complaints must go through the SoS. Because I think what has happened in TX is the same thing that happened in VA. That is, under usual circumstances, a charge of election fraud is anticipated to be something like, standing in front of the polls and sending voters to the wrong voting location; or saying someone’s name is not on the registration list, when it is, etc. This explains why so many of these laws contain the requirement, there must be 2 (two) witnesses. But we are talking about something altogether different; and we are not talking about “challenges” to the ballot, where which such challenges when allowed, the time for filing these challenges is limited to within days of the filing to get onto the ballot. (In other words, assuming BO’s name was submitted by the D party on August 28, 2008; the deadline for challenge to have his name on the ballot would have been shortly thereafter.) In VA, despite indicating in their web literature, these challenges must go through the BoE, in the end, the BoE realized, these complaints charge criminal fraud not explicitly spelled out in the statute. That is, “fraud” is spelled out but, no one anticipated the nature of this fraud would be, to swear a nominee for POTUS from the major political is eligible for the job without first ascertaining, whether s/he is. (Sounds like the beginnings of model legislation to me!) ADMINISTRATOR
Note: Ed, I am also going to re-post this exchange on today’s headline.
October 11, 2009 at 01:01 |
Definition of Fraud
All multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get an advantage over another by false suggestions or suppression of the truth. It includes all surprises, tricks, cunning or dissembling, and any unfair way which another is cheated.
Source: Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed., by Henry Campbell Black, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota, 1979.
(more)
Criminal and civil frauds differ in the level of proof required. For civil cases that burden is a “preponderance of evidence.” In criminal fraud the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
WHAT CONSTITUTES FRAUD
Under common law, three elements are required to prove fraud: a material false statement made with an intent to deceive (scienter), a victim’s reliance on the statement and damages.
(note, these are general definitions above)
_____________________________________________________
“The Attorney Generals Office has many categories for consumer fraud complaints but none for election fraud”. So, I suspect that is why the AG’s office want’s a charge of election fraud to be tagged with a specific infraction/s for the AG’s office to pursue.
This is my view from information gleaned so far.
Ed Sunderland: The definitions of fraud you cite are generic. That is, they mean nothing to the state unless the state codifies that definition. (States often adopt the legal definitions found in books called “Restatements,” which are published digests of a subject like fraud, or contracts, etc. If a state has adopted the Restatement definition of a cause of action then, one state’s law is very much like another’s.) Each state has its own criminal code, in which code the crime of fraud is defined. And both civil and criminal law found in the code, are further refined by common law, that is, the appellate court cases published in that state. (So, even in states that have adopted definitions from the Restatement, the law may differ substantially, depending on how the courts rule in that state.) The AG’s office is set up administratively to deal with its caseload in the most efficacious way. However, this does not mean, a major criminal fraud investigation cannot be undertaken by the AG just because a whole division has not been designated to deal with cases where the major political party has been accused of committing election fraud. It just means, they have set up new file labels.
ADMINISTRATOR
October 11, 2009 at 06:12 |
I never envisioned myself delving into this process of muddy legal garb in a concerted effort to find a legal avenue regarding this topic, election fraud. Nevertheless, I’m happy to do it.
All I can tell you of so far, are the instructions handed down from the AG’s office, State Rep. and the office of the SOS. I can see why the AG’s office would ask for a referral from the SOS, but I haven’t yet found the text.
If they have to set up new file labels, so be it. As long as there is a deliberate effort to solve our complaint regarding this last election, not just to prevent future acts such as this. We don’t need any more law as far as I am concerned, I feel the law has been violated and needs to be enforced.
I would be open to some suggestions for targeted search regarding the Texas statutes that say we have to run election fraud complaints through the SOS. I know there are traditional aspects that may be in operation here but so far no text.
I’ve been all over the SOS elections site (Texas Election Law 77 pages) but I haven’t concentrated on the AG’s site because it is so vast.
I am not sure this would be found on the SOS Elections side or the AG’s side.
Still looking.
Ed Sunderland: The biggest fear of people in government who would ignore the will of the electorate, is an electorate who know enough not to be ignored. We have prepared and presented to the AG a well-documented complaint of criminal election fraud. The law provides for the use of discretion in determining whether to investigate and prosecute such charges. So, now that we know how the AG’s office works, we have to persuade the AG to exercise appropriate discretion. And how we will accomplish that is the subject of a future post and community consult. ADMINISTRATOR
P.S.
Call the AG and ask. I would imagine, the AG’s office is more accustomed to fielding traditional election fraud complaints, such as, incidents occurring at the polls, which rightly belong in front of the state election officials, who are intimately acquainted with requirements involving the election and voting process. This situation in TX reminds me about what happened to d2i in VA, going before the BoE because their web site says, any complaints of election fraud must initiate with the BoE. But after she presented her 5-minute testimony, the BoE Chair informed her, this is a criminal complaint properly lodged with the AG; and the BoE has no jurisdiction. Hey, that’s what I said!
October 11, 2009 at 21:44 |
I see your point. I plan to make some calls tomorrow morning and get some hard answers. Will post.
Ed Sunderland: Good for you. Just remind the office what they told you previously. Now, you want them to point out the law that says, before your criminal complaint of election fraud can be investigated by the office of the AG, the SoS has to recommend such investigation. ADMINISTRATOR
P.S. You might read the testimony we prepared for d2i’s appearance before the VA BoE. Their laws also require the BoE to ‘certify’ election complaints. But they, too, know, the present complaint is different.
October 13, 2009 at 04:23 |
Admin-didn’t get your post until this evening.
I spoke with Ann McGeehon and she said she had read the complaint (and others that had arrived) and that the office of the SOS was not going to pursue my complaint. She suggested I contact the office of the Attorney General. “Really”.
In the end she suggested a civil complaint after I informed her that it was the AG’s office that sent me to the SOS. This is unacceptable.
She said that no matter what we could not have been injured because McCain led BHO in the State of Texas. Sounds familiar to other challenges I’ve heard recently but that excuse doesn’t work.
Bottom line no one want’s to rise to a challenge because they fear ridicule by the left and the press. You see it every day and it’s sickening. I feel it in their voices when I try to explain this isn’t exactly about who won or lost but it was the process or lack of.
As for me, I am only just getting started here. There are few things that irritate me more than those in authority that pass the buck.
Ed Sunderland: I cannot begin to imagine how angry you and your fellow Texans must be at getting this runaround from a staffer in the Office of the TX SoS when you understand, these are criminal complaints rightly filed with the AG. I am so proud of the restraint with which you (and I am sure other filers in the great state of Texas) attempt to explain and then explain again to your public servants, you are not begging them to ‘hear your complaints’; rather, you expect them to carry out their statutory functions. In VA, d2i jumped through hoops, too; but at least in that case, after she appeared – twice – before the BoE, the Chair of the Board conceded, this complaint of election fraud rightfully belongs with the AG.
Concentrate on the Office of the AG; find out what is happening with these complaints. Take names. ADMINISTRATOR
October 15, 2009 at 02:12 |
You can bank on that.
Ed Sunderland: Good. Good for you. ADMINISTRATOR
October 16, 2009 at 20:19 |
jbjd,
I have not disapeared. I also have requested follow up on the complaint to SoS, only I did it by E-mail so I could have it in writing. Still waiting. Will call next week if they do not respond. Have also sent letters to several judges that I know in the area along with the complaint to ask their advice, feed back and possible help. The same day that I talked with the SoS attorney, the state of Texas sent out a verification of my disability to be filled out by my doctor. Was it a threat? Possible. Was it coincidence? Possible. Does my lawyer know about it. Oh Yea. Still pushing, talking, sending letters. I won’t give up. I will keep you updated.
Alecia: I hope the other Texans take a hint from your tenacity.
Have you read Ed Sunderland’s comments? Forget about the SoS; staffers from that office are not only condescending to voters but also unnecessary to the process of getting these criminal complaints investigated by the AG. Concentrate on the AG.
Ed is the only other Texan who regularly updates the blog. But I am wondering whatever happened to the more than 40 (forty) other Texans who filed complaints, and what efforts they have attempted to obtain updates on their complaints. Have you all sent your complaints to Texas newspapers? Do you belong to civic or community groups where you could distribute copies of the complaint? Have you addressed these groups to make sure members understand the present law in Texas regarding eligibility to get on the ballot?
I have even considered setting up a live chat to brainstorm how to get these complaints heard by the AG. ADMINISTRATOR
October 16, 2009 at 23:39 |
I know the Sos is not going to do anything, but I just want them to respond. Joe the lawyer with them said they would. I want it in writing…For the future.
I have sent the complaint to all my representatives with cc: to everyone so they do know that other are seeing this. I have sent it to Kay Bailey, Rick Perry, and Debra Medina (they are running for Governor. Let’s see who really loves Texas, her constitution and our Country and the Constitution. I think if I start to send copies of these letter to TV, since there is an eletion coming up…maybe someone will be shamed into responding.
I pray someone out there knows right from wrong.
Alecia: Excellent. You are exactly what this Constitutional Republic requires for its sustenance: an informed citizen. Now, no one can take this power away from you. Yes; by all means, let your elected officials know, you know what you are doing. (Just don’t ask federal legislators to intervene with your state AG; apples and oranges. Let them see, you know the difference.) ADMINISTRATOR
October 17, 2009 at 01:01 |
Yes, keep at it Alicia. The SOS office did call me back about the complaint but I was at work and the answer was less than meaningful. I think I can get a break the first of next week and I plan to get back on the phone and tap a couple other sources for help.
If you send a letter by mail to your US Congressman or Senator they are required to respond. They work for you. I have also received a snail mail response from my State Rep to an email I sent.
I find it interesting that a single person can complain about a flag here, a cross or prayer there,
and the wheels of injustice fly into action to investigate and stop it. But when a serious failing in our political process is exposed with hard evidence and action is requested, silence.
I have a feeling the Office of the Secretary of State is painted blue! Just my view.
Ed Sunderland: Whether a resident of the state is registered to a political party or, unaffiliated – in my state, the registration is “Unenrolled,” which designation allows us to vote in the party primary and leave the polls unaffiliated – s/he is entitled to services from the state. The job of AG is a statutory and, often, a (state) Constitutional position. Nothing in the law exonerates the state official for doing nothing because the resident belongs to the opposing political party.
I don’t see any evidence that R officials are taking these complaints for election fraud any more seriously than the D officials. Of course, keep in mind, we have no idea what is going on behind the scenes.
Do not give up. These complaints can change everything. ADMINISTRATOR
October 17, 2009 at 22:38 |
I understand and you are right. I am totally disappointed but not surprised at the lack of honest appraisal by the AG and the SOS no matter what color they affiliate themselves with.
I’ll refrain from from bringing up a rant on the hypocrisy of the Dems. But, I can’t get past the flavor of my conversations. I know there is reluctance to start a brush fire over the this complaint from both sides of the isle but to me, the there is a bull in the china shop stinking up the very purpose of a “Republic” and it should not be ignored.
We are either a country of laws or we are not. And for political, state, and legal officials to sit back and determine “for us” which laws they will enforce and which ones they will not is sure fuel for a brush fire of another kind!
Ed Sunderland: I could not have expressed this better. I know the people who contribute to this blog represent both ends of the conventional political spectrum. But what unites us is a true allegiance to the ideals of our republic, and not just a self-serving claim of patriotism. Otherwise, why would we subject ourselves to the ’slings and arrows’ of government officials who belittle our efforts by calling us names or worse, ignoring us altogether? ADMINISTRATOR
October 31, 2009 at 19:17 |
jbjd,
I’m still here. Just received a response to my email to the Texas SOS on 10-15-09
I am requesting information on the “Memorandum of Complaint of election Fraud against Boyd L. Richie, Chair, Texas Democratic Party and Request for investigation” Mailed to and received by your office on 9/23/2009.
I am requesting the status of this complaint. Has your office reviewed this complaint of voter fraud and referred it to the Texas Attorney General? If it has been referred, may I please have the referral date. If it has not been referred, may I have the reason.
Thank you for your time and service to our great state of Texas,
SOS response:
Your complaint was sent to the Attorney General with a copy to our office. We were not asked to make a referral to that agency.
Alecia response back 10-31-09
Thank you so much for your response. I know that your office is very busy.
When I talked with one of your office lawyers, it was my understanding that if you received a complaint, and the reported complaint would indeed be breaking a voting law, that you would contact the Attorney General’s office stating that “if investigated and true” it would be violating the Texas voting laws. Did I misunderstand??
Please help me to understand exactly what the Secretary of State’s role is when a voting fraud is reported.
And round and round we go….where it stops nobody knows.
Still watching the Attorney General’s site where they said they would go public. When they go public, they said we could have the information. ???
Alecia: So nice to hear from you. This to and fro is not so difficult to explain. See, normal complaints of election fraud consist of duplicating ballots; or falsified registration; or faulty voting machines. These election snafus are generally required to be ‘certified’ as problems by the SoS, in charge of elections, and forwarded to the AG. But what we are alleging is not a prototypical election fraud. So, these complaints are rightly directly in the first instance directly to the office of the AG. But in several states, state officials are unaware of the nature of our fraud charges and so, might genuinely think, these belong at the SoS office, first. They don’t. Recall that in VA, d2i testified before the BoE, a division of the office of SoS; but when she was through, they advised her, this is a criminal matter that goes directly to the AG, bypassing the BoE completely. (I KNEW THAT; THAT’S WHY I DIRECTED THE COMPLAINT TO THE AG IN THE FIRST PLACE!) But no matter; Texas complaints of election fraud are now in front of the AG.
Only, the AG has the right to exercise discretion whether to investigate and/or to prosecute. So, what we need to do is to persuade the AG, it is in his or her best interest to investigate.
BTW, I revised the TX complaint. I think these new complaints are even better than the originals, in that they spell out, in clear easy to follow details, exactly how BO’s conduct evidences there was no basis for NP to Certify he was Constitutionally qualified for the job. Get your friends and neighbors who have not filed to file. ADMINISTRATOR
November 5, 2009 at 02:17 |
Is there a revised complaint we can pursue?
I’d like to see it unless it’s the same one I’ve already sent to the SOS and AG.
Sorry I haven’t been up lately, I have this problem called, trying to earn a living.
Thanks, Ed.
Ed Sunderland: Hello! Yes; see the revised complaints on the front page of the blog, where they will remain. (I wish I could earn a living doing this blog!) ADMINISTRATOR