HOW TO REPORT TO YOUR STATE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, OFFICIALLY REPRESENTED BY NANCY PELOSI, CHAIR OF THE 2008 DNC CONVENTION, PERPETRATED A FRAUD ON THE ELECTORATE IN YOUR STATE BY CERTIFYING BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN DESPITE OVERWHELMING CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT INDICATES, HE IS NOT

I have advised voters to approach their state government officials with complaints the Democratic Party, officially represented by Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, perpetrated a fraud on the electorate by Certifying BO is a NBC, despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence that indicates he is not, in order to get his name onto the general election ballot. But I now know that, I need to spell out exactly what this citizen complaint should look like, links and all, in order to maximize not only the likelihood that citizens will file this complaint but also that, once filed, it will be ‘heard.’

I expect to have this template posted shortly.

In the meantime, would you please contact Nancy Pelosi, in writing, to ask as Chair of 2008 DNC Convention, what was the specific documentation that was the basis for her Certification to state elections officials that BO is a NBC? These requests and, NP’s response, if any, will be part of the package you submit to your state officials to support your allegations of election fraud.

About these ads

10 Responses to HOW TO REPORT TO YOUR STATE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, OFFICIALLY REPRESENTED BY NANCY PELOSI, CHAIR OF THE 2008 DNC CONVENTION, PERPETRATED A FRAUD ON THE ELECTORATE IN YOUR STATE BY CERTIFYING BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN DESPITE OVERWHELMING CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT INDICATES, HE IS NOT

  1. Mick says:

    jbjd,
    I wrote my Fla. DOS asking for the minutes to the Presidential Selection Committee, as per Fla. ss 103.101. To my surprise they sent me an actual cassette tape of the minutes. I still could not get a satisfactory answer as to why the candidates oath (Fla. ss. 99.021) is not administered to POTUS candidates. They just tell me that 103.101 applies to POTUS candidates, however, as I have told them, there is no exclusionary statute or clause that excuses POTUS candidates from taking the oath that is required of all Federal candidates. Anyway, I am off to find a cassette player so that I can listen to the tape. I wonder if they even check off the 3 requirements for each candidate. Like I had told you before, only a member of the Candidate’s OWN PARTY can take him/her off the list. I will tell you what I find. Hopefully you received the Nomination Confirmation from the DNC (Pelosi), and the Slate of Dem. Candidates from the Fla. DNC (after the PSC) that I sent.

    Mick: EXCELLENT. Democracy is definitely not a spectator sport. We need to feature your quest on a post; I am not sure how many people who reach this site even read the great comments. I will re-visit the FL law. U.S. Senators must be U.S. citizens. How do elections officials confirm this? ADMINISTRATOR

  2. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    JBJD,

    As I mentioned in an earlier comment to another post, the State of AZ uses this form to prove eligibility: Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Form (A.R.S. § 16-242) where the candidate himself/herself signs and attests that he or she is an NBC.

    I contacted the AZ SOS office yesterday and asked what the DNC submitted regarding their candidates. The DNC sent AZ a Certificate of Nomination which was not an AZ state form. The RNC submitted the same thing. I had the staffer at the AZ SOS office read me the DNC Certificate of Nomination which she confirmed Nancy Pelosi signed, and it was a very short statement and did not contain any language within it regarding NBC or that their candidates (President and Vice-President candidates) were eligible.

    So it appears in AZ eligibility is determined based solely on the candidate signing form: Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Form (A.R.S. § 16-242).

    curi0us0nefromthe60s: Okay, great work, but you have to do one more thing. Check AZ law to see whether anything there requires that the name of the nominee for POTUS submitted by the major Party “shall” be eligible for the office sought. (I wrote about GA law in my memo below, FIND OUT WHETHER BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE II OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND STOP THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FROM VOTING FOR HIM, IF HE IS NOT!) Because this means, implicitly, by Certifying BO as the candidate, she is also Certifying he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. But bottom line, she did sign the HI Certification, which contains that line saying he is Constitutionally eligible. Imagine how ridiculous it would sound to say, ‘Well, I did not perpetrate a fraud on the voters of AZ, only on the voters of HI.’ ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Mick says:

    jbjd,
    If you go to Fla. ss 97.021 “candidate” is defined. One of the definitions is that if a person accepts and sets up a framework for accepting campaign contributions to run for an office he/ she is a “candidate”. “Election” is defined as a Primary or general election. The Candidate Oath of 99,021 (1)(a)
    EXCLUDES Judgeships and Federal Candidates. The oath of 99.021(1)(b)is for FEDERAL Candidates. However the Department of state is telling me that they have no signed oath for BO and that POTUS candidates are put on the ballot through Fla. ss 103.101, which is the Presidential Primary Selection Committee process. My point is that there is no exclusionary language in 99.021(1)(b) that says that “candidates” for POTUS, which is a FEDERAL OFFICE do not have to take the oath.
    When I pointed this conundrum out to the Fla. DOS, one of the underling attorneys told me that 103.101 is the process for placing POTUS candidates on the ballot, and has been before, and he did not see the process changing “any time soon” (sic). So my point is that just because that is the way they have done it doesn’t mean that they are following the letter of the law. Senatorial candidates, for instance would have to take the written oath of 99.021(1)(b) because they are a Federal “candidate” in an “election”, but unbelieveably, a POTUS “candidate” (Federal) running in a Primary “election” (by definition) does not. So although they have told me that the SOS does only a ministerial duty, they have CLEARLY NOT done that duty. It seems to me that once the candidates for a POTUS primary are chosen through the PPSC (103.101) that they, as Federal “candidate” in an “election” (Primary), should have to take the oath of 99.021(1)(b). I hope that I am not bothering you with all this.

    Mick

    Mick: WOW! Are you saying that, FL has no record of anyone from the Party swearing BO is a NBC? Can you cite to any FL law that requires the Party candidate for POTUS to be a NBC? (For example, GA laws says, the candidate for POTUS from the major political Party “shall” be eligible for the office sought.) Anyway, while all of this is interesting for the purpose of fixing your state laws in the future, how does this get us to an investigation as to whether BO is a NBC? Well, you now sound like an educated voter. And, empowered with knowledge, shortly, you will walk into the office of your S of S or, AG (accompanied by a few friends you might have to bring up to speed); and file a formal complaint that the D Party perpetrated a fraud on the citizens of FL by running a candidate for POTUS who is likely not a NBC. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, Love your idea about questioning Nancy Pelosi. Can’t wait to see her evidence pertaining to NBC. Might also ask her if she knows anybody by the name of Barry Soetoro.

    bob: Thank you. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Mick says:

    jbjd,
    Well, the in the written Oath (ss 99.021(1)(b)), the candidate affirms that he/she is qualified under the Constitution and the Laws of the United States. If they don’t take this oath, then how would they know if the candidate is qualified (even at the most ministerial standard). The process that is used,
    ss 103.101 is a beauty contest where only a member of the candidate’s own party (in Obama’s case that would be DNC chair of Fla. Karen Thurman, Senater Steven Geller, and Rep. Dan Gelber) can strike him/her from the list, and not put them on the ballot. Once this Presidential Primary Selection Committee (10 members, with the SOS as non- voting chairman)says they are on the ballot, then he/she is on the ballot, and the candidate oath is bypassed. The issue I believe is that 103.101 bypasses the state law which states that all FEDERAL CANDIDATES must take the oath. So I as an INDEPENDENT voter, had 2 major party illegal candidates to vote for (the primary in Fla. is closed) that were not qualified as NBC. But unlike Donofrio’s case I think I can cite a particular ministerial duty of qualification that was not performed. I am going to listen to the minutes of the
    PPSC and see whether they even ask a qualifying question. Here is the oath of 99.021 1 B.

    “2. Each candidate for federal office, whether a party candidate, a candidate with no party affiliation, or a write-in candidate, in order to qualify for nomination or election to office shall take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation in writing. A printed copy of the oath or affirmation shall be furnished to the candidate by the officer before whom such candidate seeks to qualify and shall be substantially in the following form:

    State of Florida
    County of _____

    Before me, an officer authorized to administer oaths, personally appeared (please print name as you wish it to appear on the ballot) , to me well known, who, being sworn, says that he or she is a candidate for the office of _____; that he or she is qualified under the Constitution and laws of the United States to hold the office to which he or she desires to be nominated or elected; and that he or she has qualified for no other public office in the state the term of which office or any part thereof runs concurrent with that of the office he or she seeks.
    (Signature of candidate)

    (Address)

    Sworn to and subscribed before me this _____ day of _____, (year) , at _____ County, Florida.
    (Signature and title of officer administering oath)”

    Mick: You could be right about your interpretation of FL law. (Have you tried to look up legislative histories of some of these laws? Your state librarian could help you. You might have found a flaw in the drafting. Or, have you spoken to your state representative or senator about these seemingly ignored laws regarding candidate oaths of eligibility?) However, even assuming you could have a proper case for Mandamus, the most you could establish, based on what I am reading above, is that the S of S did not carry out this process prescribed by law and, get the Court to order an oath from the candidate. But this process does not specifically require the S of S to ‘vet’ the candidate. Anyway, your work is important to point out, FL failed to vet the candidate for POTUS for Constitutional eligibility, as part of a well laid out argument to your state officials that, NP perpetrated fraud. I am still working on laying out this argument in an easily understandable form I can provide to others. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    FYI, I just received in response to my public information request with the AZ SOS, Barack Obama’s signed Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Form attesting that he is a Natural Born Citizen. In the State of Arizona this is the only eligibility related requirement by the SOS and AZ election law for POTUS.

    curi0us0nefromthe60s: Okay; I assume you mean, you have checked the AZ statutes and, there are no other laws regarding having the national Party submit only the name of a candidate for POTUS who is eligible for the job. Now, just to be sure…Your S of S is authorized by these statutes to promulgate any rules or regulations consistent with this law. So, contact her office – you can always call – and ask whether there are any other rules or regulations that would require the Party candidate to be eligible for the job. (For example, the letter you found, which BO signed and submitted to the S of S, is not specifically prescribed by law but, it is something the S of S came up with as part of her job-related duties, rights?) ADMINISTRATOR

  7. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    I found the AZ legislative site that deals with election laws:

    http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=16

    I am scouring these pages to ensure that my findings are correct. As I mentioned before the DNC had to file a certificate of nomination (which I was told by a staffer at the AZ SOS office) that Nancy Pelosi signed. I’ve mailed a public request form to get an electronic copy of this certificate. I was read this certificate over the phone by the staffer at the AZ SOS office and no where in this certificate was it stated that they were attesting their candidate was eligible or an NBC. I’m awaiting my copy of the certificate to ensure it was read to me in its entirety.

    curi0us0nefrmthe60s: Yes; the DNC Certification is the same as the one NP submitted to the S of S in SC. That is, it only says, BO is the DNC candidate. The line that was added in the HI Certification, saying he is also Constitutionally eligible for the job, had to be added according to HI law. (§11-113 Presidential ballots. All candidates for President and Vice President of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under either of the following procedures: (1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include: (B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;…) I am wondering whether any AZ law specifically states, the candidate for POTUS from the major political Party “shall” be eligible for the office sought. Because if this law exists – in GA, the word is “shall” – then signing the Certification saying, BO is the candidate, is tantamount to saying, and he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. And, since he is not then, NP, per se, broke this law. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. stophate says:

    MESSAGE DELETED

    stophate: I had to delete your comments because, unlike the other readers of this blog, you only offered platitudes but no real substantive contribution to the knowledge base. Besides, I already responded to your empty comments on another blog. Here, I will repeat, for the benefit of my other readers.

    “Having thoroughly researched the issues related to this election cycle and concluded BO is not NBC; we are motivated to get him out of the Oval Office not by our politics – we are radical and conservative- or our historical voting pattern – we are Republicans and Libertarians and Democrats and Unenrolled; or our religious or sexual orientation – we are Jews and atheists and Mormons, gay, straight, and transgendered – but by our combined love of country. Know that, we genuinely believe he is illegally occupying the White House and that, therefore, any bill he signs is, well, not law. We might not express our disdain for him in what our detractors perceive are consistent terms; but this is because, none of his predecessors, however vile we might consider their conduct, was Constitutionally ineligible for the job. I have always maintained that, I completely support the decision of my fellow citizens to vote for a President I consider to be incompetent for the position. But I draw the line at their imposing on me, a man who I believe is not Constitutionally eligible for the job.” ADMINISTRATOR

  9. Mick says:

    jbjd,
    How does this affect your fraud complaint.

    http://www.dcexaminer.com/politics/The-RAT-hiding-deep-inside-the-stimulus-bill-39805642.html

    Mick: Given the status of the tort laws in all 50 states; and the facts that I plugged in to those laws, in a court of law, I can establish with a preponderance of evidence that fraud occurred in all 50 states. (I am not saying a jury will find in my favor.) As to alleging fraud to my state officials, that goes without saying. If voters knew the only ‘evidence’ of BO’s natural born status was that, his former employer, Annenberg Political Fact Check says he’s for real; would they still have voted for him? And, finally, with reference to the information contained in the article you linked, this provision in the ‘stimulus’ bill, restricting authority of Inspectors General, has nothing to do with the states. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. [...] ‘mention’ of the election law in SC.) Outstanding research by blogger jbjd here, here, here, and here, with summary here, showed that Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond , as [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers

%d bloggers like this: