HELP ME HELP YOU – redux (see comments updated 05/08/09)

I am bumping this up because I want people to read the comments from activist citizens, and my responses. For example, here is my response to the copy of a letter I received from rlqretired, which he had sent to his elected officials in FL.

rlqretired: You wrote, “The DNC document submitted to our Secretary of State here in Florida says only that Obama and Biden are their nominees. It says nothing about them having been found eligible…” But know this: no candidate for POTUS can be legally qualified to serve under DNC rules unless he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf (It’s on page 14.) Plus, under HI law, the Party must actually certify the candidate is Constitutionally eligible for the job. (Seems redundant, huh, given those pesky DNC Rules.) Here is the Certificate the D Party sent to HI elections officials. http://www.scribd.com/doc/9656064/DNC-Obama-Hawaii-Cert-2008 So, now you have DNC rules saying the nominee for POTUS must be eligible for the job; and a DNC Certificate swearing he is eligible for the job. But so far, no one from the D Party will say, on what basis anyone determined he was eligible for the job. Sounds like fraud (on the voters of the great state of FL) to me. Good luck. Let me know if there is anything else you need. ADMINISTRATOR

Maybe rlqretired’s letter will give other people ideas. And if you want me to review any document before you send this to your elected officials, please, send it here. All comments are in moderation and so, if you do not want these letters posted, just let me know. Note, I delete identifying information before posting.

Finally, let me repeat what I have been saying now for months: stop trying to prove BO is not a NBC. Verifying the Constitutional eligibility of the nominee for POTUS from the major political party before allowing our state elections officials to enter his name on our general elections ballots was never our job; we sub-contracted that job to the major political party. And, in the case of the Democratic Party, they refuse to establish, they did their jobs.

For example, if we live in a state that enacted laws saying the candidate for POTUS from the major political party must be eligible for the job; we trusted that, by naming BO their nominee, the Democratic Party was implicitly warrantying, he is eligible for the job. If we enacted laws allowing the nominee from the Party to automatically be entered onto our general election ballots, we were implicitly saying, we trusted, the Party had lived up to Party rules and verified his Constitutional eligibility. However, when we asked the Party to provide some evidence they subjected BO to such verification, they ignored us. And this is what I hope your complaint to state officials is all about. That is, by requiring that the Party Certify the name of its nominee to elections officials in order to get the name printed onto the general election ballot, we did not intend this as a hollow gesture but as proof the nominee was Constitutionally eligible for the job. And by pretending their Certification as to eligibility-qua-candidacy is all that is required to satisfy state laws, the Democratic Party, both on a state and national level, has perpetrated a fraud on the electorate. ADMINISTRATOR

(Originally posted February 28, 2009)
Most states have enacted laws requiring the candidate for POTUS from the major political Party must be eligible for the job. (For example, the Official Code of GA Annotated (O.C.G.A.), §21-2-5, “Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications.” reads: “Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party … shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” Yet the Democratic Party managed to get the name of its candidate onto the general election ballots notwithstanding overwhelming circumstantial evidence shows he is not a natural born citizen (“NBC”).

In order to complete drafting complaints to Attorneys General (“A’sG”) in each state, charging that the executive committee of the state Democratic Party committed fraud by forwarding to the chief elections official in the state – usually the Secretary of State (“S of S”) – their statement that Barack Obama is the official nominee of the Democratic Party for the office of POTUS, so that the state could print his name and or the names of his Electors on the general election ballot, notwithstanding it looks like he is ineligible for the job; I need to see the documents these state party chairs submitted to their state officials. I have already obtained this information for HI; there, the state party merely forwarded under the state party cover letter, a copy of Nancy Pelosi’s “DNC Official Certification of Nomination,” saying Barack Obama was their candidate (and that he was Constitutionally eligible for the job). Presumably, this was the procedure followed in other states, too. But I need to see the documents. That’s where you come in.

I need you to forward a request to your S of S for a copy of the documents, if any, that were provided to that office by the executive committee of the state Democratic Party and were the basis of the state’s decision the Party had satisfied all state requirements to print the name of Barack Obama and/or the names of his Electors on the general election ballot. Most states have public records laws mirroring the federal Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), entitling you to such information, on a timely basis. You could check with your S of S. Requests for records should be made in writing, referencing the public records law in your state.

Let me know what you come up with, ASAP. Thank you.


About these ads

44 Responses to HELP ME HELP YOU – redux (see comments updated 05/08/09)

  1. This is very interesting. I will contact in Wisconsin, also promote in Investigating Obama, probably tonight. Please send me an email, to (email deleted).

    Arlen: Yes, isn’t it? In states with these laws that require the Party candidate to be eligible for the job, there is no corresponding requirement for the state to check. So, individual voters have attempted to obtain from both Nancy Pelosi, in her role as Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention; and the Democratic Party, those documents used to verify BO’s eligibility POTUS. The Party claimed, they were not obliged to produce any documents to the voter; NP refused to respond. In other words, in those states whose laws require Party candidate eligibility, the Party has failed to establish they complied with the law. Step in the AG. Plus, we now know that, given BO’s request in his Motion to Dismiss the Hollister case; the strongest evidence he asserts as to his eligibility is that, FactCheck says he is legit. My military Complaint points to how easily FactCheck is de-bunked. Certainly, NP and the Party cannot have relied on any stronger evidence to establish and Certify BO was Constitutionally eligible for POTUS than he presented himself, to a court of law! And I am certain – though I need the documents – that state party members did not vet the candidate separately, but merely passed on NP’s Certification. Ergo, fraud. Look forward to getting your information. Please, spread the word. ADMINISTRATOR

    Arlen: I just reviewed some Wisconsin law. (For some reason, finding WI law on line is quite challenging.) Under Wisconsin law, the candidate Certification can come from the National Chair or the state chair. So, you might get back just the Certification from NP! This means, she perpetrated the fraud! Also, could you please find out whether BO had to sign the Declaration of candidacy, swearing he was eligible for the job of POTUS? If so, also request that form. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Mike says:

    Just passing by.Btw, you website have great content!

    Mike: If the content was that great then, it would incite you to act. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Mick says:

    JBJD,
    I had sent the DNC Notification to Fla. to the address you gave me because i cannot provide the link here. Did you receive it.
    Mick

    Mick: Sorry; yes. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    The Certification NP sumbitted to AZ is the one supposedly submitted to and received by the SOS of AZ. I received the copy of this document from an employee of the AZ SOS’s office in response to my public information request to that office; however, it does not contain on it any received stamp by that office. In my other public information request to the same SOS’s office for Barack Obama’signed PPEC Nomination form, the copy I received does have AZ SOS office’s received stamp on it. It seems curious to me that the SOS office did not stamp the NP Certification document even though a copy of this document was clearly provided to me by the AZ SOS’s office.

    curi0us0nefromthe60s: Hmmm… I have that BO sworn statement stamped Received by AZ; but why would the S of S send NP’s Certification without a stamp, unless it was sent to them by the state party, with a cover letter, that has the stamp? Can you check tomorrow with the person who forwarded these to you and let me know? Thanks. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    Yes, I just sent them an email asking the following:

    Can you explain to me why the copy of the Democratic National Committee Official Certification of Nomination for Barack Obama and Joe Biden you provided to me does not have the AZ Secretary of State’s received stamp on it with the date and time the document was received by the AZ Secretary of State’s office? Aren’t all official documents received by the AZ Secretary of State’s office duly stamped?

    curi0us0nefromthe60s: Nice work. Now, cite any AZ law that requires the Party nominee to be a NBC so that I can draft the AZ complaint to the AG. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    I believe the pertinent law is spelled out in AZ 16-311 located here:

    http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00311.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS

    With the following text contained therein being the pertinent text:

    D. All persons desiring to become a candidate shall file with the nomination paper provided for in subsection A an affidavit which shall be printed in a form prescribed by the secretary of state. The affidavit shall include facts sufficient to show that, other than the residency requirement provided in subsection A, the candidate will be qualified at the time of election to hold the office the person seeks.

    This text leads me to believe that Barack Obama’s signed PPEC Nomination form was the proof used for eligibility in accordance with clause in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.

    As a result, I believe this why legislation is now being pursued in the State of AZ under SB 1158 wherein they add text to the law above to include avidavit documents being submitted in addition to sworn statements of eligibility. See AZ Bill SB 1158 here:

    http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1158p.htm

    curi0us0nefromthe60s: I am much too easily distracted. I read this proposed text; it will not work to accomplish what you hope. First, the word “prove” is undefined. For example, under this rubric, NP could claim, the posted “Certification of Live Birth” on BO’s “Fight the Smears” web site, “proves” he is a NBC. Second, without a criminal penalty for knowingly submitting the name of an unqualified candidate, there is little incentive to tell the truth. Enough. I will work on amending state laws later; I am working on fraud complaints to state A’sG. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    jbjd,

    I am in possession of an electronic copy of the “Certification of Nomination” signed by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond submitted to the State of AZ. I am also in possession of an electronic copy Barack Obama’s signed Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper submitted to the State of AZ in which he states he is a natural born citizen. How to I get a copy of these two PDF documents to you?

    curi0us0nefromthe60s: Thank you. I have both of these. (Just to be certain, when you say you have the Certification NP submitted to AZ, do you mean this is the form provided to you by the state of AZ or, it is a form you found with a “Received” stamp reflecting a government office in AZ? Was it forwarded to the state by the AZ state party? If so, do you have the cover letter? Some states, like WI, allow the Certification to the S of S to come from either the state or national party. As far as I have been able to determine, even in those states requiring the state party to certify the national candidate, the state party merely stated, BO was eligible, forwarding a copy of NP’s Certification. But the only Certification I have found that actually said he is eligible, is the one prepared for HI, where state law requires the Certification to verify not only candidacy but also eligibility.) (Several states also require the candidate to swear an oath of eligibility; this is a separate issue, because I am not going after BO for fraud, but the individuals whose signatures got him onto the ballot, in those states that require the party to submit an eligible candidate.) ADMINISTRATOR

  8. AZ Conservative says:

    I didn’t say any of this would work. I was simply providing you with the laws and information pertinent to my State. I’m more hopeful about AZ SB 1158 proposed in this year’s legislature although the bill needs further specific wording to accomplish its objective. I am watching the legislature closely to make sure they include additional language so that the bill accomplishes their objective in the next Presidential election so that BO doesn’t appear on our ballot again.

    AZ Conservative: Oh; okay. And good for you. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. Kathy says:

    New to this site, but not new to the BO/NBC suits. I am from WI also and as per the instructions from Arlen, the first comment, will get this out tomorrow! Thank you for what you are doing.

    Kathy: I am so glad to ‘hear’ from you. The next time you visit your state officials, I want you to be able to deliver a well-supported complaint of fraud and a request to investigate. And, you are welcome. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    FYI, I received a copy of the cover letter sent with Nancy Pelosi’s certification of nomination form sent to AZ. The cover letter has an SOS received stamp. No mention in the cover letter of Obama’s eligibility either. Anyway, from what I can tell, all AZ election laws were followed in 2008. Nancy Pelosi did not commit fraud in the State of AZ based on the way our laws are written and the verbiage used in the documents submitted by Nancy Pelosi. Barack Obama signed a form attesting to his Natural Born Citizen status which is the only potential legal problem they have with AZ 2008 election law. I believe the case is closed for the 2008 election in AZ, and we have to look to 2012 to ensure he does not get on the ballot in AZ again.

    curi0us0nefromthe60s: Great work. No; AZ is ripe for a fraud complaint to the AG. Only, instead of naming the Chair of the state D party; the complaint will name NP. If you cannot find a law that specifically says, the party candidate must be eligible for the job – I scanned AZ law and did not find this, either – you know the state requires the candidate to be eligible for the job. Remember, the S of S required BO to sign the statement swearing he is Constitutionally eligible for POTUS, before he could sign up for the primary/caucus. This establishes, eligibility is a material consideration to the state. The DNC rules say, our nominee will at least be Constitutionally eligible for the job. So, on the one hand, the state tells the individual, before you can participate in our Presidential primary/caucus, you must declare you are eligible. Then, if that person becomes the nominee of the Party, the Party now must ‘present’ him to the state. This implies, the Party is vouching for his eligibility, that is, it is saying that, the fact this person is our nominee implies he satisfied DNC rules that anyone who becomes the Party nominee for POTUS will at least be Constitutionally eligible for the job. (Cite omitted.) Also, in AZ, the Party that obtained 5% of votes in the prior election is “entitled” to be represented on the next ballot. (ARS 16-804.) Surely, AZ did not require an applicant who wants to get on the primary ballot to be eligible for the office sought but then “entitle” the Party to put an ineligible nominee on the general election ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. truthbetold11 says:

    Go to the american presidency project to document archives exe orders 13488 on jan 16 th GW and amended on jan 21 by bho someone with something to hide

  12. Mick says:

    JBJD,
    I have been reading about Ankeny v. Daniels (Indiana), which has a very different angle of attack. The angle focuses on Article 2 section 1 clause 4 about the choosing (chusing) of electors. The conclusion, in using the Bush v. Gore finding, that each individual vote in the election is to choose the electors that the candidate represents, ultimately leads to the Governors of each state being responsible for validating the qualifications of the candidates. Can you explain more about this? I am not seeing how they come to that conclusion.

    Mick

    Mick: I cannot look at this now. The only court case that would resolve this issue is my military Complaint, anyway. (And even then, once the Court Declares, BO is not a NBC, Congress would need to act to get him out of there.) But, based on your reading of the case, I agree, sounds unlikely this will fly. FYI, I am formatting complaint letters suitable to submit to state A’sG (different ones for each state) charging that NP and/or the state D party chair perpetrated fraud by Certifying BO is a NBC. (I am awaiting one piece of info from HI; as soon as this arrives, I am posting that state’s complaint.) ADMINISTRATOR

    Mick: Okay, have read bits and pieces; still cannot find Plaintiffs’ pleadings. But it seems that, like in many other states, IN law is drafted to read that the names of the candidates from the major political parties can be listed on the general elections ballots, next to their party affiliation. And, in most states, the law makes clear, voting for the candidate is tantamount to voting for the electors of that candidate. However, IN state law does not clearly spell out that, voting for the name of the candidate is a shorthand for voting for the electors of that candidate. In other words, Plaintiffs here allege, voting for BO meant, voting for him qua (in the role of) elector. But the Constitution requires that no sitting Senator can be an elector. So, the Governor had no lawful authority to certify the slate of electors, because it included BO, a sitting Senator, in violation of the Constitution.

    But Indiana Code makes clear, registering a preference for the candidate counts as a vote for electors.

    IC 3-10-4-4
    Votes for nominees and write-in candidates; treatment
    Sec. 4. Each vote cast or registered for the nominees for President and Vice President of the United States of a political party, group of petitioners, or a write-in candidate for President or Vice President of the United States is a vote cast or registered for all of the candidates for presidential electors of the party, group, or candidate and shall be so counted. These votes shall be counted, canvassed, and certified in the same manner as the votes for candidates for other offices.
    As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.6. Amended by P.L.10-1992, SEC.17.

    So, I need to see the pleadings to make sure this is not Plaintiffs’ whole case.

    (Then again, I just read Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Even an unskilled litigator could survive this Motion, as written.)
    ADMINISTRATOR

    Mick: Just saw another snippet from the case. It looks like Plaintiffs are also arguing that by voting for either the candidates or electors for these candidates, the state violated the prohibition against voting directly for electors. (I will explain more later; gotta go now.) ADMINISTRATOR

    Mick: Okay, read what I could find. (Plaintiffs still haven’t posted their documents; I read Defendants’, as well as some commentary from Plaintiffs. I still cannot determine what is Plaintiffs’ cause of action.) Here’s what happened. Plaintiffs have read a line from Bush v. Gore – not a holding but only dicta – and are alleging based on this line that, individual citizens have no right to vote directly for electors. So, the Governor of IN should not have signed the Certificate of Ascertainment for the electors directly chosen by the voters on November 4, 2008. But they misread the law. The SCOTUS in that case did say, citizens have no federal or Constitutional right to vote directly for electors. But the state legislatures did give them this right, in the laws they enacted to include the names of electors on state ballots. In other words, even taking the SCOTUS’ dicta as holding, nothing prevents states from granting rights not otherwise found in the U.S. Constitution. ADMINISTRATOR

  13. rlqretired says:

    Just came across your place and really appreciate your efforts. I am but a layman but I am doing what I can to see this is corrected before the 2012 elections. In that regard I have requested our Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum to issue a legal opinion defining who in my Florida government, all of which took an oath of office to defend the US Constitution, has the responsibility to verify US Constitutional eligibility before any presidential candidates name is placed upon the next presidential election ballot. The fundamental denial of due process of law argument I have used to justify the request is outlined below;

    The Obama Secrecy Loophole.

    For the first time in the history of this country we have an individual who has succeeded in becoming Commander in Chief of our military forces who has something so serious in his past records he has totally sealed his original vault copy birth, passport, foreign citizenship and educational records from everyone, especially the military personnel who have good reason to question his loyalty and allegiance to this country. Much evidence exists, due to this secrecy, that very likely he may not have factually been born in the USA and very likely carries citizenship and a passport from a foreign country.

    The position we find ourselves in today, although much more critical, is almost identical to the position we found ourselves in back in the 80’s when the courts began issuing summary judgments that The Marketable Record Title Act did apply to our public sovereignty lands because no one represented the public during the two year saving period to record and preserve the publics claim. The facts were that the title to the publics sovereignty lands were in the hands of the state legislature when the act was set into law but they recorded nothing to save and preserve the public interest. This was a clear denial of due process for the public and the Florida Supreme Court eventually decided all three questions submitted to them in our favor.

    Prior to the voters of Florida being given the right to vote for the various Presidential candidates the electors had standing, during the electoral college meeting, in which all candidates, Democrat, Republican and Independent alike were in attendance, could even make cross party demands for verifiable proof of constitutional eligibility, prior to the election and those found to be ineligible could be exposed and discarded before the vote took place.

    Our system today is completely backward in that the elections are held, the votes counted, the electors are committed as to who they must vote, the state certifications are made and sent to the electoral college and only then, after the vote, does an elector have the authority to even raise an objection and that must be in writing.
    Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000).
    “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.” Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000).

    Our current election process is unconstitutional because it is denying the voters due process in that we have no standing to verify anything prior to the election as did the electors under the original system. According to the letter I received from our Secretary of State, in spite of his oath of office to uphold the US Constitution, he states this US Constitutional vetting responsibility has been totally and completely turned over to the political party’s (Chapter 103) and he now has no responsibility or authority to ask anyone anything on behalf of the public. He further states that if I chose to challenge the qualifications of a candidate it is my responsibility to bring forth a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction while he knows full well that we have no standing to do so. This process promotes fraud upon the voters in that, unlike the original electoral process, we are forced to vote for candidates that no one has verified eligible. It is grossly unconstitutional and a clear denial of due process by the states failure to factually verify, on behalf of the public, before the first primary election, that the political party appointed candidates are eligible according to the US Constitution. This unconstitutional process has permitted a likely Usurper to become President and Commander in Chief of our military forces.

    Regardless of what Fla. Statute Chapter 103 states, somebody in my Florida Government has the responsibility carry out his oath of office to defend the US Constitution and factually verify the candidates are eligible before any name is placed upon the next presidential ballot. This loophole must be plugged. I’ll report the AG’s response when I receive it.

    Although my efforts are forward looking, could this argument possibly look backwards and help force Obama to produce the records?

    rlqretired: I am thrilled you have already contacted the FL AG. Soon, I will have another ‘document’ you and the other informed citizens from your state who have contacted me, can file with this chief law enforcement officer in your state; that is, a consumer complaint of election fraud. I am just awaiting one crucial piece of information someone is retrieving from the HI elections office. (And thank you for the compliment.) ADMINISTRATOR

  14. Mick says:

    To rlqretired,
    I have looked into this issue extesively, From my estimation the process has been taken over by the Political Parties. State Statute 103 outlines the
    Presidential Primary Selection Committee. A candidate in this process can only be left off the ballot by one of his OWN PARTY MEMBERS on the Committee. In Obama’s case that was Sen. Geller, Rep. Gelber, and Fla. Dem. Party Chairman Thurman.
    This process however completely bypasses a duty by the candidates for FEDERAL OFFICE to swear a CANDIDATES OATH as prescribed by Fl. ss 99.21(1)(b). There is no exclusionary language in the statutes that says POTUS candidates are excused from this oath, and why should there be? In my opinion the Secretary of state has NOT done the misisterial duty that is required by the Fl. State statutes. What is the remedy? Don’t know. But the power of political parties to put anyone on the ballot that may or may not qualify reeks of the Fox/Henhouse scenario.

    Mick: You and rlqretired agree on this oath. When I prepare the FL letter to the AG, this is a point I will include. In other words, even where the only ‘safeguard’ in place to establish for the record the candidate for POTUS is a NBC; is the requirement that he swear under oath he is eligible (presumably this could at least serve as a deterrent to falsification, as there is some punishment on the books for false swearing, besides exposing the liar to civil suit); even this safeguard was ignored in FL. I know that no state law requires the S of S to vet as to Constitutional eligibility. What I am alleging is that, even where there is a legal requirement that the party submit only the name of an eligible candidate and, the party has sworn their candidate is eligible, the fact that they refuse to respond to requests to explain the basis for that determination obstructs the state from determining whether they complied with the law. Obviously, the citizens did not cause their legislators to enact such laws intending that a mere ‘certification’ substitute for an authentic representation that their candidate is a NBC. ADMINISTRATOR

  15. Truth Exists says:

    I’m in California, and willing to make a request. Are you in need of that?

    Truth Exists: Please ask the CA S of S for the documents submitted by the state D party to get BO onto the ballot. Also, check out whether CA law requires the Party candidate for POTUS to be Constitutionally eligible for the job. Then come back and post. ADMINISTRATOR

  16. oscar says:

    I think you ought to let Leo’s words speak for themselves. Your paraphrasing of Leo’s very detailed response to you is not intellectually honest.
    …..
    He answered you directly ans with respect for the arguments you made. Your treatment of this exchange is ridiculous.

    oscar: It is always a pleasure to read correspondence from an informed person. I already addressed the points you raised, in my response to curi0us0nefr0mthe60s, below. (And I omitted the posts from the other blog, which were redundant.) ADMINISTRATOR

  17. David ddp-1 says:

    Hello jbjd,

    This is the request for information I sent off to Ms.
    Debra Bowen, CA. S of S.

    >Heading
    Barak Obama’s eligibility Certificatioin to be on ballot for POTUS

    Dear Ms. Bowen,
    Kindly provide electronic/email copies of all the records & certification provided to you by DNC Party Head Nancy Pelosi regarding Barak Obama’s [BO] eligibility to run for POTUS under the terms set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

    Especially any records that he signed stating he was a Natural Born Citizen [NBC].

    I believe all these documents should be available under the freedom of information act.

    Your help is greatly appreciated and your reply is requested which the documents will satisfy.

    Sincerely,

    David ddp-1: Wonderful. I assume CA voters have enacted a public records law. Let me know what you get back. (Next time you want public records, in addition to mentioning in the text of your request that you are requesting these records under the “freedom of information act” – there is a federal FOIA and state records laws – you cite the state law before your initial salutation. In other words, put in a line before “Dear …” that reads, “SUBJECT: CA ‘PUBLIC RECORDS LAW’ (or whatever the law is called). Include the cite.) ADMINISTRATOR

  18. ddp-1 says:

    jbjd,
    What I would like to know from you is your law background and how will all these efforts come to bear in a meaningfull way such as Federal Court?

    ddp-1: I have a jd. And none of the cases I have reviewed is procedurally sound. I agree with the courts that all should have been denied. However, I have great faith in my military Complaint for Declaratory Judgment as to whether BO is a NBC, using National Guard Plaintiffs about to be deployed (federalized), at which point they come under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ. ADMINISTRATOR

  19. rlqretired says:

    jbjd – Just recieved a copy of the filing paper recieved by our Florida Secretary of State. Cover letter says this is all they have. The certification is signed by Pelosi on the 28th of Aug. and received by the Sec.s office on the 29th. The primary election was held on the 26th. The document says nothing about eligibility and states only that Obama and Biden have been duly nominated. I will have someone scan this into my computer but how do I get it to you. I assume you are still going to provide the leadership on filing that fraud complaint. Please advise.

    rlqretired: I don’t need that certificate, now that I know what it says. But I need you to get one more piece of information directly from the S of S: who submitted this form to them, the state party or the national party? (Was there a cover letter?) Also, once we get that information, I will need you to remind me: does FL have any law that says anything like, the candidate from the major political party is “entitled” to be on the ballot; or the candidate from the major political party “shall be eligible” for the office sought? ADMINISTRATOR

  20. rlqretired says:

    jbjd – The cover letter that accompanied the certificate states,”Per your request enclosed (my letter) please find a copy of the 2008 official certification of nomination from the Democratic National Committee. This is the only information we have regarding your request”. I’ll work on the other stuff. By the way, Bill Posey, one of our Fla.US House Reps. has just submitted HR1503 dealing with this issue. I suspect this is in part due to the request I make to the Fla. AG back on 3/1 and a followup on 3/8. If you got time look at it and comment.

    rlqretired: Sorry, I did not make myself clear. The “cover letter” to which I was referring was the cover letter accompanying NP’s Certification of Nomination sent/delivered to the FL S of S, and not the cover letter from the S of S to you. I previously read Rep. Posey’s proposal. I will comment later on all of these efforts to shore up federal bills on ensuring Presidential eligibility but, off the top of my head, I must say, I cannot believe these people are genuinely trying to address a flaw in the system, when they only propose remedies prospectively and avoid vetting BO. ADMINISTRATOR

  21. rlqretired says:

    jbjd – I wrote the SOS for the cover. The following is what I think you wanted but I have written my state rep. specifically as you stated.

    b) By October 31 of the year preceding the presidential preference primary, each political party shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of its presidential candidates to be placed on the presidential preference primary ballot or candidates entitled to have delegates appear on the presidential preference primary ballot. The Secretary of State shall prepare and publish a list of the names of the presidential candidates submitted. The Secretary of State shall submit such list of names of presidential candidates to the selection committee on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of the year preceding the presidential preference primary. Each person designated as a presidential candidate shall have his or her name appear, or have his or her delegates’ names appear, on the presidential preference primary ballot unless all committee members of the same political party as the candidate agree to delete such candidate’s name from the ballot.

    rlqretired: Good work! The word “entitled” here refers to what? Is there a previous reference that says, the major political party is entitled to have the names of its candidates on the ballot; and what you gave me is a subsequent provision explaining how these entitled candidates get onto the ballot? ADMINISTRATOR

  22. rlqretired says:

    jbjd – Finally got back. All I can find is entitled and nothing about eligible. I have recieved the nominating paper submitted by the DNC and likewise it only states that these are the candidates we have nominated. I have written the SOS and asking for the DNC rules that require the DNC to verify eligiblity as he states in his letter of 2/24. Expect to hear back by next week.

    jbjd, I am very interested in knowing more about the official fraud complaint you reference earlier. If my Florida Government fails to move and fix this problem what else can be done? Legal action? The left/socialists have Soros types to fund such. Do we have any on the conservative side? Pro bono?

    rlqretired: “Entitled” is still good because, the presumption must be, the Party would nominate a Constitutionally eligible candidate. Remember, the DNC rules say, the nominee will be Constitutionally eligible for the job. States Attorneys General are the people’s attorneys for issues like consumer fraud. That is, if a corporation operating in FL defrauds FL voters then, complaints are made to the office of the FL AG – check your general statutes – and the AG investigates. ADMINISTRATOR

  23. rlqretired says:

    jbjd – My latest to Fla. SOS

    3/28/09

    (Name removed by ADMINISTRATOR)
    Haines City, Fla. 33844

    Secretary of State Kurt Browning (Attention Mr. Donald L. Palmer, Esq.)
    RA Gray Building
    500 South Bronough Street
    Tallahassee, Fla. 32399-0250

    Dear Sec. Browning;

    Thank you for your letter of 3/25/09 but I must tell you that I am totally flabbergasted at the cavalier attitude your office has demonstrated in my effort to understand precisely who, in My Florida Government, is responsible to assure every candidate that your office authorizes to be placed upon the very first primary presidential ballot is eligible to be President of the USA according to Article 2, Sec. 1 of the US Constitution.

    I am shocked to the extent I question misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance. Certainly not competence.
    1 – The Sec. Of State’s oath of office requires him to defend the US Constitution. But, since you folks view your responsibilities as ministerial only you consider yourselves to be totally relieved of your oath of office. Ref. SOS office letter of 2/24/09
    2 – Your office states that you have no authority to look beyond the face of the filing documents to determine if a candidate is eligible. Your letter further implies that the responsibility to vet the presidential candidates has been totally turned over to private political parties and is of no concern to your office. Ref. SOS letter of 2/24/09.
    3 – Yet, the only document your office has received from the DNC only states that Obama and Biden are their nominated candidates. It says absolutely nothing about these candidates having been determined to be eligible for the office. Ref SOS letter of 3/16/09.
    4 – Further, the only document you have in your office is a nominating document that was not even created until the 28th of Aug. and received by your office on Aug. 29, while the primary election was held back on Aug. 26. Ref. SOS letter of 3/16/09.
    5 – At this point, in utter disbelief, I wrote your office again to obtain a copy of the DNC rules that has assured your office it was and is their responsibility to constitutionally vet the presidential candidates. Ref. My letter of 3/19/09.
    6 – And now, today, I receive your letter that states you don’t even have a copy of the DNC eligibility qualifying rules in you office. Ref. Your letter of 3/25/09.
    7 – And finally, the 2/24/09 letter I received from your office also stated that if a voter questioned the eligibility of a presidential candidate it was their responsibility to bring forth a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction, while you know damn well we have no standing to do so.

    Mr. Palmer, I want reconfirmation from you that your office did not have a copy of the DNC qualifying rules in the office of SOS while preparing for the 08 primary elections and that you still do not have a copy of them even today. If, in this reconfirmation, you discover that you do have a copy, I want a copy of the portion dealing with the 08 DNC requirement to constitutionally verify candidate eligibility. Also, if you have any Clarifications to my understanding in points 1-7, I ask to receive your them now, at this time.

    Sincerely

    (Name removed by ADMINISTRATOR)
    Realtor
    Copy – AG McCollum, Sen. Dockery, Rep. Wood, Gov. Crist, Paul Senft RNC National Committeeman.
    Enc. – My yesterday’s email to Senft

    Senft email will follow

    rlqretired: Again, great work. But what I want to emphasize is that, what you are establishing with all of this correspondence is this. In FL, no evidence exists on the record that anyone, either the state or the D Party, has verified, BO is a NBC, a Constitutional requirement for POTUS. So, at some point, you will need to sum up your findings in a letter to the public (distributed to the media, public service groups, and the like) that begins something like this. ‘FL state officials have confirmed on the record, they failed to determine whether Barack Obama, then just the nominee for POTUS put forward by the Democratic Party, was a NBC before agreeing to print his name on FL’s 2008 general election ballot.’ ADMINISTRATOR

  24. rlqretired says:

    jbjd – My email to RNC National Committman Paul Senft who resides in my home town.

    Paul – For your information I have received from the SoS a copy of the official document submitted by the DNC indicating that Obama and Biden are their candidates. This document says absolutely nothing about having been determined to be eligible according to the US Constitution. The SoS stated to me in his letter of 2/24 that this was the DNC exclusive responsibility to do this. I have written back to the SoS requesting a copy of the DNC rules and/or regulations that requires the DNC to verify eligibility before they are approved as a candidate.

    I have not inquired as to what the equivalent document says about the RNC submitted candidates nor inquired about the RNC rules requiring verification of eligibility. Since you are an executive of the RNC I am requesting that you assist me in obtaining this same information.

    Paul, I want to reemphasize the mistake the Republican Party is making by failing to see the simplicity and the tremendous opportunity this constitutional denial of due process flaw in the presidential electoral process has given us, here in Florida.

    1- US-Bush v Gore was a Florida case and clarifies the state legislatures power to determine how the electors are chosen is plenary. It further clarifies when this power is granted to the voters it is fundamental. Fundamental is with due process, dignity. This is from the US Supreme Court about Florida. Florida is the logical place to fix this problem. Plenary, means they can require of the candidate what ever they want. They don’t have to wait for approval from anyone else.
    2- Our State Legislature is under the control of the Republicans, unlike the US Congress, which will never do anything that will jeopardize their man in 2012. Its Florida or it ain’t gona happen!
    3- The beauty of this approach is that it is a clear denial of due process to the voters, who are forced to vote for candidates no state official has verified to be eligible and we, the voters, have no standing to do this ourselves. This system flaw encourages fraud. This can be presented strictly as an election process correction needed for national security.
    4- Obama’s name never needs to be brought up by we Republicans.
    5- When the Democrats object and have their hissy fits, as they surely will, all the Republicans have to do is ask them, “what are you afraid of?”
    6- If they want to debate Obama’s eligibility to be president that will be a magnificent opportunity to discuss this issue, at their invitation. I have covered just a few of these hidden secrets in my post, The Obama Secrecy Loophole, which I have sent to every Republican in our Florida Legislature, among many others in Tallahassee.
    7- The Press will no longer be able to ignore this issue and it should be lots of fun.
    8- Chapter 103 must be corrected whereby the parties are required to present to the SoS a copy of the original vault copy of their birth certificate, all passport records and any other records deemed necessary by the SoS. There must be no exceptions for the 2012 elections.
    9- It will only be necessary for Florida to make this mandatory. It will then be effectively over for all states, whether they pass legislation or not. Florida is a big state. Lets act like that and lead.

    There is nothing, absolutely nothing, the Republican Leadership could do to more quickly energize the base of the Republican Party and get into position to stop this madness in DC and regain majority status in 2010.

    I intend to meet with Dockery and Wood but before I do I want to meet with you so that I clearly understand your thoughts and the possibility of party support. I’d like to see some enthusiasm.

    On more thing. I want to know if there is an oath required to become a member of the candidate selection committee of the parties, RNC and DNC alike. I want a copy of both. Can you help on the RNC part?

    Please let me know when it will be convenient for us to meet.

    Sincerely
    name removed by ADMINISTRATOR)
    3/26/09

    rlqretired: This is fabulous. I think I told you, the DNC rules require the nominee to be Constitutionally eligible for the job. This means, the nominee must be a NBC. But we already know, the strongest evidence that has been presented BO is a NBC is the HI Certification of Live Birth; and we already know, this fails to establish the qualification. In other words, NP cannot have come up with anything stronger than this, meaning, she cannot have established the nominee is a NBC. ADMINISTRATOR

  25. rlqretired says:

    ljbj – This will be my last letter for a while. Gonna wait for a few responses and talk to a few politicians. Hope you approve.

    y4/1/09

    (Name removed by ADMINISTRATOR)
    Haines City, Fla. 33844

    DNC Chairman Tim Kaine
    Office of the Governor
    Patrick Henry Building, 3rd Floor
    1111 East Broad Street
    Richmond, Virginia 23219

    Dear Chairman Kaine;

    Subject-The Obama Secrecy Loophole, who allowed it happen??

    Prior to the voters of Florida being given the right to vote for the various presidential candidates the electors had standing and during the electoral college meeting, in which all candidates and electors, Democrat, Republican and Independent alike, were all in attendance, they could make cross party demands for verifiable proof of constitutional eligibility, prior to the electoral college vote, not after and those found to be ineligible could be exposed and discarded before the vote took place.

    Our system today is completely backwards and a denial of due process to the voters. The entire vetting process of the candidates US Constitutional eligibility has been totally turned over to the individual private political parties, the Secretary of State now blindly accepts the private party selection, ballots are printed, elections are held, the votes are counted, the electors are already committed as to whom they must vote, state certifications are made and sent to the electoral college, the official electoral votes are counted and only then, after the official electoral votes have been counted, does an elector have the opportunity to even raise an eligibility question and that must be submitted in writing. (And it’s in question whether this opportunity was even allowed in the 08 elections)

    Our current election process is unconstitutional because it is denying the voters due process in that we have no standing to verify eligibility prior to voting as did the electors under the original system. According to the response I received from my letter of 2/3/09 our Secretary of State, in spite of his oath of office to defend the US Constitution, states this US Constitutional vetting responsibility has been totally and completely turned over to the political parties (Chapter 103) and he now has no responsibility or authority to ask anyone anything on behalf of the public. He further states that if a citizen chooses to challenge the qualifications of a candidate it is the citizen’s responsibility to bring forth a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction while he knows full well that we have no standing to do so. When the media is already in the tank for its favorite candidate, the public is simply screwed.

    This process promotes fraud upon the voters in that, unlike the original electoral process, we voters, Democrat and Republican alike, are forced to vote for candidates that no Government Official has verified eligible. It is grossly unconstitutional and a clear denial of due process by our states refusal to factually verify, on behalf of the public and before the first primary election, that the political party appointed candidates are eligible according to the US Constitution.

    For the first time in the history of this country we have an individual who has succeeded in becoming Commander in Chief of our military forces who has something so serious in his past records he has totally sealed his original vault copy birth, passport, foreign citizenship and educational records from everyone, including his own party officials and especially the military personnel who have good reason to question his loyalty and allegiance to this country. Much evidence exists, due to this secrecy, that very likely he may not have factually been born in the USA and very likely carries citizenship and a passport from a foreign country since he traveled to Pakistan and Indonesia before ever obtaining a US passport and at a time when US citizens were not allowed into their countries.

    I have no interest in trying to overturn the results of the 2008 elections. The Quo Warranto process was established by congress many years ago to provide for the investigation and removal of a sitting president if he is determined to be a usurper and it is my understanding the petition for this process to begin has already been made.

    My efforts here are strictly limited to understanding precisely how the current process of electing a president is carried out and precisely who is responsible to see to it that every presidential candidate that is placed upon the ballot is eligible to hold the office.

    The DNC document submitted to our Secretary of State here in Florida says only that Obama and Biden are their nominees. It says nothing about them having been found eligible and our Secretary of State says that it is of no concern to him as it’s totally up to the political parties to do that. In that regard I ask for the following;
    1- A copy of that portion of the official 2008 DNC rules and regulations that states it is the DNC’s responsibility to verify constitutional eligibility of your party’s presidential candidates for the general election as well as for the primaries.
    2- A copy of the document that officially states who your candidates were for the 2008 general election and that they were found to be eligible. A copy for the primary election candidates also.
    3- A copy of the document you used to verify US Constitutional eligibility as each being a natural born citizen.

    Obama publicly announced his candidacy for the US Presidency back in early 2007. Since that time there have been many serious questions publicly raised about Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of president and these questions have been publicly addressed by popular Democrat supported web sites such as Snopes.com, Factcheck.org and Obama’s very own site Fightthesmears.com.
    In this regard, as it’s totally your responsibility to verify the constitutional eligibility of your nominated presidential candidate, I ask the following;
    1- Did the DNC ask to see proof of citizenship? If so what did he produce?
    2- Did the DNC ask to see the passport he used to travel to Pakistan and Indonesia back in the early 80’s when US citizens were not allowed in? If so what did he produce?
    3- Did the DNC ask Obama if he was ever an Indonesia Citizen known as Barry Soetoro, his adopted name while living and attending school there? If he answered yes, did you ask how he regained his US citizenship?
    4- Did the DNC ask Obama if he was perhaps spending those hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep his Occidental College records sealed because he might have attended this school under his
    Indonesian Citizenship name Barry Soetoro? Government aid to foreign students you know.

    These were well-publicized and serious questions of eligibility long before the DNC vetted Obama to be eligible to hold the office of president.

    If we were still operating under the system that existed before the right to vote for president was turned over to the people and the exclusive right to vet the candidates was turned over to the individual private nominating party only, all of these eligibility questions would have been cross party debated, between all of the electors who each had individual standing to ask and demand answers (without suing in a court of competent jurisdiction) and the answers would have been found and exposed within the electoral college before the electoral vote was ever taken. Thus, the Obama Secrecy Loophole was born.

    As Chief Justice Marshall said back in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison, ”It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

    The Democratic National Committee owes the voters of this country an explanation and answer to each and every request laid out above. The words Natural Born were not placed into the US Constitution to have no effect; and to claim otherwise is inadmissible. Willful ignorance does not amend the US Constitution.

    One further request, does the DNC nominating committee require an oath of office? If so please include a copy with your response.

    We will all be looking forward to your response at your earliest possible convenience.

    Sincerely

    (Name removed by ADMINISTRATOR)

    Copy – Florida State Attorney General Bill McCollum.
    United States DC Attorney General JefferyTaylor
    RNC National Committeeman Paul Senft.
    US Representative Bill Posey
    Bill Rufty-Political Editor The Lakeland Ledger
    John Wood Florida State Representative
    Paula Dockery Florida State Senator

    rlqretired: You wrote, “The DNC document submitted to our Secretary of State here in Florida says only that Obama and Biden are their nominees. It says nothing about them having been found eligible…” But know this: no candidate for POTUS can be legally qualified to serve under DNC rules unless he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf (It’s on page 14.) Plus, under HI law, the Party must actually certify the candidate is Constitutionally eligible for the job. (Seems redundant, ha, given those pesky DNC Rules?) Here is the Certificate the D Party sent to HI elections officials. http://www.scribd.com/doc/9656064/DNC-Obama-Hawaii-Cert-2008 So, now you have DNC rules saying the nominee for POTUS must be eligible for the job; and a DNC Certificate swearing he is eligible for the job. But so far, no one from the D Party will say, on what basis anyone determined he was eligible for the job. Sounds like fraud (on the voters of the great state of FL) to me. Good luck. Let me know if there is anything else you need. ADMINISTRATOR

  26. JJ says:

    Do not know if you have seen this. A little info for vetting.

    JJ: Thank you for this information. I finally took a look; it seems to be a good starting off point for further investigation. (Sorry it took me so long to get back to you…) ADMINISTRATOR

  27. song says:

    JBJD, I have been thinking and thinking and thinking. I have no legal training but it appears those who do haven’t had that great of luck!

    What about negligent misrepresentation? Seems that a class action suit could be filed against the DNC, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi for negligent misrepresentation of a Candidate for POTUS.

    Definition of negligence:

    “The purpose of lawsuits based on alleged negligence is to deter careless conduct and encourage responsible behaviour. A successful action in negligence requires the following elements:

    a. a duty of care between the parties;

    b. a breach of that duty; and

    c. damage resulting from that breach.

    a) Duty of care

    A duty of care is owed to people who might reasonably be injured if that duty was not observed. Appraisers may owe a duty of care to their clients if the clients”

    If this is not useful, please just toss

    I am sending this to you because you think “outside the box”

    song: Every idea anyone presents is useful to accomplishing the goal of outing BO, even if only to eliminate that proposal as a viable option. I have suggested that filing a fraud complaint is a viable option to exposing that BO was never vetted before the DNC swore he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. Getting a state official like the AG to issue such a finding is another way to get this point on the record. Clearly, based on all of the evidence available, the DNC could not have confirmed BO is eligible for the job. For example, using the photocopied COLB from HI means nothing, since HI law allowed registrations of foreign births. And we know this is the strongest evidence he proffers because, faced with a lawsuit in Hollister, he asked the court to take judicial notice, FactCheck said, he is for real. I would ask, so what? (Even if Annenberg Political Fact Check for legitimately an independent outfit, they have no privity to the voters, anyway! See previous postings for a discussion of privity.) So, what did he show the DNC to make them accept, he is for real? Especially if state laws say anything like, ‘the candidate for POTUS from the major political party must be eligible for the job,’ doing such a haphazard job of vetting is fraud on the electorate. And this is a charge that must be investigated by the state AG, whom you are already paying to conduct such work on your behalf. ADMINISTRATOR

  28. rlqretired says:

    Jbjd- As I have stated before I am but a layman and it is ironic that the 2 men that I have come to believe in and look to for guidance is at odds with each other on certain but totally different aspects of the various legal issues and potential solutions.

    1- Your approach via the state level is also my chosen approach for solving this problem before the next election and I really appreciate your guidance. I understand due process and I truly believe we can make this happen and that is where I intend to get the job done

    a. In this regard, perhaps you can provide further and much needed assistance, I want to seek out other patriots in the other Republican controlled states to grasp onto this concept and do the same as I am doing here in Florida. Surely, there are others perhaps more capable and aggressive that will get this job done before we do here in Florida. My goal is success, anywhere, not glory. Your expertise and your blog could lead up part of the expanded venture although I reserve contact with certain individuals.

    2- Which of the 2 potential ways to remove a president is legalese so far beyond my comprehension I must totally depend upon others. I have absolutely no idea who is right on this issue. But, I do know there ain’t a ghost chance in hell that a Nancy Pelosi House of Representatives will ever impeach Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., I don’t give a damn what he is found to have done or does in the future, so if impeachment is the only way, we are just screwed, its over. I am a realist. So – if this is true, Leo’s idea can be no less unsuccessful in accomplishing our goal and his finding in Marbury v Madison is a tremendous asset for me/us in our pursuits. As old Rodney King once said, “can’t we all just get along?” I need you both of you. Our goal is the same.

    Jb- The flawed electoral process must be corrected because there will be future con artists just like Obama. It will only take one state to expose this type of fraud in the future. That is my immediate goal. It can be done.

    What the DNC has done, in my opinion, borders on treason and the Secretaries of State that have knowingly looked the other way are just as guilty.

    Give some thought to 1-a above and I look forward to hearing your ideas.

  29. rlqretired says:

    jbjd- My letter of 4/3 to DC AG Taylor can be released now if you wish. The following is my letter of today to Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and you are welcome to print it if you wish.

    April 6, 2009

    (NAME REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR)
    Haines City, Fla. 33844

    Attorney General Bill McCollum
    State of Florida
    The Capitol PL-01
    Tallahassee, Fla. 32399-1050

    Dear Attorney General McCollum;

    Subject – The extension of the FOI Act into the DNC due to its exclusive constitutional vetting responsibility, according to Kurt Browning’s Office.

    This is in reference to the legal opinion I requested of you back on 3/1 along with my supplement of 3/8/2009 as to precisely, “Who In My Florida Government,” is responsible to assure every name placed upon the primary and general presidential ballots meet the eligibility requirements mandated by the US Constitution.

    According to Mr. Donald L. Palmer, Esq., the Director of the Division of Elections, informs me for the 2nd time the Secretary of State is not concerned with eligibility period and the Secretary of State doesn’t even have a copy of the DNC rules and regulations in their position that mandates the DNC perform this alleged verification procedure. This to me explains why the only document they have in their files only indicates that the 2008 DNC candidates are their nominees and says absolutely nothing about having been found eligible for the office of president. Mr. Palmer further advises that if I wish to obtain such rules and regulations I must contact the DNC myself. A copy of this letter is enclosed for your review.

    Now I am no way accepting this position as the final answer but I want to pursue his direction to see where it leads. A copy of my follow up letter to DNC Chairman Kaine asking for the production of these certain documents is also enclosed.

    My immediate question to you is, since this vetting responsibility is a US Constitutional requirement and the most critically important national security vetting decision made in the entire country, are the chairmen of the major political parties subject to the Freedom of Information Act as the elected officials are in My Florida Government. I ask this question now and request a rapid response because if DNC Chairman Kaine refuse’s to produce the documents I have requested I intend to take further action. I originally thought this failure at the SOS’s office was incompetence but I am now beginning to believe misfeasance and collusion, bordering on treason is likely a more appropriate description.

    Sincerely

    Robert Quinn
    Realtor

    PS-I have made similar document requests of the RNC via Paul Senft, National Committeeman.

    Copy- RNC National Committeeman, Paul Senft.

  30. Kathy says:

    Do you still need information from WI? If so, I will need your help to make sure I address it correctly and state the correct things (you mention putting together a letter template – is that ready?). I am not a lawyer and reading through these Statutes is a little challenging
    so I greatly appreciate your input.

    It seems that the Wisconsin Statutes that apply are in and around: s.816(7); s.8.20(2)(b); and s.8.12(1)(b). http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0008.pdf

    I’ve also read about the Government Accountability Board (is that an oxymoron or what?), but here’s some info on that:

    “Political organizations that have attained ballot status are currently the Democratic, Republican, Wisconsin Green and Libertarian parties. The names of candidates for President and Vice President for these parties are placed on the General Election ballot when their names are certified by the state or national chairperson to the Government Accountability Board no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 5, 2008. S. 8.16(7), Wis. Stats. Each certified candidate must file a Declaration of Candidacy (EB-162) with the Government Accountability Board no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 5, 2008. S. 8.21(1), Wis. Stats”

    So in my FOIA letter, who do I address it to and what specifically do I ask for? Sorry to sound so helpless, I just want to be as accurate and thorough the first time around as possible.

    Kathy: This is fabulous! Here’s what I want to propose in your case. I want you to call the Government Accountability Board – it would be great if this state office was close enough to schedule an in-person visit with the appropriate person – and ask the following questions. (These do not have to be exact; you will follow up any oral communication with a letter, which I will help you to write. Note, this is NOT the complaint to the AG; before we can do that, we need more info.) Telling the official that, you have read the law, explain you want to know exactly what the Party official is Certifying. If the Certification merely identifies the candidate, ask whether any law requires that the candidate named by the political Party, must be eligible for the job. Ask whether the Certification received by the Board was sent by the DNC or, the state Party. (In some states, like HI, the state D Party Chair forwarded NP’s Certification. This is important; I will explain why, later.) Then, ask what documentation accompanied the Certification. Finally, ask what you need to do to obtain these documents. (They will tell you what you need to include in a FOIA letter.)

    Basically, what we are after here are 1) a state law that requires the candidate for POTUS proposed by the major political Party to be eligible for the job; 2) the identity of the person sending the Certification of eligibility to the state (DNC or state Party Chair); and 3) the documents.

    Don’t worry if you do not obtain all of the information you will need, in one phone call; consider what you have obtained and, if you need more information, call back. Then, tell me what you have. ADMINISTRATOR

  31. Kathy says:

    Ok, I’m on it – thanks for the very specific instructions; government offices are closed here now, I will call in the morning and report back.

  32. Kathy says:

    I’ve heard back from a “legal guy” named Mike from the GAB:

    Presidential candidates are certified by the national chairperson of the party and he believes the only form attached to this certification (which sounds like a letter format), is a “Declaration of Candidacy” completed by the candidate themselves. This is from the GAB website.

    http://elections.state.wi.us/subcategory.asp?linksubcatid=422&linkcatid=527&linkid=295&locid=47

    To receive copies of these forms, I need to submit an “Open Records Request” to the Public Information Officer of the GAB whose name and contact information I have. He said emails or mailed letters were fine.

    I will await further direction from you.

    Kathy: This is getting exciting. Let me just clarify something. Are you saying that the GAB controls who gets onto the WI general election ballot? Or, does the GAB certify the candidate and then pass on the paperwork to the S of S? Either way, draft a letter requesting the information referencing this telephone conversation. Write a list of everything you want. (You can forward a draft here which I can review, in advance.) ADMINISTRATOR

  33. KJ says:

    Do you need the paperwork filed with the SOS of Texas?

    Would you start a list of states for which you think the paperwork would be significant and put a note next to the states when you have the paperwork you need?

    Such a list would let your readers know where you still need help.

    Thank you for heading this up.

    KJ: Thanks for your help. Yes; I need everything you want to send. Because each state has to be handled differently. Have you read the comments from Kathy in WI, which has a Government Accountability Board (“GAB”)? ADMINISTRATOR

  34. Gordon says:

    This is a new white house website:

    http://barrysoetoro.com .

    What is this all about? Is he trying to gradually get the American people accustomed to his real name?????

    Gordon

    Gordon: This is really clever. It’s a .com, not a .gov. This is someone’s idea of morphing the identity of Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama in the minds of the general public. Very clever. ADMINISTRATOR

  35. Gordon says:

    jbjd;
    In the excitement over the freeing of the American ship captain, I haven’t heard it discussed much about whether the SEALs that killed the pirates could be charged with murder in an international court, or for that matter in an American court, if it is eventually found that the Usurper was not eligible or had the authority to issue an order to kill.

    How can these good folks that have committed themselves to our defense protect themselves in this horrible situation?

    Gordon

    Gordon: There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, in this case, even if a court of law would rule that BO is not a NBC, this is extraneous to the situation wherein the pirates appeared about to executive the captive Captain. Because criminal law allows the use of deadly force in situations where the use of such force is the only way to prevent a death. ADMINISTRATOR

  36. rlqretired says:

    jbjd – I can not get the link to the DNC rules and regulations you povided back on 4/2 to work and I don’t expect a response from the DNC chairman for some time yet. If you could fix that link I would be most greatful or just post or send me the applicable page. Thanks in advance for your help and once I get the DNC response I should be ready to proceed to the formal charge.

    rlqretired: I am so sorry for the delay. Here is a good link. (Finding this wasn’t easy; you would think the Democratic Party was hiding something!) http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf
    ADMINISTRATOR

  37. njresident says:

    jbjd,
    Here is my last post to you –
    “jbjd,
    1. I have a copy of the ‘Officail Certification of nomination’ furnished to state of NJ, signed by Nancy Pelosi. It is exactly the same as the one posted here –

    http://countusout.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/dnc-certification_of_nomination-082908-2.jpg.

    2. The state of NJ has the following requirement for presidential candidate –

    http://www.aclink.org/elections/pdf/2008-Chronological-Elections-Guide-3.4.081.pdf

    Candidates must meet the age, residence & petition signature requirements listed below as set forth in the United States Constitution, New Jersey Constitution and N.J.S.A. 19:23-8
    Citizen Office Age Resident Natural Born
    President 35 Country 14 yrs. Citizen of U.S.

    3. I have written to Nancy Pelosi to request copies of the document(s) she used as basis to determine BO’s constitutional eliibility. She failed to respond within the time limit I specified.

    So now I have valid reasons to file complaint against Nancy Pelosi for fraudulently representing to the state of NJ that BO is constitutionally eligible to be POTUS and that his name can go on the state ballots.
    Do you have a sample complaint we can use? ”

    In response, you asked me to get further info; here they are –

    1. the “ceritfication of nomination’ was sent directly from DNC to NJ.
    2. DNC did not send any supporting documents to NJ SOS to get Obama’s name on the NJ ballot.
    (I have the email from NJ election officials)

    Any more info I need to get in order to file complaints against Nancy Pelosi to NJ AG?

    njresident: I am so sorry for the delay in responding to your questions. Without going into details, I was ‘stuck’ on a legal issue in HI, which was preventing me from perfecting the memo that would serve as the template for the fraud complaint not only to the HI AG but to other A’sG as well. So, as you suspected, I set aside this ‘project’ for a while. Anyway, you have everything else you need to present a great fraud complaint to the NJ AG, including the evidence you need to support your complaint. I know you mentioned filing a formal complaint against NP but, let’s talk about this AG complaint, first.

    The AG is the state’s chief law enforcement officer. This means, while the S of S is directed by law to oversee elections, the AG is directed to oversee the law. NJ law requires the candidate for POTUS must be a NBC. You provide no law that says who must determine this but, given the fact the DNC Certified he is Constitutionally eligible for the job, the state of NJ has every reasonable basis for assuming he is and that, therefore, the law has been obeyed. Now, I know that, technically, in NJ, as they did in every state other than HI, they only certified he was the nominee. But, since their rules specify all nominees must at least be Constitutionally eligible – http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf (p. 14) – saying BO is the DNC nominee is the same as saying, he is an NBC. (Besides, NP swore in the HI Certification, as required by HI law, he was Constitutionally eligible for the job. It would be absurd for the NJ AG to ignore this DNC Certification to elections officials in HI.) The fraud occurred because while DNC certified BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, they broke NJ law by failing to vet whether he is a NBC. How do we know they failed to vet? Well, we know that the strongest evidence BO has provided to both the public – “Fight the Smears” – and the court – the Hollister case – is that HI COLB. But we know that, in HI, by law, foreign born babies could obtain a HI registration of birth. So, this is no proof he is a citizen, let alone, he is a NBC. Then, what did NP use to certify BO is a NBC? Well, you (and several others) asked NP to tell you the basis on which she determined BO is a NBC. And she ignored you. NJ state officials cannot only “assume” NJ law has been complied with, especially when the legislature ostensibly enacted those laws to maintain the sanctity of elections in that state.

    So, I want you to file a fraud complaint based on these considerations. And insist on an investigation of your charges.

    Now, as to the reasons I would recommend a fraud complaint to the AG, first, and then, a formal Complaint of Fraud against NP qua Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention. First and most important, you elected the AG and are paying him to do the job as chief law enforcement official. Investigating a citizen complaint of election fraud is his job. Also, he can tap the limitless resources of the state to investigate this charge; in a civil Complaint, you must expend your own resources to bring the case. I would advise you to take along other voters when you visit the AG. (Make sure they are as well versed in the facts as you are.)

    Finally, as a general matter, the AG is a political animal. He could try to dispense with your complaint without a bona fide consideration of the merits of your case so as not to ruffle feathers. But the fact he is a political operative makes him vulnerable to pressure like notification to the state house press service; or local papers; or picketing. (We can discuss tactics later.)

    Digest this and get back to me. ADMINISTRATOR

  38. rlqretired says:

    jbjd – Thanks for the corrected link to the DNC rules.
    Please review the first draft of my thoughts on the DNC fraud charges here in Florida.

    rlqretired: Aren’t those rules amazing? Given their support of BO’s candidacy notwithstanding he failed to prove he is a NBC, I guess members of the club only pay lip service to their rules. (Where is the draft?) ADMINISTRATOR

  39. rlqretired says:

    jbjd-Please review my ideas for my fraud complaint against the DNC. Also would like to place a charge of misfeasance or malfeasance against the Sec. of State based upon his oath of office and position as chief election officer. He knows fraud is being committed and does nothing to see that it is corrected.

    rlqretired: Wow. I corrected (and revised and amended…) your letter and then decided, I should have copied this onto a word document and then emailed it back to you as an attachment. So, this is what I have done. When this is complete, we will post here so that others can benefit from our work, okay? ADMINISTRATOR

  40. David A says:

    Thank you for the advice.
    Is a person in a public or private position who is aware that Obama may be illegitimately holding office, complicit to the crime? For example an employee of a college attended by Obama, or a State Dept. employee, or high level DNC,(potentially a long list) of people who may be suppressing a desire to come clean.
    If this is the case do you have any suggestions on how to utilize this?

    David A: Criminal codes are specific as to who else can be held liable for knowing/doing/saying what/when, in relation to the crime-in-chief. If you cite a specific criminal law that has been broken; then, perhaps we can hone in on who else might be held culpable in relation to that crime. Please keep in mind, someone has to be willing to prosecute, which means, even IF a person can be said to have committed a crime in relation to the chief wrongdoer; this does not mean, a prosecutor will pursue the case. If s/he does then, as in any criminal case, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. (But civil fraud might prove to be our best means to unveil BO.) ADMINISTRATOR

  41. Patriot Dreamer says:

    jbjd,

    Attorney Mario Apuzzo is asking for help with ideas to address the standing and sovereignty issues of his case. If you have any helpful suggestions for him, go to:

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/plaintiffs-obtain-extension-of-time-to.html

    Patriot Dreamer: Well, got in touch with Mr. Apuzzo. I will give him whatever help I can. ADMINISTRATOR

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: