UP TO HERE IN ELECTION FRAUD IN SC, FROM THE CHAIR OF THE 2008 DNC CONVENTION TO THE CHAIR OF THE DNC

This will teach me.

Here’s the bad news. I was so anxious to draft the SC Complaint of Election Fraud to the AG, that I assumed Ms. Carol Fowler, Chair of the state D party had submitted the requisite Certifications of Nomination for BO to the SC Election Commission. After all, 2 (two) weeks earlier, she had forwarded the letter confirming the names of D candidates to go on the ballot for lesser offices, Certifying all of these candidates were eligible for the jobs sought. So, even though I hadn’t yet obtained the exact documents for SC I just had to see before I would write a complaint for any other applicable state; in SC, I merely assumed, Ms. Fowler must have submitted BO’s bona fides, too, either Certifying his eligibility independently, as was done in TX; or by forwarding the Certifications signed by NP, Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention.

But I was wrong. Very wrong.

In fact, I just received a document from a reader who calls herself Dawn, which completely blows my assumptions out of the water. Listen to this.

In South Carolina, unlike in most other states (AZ, RI, and NH, for example), the candidates who want to run in the Presidential Preference primaries must have their names submitted to state elections officials by the state parties in order to get their names printed on the SC ballot! And those parties must not only provide these names but also Certify, the candidates are at the time or, will be by the time of the election, eligible for the job. In SC, Barack Obama’s name was on that list of primary candidates who, according to state party Chair Carol Fowler and Treasurer Kathy Hensley, were Constitutionally eligible for the job. But as the evidence indicates, there appears to be no basis in fact on which they could have ascertained he is a NBC. As a result, in addition to alleging fraud against the people responsible for getting the state to print BO’s name on SC’s general election ballot, Mmes Fowler and Hensley are also charged with committing election fraud in the primary election.

And wait till you read who is charged with committing fraud in SC’s general election.

The good news? No one downloaded the old SC complaint! So, here’s the new complaint for election fraud for SC. As always, download the complaint from Scribd by clicking the link below. Fill in your name and address and fax the complaint to AG McMaster, with copies to Marci Andino at the Election Commission; and the 6 (six) named people from the DNC.

View this document on Scribd

And here are the supporting documents referred to in that complaint.

View this document on Scribd
About these ads

52 Responses to UP TO HERE IN ELECTION FRAUD IN SC, FROM THE CHAIR OF THE 2008 DNC CONVENTION TO THE CHAIR OF THE DNC

  1. Dawn Duff says:

    All I can say is – South Carolinians – jbjd did the hard part for you – now please get in gear and do the very simple task of printing out the complaint, making copies, filling in, and sending to the eight people listed in jbjd’s post above. Should we send certified? Registered? Return Receipt requested? I may just spring for $24. and send them all 2-3 day priority mail, signature required.
    SC may be last in education, have a lovesick governor, and a congressman some think is “rude” (but definitely right) but we CAN lead the charge with these complaints…and who knows where they may lead?

    Dawn: I am so glad you like this. Yes, integrating both the primary and the general election into one complaint was quite challenging but, it’s done. Now, as for sending these documents, I don’t think it matters what means are used to get these out, except for the ‘original’ to the AG. Certainly, if you want to send these certified or, 2-day mail, that’s fine.

    I forgot about your lovesick Governor. I was too busy thinking about (U.S.) Representative Clyburn… ADMINISTRATOR

  2. azgo says:

    Wow, what a find !!! Good job! The SC AG should find this to be very interesting. Looks like a last minute (official) hand written note to SC election commission to qualify candidates. “Each certified candidate meets or will meet…” – we are still waiting for those qualifications.

    $160,000.00 – Would this be money from the D party as to public donation money?

    Should the other email from the SC D party to SC election commission two weeks prior to the D convention pertaining to the general election be added to the supporting documents?

    P.S. Great article – “The End Game” !!!

    azgo: Hello, stranger! I know; Dawn is a new reader. d2i said the same thing: ‘What the * do they mean by, “or will meet”…’ As I explained to her, this is a quote from the statute; and the position of POTUS is not the only one for which D’s run in the state. But, of course, the result here sounds absurd.

    Every candidate on the ballot pays up front. Also, the other certification was for lessor offices; don’t need it.

    Finally, thank you; I thought “THE END GAME” was great, too. Ties things up quite neatly. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Walt1 says:

    Great job! I salute!!

    Walt1: Thank you. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Susan says:

    jbjd and Dawn nice going, this is really great.
    Have there been any downloads yet. How about VA?
    This is just so cool.

    Susan: Thank you. I am curious what you mean when you say, “This is just so cool.” I am guessing that the fact the fraud has been synthesized and chronicled in a way that lay people can understand, and a venue for redress has been established; and that this work has all been done by us ‘regular folks,’ is cool. Now, we just need to compel our elected officials to respond appropriately. Is that it? ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. I just checked; still, no one from SC has downloaded this complaint.

    • Susan says:

      That is what I ment. I am a person of few words,and tend to keep it short and sweet. I am more of a listener, and will take action to right wrongs.
      Maybe SC will get busy this weekend.

      Susan: I hear you. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Dawn says:

    Each candidate – whether Rep or Dem – must pay $20,000. each out of either their own $ or donations to get on the Pres. Prim. ballot.
    Good to meet you azgo!
    I need to light a fire under the people of SC!!

    Dawn: Hey, I thought you were from SC! ADMINISTRATOR

  6. Elaina says:

    The Fowlers are a ‘family affair’, (Wife, Husband, Son all running for party chairman). Don Fowler was National Chairman, and also had a lot to do with the big Left turn the party took to accomodate this administration. Carville evidently saw that the Party was headed in the wrong direction, and he ran a campaign to get Howard Dean removed as National Chairman. It was DON FOWLER who kept the Party headed Left:
    “Following the 2006 midterm elections, in response to James Carville’s call to remove Howard Dean as chair, Fowler e-mailed his fellow DNC members, saying, “Some ill-advised voices have suggested that, because of his 50-state strategy, Governor Dean should be replaced as Chair of the DNC. This is nonsense. The 50-state strategy is exactly what the Democratic Party needed and continues to need…. Democrats won a great victory on November 7 — control of the United States House of Representatives, control of the United States Senate, majority of Governors, and majority of state legislative bodies. Why should anyone want to mess with the team that won these remarkable results? Governor Dean deserves to continue as DNC Chair.”[5]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Fowler

    As a SC resident, it is my opinion that the Fowlers would do almost anything to aide Obama and the ‘new Democratic Party’ that Dean, Axelrod, Emmanuel and Obama has forced upon us. As a former Democrat myself, I’ll do all I can to help you here in SC. I called the Secretary of State’s office, before Obama was elected, and was told that the SOS did not have the duty to qualify the candidates – that was up to each Party to do. So it rests totally on Carol Fowler.

    Elaina: Hello. Thank you for posting the cite to the narrative. Of course, wikipedia is renowned for its inaccuracies. If you go back a few posts and begin reading, you will see, we have known since last year, before the Convention, that no provision of any law, state or federal, requires any public official to vet the nominee for POTUS from the major political party as to Constitutional eligibility. I certainly never endorsed a mandamus case brought to compel a SoS to vet the candidate as a ministerial function of his or her job; because there is no such function! So, in order to redress the fraud we all ‘knew’ had occurred, we would have to use existing laws. And I figured out how to do that. These are sound complaints; we just have to persuade our elected officials to do the right thing, which is, to investigate these charges.

    I know how powerful are the Fowlers. And certainly, everyone knows what it means to take on NP, HD, and the DNC hierarchy. Tough. There are more of us than there are of them. They are only members of a private club, with no unalienable rights under the Constitution. Those rights accrue to individuals, and not to political parties. Enough talk already. We’ll file the complaints, and eventually, compel our elected officials to think of themselves as responsible members of the Constitutional Republic, first, and only after that, movers and shakers of a political party.

    Meanwhile, no one has downloaded the SC complaint.ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Dawn says:

    jdjb, are you thinking that the doc needs to be downloaded prior to printing? You can print right from accessing the Scribd page linked to under the complaint on this page – I just did it. Now I have a hard copy & will make addl. copies to mail or fax. I know of at least one other SC person (Besides me) that printed it tonight & has it ready to mail.
    Does your Scribd acct. only keep track of downloads but not copies made directly from the file?
    D

    Dawn: Okay, I hadn’t even thought that people could be copying the document from the file! I will check to see whether I can tell this has been copied. Look, it took me several hours just to figure out how to get my documents to appear exactly as I had typed them. That is, I could upload them using Scribd. Of course, that meant, I had to learn how to use Scribd. You have seen how long and intricate are these filings. If that was the only thing I had to, that is, conceive and draft the document, I would be done in half the time. And when I forget something, like adding a name to the header; well, this means, rushing to Scribd to erase the document; opening my Word document to revise and then, re-saving it as a PDF and re-uploading; and then, copying the code and opening up my blog edit to insert the revised code, all before anyone notices! Thank goodness I type 60+ WPM. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. If you link Scribd from the blog, this takes you to the Scribd site; you are downloading from there. But there is also a copy function; this would only copy the PDF document onto your computer. Anyway, it doesn’t matter. Obviously, you were able to print a copy. That’s all that matters; and that this gets filed. (I would love the press to get a copy of this in SC. Of course, you might want to redact your identifying information.)

    P.P.S. Okay, there is no copy function; when you say print, I am saying download. And yes, I can see, there is 1 (one) download for SC. HOORAY!

  8. Dawn says:

    Yup, don’t know how you do all that – whew. Was pointing it out to let you know that even tho you don’t see downloads,SC residents & others might be copying forms.

    Dawn: You and I keep posting ‘over’ each other! Look at my other comment. I am in celebration mode. You will be the first filer in SC. I am so proud of you. ADMINISTRATOR

    • azgo says:

      Hello Dawn,

      Nice to meet you too! Yeah for SC! I hope more SC residents join in to send the model complaint letter with a personal, positive, yet almost demanding cover letter to encourage and convince the SC AG to start an investigation as to the alleged election fraud. Yes, light that fire, big and bright, that’s a good one in SC!

      The AG seems very reasonable in your state as to investigating election fraud from my research. Here is an interesting statement made in a news release by the current AG in 2005.

      http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:AsqbSjwo6EgJ:www.scattorneygeneral.org/newsroom/pdf/envir_grandjury.pdf+election+fraud&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNH_tJIQPUeOVhPWoccCB4wIQk3KMg

      “State Has New Criminal Tool To Protect Environment”…

      “Overseen and operated by the Attorney General, the state grand jury is currently authorized to
      investigate and prosecute (1) drug offenses, (2) obscenity, (3) public corruption, (4) election fraud,
      (5) computer crimes, (6) terrorism, (7) securities fraud and now (8) environmental crimes.

      The state grand jury operates like a federal grand jury. It has unique statutory safeguards; it
      operates in secret to protect the innocent. It can compel testimony and subpoena records, documents
      and evidence.

      Before our state grand jury can be used, the Attorney General and SLED chief must sign a petition
      stating the usage of the state grand jury is “necessary (and that) normal investigative or
      prosecutorial procedures are not adequate.” The judge must agree and issue an order allowing the
      investigation.”
      (SLED-State Law Enforcement Division)

      So if the AG does not get “adequate” answers from the state D party and DNC actors as noted in the model letter, then the AG can use the power of the state grand jury.

      Oh, Hi jbjd,

      I’m a stranger in a strange new land. I’m still moving along and … justa rambling!

      azgo: Hello. Nice to see, you are settling in. Yes; the AG in SC sounds committed to the job. So does the AG in GA. GA is a vote binding state. So, I wrote to him about the problem of BO’s people trying to ‘turn’ HRC’s pledged delegates before the Convention, asking him to intervene. And he wrote a letter to the delegates, reminding them, GA is a vote binding state! But regardless of the ‘willingness’ of the A’sG to look into this; we are considering ways to compel such investigation. ADMINISTRATOR

    • d2i says:

      Me too! Dawn, you rock. Just so you know, you are my new best friend. Many thanks for all of the work you’ve done. It’s most impressive and speaks volumes to your commitment to preserving your neighbors, friends and families most valued way of life. Country first!

      And jbjd, you my friend are doing amazing work. To pull all of this together in less than 24 hours is amazing. Your long standing commitment to this effort shows with each new post and each comment. You are a true hero and I am proud to have stumbled upon you 18 months ago. Keep it up! We will succeed!

      d2i: Wow, thank you. (This comment evidences why you are the resident cheerleader on the jbjd blog.) But you can all become cheerleaders for this blog.

      I received an email this morning, telling me that copycats like JB Williams are still “at it,” trying to capitalize on work they stole from me and this blog. Everywhere you find him, whether on a blog or on a radio station, tell readers/listeners about jbjd. JB Williams stole the material about the various Certifications of Nomination, originally, from my article, “IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS un-AMERICAN THEN IGNORING un-PLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO” posted back on August 13. He entitles his plagiarized article, “The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don’t Lie.” Yep; he even repeated the word, “Facts” in his title. And he copied the documents I had posted on that article. Believe it or not, some people on this blog confused his initials – “JB” – with mine, “jbjd,” too. Of course, when asked, he cannot explain what he copied. I actually listened to him, on Sentinel radio; he had no idea what he was talking about. Indeed, he appeared to be, making up answers as he went along.

      Wanna trip him up? He keeps saying, there were only 2 (two) Certifications of Nomination, 1 (one) for HI and 1 (one) for every other state. But we on this blog know, this is not true. One of our states has 2 (two) Certifications; and neither one bears the name of NP. ADMINISTRATOR

      • d2i says:

        Yes, jbjd, lower case letters w/a jd at the end, those of us who have read your work know more about these certifications than JB or his ilk will learn on their own b/c their modus operandi appears to take others work, claim it as their own, and when busted, state publicly – well we are trying to get the word out OR say, jbjd is lucky to have our help. Yeah right, if true, then why on earth didn’t they EVER reach out to you to splain to them the accurate facts AND why didn’t they give you credit in any of there articles?

        I hope this isn’t what the new journalism is going to look like in the blogosphere. It would behoove all bloggers to come together and develop best management practices for this new and vibrant frontier.

        d2i: Well, as for a new pursuit, taming the internet, several groups are already involved in such endeavors. Me? I’m up to here in this election fraud stuff; then, it’s on to model legislation of Presidential eligibility, so that we never had to go through this again. (I want my life back!) ADMINISTRATOR

        P.S. I just re-read my comments. You know what? Maybe this type of advocacy is my new life. Now, if only it provided a ‘living’!

  9. Dawn says:

    LOL I see that.
    FYI I am getting shut down on Facebook – someone must have reported me. Right now they’ve suspended me for a while – don’t know how long – it’s how I communicate with many – will need to concentrate elsewhere for a while. Will consider the press but would have to put together Election Fraud for Dummies to make it easily and quickly understandable. I mean I am not exactly slow but it is taking me a while to get all this, even with jbjd and the info in this blog to help.. can’t imagine how it could be simplified into a column or two… hmmm… what to do…. oh yeah – sleep!!

    Dawn: It’s really simple to explain, once you get it. Take your cue from the complaint itself, especially the Introduction. And I know how much clearer things become, with sleep. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. drkate says:

    jbjd: Bravo! You are definitely on the path of success here, and to those who take jbjd’s work and run with it–actually file the complaint–I salute and support you. THANK YOU, jbjd, for your work!

    As to jbwilliams, I am doing my best to inform and advise who took this work. It is actually simple–if you haven’t done the work yourself you get the facts wrong. And jbwilliams has the facts wrong.

    Thank you again, jbjd. You are a true Patriot!

    drkate: You are so very welcome. I know we are on the path to success; and many of the readers here know this, too. Once you understand how the fraud was pulled off, these election fraud complaints become the best way to expose it. That is, these are straightforward accusations based on the facts, and relying on existing laws and elected officials to work. If all we did was find fraud in state elections then, Articles of Impeachment would not necessarily be the next step. That is, we still would have to convince Congress to act. But here, the ‘beauty’ of the complaint is that, the evidence of fraud comes from the DNC’s reliance on APFC; and the corresponding reliance on APFC by Congress to ratify the EC vote. All tied up with a neat little bow.

    I know you are doing your best to ‘out’ the thief. I really appreciate this. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Dawn says:

    Thanks all – azgo – great work getting that news release from 2005 & D2i – thank you – but I am really just the “messenger” here. I am beyond thrilled that what I thought might be something important actually is – for a change!
    jbjd – we’ll have one more complaint filed from my household! And I know a couple others will be & as soon as dopey FB lets me back on I’ll check progress.

    Dawn: Yes, see, that’s the thing. I maintained all along that, if we believe something is wrong, we need to rely on what we know to establish this, and not spend our time trying to establish what we don’t know, first. Not knowing whether BO is a NBC 1 (one) year ago meant, no one else could ‘know,’ either. But we knew APFC was not an independent source; and besides, they had no privity to the American people. (I have written about privity; this means, they had no legal obligation to provide anything to us and we had no reasonable expectation they would.) That’s why I drafted the military complaint last year, highlighting that APFC are the only ones validating BO. I didn’t have the phantom image of the newspaper birth announcement in my arsenal yet but, I already had plenty of other incriminating evidence that APFC could not provide evidence of anything. I showed that APFC is suspect; and yet Congress relied on their say so to ratify the EC vote for BO. Thanks to the Citizen Wells blog, all of that information was easily accessible. And why did I draft that complaint in the first place? Because Orly Taitz promised, if I drafted it, she would file it. And I wanted it filed before the Congress ratified the EC vote. (I had contacted Orly to press my proposed solution to this eligibility problem, which was gaining standing in federal court by filing a case under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, using military Plaintiffs about to be re-called to active duty.) Having the info in one place meant, I did not waste time looking for it. Orly never filed that case. But bit by bit, the evidence mounted, no one who ratified BO could have established his Constitutional eligibility. From Phil Berg’s potentially disastrous Hollister case, a takeoff on my model military complaint, I got BO’s footnote, confirming my suspicions APFC was the strongest evidence in the public domain to ‘prove’ his eligibility, and anything from APFC was worthless. How could I ‘prove’ that? Because reader jan C. asked me a question, which I had to research to answer, leading me to the phantom image on APFC. And how did I get that answer? I right-clicked on the image to see where it came from. And turns out, 1 (one) year earlier, td had posted the phantom image on her blog, sent in by another reader. And how did we know who paid for posting APFC info on BO’s FTS blog? Because azgo posted in his comment an image of the blog and I noted the footer held different ownership info from the screen save I had. Like I noticed the Certification Justin Riggs had obtained from HI contained the extra line about Constitutional eligibility. And if d2i hadn’t been reading my work and contacted me, I never would have asked her to get the info for her state, VA, and discovered in that state, the Certification came directly from NP. And this is hardly a comprehensive accounting of all of the people who contributed materially to this successful endeavor!

    The thing is, we had to figure out what happened based on circumstantial evidence, because the people who committed the fraud are not talking. And to do this, we needed all the facts we could get our hands on. But it wasn’t important only to ‘know’ all of these facts I just stated; we also had to know how to put this all together to paint the indelible picture of fraud, and to devise a solution. And that’s the part of this work that I do best. ADMINISTRATOR

  12. drkate says:

    jbjd, a question I keep forgetting to ask. Does this also lead to the possible impeachment of Nancy Pelosi?

    drkate: I don’t know without looking it up. (But if you look it up, I will post your findings!) ADMINISTRATOR

  13. drkate says:

    So I found the answer. “Impeachment” does not apply to members of Congress. They have to be taken out by various committees of congress on ethical violations.

    So one strategy here might be to make this charge of election fraud go viral, with Pelosi and the DNC at the center, to increase pressure on Congress to drop her as speaker. After all, by her fraudulent behavior, she caused Congress to be completely misled in their vote on Jan 8th.

    Would an article on this help?

    drkate: Fabulous! Yes, indeed! A multi-pronged approach. I cannot wait to read it. (I still find the time to read your blog – readers, she is on my blog roll – although sometimes, I have missed posts and have to go back…) ADMINISTRATOR

  14. publius speaks says:

    I began reading some of the documentation regarding Barack Obama’s origins. Eventually I came across the photos supposedly from the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin listing his birth.

    (rest of comment deleted)

    publius speaks: Please read on this blog, “RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’” to learn that, there was no newspaper birth announcement. How do we know? 1. APFC admitted on their blog, they only copied an image of such ‘announcement’ from another blog, posted on that blog anonymously. Note: APFC failed to ‘identify’ the newspaper they claim printed that item. 2. BO admitted in pleadings submitted to the federal court the only image of a ‘birth announcement’ in existence was that phantom image on APFC. Note: BO failed to ‘identify’ the newspaper he claimed printed that item APFC posted.

    Read and learn. And, above all, once the lie has been ‘outed,’ stop doing the analysis! Instead, spend your time spreading the truth and, where applicable, doing something about it. ADMINISTRATOR

    • publius speaks says:

      Also, I will not stop doing analysis. That is the exact thing BO wants us to do. So instead of laying into someone who is trying to research the truth, or you begin to sound like the (word omitted) we are trying to expose.

      publius speaks: Well, assuming this is true then, at some point, you will reach the truth. Also, on this site, there is no name calling. ADMINISTRATOR

  15. Alecia says:

    Way to go jbjd!! I just posted on my groups website and asked for the SC people to come here and read. I promised them it would be a dooooozy.
    You are amazing, and Thank you very much!!

    Alecia: You are very welcome. And I am getting ‘hits’ from these sites where you all have begun posting. People in TX, SC, VA, and GA have stepped up to the plate. (No offense, South, but TX has as many complaints filed as the rest of you combined!) Now, if I could just get more than 1 (one) in HI… ADMINISTRATOR

  16. publius speaks says:

    I have the saved copies of the supposed birth postings from another site. Where I can post them or email them.

    publius speaks: Not on this site; never on this site. ADMINISTRATOR

  17. Dawn says:

    okay a couple of somewhat elementary questions I am asking for the sake of expediency – if no one can give me answers I can find out for myself but it would help me get more complaints out and quicker.
    When filing the complaint, each person fills out their name & address on the first page, and do they sign & date the last page?
    Is the requirement to file a complaint that – besides being a legal resident in that state – one should be voting age? Does the filer have to have voted in the 2008 election to make a complaint? If not, does the filer need to at least be currently registered to vote?
    Did you want copies of as many complaints we can actually get a hold of to keep on file or each of us just keep a copy for ourself?

    Dawn: Okay, first, these complaints only go to state officials. After these officials conduct their investigations, if they determine to proceed criminally then, this becomes, the state versus the wrongdoer. Individuals who file these complaints must be legal residents of the state in which they file. This state residence is the status that bestows authority to file such a complaint and to compel the elected state official to respond. No; voting in the 2008 election is not required. It is not your status as a voter that confers authority to expect your state officials to act on your behalf. Rather, this expectation derives from your status as a ‘citizen’ of that state. I am doing a rough tally of complaints downloaded and, where applicable, complaints copied, to estimate how many have been filed. ADMINISTRATOR

  18. linder says:

    jbjd,

    Thank you, for all the time and effort you are putting into this. I for one appreciate all that you are doing. It just makes it a little bit easier to deal with everything that is getting shoved down our throats, to know that there are people like you working on our behalfs. I have never in my life had to spend so much time contacting my representatives and senators, as well as the offices of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, on my own dime, trying to have some impact. Again, thank you.

    linder: You are welcome. This has been very hard on me, both the conduct of the principals in this election cycle and beyond; and having to steal time from my life to redress these wrongs. I know how you feel, having to spend so much time contacting your elected officials. Remember when we used to trust they would do the right thing? I especially resent that we are paying them $174,000 a year to zealously advocate in our best interest, while people like me miss work because we were up all night drafting complaints to try to fix the mess they got us into.

    I have always been good at figuring out complex situations. I figured, if I had this much trouble getting to the heart of the problems with this last election cycle, I had better synthesize my findings for the benefit of others. Then, I had to set up this blog to spread the word! ADMINISTRATOR

  19. Dawn says:

    I am working right now on getting one that one more in HI.

    another question – right now – besides of course SC, what other states should I concentrate on? I realized tonight I have a great tool for “speaking” to likely supporters one state at a time.

    Dawn: Thank you for any help you can provide with HI. Right now, there is one lone filer in that state; we need to give that person some cover. There are several states with election laws like the ones in the states in which we have already filed complaints; but I don’t know which states there are until people look up the laws in those states. I will set up a list of states I already know are ineligible for these complaints; just as soon as I take a breath. Believe me, I am dancing as fast as I can. ADMINISTRATOR

  20. papoose says:

    Hello and Hurray, jbjd and fellow Patriots! We are so fortunate to have all of you that have the time, courage and fortitude to pursue these issues and taking action in behalf of our Country. Our House is filled with domestic enemies. Our President has taken a false oath to defend and preserve our Constitution. We’d far worse off without you. Gratitude! My mind’s eye envisions you as people like our Founders meeting in Taverns and Pubs from ‘towne’ to town to discuss the latest events and getting the word out at great risk.

    papoose: Thank you. But I want to stress that, we do not ‘know’ the President has taken a false oath. However, we have assembled a strong circumstantial case that indicates, no one who Certified his eligibility to state elections officials ‘knew’ whether he was eligible for the job. ADMINISTRATOR

  21. Greg Goss says:

    More great work jbjd and thank you for what you do. The next important task for whoever filed this complaint in SC is to follow up, followup, and follow up. If we do not show that we are willing to follow through it will certainly end up under the rug.

    Greg Goss: Thank you. Yes; following up is a pivotal step in this process. But this looks a little different in each state. More on next steps in the days to come. ADMINISTRATOR

  22. Captain Steve says:

    jbjd. . .I saw you wrote this on another blog.

    [HELLO? ANYONE LISTENING OUT THERE?

    THERE WAS NO BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENT!

    Please read, “RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’” from August 9, 2009 to learn that, there was no newspaper birth announcement. How do we know? 1. APFC admitted on their blog, they only copied an image of such ‘announcement’ from another blog, posted on that blog anonymously. Note: APFC failed to ‘identify’ the newspaper they claim printed that item. 2. BO admitted in pleadings submitted to the federal court the only image of a ‘birth announcement’ in existence was that phantom image on APFC. Note: BO failed to ‘identify’ the newspaper he claimed printed that item APFC posted.

    In other words, no one could check up on these admissions by either APFC or BO because neither named the ‘newspaper’ in which this phantom ‘birth announcement’ had supposedly been published.

    Read and learn. And, above all, once the lie has been ‘outed,’ stop doing the analysis! Instead, spend your time spreading the truth and, where applicable, doing something about it.
    http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/rumors-lies-and-unsubstantiated-facts/%5D

    You indicate (in #1.) that there is no connection to an actual newspaper, but the announcement is on the Honolulu Advertiser’s website. What do you make of that?

    http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/1001

    Thx, CS

    Captain Steve: Hey, that’s so cool that this image appears on a web page dated November 2008 and yet, APFC had the same image posted on their blog page months earlier and for some reason, failed to mention, the name of the newspaper that supposedly printed that birth announcement was the Honolulu Advertiser! Even more curious is that, when Defendant Barack Obama asked a federal court judge to take judicial notice of the fact, APFC noted a “contemporaneous birth announcement,” in January 2009, almost 3 (three) full months after this image in the link you provide first appeared; he, too, failed to mention the name of the Honolulu Advertiser. Trying to persuade the court to take judicial notice he is for real, BO – through his attorneys – would have presented their “best evidence” – this is a term of art – of such legitimacy. No; the reasonable inference is to credit the claims in the pleadings BO’s lawyers signed and submitted to the federal court, and not to credit an on-line vision. ADMINISTRATOR

  23. Captain Steve says:

    You may have already seen this, but:

    (comments deleted)

    Captain Steve: Wow, between the phantom birth announcement and this, your posts are full of misdirection this morning. The material you listed has been fully explored in several posts throughout the blogosphere, the summer before last. Nothing to see here; move along. ADMINISTRATOR

  24. Greg Goss says:

    Just to make clear that the Honolulu Advertiser reufses to validate there own story.

    —– Original Message —–
    From: Greg Goss
    To: dnakaso@honoluluadvertiser.com
    Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:31 AM
    Subject: Hawaii officials confirm Obama’s original birth certificate still exists

    Hi Dan,

    As part of your on-line story you included a cropped image of the birth announcement that was supposedly published by your newspaper in August of ’61. Can you tell me where you got that image from? If you retrieved from the web I would call that sloppy reporting. You are at the place of its origin. Did you verify that the announcement was in fact published by your paper? You reference the Nordyke twins and show a picture of their mom holding up what looks like real birth certificates. Can you tell me why we do not see their birth announcement?

    I look forward to your response and thank you in advance for your effort.

    Greg Goss

    I have yet to receive a response, go figure.

    Greg Goss: He cannot confirm the phantom image of a ‘newspaper birth announcement’ is real because, as I have proven, it is not. Nice touch. ADMINISTRATOR

  25. More power to you, jbjd & Dawn!

    Much appreciation,
    Another Cheerleader

    SNK: Thank you so very much. We are continuing our collaboration. ADMINISTRATOR

  26. drkate says:

    Terrific!!! Great work jbjd and to Dawn! What satisfaction, to have a way finally to get at Howard Dean.

    This has been a great unraveling and education, jbjd. And the title of this post is great, but hardly rivals “The Big Cheese Stands Alone”, lol.

    Let me ask you–would there be any value to–once someone files these cases in various states–publicizing this to key Congresspeople? That this kind of election fraud complaint is around? For the purpose of increasing pressure on the speaker. Or, would there be more harm done to the case itself to publicize it?

    Thanks again

    drkate: Great question. Citizens are autonomous; they do what they will. However, I caution against soliciting elected officials to breach the lines of separation of power. Because once we legitimize such conduct, this tack can be used just as easily against us. Ethical legislators generally advise constituents to follow prescribed remedies, anyway. But when it comes to the press, all bets are off. ADMINISTRATOR

  27. Christine says:

    First off, Thank You for giving me hope! Second, is Senator Demint aware of all this and if so what is his position? Is he willing to lend support to push this through? And how soon can we get these fools out of office.

    Christine: You are welcome. I have hope, too. As for mixing federal apples with state oranges, please see my reply to drkate. ADMINISTRATOR

  28. Michelle says:

    jbjd-”I have always been good at figuring out complex situations.” Just wanted to thank you for all your hard work and diligence. Also, thank you for explaining your research and how it applies. May justice prevail especially Nancy Pelosi.

    Michelle: You are welcome. Once you ‘get it,’ you realize how simple it was, huh. We were so naive. ADMINISTRATOR

  29. Walt1 says:

    jbjd,

    (comment deleted in its entirely)

    Walt1: You purport to posit a ‘solution’ to some dilemma related to both BO and Article II of the US Constitution, the entirety of which is dedicated to enunciating the Presidency; but you not only fail to specifically identify the theory you are espousing; you also fail to provide any cites (or sites) to back up your theory. I would hate to send readers scrambling on a wild goose chase on such shabby basis. Come back when you can ‘put your money where your mouth is.’ ADMINISTRATOR

  30. Christine says:

    jbjd,

    May I bring something up that has been bouncing around in my head because I can’t stop thinking about it unless someone refutes it:-) Is it possible, with your information, to put pelosi in a box with only 2 ways out? If she is charged with conspiracy to commit election fraud (among other things), she could go to prison yes? So she would have to prove that no fraud was committed by proving her candidate was properly vetted. But the proof lies in the records of her candidate. In order to prove that records would have to be accessed (unsealed). If her candidate still refuses access to these records, pelosi is out in the cold. Now, this woman will not allow herself to go to prison, therefore she would cut a deal and spill, throwing everyone under the bus to save herself. Can you see where I’m going with this? Of course I’m not a lawyer but I do think this is an interesting theory. Is it possible to proceed with charges with the information you have on hand? Of course if it’s a totally stupid theory feel free to let e know:-) But I do believe, with everything that’s going on right now, that time is of the essence here, something must be done and quickly. Anyway, feel free to refute:-)

    Christine: Whether the state AG investigates these complaints of election fraud and, finding adequate support for these charges, proceeds with criminal prosecution, is outside of the scope of the work that goes on here. In fact, whether to investigate and/or prosecute, involve discretionary decisions vested by law in the office of the AG.

    I have no idea whether documents exist in records previously undisclosed publicly, that would tend to establish BO is a NBC. But this appears unlikely, given the facts spelled out on this blog in “THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE,” and elsewhere. Namely, if NP had documents unavailable to the rest of us that were the basis of her Certification of BO’s Nomination then, when we asked her to produce these documents, why didn’t she? ADMINISTRATOR

  31. Dawn Duff says:

    Two complaints of Election Fraud and request for investigation are in the Attorney General of South Carolina, Henry McMaster’s office, from my household.

    Dawn: I am so thankful you found us; wait till you see the next post, in the works. ADMINISTRATOR

  32. Christine says:

    >>Namely, if NP had documents unavailable to the rest of us that were the basis of her Certification of BO’s Nomination then, when we asked her to produce these documents, why didn’t she? ADMINISTRATOR

    Yes exactly my point. Not having the documents to prove herself innocent and BO refusing to provide them, is what would reveal her guilt. Or rather their guilt.

    Anyway, Thank you for all that you’re doing. Hopefully our country has time to wait. Off to read “The Cheese Stands Alone”

    Christine: Yes, but, we elected Attorneys General to investigate allegations of election fraud; and we passed laws authorizing the use of discretion in carry out this mission. We cannot claim a moral high ground entitles us to specific performance. We can only present the tightest case we are able to put together, presented in a clear and concise way, so as to persuade our elected officials do the right thing. ADMINISTRATOR

  33. Jacqlyn Smith says:

    jbjd…I’m looking into a filing a complaint in Nevada….I am waiting for the copy of the DNC certification that was sent to the SOS office….the lady there told me they don’t do any background checks…she said they take the DNC’s word for it that the candidate is legal and qualified…..please contact me at my email which Citizen Wells has and you can get it from him. Thanks, Jacqlyn Smith

    Jacqlyn Smith: First time here? You have a lot of catching up to do. You will be amazed at what you did not know about how your government works. Now, I hate to tell you but, as I recall, Nevada is not an applicable state. Read the complaints already posted and you will understand what state laws enable such a complaint of election fraud to be filed. Then, check Nevada to see whether you have such laws. If you are not sure how to interpret what you find, send it here. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Jacqlyn Smith says:

      No….I have been here before…just trying to see if my state is applicable to your work….I don’t understand all of these rules and regulations….are you saying anyone in Nevada can’t file a complaint???

      Jacqlyn Smith: See, the problem is, the nature of the election fraud has absolutely nothing with whether BO is a NBC. Because we cannot say for certain, one way or the other. Rather, the fraud is, saying he is a NBC without first ascertaining whether he is, so that state elections officials in those states that require the candidate whose name appears on the ballot to be eligible for the job, to print his name next to the “D” on the general election ballot. So, we looked for states that had a law saying, to get the name of the candidate on the ballot, he must be eligible for the job. NP – and sometimes, the state D party Chairs; or the DNC general counsel, and others – swore, BO was eligible to VA elections officials. VA law says, candidates must be eligible for the job to get their names on the ballot. But on what basis did NP ascertain, BO was eligible for the job? Did she just say he was to get VA to print his name on the ballot? That’s fraud. ADMINISTRATOR

  34. Jacqlyn Smith says:

    jbjd…This is what it says in the Nevada election statutes…please let me know how to proceed….I still haven’t gotten the copy from the SOS office showing the DNC certification sent to them to get the FRAUD’S name on the ballot in Nevada..
    Jackie Smith:)

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    NRS 293.182 Written challenges concerning qualifications of candidates.

    1. After a person files a declaration of candidacy or an acceptance of candidacy to be a candidate for an office, and not later than 5 days after the last day the person may withdraw his candidacy pursuant to NRS 293.202, an elector may file with the filing officer for the office a written challenge of the person on the grounds that the person fails to meet any qualification required for the office pursuant to the Constitution or a statute of this State, including, without limitation, a requirement concerning age or residency. Before accepting the challenge from the elector, the filing officer shall notify the elector that if the challenge is found by a court to be frivolous, the elector may be required to pay the reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs of the challenged person.

    2. A challenge filed pursuant to subsection 1 must:

    (a) Indicate each qualification the person fails to meet;

    (b) Have attached all documentation and evidence supporting the challenge; and

    (c) Be in the form of an affidavit, signed by the elector under penalty of perjury.

    3. Upon receipt of a challenge pursuant to subsection 1:

    (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately transmit the challenge to the Attorney General.

    (b) A filing officer other than the Secretary of State shall immediately transmit the challenge to the district attorney.

    4. If the Attorney General or district attorney determines that probable cause exists to support the challenge, the Attorney General or district attorney shall, not later than 5 working days after receiving the challenge, petition a court of competent jurisdiction to order the person to appear before the court. Upon receipt of such a petition, the court shall enter an order directing the person to appear before the court at a hearing, at a time and place to be fixed by the court in the order, to show cause why the challenge is not valid. A certified copy of the order must be served upon the person. The court shall give priority to such proceedings over all other matters pending with the court, except for criminal proceedings.

    5. If, at the hearing, the court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenge is valid or that the person otherwise fails to meet any qualification required for the office pursuant to the Constitution or a statute of this State, or if the person fails to appear at the hearing:

    (a) The name of the person must not appear on any ballot for the election for the office for which he filed the declaration of candidacy or acceptance of candidacy; and

    (b) The person is disqualified from entering upon the duties of the office for which he filed the declaration of candidacy or acceptance of candidacy.

    6. If, at the hearing, the court determines that the challenge is frivolous, the court may order the elector who filed the challenge to pay the reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs of the challenged person.

    (Added to NRS by 2001, 671)

    Jacqlyn Smith: Good for you for looking up the laws in your state! However, this section applies to challenges to the candidate himself (based on submission by him, of a declaration of candidacy). We cannot file charges of election fraud against BO. Because how do we know whether he is lying about his eligibility? But we do know, NP could not have ascertained he is eligible based on the same ‘evidence’ available in the public record, that we have seen. See if there is another law saying something like, the candidate for POTUS from the major political party must be eligible for the job, like in VA. Or, like in SC, where the party certified eligibility for the primary candidates, whereas in most other states, like NH, the candidate signs his own eligibility papers for the primary. ADMINISTRATOR

  35. Jacqlyn Smith says:

    jbjd….Here is more of the statutes in Nevada for filing to be on the ballot….NRS 293.190 is especially interesting because it says the SOS must certify to each county clerk the candidates for the ballots I assume…..what do they use to certify NBC qualification if they only have a piece of paper from the DNC??? I will call the elections office and pose my question I guess…unless you know the answer?? Jackie Smith:)

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    NRS 293.184 Penalty for knowingly and willfully making false statement on declaration or acceptance of candidacy. In addition to any other penalty provided by law, if a person knowingly and willfully files a declaration of candidacy or acceptance of candidacy which contains a false statement:

    1. The name of the person must not appear on any ballot for the election for which he filed the declaration of candidacy or acceptance of candidacy; and

    2. The person is disqualified from entering upon the duties of the office for which he was a candidate.

    (Added to NRS by 2001, 672)

    NRS 293.185 Offices for filing declarations, certificates and acceptances of candidacies. The declaration of candidacy, the certificate of candidacy and the acceptance of candidacy must be filed during regular office hours, as follows:

    1. For United States Senator, Representative in Congress, statewide offices, State Senators and Assemblymen to be elected from districts comprising more than one county, and all other offices whose districts comprise more than one county, with the Secretary of State.

    2. For Representative in Congress and district offices voted for wholly within one county, State Senators and Assemblymen to be elected from districts comprising but one or part of one county, county and township officers, with the county clerk.

    (Added to NRS by 1960, 244; A 1965 Special Session, 4; 1983, 1287; 1987, 1367)

    NRS 293.187 Certification of names of persons for whom candidacy papers have been filed by Secretary of State to county clerks.

    1. The Secretary of State shall forward to each county clerk a certified list containing the name and mailing address of each person for whom candidacy papers have been filed in the office of the Secretary of State, and who is entitled to be voted for in the county at the next succeeding primary election, together with the title of the office for which the person is a candidate and the party or principles he represents. The Secretary of State shall forward the certified list not later than 5 working days after the last day upon which any candidate on the list may withdraw his candidacy pursuant to NRS 293.202.

    2. There must be a party designation only for candidates for partisan offices.

    (Added to NRS by 1960, 244; A 1983, 1118; 1989, 1729; 1993, 2178; 1999, 3551)

    NRS 293.190 Certification to county clerks by Secretary of State of names of certain persons nominated. Immediately following the primary election at which candidates are nominated for any public office, the Secretary of State shall certify to each county clerk the name of each person nominated and the title of the office for which he is nominated for all candidates required to file declarations, certificates and acceptances of candidacies in the office of the Secretary of State.

    (Added to NRS by 1960, 244; A 1961, 285)

    • Jacqlyn Smith says:

      Hey I have the document from the SOS…how do I send it to you. Jackie:)

      Jacqlyn Smith: If this is the Certification of Nomination, with accompanying correspondence, that got BO placed on the ballot, I don’t need this until I see whether the laws in NV require the candidate to be eligible. Once I know I have an applicable state, the only reason I need the Certification is to identify who committed the fraud, someone in the DNC, or the state D party, or both. But first, I need the law that makes this Certification an element of the fraud. ADMINISTRATOR

  36. Jacqlyn Smith says:

    jbjd….Would this section of the Nevada Election statutes have anything to do with Nevada being applicable for your complaint…..the Declaration that the candidate must sign and turn in speaks of being qualified under the Constitution??? just wondering….I haven’t been able to come up with anything else. J:)
    (text of law deleted)

    Jacqlyn Smith: Nice work but, no, sorry, this portion of the law applies to the hoops the candidate has to jump through to get onto the primary ballot. We are not concerned with the candidate per se, but rather, what the party swore it knew about the candidate. Just to be sure, call your state election officials, usually within the Office of Secretary of State, to ask them whether NV has any laws on the books requiring the nominee from the major political party to be eligible for the job in order to have his name printed on the NV general election ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Jacqlyn Smith says:

      jbjd….I will call again but I thought the lady said they….the SOS office…..did not do a background check when they receive a nomination from a political party….she said it was up to the Party to make sure the candidate was eligible and that the state just took the parties word for it…..I assume that to mean that they don’t have to follow any established law or protocol to prove the candidate is legal….but I’m not sure either!!! J:)

      Jacqlyn Smith: Interestingly, even in those states that require the candidate to be eligible for the job to get onto the ballot, none of these states requires any government official to check. But this still is not what I mean. I am looking for states that require the candidate to be eligible. That’s all. (Don’t give up; this is confusing but, once you ‘get it,’ you will see how simple this is.) ADMINISTRATOR

      • Jacqlyn Smith says:

        Next week I will call again and ask the specifics that you mention here. J:)

        Jacqlyn Smith: Good. Let me know what you find out. ADMINISTRATOR

  37. Gregg says:

    Never posted here & it’s fine if you answer here or by email. I’ve read various blogs on eligibility for prez & I wonder if BO admits his birth was governed by his father’s citizenship as a British citizen from Kenya, wouldn’t that invalidate him being a NBC per Vattel’s definition, which the Founders relied on? The Founders thought our CinC should be born on US soil with BOTH parents being US citizens, as I read it.

    Gregg: Welcome. No one ‘knows’ what work the “Founders relied on” until the federal appeals court says, this is what they meant. I could not care less what BO says about his birth status; determining whether he is a NBC is an analysis independent of his recollection. What definition did NP use? That’s what I want to know. ADMINISTRATOR

  38. azgo says:

    Attorney General of South Carolina

    “Inside the Office

    The duties and responsibilities of the Attorney General are described by common law, the state Constitution, and state statutes.

    The Office is an ancient one, dating back to 1698.

    The Attorney General is South Carolina’s Chief Criminal Prosecutor, Chief Legal Officer and Securities Commissioner.

    The South Carolina Constitution defines the Attorney General’s role as “chief prosecuting officer of the State with authority to supervise the prosecution of all criminal cases in courts of record.”

    In 1929, a state court broadened that role: “As the chief law officer of the State [the Attorney General] may, in the absence of some express legislative restriction to the contrary, exercise all such power and authority as public interests may, from time to time, require, and may institute, conduct and maintain all such suits and proceedings as he deems necessary for the enforcement of the laws of the State, the preservation of order, and the protection of public rights.”

    As Chief Criminal Prosecutor, the Attorney General:

    (1) Represents the State of South Carolina in prosecuting criminal cases and holds supervisory authority over the prosecution of any and all criminal cases in the State of South Carolina;

    (2) Oversees the activities of the State Grand Jury including the prosecution of multi-jurisdictional drug offenders, obscenity, public corruption, election fraud, computer crime violations, terrorism, and securities fraud;…”

    Read more…

    http://www.scattorneygeneral.org/inside/index.html

    azgo: I am sure many of our readers appreciate these posts reminding the A’sG in selected states that, doing the right thing, in particular, investigating citizens’ complaints of election fraud, is actually inscribed in state law. Do you suppose a follow-up letter containing your cited excerpts from the laws of either VA or SC, would evoke a response?

    Interesting, I automatically included reference to the specific provisions of state law I was alleging were violated; but it had not occurred to me to point out the AG, the responsibilities of the job.ADMINISTRATOR

  39. Dawn says:

    jbjd, of course, I want to get that revised SC complaint out asap as I live with 2 Patriots chomping at the bit to sign & send it:)
    Will you put it in a new post after “If it looks like a duck”? Not meaning to be PUSHY :) I just want to be able to jump on it when you are done with it! And it will help if I can find it.
    D

    Dawn: New post going up now, as well as revised complaints (just as soon as Scribd stops acting funny; or, could it be me?). ADMINISTRATOR

  40. [...] *(Correction:  After I posted this article, I learned that SC also law also requires specific wording of eligibility to accompany the submission of candidate names that will appear on the ballot.  See http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/up-to-here-in-fraud-from-the-chair-of-the-2008-convention-to-th…) [...]

  41. [...] HI was not alone.  For example, on 10.02.09, 3 (three) weeks after I posted this article, I posted UP to HERE in ELECTION FRAUD in SC, FROM the CHAIR of the 2008 DNC CONVENTION to the CHAIR of the DN…, pointing to the fact that under SC law, the party also must Certify to election officials the [...]

  42. [...] I posted the August article containing the images of the HI and SC Certifications, I posted  UP to HERE in ELECTION FRAUD in SC, FROM the CHAIR of the 2008 DNC CONVENTION to the CHAIR of the DN…, the article that explained election law in SC also requires explicit eligibility language to [...]

  43. [...] to the SCEC by DNC General Counsel Sandler; you can access his letter posted on this blog in “UP TO HERE IN ELECTION FRAUD IN SC. FROM THE CHAIR OF THE 2008 DNC CONVENTION TO THE CHAIR OF THE DN….” (As you have seen, Mr. Sandler’s letter contained no Certification of eligibility for BO [...]

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: