WITH ALL DUE RESPECT to ORLY TAITZ

(UPDATED 01.22.12, in text)

(UPDATED 01.23.12, at bottom)

© 2012 jbjd

Sometimes during my forays onto other blogs, I am compelled either by request or necessity to clarify or explain misunderstandings making the internet rounds. But this pernicious misinterpretation merits its own post. First, the ‘chase’:

No judge has issued an Order requiring President Obama to appear, all reporting by the AP and web sites quoting the AP; and Orly’s cyberspace victory dance – “I won!!! I won!!!” – notwithstanding.

The comment that first got my attention, posted on CW, included what was ostensibly an email the writer had received from Orly. Having successfully managed to avoid wading into her site for the past several months, I now had to go there to find the ‘original.’ Here it is, in its entirety.

I won!!! I won!!! I won!!! Judge Malihi ruled in my favor. Obama’s motion to quash my subpoena is denied! He has to appear at trial and present all the documents that I demanded to produce in my subpoena! (Note from jbjd: THIS IS NOT A TRIAL! IT IS MERELY AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING! The narrow legal question to be answered here isn’t even whether candidate Obama is Constitutionally qualified for President and so may appear on the Georgia ballot; but whether Obama followed the rules set by election officials, to get on the ballot. Know your government. Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings)

Posted on | January 20, 2012 | 163 Comments

It has been 3 years of 24/7/365 fight. I was defamed, viciously maligned by so many Obots (Obama bots), pro-Obama media thugs, by a few corrupt officials and judges. Recently even people, who claimed to be on my side turned sides and viciously defamed me and attacked me. Among them were Arlen Williams, Dean Haskins, owner of a blog Birther Summit, Bob Nelson-owner of a blog Birther Report or ObamaReleaseYourRecords, Helen Tansey -owner of a blog art2superpac and even attorneys, who should’ve had some professional ethics. Attorneys Gary Kreep and Philip Berg filed insane pleadings, saying that I tried to hire a hit man to kill Lisa Liberi, legal assistant of attorney Berg and kidnap children of a web master Lisa Ostella. It has been 3 years of total nightmare, these people were like a pack of wild dogs attacking me and coming up with each and every accusation in the book. Now I am vindicated. My legal action is with merit. We are going to trial on January 26, 2012. I issued subpoenas.   Barack Obama through his attorney Michael Jablonski filed a motion to quash my subpoena and all the other subpoenas. I was attacked yet again in this motion. Judge Malihi just issued an order. Motion to quash my subpoena was denied. Barack Obama, President of the United States will have to appear in court on January 26 and comply with my subpoena and produce all the documents, that I demanded. Interesting, that two other attorneys are representing plaintiffs on similar matters: Van Irion and Mark Hatfield. They could have an opportunity to examine Obama with me, however either because I was maligned so badly or because they were scared to press the most explosive charges, these attorneys filed motions for their cases to be severed from my case. Their motions were granted. Irion’s case will be heard first. He stated on the record, that his case will take only 10 minutes and will be limited to ascertainment if Obama is legitimate based on the precedent of Minor v Happerset. Obama will not be answering any of his questions. Second will be a case presented by attorney Hatfield. He, also, severed his case and did not issue any subpoenas. In his motion to sever he stated that he did not want to be joined in the same complaint with me, because he did not want to be part of a  case, where I brought forward allegations of elections fraud and social security fraud committed by Barack Obama. Hatfield was saying that he was afraid that his clients will be prejudiced by such explosive allegations.  Yesterday, after I filed an opposition to motion to quash, attorney Hatfield tried to follow suit by filing a notice to appear, however notice does not have as much of a  force as a subpoena and I do not believe Obama will be complying with a notice, particularly since Hatfield’s complaint does not entail the same charges as mine. My case will be heard third.    My case will not be limited to definition of natural born based on a case Minor v Happersett. I will be also presenting a case, showing that elections fraud was committed by Barack Obama, that he is using a forged birth certificate, stolen or fraudulently obtained Social Security number and that there is no evidence to believe that the last name he is using is legally his, due to the fact, that in his mother’s passport he goes under the name Soebarkah and in his school registration in Indonesia he went by the last name Soetoro. There is no evidence of legal change of name.

I wanted to thank people who helped me along the way with donations, who did not stick a knife in my back, like the ones mentioned before. I am asking my supporters to donate to this work, as I am paying for  airfare and hotel of witnesses and a number of other expenses. Also, if you are a CA Republican please, download my nomination for the US Senate and sign and circulate it.

nomination papers (link omitted by jbjd)

Make no mistake about it. This is the beginning of Watergate2 or ObamaForgeryGate.  I believe this is the second time in the U.S. history a sitting President is ordered to comply with a subpoena, and produce documents, which might eventually bring criminal charges to the President and a number of high ranking individuals.

I feel extremely proud to be a part of this historic moment. I guess an American dream is still alive, as this subpoena was issued by an immigrant, who was raised in a communist dictatorship of the Soviet Union and came here with one suitcase with a couple of dresses, who had to study English, to study law at night, while working as a dentist  and raising a family with 3 children. Only in America is this possible.

Humbly,

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

So many of her statements triggered automatic internal rebuttals that I could have written volumes before making the record clear.  But, even before creating “jbjd,” I had written numerous comments on others’ blogs explaining that if Obama becomes the D nominee for POTUS the only way to keep him out of the WH is to keep his name off the ballot. (I posted my epiphany on NoQuarter the first week in August 2008.) So, I knew what to write first.

Here is the response I posted on CW.

I set up my blog at the end of August 2008. One of the first posts instructed citizens, the only way to keep Obama’s name off the ballot if  he takes the D nomination; was to challenge his eligibility in those states that require candidate eligibility to appear on the ballot.

http://jbjd.org/2008/08/31/challenging-bo%E2%80%99s-eligibility-to-get-onto-the-general-election-ballot-as-the-democratic-candidate-for-potus/

GA is one of those states.  And, I know that Orly has known since back in 2008 that GA is one of those states because, at that time, I told her.  That is, I published a memo in which I proposed there are 2 ways to keep Obama out of the WH. First, of course, was the ballot challenge; and I specifically mentioned GA.

For example, here is the requirement to get onto the general election ballot in the State of GA, under the Official Code of GA Annotated (O.C.G.A.), §21-2-5, Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications. “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.” (Note: President, U.S. Senator, or U.S. Representative are federal offices.) This means that, according to GA law, when the state Party chair submits the Party nominee to the Secretary of State (“S of S”) to be put onto the general election ballot, that nominee must be eligible for the office sought. But there is no corresponding GA law that says the S of S receiving this paperwork from the state Party chair must verify this eligibility. Under that same law, the State of GA set up a mechanism by which voters may file a challenge with the S of S questioning the eligibility of a candidate to appear on the ballot; and for the S of S to initiate such a challenge on her own. “The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate.” But again, the operative word here is “may.” In other words, even in a state like GA, one of the few states with laws that provide for a mechanism for voters to challenge a candidate’s eligibility to get onto the general election ballot, no law requires the state to investigate the candidate based on that challenge. (Notice that technically, even GA law does not confer power on the S of S to determine whether any candidate is eligible for the office sought but only to determine this: whether he is eligible by virtue of satisfying the requirements of the office sought to get onto the general election ballot.)
http://jbjd.org/2008/11/30/find-out-whether-barack-obama-is-a-natural-born-citizen-as-required-under-article-ii-of-the-us-constitution-and-stop-the-electoral-college-from-voting-for-him-if-he-is-not/

It was this memo, which also included the idea of a complaint filed under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, using National Guard Plaintiffs; which first attracted Orly’s attention to my work, and triggered our short-lived collaboration, during which time I drafted the military complaint; and intervened at the request of a soldier who had been trying unsuccessfully to get her to withdraw the waiver he signed to join that complaint. .

So, more than 3 wasted years and countless squandered dollars in contributions and who knows how many frequent flyer miles later; she decided to take my advice and challenge the qualifications of a candidate for office in a state that only allows to be printed on the ballot the names of those candidates qualified for the job. And, given this legal route of redress, she would have you believe, the court has endorsed her methodology.

Further, based on this demonstrated pattern of out-of-control spending and prolongued failure to heed sound legal advice; evidently, she now feels worthy of soliciting your support for the U.S. Senate.

“Humbly”? Yeah, right..

P.S. Of course, this in no way means, I agree with either the substantive case she has brought in GA or, her ‘take’ on the (seeming) success of her case. In the end, she will fail in this effort as always. Please, keep in mind, in real life logic, failing to quash Plaintiff’s requested subpoena for Defendant to appear is not the same as Ordering Defendant to Appear, especially in this case, where the judge specifically wrote, Defendant had merely failed to cite to any sound legal reason the subpoena should not be allowed.

Some readers required further clarification of the true meaning of the court’s latest action in GA.

The GA election code requires that only candidates qualified for the job may have the state print their names on the ballot. The law allows citizens to contest the eligibility of candidates to the SoS and then, to an administrative law judge. (In other words, the process addresses whether the administration of the ballot eligibility law has been followed.) The Plaintiffs, represented by Orly, filed a ballot challenge with an administrative law judge arguing Defendant Obama is ineligible to be POTUS. They issued a subpoena – remember, this is the document they downloaded off the GA court web site but then ‘indicated’ was actually issued by the court – to Defendant Obama, requiring him to appear and answer questions. Under normal circumstances, if a Defendant served by Plaintiff with a subpoena, refuses to comply with the request; the Plaintiff may then ask the court to sign an Order compelling whatever the subpoena requires. Obama’s local (GA) attorney received the subpoena and submitted to the court a Motion to Quash, thereby asking the court not to allow Plaintiff’s subpoena. If granted, this would mean, Orly could not in the future compel such compliance. Orly awaited the judge’s ruling on Defendant’s motion, taking no further action, such as filing an Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Quash; to advance her position. The judge ruled to reject Defendant’s motion on the narrow specific grounds that he had failed to provide sufficient (read, any) legal precedent or citations to support his motion. (Thus, in effect, by doing absolutely nothing, Orly succeeded for the first time in getting a ‘court’ ruling prolonging her case instead of ending it on the spot.) (UPDATE 01.22.12: I have now found an Opposition to Motion to Quash, dated January 19. However, I find no evidence this was either received or considered by the ALJ before he Denied Defendant’s Motion; and the Denial fails to mention or address Plaintiff’s Opposition.)

In other words, this administrative law procedure is several steps away from producing an Order to appear, Orly’s misrepresentations and cyberspace victory dance – “I won!!! I won!!!” – notwithstanding.

I pointed out to another commenter that considering both law and circumstances; a ballot challenge in SC likely would have had a far greater chance at success.

I absolutely agree, a correctly framed ballot challenge can be successful. But SC would have been the easiest state in which to launch such a challenge. As I have been writing for a couple of years now, primary candidates in that state are submitted to the election commission by the state party, which also certifies explicitly, in writing, the candidates are qualified for the job. In other words, there, the question to the court would have been, the party has failed to provide a basis for such certification. (Recall that, in 2008, the then party treasurer hand-delivered the primary names to the election commission, which refused to accept the list because it lacked that certification. So, she whipped out her pen and, on the spot, certified the candidates’ qualification!) http://jbjd.org/2009/10/10/if-it-looks-like-a-duck/

P.S. It’s still not too late to question the submission of his name as the D party nominee, to the general election ballot in that state!

But what really bothers me about Orly’s polemics is perhaps best represented by this comment from someone who I believe even at this point genuinely retains faith in her motives.
I am composing a special letter to all the VFW posts in our state, as well as other states making all of this known and the most recent progress of Orly. Hopefully some of them will see fit to make contributions. I have provided both her California postal address,and her website as well. Lets see what our vets think!

This intentional marketing of Orly’s defective work product, especially to veterans, prompted my more personalized response.

You just don’t get it.

The vet who contacted me had been trying to get Orly to destroy the representation agreement he had signed to become a Plaintiff in the military complaint she intended to file. Having re-read the language of her agreement, he realized, he opposed the extreme sentiments she had expressed and was quite concerned that by signing that agreement, he was exposing himself to serious legal (read, criminal) liability. Of course, he was absolutely right to be afraid. In fact, I had already objected to the wording in her release. Leo also urged her to recall that release on the grounds of this inflammatory language. Further, I had urged that only National Guard troops subject to recall, join any lawsuit, because until called up, they were not subject to the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and could not be disciplined for questioning Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. She chose to use other Plaintiffs. (She and I seldom agreed on anything.) Anyway, frustrated that he had been unable to get her to destroy his previous signed agreement; he asked for my help getting through to her. I contacted her; and she quite flippantly and, with an air of disgust, replied, ‘What does he want now?’ I hit the roof. He was the Plaintiff, not her; and he was the member of the military her words had placed in jeopardy. I got her to pull his release; and that’s the last time we collaborated on anything.

That you would solicit money for this charlatan evidences a blind faith not sustained by the record.

Perhaps not surprisingly, mimicking the response of so many of Orly’s acolytes, he became angry at reading the truth and then, directed his anger at me because I wrote it.

UPDATE 01.23.12: I found this comment posted 3 years ago, on another blog; supporting my claims that I assisted a veteran in withdrawing the problematic release he had signed to become a named Plaintiff in Orly’s version of my military complaint. 

daddynoz said…
Arlen,
I failed to previously identify the individual I have been conferring with regarding my concerns and intent to rectify the current constitutional crisis. The fellow’s name is “jbjd” (unfortunately I do not know his actual name). He has helped me as if he were my priest or bartender; he’s listened to my reservations regarding potentionally seditious or disloyal language found in a related complaint, addressed my questions of what the actual standing was (while considering what I thought it might be), and looked out for my welfare related to possible repercussions from military authorities.http://jbjd.wordpress.com/

Thank you.

January 30, 2009 11:38 PM
About these ads

42 Responses to WITH ALL DUE RESPECT to ORLY TAITZ

  1. Jim says:

    Ok so the motion to quash was denied and there does not exist an order from the judge demanding Obama appear.

    What then is the next step? What should we expect on Jan 26th? Will Obama’s attorneys show up in court or are they allowed to try again to convince the judge to quash?

    • jbjd says:

      Jim: Yes, the President’s attorney(s) will submit a Motion for Re-hearing or Reconsideration of the Denial of Motion to Quash. And this time, having already alerted the judge to Orly’s litigious history; his attorney will strictly adhere to the specific parameters spelled out in the court’s previous Denial. (Just curious; have you asked Orly these same questions? If so, what was her reply? If not; why not?) ADMINISTRATOR

  2. cabbyaz says:

    jbjd, thank you for your enlightening comments. I have personally had serious reservations about Dr. Taitz’s work, although I am not legally trained.

    She deserves an “A” for passion and perseverance, but it must be according to knowledge to be effective. Somehow she is perhaps trying to take on too much in too many directions, which could hurt the cause more than help it. Forgive me for being rather blunt.

    This latest communication of hers where she declares, “I Won!!!” three times and the rebuke of anyone who has dared to question her methodology, appears unprofessional, to say the least.

    I appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

    • jbjd says:

      cabbyaz: You are welcome. But, I wish we had made more progress at learning how our government works. We are still far too willing to relegate to others, our responsibility to become civic citizens. That’s why we keep getting victimized both by people claiming to be ‘on our side’ and by people overtly acting against our best interests. And, far too often, our willingness to listen to the advice of some; and to reject the advice of others; is based solely on whether we ‘like’ the person, and not on whether the person we love or hate has a reliable track record. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Jim says:

    I did’nt ask her because I did’nt know to ask her until reading your blog. You are the one who felt compelled to clarify the latest developments.

    Judging by your response to Orly’s latest reaction; I won!!! I won!!! I won!!! ( which I took to mean she might not completely understand what she is doing) I thought I would pose the question to you.

    I must say, as a layman, as I was reading the motion to Quash I thought it sounded very fluffy and lacking in anything substantial and apparently the judge agreed.

    You said above that Orly will lose this case. Do you expect the Motion for Re-hearing or Reconsideration to put an end to it?

    Where do you stand with respect to the whole birther issue? Do you believe Orly is sincere in her motives? Do you believe there are legitimate questions about Obama’s eligibility?

    I’m trying to understand your perspective in this. For the record, I believe Obama is a complete and utter fraud.

    • jbjd says:

      Jim: OMG, you are a riot! Peruse the blog; my perspective should quickly become apparent. As for imputing motives to Orly or anyone else, well, I will leave that to others. As for actually reading the materials under consideration, good for you! And don’t underestimate your ability as an informed layperson to discern the wheat from the chaff. ADMINISTRATOR

      • Jim says:

        Actually I’m not a riot. I’ve read exactly one article written by you which does not exactly make clear where you stand on the issue .. so I asked for clarification.

        With respect to your comments about the viability of Orly’s case, I would very much appreciate it if you would entertain me with a specific response to my question; Do you suspect a Motion for Re-hearing or Reconsideration from Obama’s attorneys will put an end to the case? What happens next if the judge denies the motion?

        Thanks- Jim

        • jbjd says:

          Jim: If reading just one of my articles; or perusing just the front of the blog, in the sidebar; does not clarify my position then, read more. As for predicting how the case brought by Plantiffs represented by Orly will fail, well, I am deciding whether to write another article explaining where she went wrong, because this also provides the opportunity to remind readers, we have covered these issues already, and to re-direct them to previous articles. I ask a lot of my readers, several of whom have remarked, sometimes ‘getting’ what I have written requires more than 1 reading; but, once they ‘get’ it, they cannot believe how simple ‘it’ really is. And, generally, understanding our political system makes them feel hopeful about making necessary improvements. ADMINISTRATOR

          • Jim says:

            I’ve now asked you twice to be very specific in your response and it’s as if you completely ignore my questions and substitute your own.
            It really drives me crazy when people are presented with a simple question but can’t or won’t answer it. In addition, your responses to me have been a bit rude!

            It’s your blog! I wish you luck with it but I’m not visiting again.

  4. Cali says:

    I totally agree with your sentiments here; and always have.
    Orly is her worst enemy; she’s become almost a ‘(name deleted by jbjd)’; and yet she had many so many mistakes.
    I had been on her blog only once, a couple of years ago, and immediately she kept spamming my e-mail, until I reported here, subsequently it stopped.
    I guess there a born suckers every minute; those donating to her obviously don’t see the con in her ways; she never gives account on what she spends the money.
    To get good, and true info I’d rather come to your site; it’s not only informative, but also educational.
    So, thanks, please keep up the honest work, and call out the cons.

    • jbjd says:

      Cali: Yes; you go way back on this blog. I appreciate your kudos; and I trust you are passing on the good news about this blog, to others, so that they can get up to (your) speed. ADMINISTRATOR

      • Cali says:

        You better believe it, Ialready have your post forwarded to another great blog in the comment section, since Orly picked a fight with that site too. But then again, what else is new with her.
        Thanks again!

        • jbjd says:

          Cali: I generally remain emotionally removed from the misadventures of such other legal practitioners, even while correcting their mistakes. But when so many people remain so hopeful at the hype issuing from this single source; and when that source additionally blithely dismisses the substantial work effort of all who came before, well, then, I had to speak up. ADMINISTRATOR

          • Cali says:

            You can never correct those who do not want to be corrected; thee are many out there.
            I assure you, many of us know that, and also have adjusted whom or what to read or trust. For the past, I have forwarded your posts to those of us ‘likeminded’, rather than sending the link to your site.
            that has changed, I’d rather forward your link, so they can see and read with their own mind and eyes the work you have done, mistakes made byothers corrected without ever asking for any donations etc….
            You derserve greater readership, and I will do my part, before our cause goes down to the dogs, because of ‘the’ ‘I won, Iwon, I won….or likewise. But as you also know, people are so gullible, and easily are herded.
            Again, thank you!

          • jbjd says:

            Cali: Know what? While I am a lousy promoter of this blog; and, for the last several months, until just recently, had to reduce the frequency of new posts; the blog has nonetheless ‘caught on.’ Until recently, I was seldom getting any hits from search engines; and Googling “jbjd” had produced on average less than 125,000 hits but now, that number is usually above 700,000, and has even hit 1,000,000! To me, that represents real progress. ADMINISTRATOR

            P.S. As for asking for money, well, there are PayPal buttons in the sidebar where, obviously, people cannot see them!

            P.P.S. Well, what do you know? I just checked Google and, I am now down to just over 31,000 results! Geesh! From 774,000 to 31,000 within hours; and with this post getting more hits in 3 hours than this blog received in the previous 24!

  5. Mick says:

    “cabbyaz: You are welcome. But, I wish we had made more progress at learning how our government works. We are still far too willing to relegate to others, our responsibility to become civic citizens. That’s why we keep getting victimized both by people claiming to be ‘on our side’ and by people overtly acting against our best interests. And, far too often, our willingness to listen to the advice of some; and to reject the advice of others; is based solely on whether we ‘like’ the person, and not on whether the person we love or hate has a reliable track record. ADMINISTRATOR ”

    That’s funny! You post nothing but circular logic here. At once saying that there is no judiciable definition of natural born Citizen, then also encouraging lawsuits in states that require constitutionally eligible candidates. You automatically give no “standing”, since, if there is no definitition, then there can be no remedy (circular firing squad). Learning how our government works? The problem is that the government is populated with too many lawyers, who seve only to protect their own power, and whom have made dealing w/ the govenment and the courts a Kafkaesque experience.

    Minor certainly is “holding”, since the test applied to whether the 14A gave the right to vote in “priveledges and immunities”, was whether the right to vote existed before the 14A (since no New P & I were given by the 14A). To determine whether Voting was a priveledge and immunity before the adoption of the 14A required that the citizenship of Ms. Minor be derived before that Amendment. Waite even said himeself that the citizenship of Ms. Waite “must be positively HELD on the record.” That citizenship was derived from A2S1C5. Minor’s natural born Citizenship is an independent ground in support of the holding, thus it is certainly precedent.

    Plain words can be read by those with the ability to read, not just lawyers, and especially not Howard Zinn fan lawyers who muddy everything in shades of muddy gray, and circular firing squad logic.

    • jbjd says:

      Mick: There is no legally binding definition of NBC; there is a legally binding definition of “C”; and the 14th Amendment did not confer citizenship on anyone but merely reasserted that all people born here, whether by definition citizens of the particular state or district in which they were born, are citizens of these United States. And repeating ad nauseum the charge I am exercising “circular firing squad logic” will never change these facts.

      Further, given these facts; swearing Barack Obama is a NBC in order to get a state official to print his name on the ballot in a state that requires candidate qualification for the job as the prerequisite to getting on the ballot; without first verifying he was (at least) born here, is fraud.

      Finally, since you only repeat in your comments the same misstatement of facts and the same flawed reasoning as applied to those facts; and since in answering your comments I reveal no new information, that is, no information not already included in prior posts and responses; and, in light of your offensive personal attacks; I have decided to block further comments from “Mick.” ADMINISTRATION

      • Cali says:

        @ Mick:

        If you would have not only read, but also analysed the meaning of the words read, you could have clearly understood what the meaning between”NBC” and “C” is (one, and (second the difference between the two, namely saying I want my name placed on a ballot which required to a NBC by law does NOT justify ‘fraud’ by assumption rather than fact.
        Your condescension is that of a typical heard mentality, where one hears something, agrees with it because of likeness, never understanding the difference between believing something because of agreement, rather than just liken something and agree does not mean necessarily ‘right’.
        Too bad you could not understand and get the difference, but your disrespect is uncalled for, and you owe Jbjd an apology!

        You could learn alot by spending some time here on this site, and educate yourself just a tad about some laws.

        Government does not quite work as it supposed to work, it’s laws been stretched and diluted not to the better, more to fog up issues; the best example ever learnt about is the election of Barack Obama, which lots of fraud was involved, and not done enough to prevent it because it was thought so easy to pull one over on the voters. Boy did it work then, but it was the last time voters will ever be fooled again.

        • jbjd says:

          Cali: First, let me say, in all fairness to Mick, by printing your comment I am implicitly inviting his response. Then, let me thank you for repeating what I am so sick of pointing out: just because someone swears he holds a particular status, in order to obtain some benefit from that status AND you believe he fails to hold that status; does not mean, you can establish, by obtaining that benefit he perpetrated fraud. And, if you charge fraud, you must establish that fraud. So, I proposed that, to establish fraud, first, find a jurisdiction in which the benefit can only be bestowed based on holding that status; second, find a second person who swore the first person satisfied that status; and third, establish even through evidence which is wholly circumstantial, that second person must have lied. (Better still, establish that fraud in TX, where refusing on request to produce evidence as to the basis for swearing Obama is qualified for office so as to allow him to appear on the ballot is (arguably) an admission, he lied. IDIOMS! ADMINISTRATOR

  6. Bruce says:

    I followed your discussions back in 2008 about how to deal with AG’s and the SOS concerning Obama. I feel that I was one of the few who actually attempted to traverse the swamp that is our Texas bureaucracy. Unfortunately, I failed in my attempt to get anything accomplished. My question at this point is will the process work if I try to follow the process again this year? Will I meet with the same firewalls that I met with in 2008 and 2009? In reviewing my last endeavor, I came to the conclusion that I would need to spend more time in Austin if I was to get any further and stand in front of the people who were stonewalling me. I am prepared to devote the necessary time to that extent. What are my chances and how do you think I should proceed? Thanks for your informative blogs. I look forward to following your discourses during this election period.

    • jbjd says:

      Bruce: I am so proud you did that work! And, let’s face it, being an activist citizen takes a lot of work. I still believe TX is the best bet to forcing the issue of eligibility, for reasons previously discussed at length, in several articles posted here, as well as through the ensuing exchanges they inspired. I am putting together a post about current options with respect to both the remaining primary calendar and then, of course, with eyes set on the general election. We have to keep in mind, those states which require our focus are those states which require sworn candidate eligibility to appear on the ballot. Like TX! ADMINISTRATOR

  7. [...] yesterday’s post, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT to ORLY TAITZ I included a link to the home page of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings [...]

  8. dawngaye says:

    Hello,jbjd!
    Regarding your post: “I pointed out to another commenter that considering both law and circumstances; a ballot challenge in SC likely would have had a far greater chance at success.
    I absolutely agree, a correctly framed ballot challenge can be successful. But SC would have been the easiest state in which to launch such a challenge. As I have been writing for a couple of years now, primary candidates in that state are submitted to the election commission by the state party, which also certifies explicitly, in writing, the candidates are qualified for the job. In other words, there, the question to the court would have been, the party has failed to provide a basis for such certification. (Recall that, in 2008, the then party treasurer hand-delivered the primary names to the election commission, which refused to accept the list because it lacked that certification. So, she whipped out her pen and, on the spot, certified the candidates’ qualification!) http://jbjd.org/2009/10/10/if-it-looks-like-a-duck/
    P.S. It’s still not too late to question the submission of his name as the D party nominee, to the general election ballot in that state!”

    Oh yes, I recall that:) I would love another shot at this – you recall I couldn’t get our AG’s attention the last time around, but would be very interested in having another go, perhaps even combining it with some of the information contained above that was on the 2008 complaint.
    I have been scouting all over the net trying to find what I need to do, and your PS just hit me smack in the face – it’s not too late? With the Dems not having an actual Primary this time, I’ve been trying to pin down the Election Commission Rep, the AG’s office (who claim they no longer have jurisdiction over election matters) and now have a letter in to the SOS. Any and all assistance and direction will be most appreciated. I have a group of about 7 others with me in this who are floundering about. I refuse to accept that there’s no mechanism for filing a complaint just because BO is unopposed and the meetings or caucuses in SC are all different dates and all different locations, and the “vote” will be done by how many bodies show up in the room. How did you find that it’s not too late, btw? The Dept of Elections rep, Chris Whitmire of SCVOTES.org, would have me believe it’s not even possible!
    If you are willing to assist, jbjd, I’d sure like to work with you once again!
    dawn

    • jbjd says:

      dawngaye: Hello! First, no, it’s not too late to mount a ballot challenge in SC. Remember, the candidates for President must be qualified for office to get their names on the ballot in September, too. Certification of Nomination, anyone?

      As for public officials who claim they have no jurisdiction over election matters, they are fudging the issue. That is, they are clinging to the precise language of election laws which vest jurisdiction in the office of the SoS and election commission over specific election matters; and they are intentionally absenting themselves from their role as the state’s chief law enforcement division. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they don’t know the law in this regard as well as we do. Or, perhaps, they want you to think they know better. Trust me; they don’t. We are not talking about fudging election laws here. We are talking criminal election fraud.

      But, as the saying goes, there is more than 1 way to skin a cat. And, as I wrote in my latest tome on GA; if voters cannot win a ballot challenge, by initiating such challenge, they can certainly effect better rules before the next ballot is printed.

      Can you contact the election commission (or SoS) and find out how to make a ballot challenge? And get the significant seven to do the same.* I will also look at SC ballot laws. But this process should be user-friendly; otherwise, what good is it?

      Yes, I would love working with you again.

      Now, I need your opinion and advice. Every time I post a concrete well thought out plan of action, the ‘crazies’ commandeer it as their own and, in so doing 1) stray from the script so that while the idea is identifiable as mine, the execution guarantees failure and often 2) jeopardize the success of the plan even as executed by others in accordance with my specs. And by crazies, I don’t mean, average citizens trying to petition their government for redress of legitimate grievances. I mean, the same cast of dubious characters, from incompetent lawyers to Christian zealots to racial purists, trying, it would seem, to make a name for themselves so as to fund their ‘birther’ enterprise or, seek political office, or just get President Obama out of the WH; but not to improve our election laws. (Recall the initial ballot challenge these people launched in NH, addressed to the SoS and not the AG, in a state with NO CANDIDATE BALLOT ELIGIBILITY LAW! Of course, that was doomed to fail! Worse, it could have provided the excuse for an AG in an applicable state to reject the citizen complaint of election fraud on the basis, no fraud was found by the NH SoS!) And the more incompetent challenges they file, in federal and state courts and ballot commissions; which are all destined to fail; the less credible the rest of us sound, even though we know what we are talking about and have a valid complaint. Nasty people, these. So, how do I post information that will help everyone else and yet, avoid having this effort undermined by these selfish self-promoters? ADMINISTRATOR

      *Encouraging individual voters to petition their state government officials, in all 3 branches, is not the same thing as soliciting people throughout the country in a misguided attempt to bully government officials in a specific state into submitting to their demands. While citizen activism is a necessary component of good government; again, these mob-like tactics do not reflect a sincere desire to make government work better for everyone but to compel it to comply with the personal demands of those who would marshal this force.

  9. dawngaye says:

    Hey jbjd, I am SO glad you will assist me/us! THANK YOU.
    I have much more as well as thoughts on the 2nd part of your post above but it’s late tonight & I will start with this one piece of correspondence between me & the SEC. I do have a memo in via the SOS website asking the same questions. Will call them if I don’t have an answer by tomorrow.

    Ms. _____,

    The S.C. Democratic Party is not holding a publicly-conducted presidential primary. As such, the SEC is not involved with the Democratic Party’s nominating process for President of the United States. For details regarding the Democratic Party’s nominating process, visit scdp.org or call (803) 799-7798.

    Thank you.
    ________________________________________
    From:
    Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:15 PM
    To: Whitmire, Chris
    Subject: ATTENTION C. WHITMIRE

    Dear Mr. Whitmire,
    Please advise the deadline for challenging the listing of a primary candidate, uncontested or not, in South Carolina. As I’m sure you are aware, our state is one of the very few that requires Constitutional Eligibility for a potential candidate, even in its Primary election. I would like to file a complaint against the appearance of Barack Obama’s name on the Democratic Primary Ballot. It is almost certain, at this point, that he is running unopposed. However there must be a date requirement for the Democratic Party to put forth his name as a candidate for consideration, and a deadline for challenges to that certification.

    As far as I can tell, this information is not listed on the SC Votes website. Please advise what the deadline would be for complaints and /or lawsuits regarding Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to appear on the South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary Ballot, and would they be directed to your office. If not, to who, and where?

    I would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Thank you greatly for your time and assistance.

    Very Truly Yours,
    Dawn _______

    • jbjd says:

      dawngaye: Good for you. You know that, every D state official has been given the party line, literally. And we voters need to respond in kind. ‘Yes, of course I know that state government has no role in the internal operation of political parties. How silly that anyone would think otherwise. That’s why I am not complaining to you that I believe the D party candidate for President might not be Constitutionally eligible for the job; they can nominate anyone they want. However, I am concerned with maintaining the integrity of our state ballots on which, according to our state law, only the names of eligible candidates may appear. Surely, as a public election official, you are not implying, a private political party can control our state ballot?’ ADMINISTRATOR

  10. Dawn Gaye says:

    Bingo! Now, if you don’t mind, I will send him that response. Thank you!

    BTW, I don’t know what party affiliation Chris Whitmire has; he is the contact guy for the SC Election Commission. However, I’m going to respond using your suggestion as it is applicable in any event.

    • jbjd says:

      Dawn Gaye: Be my guest. And I stopped paying attention to the party of the person in office. Regardless of which party affiliation the office holder holds; s/he is accountable, under statute, to me. ADMINISTRATOR

      • Dawn Gaye says:

        Right – I pointed that out because you wrote
        every D state official has been given the party line, literally.

        But thinking about it further, I see that would have no effect on our answer.

        Trying to cover every “jot and tittle” I can!

        • jbjd says:

          Dawn Gaye: Some people do pay attention to the party of the public official they feel is inadequately addressing their petition. I just don’t. If a positive correlation exists between party of the official and level of response to a specific problem, this does not mean, I should expect more or less service depending on our respective political views. Rather, this means, I need to hold the public official accountable for showing favoratism equally as for slacking off on the job. (Note, I said, level of response, not kind of response.) ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Dawn Gaye says:

    Here is my original inquiry and response from the AG’s office:
    Dear Ms. _____,

    Your email to the Office of the Attorney General has been referred to me for response.

    Unfortunately, this matter does not fall under the jurisdiction of this office. The S.C. Election Commission, a separate agency, assists with inquiries and complaints concerning voting practices. To contact that agency directly, you may do so at the following:

    South Carolina State Election Commission
    2221 Devine Street Suite 105
    Post Office Box 5987
    Columbia, South Carolina 29250

    I hope this information is helpful.

    Sincerely,

    Constituent Services

    Dear Attorney General Wilson,
    Please advise the deadline for challenging the listing of a primary candidate, uncontested or not, in South Carolina. As I’m sure you are aware, our state is one of the very few that requires Constitutional Eligibility for a potential candidate, even in its Primary election. I would like to file a complaint against the appearance of Barack Obama’s name on the Democratic Primary Ballot. It is almost certain, at this point, that he is running unopposed. However there must be a date requirement for the Democratic Party to put forth his name as a candidate for consideration, and a deadline for challenges to that certification.
    I am trying to get this information from the staff at SC votes, and so far have received three different answers. Please advise what the deadline would be for complaints and /or lawsuits regarding Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to appear on the South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary Ballot, and would they be directed to your office. If not, to who, and where?
    I would also like to know the Statute of Limitations for action regarding a previous presidential election and possible certification/election fraud.
    I would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Thank you greatly for your time and assistance.

    Very Truly Yours,

    • jbjd says:

      Dawn Gaye: Okay, I think I see what could have caused some confusion. Your letter appears to conflate questions narrowly related to the composition of the ballot, which is under the purview of the SCEC; and criminal election fraud, under the purview of the AG. (In some cases, election boards are authorized under law to certify the complaint of election improprieties first and then, pass it on to the AG. Either way, what you are alleging is criminal and, one way or the other, should end up at the office of the state AG.)

      Several citizen complaints of election fraud were filed in SC, with AG Wilson’s predecessor. But as these complaints were filed with the office of AG, it doesn’t detract from the validity of the complaint that the named AG changed. But I am going to draft a new complaint with his name, and a cover letter (or opening statement) clearly identifying, you are not complaining that the name of Barack Obama is ineligible to appear on the SC ballot. Rather, you are complaining that…

      Geesh! I only answered your earlier comments in a timely manner because I was doing front office duty; then, was back in the classroom. Now, I have more comments to address. Could you please send over Chinese take-out? ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Dawn Gaye says:

    and one more from Whitmire, which is even more specific:

    There’s no provision in state law for challenging a candidate’s name to be placed on the ballot. There are laws that provide requirements and restrictions for placing candidate names on ballots. The SEC, county election commissions, and political parties must follow these laws.
    If you would like to discuss the specifics of your situation or concern, please feel free to contact me directly.
    Thank you.
    Chris Whitmire
    Director of Public Information & Training
    South Carolina State Election Commission
    Post Office Box 5987
    Columbia, S.C. 29250
    Tel: 803.734.9070
    Fax: 803.734.9366
    scVOTES.org ( http://www.scvotes.org/ )

    um, rhetorically… MUST follow these laws? … what if they don’t?

    • jbjd says:

      Dawn Gaye: See, this is why the rules followed by the SCEC are inadequate to address the complaints of election fraud. No one is contesting whether the rules were followed, but just that the law was broken. That’s why – and I hate to tell you this – we need to get new rules on the books before the Certifications of Obama’s Nomination are submitted to state election officials for the 2012 general election ballot. (I should have yelled louder when I said, those states with candidate eligibility laws need to petition their SoS to promulgate new rules to ensure candidate eligibility! But remember, you can define NBC any way you want, for the limited purpose of printing the name of the candidate on the ballot!) ADMINISTRATOR

  13. Dawn Gaye says:

    jbjd, as you know I’m “working” with a small group of people all interested in filing a ballot challenge, and since SC is doing “caucuses” this time around, not a primary, some of them decided it would not be possible to simply file a ballot challenge. The discussion began to suggest attorneys and lawsuits and proving all kinds of things to keep BO off the ballot. I took a step back and decided the direction the conversation was going was into deep and shark-filled water. Here is what I sent out to them, posting here so your readers have the background:

    Dear L______ and all,

    I am perplexed. I do not understand why in SC we can’t do this the way its been done in other states – file a complaint with the SOS. So they aren’t having a Dem. primary – neither are most other states. Is Georgia? They are having a caucus and of course BO is the only one up for grabs. One of you wanted me to get the deadline for submitting a complaint to block a name from appearing on a Primary Ballot, but that is not possible if there is no primary!

    No one needs to file a lawsuit involving big amounts of time and money – yet. We need to COMPLAIN to the SOS and it’s up to him to use our evidence that there MAY have been a crime committed, and investigate if there is enough to press charges. If I am completely wrong, tell me. It’s not even up to us to PROVE that he isn’t eligible. We just need to present enough evidence that there are problems that need further investigation.

    That can be done in the form of a complaint. In the past I sent complaints to our State AG. I sent most of you copies of it. They were not handled since: 1) the 2008 election was past. 2) McMaster’s staff effectively kept him from seeing what we sent, saying that “Yes, Prez. BO WAS born in the US” which of course was not the problem, but try explaining that to a 20 yr. old kid making $7.50 an hour who thinks he has all this authority.

    In any event, now we are trying again, this time to the SOS and this time PRIOR to the election, PRIOR to the ballots being printed. Whole different ball game. I contacted the SOS via the website. I refuse to believe, as I’ve been told, that there is no mechanism to lodge a ballot complaint against someone who intends to run for POTUS. So far I was told that by both the Dept. of Elections (SC Votes) and the current AG’s office. I DID NOTICE that the duties of investigating ELECTION FRAUD have been removed from the AG’s job description. It was THERE IN 2010.

    It IS frustratingly difficult to get a straight answer from anyone. Everyone is so busy covering their butt.
    HOWEVER, in SC, as well as a handful of other states, maybe 5 or 6, as well as possibly some I am not aware of, this should not be so complicated. Why? Because we require a candidate to be vetted PRIOR to being placed on the election ballot. The wording requiring constitutional eligibility is on our PRIMARY forms as well. No democratic primary ballot? Then I would think we’d go ahead and block him from appearing on the election ballot, like what is hopefully happening in Georgia!

    Do we put the Democrats on notice of a complaint? That’s what the Election Commission advised me to do. But I’m not sure they get it. Opinions?

    On the other hand, at the hearing, all the plaintiffs had attorneys, etc. So that is necessary after the SOS investigates? Or was that because there was no persuading the SOS to investigate? Help. I am willing to do what I have to, but need guidance legally to help me see what that is.
    I will be the first to admit that although I possess a decent amount of intelligence, I am an artist, a right brained creature, and technical legal nuances sometimes are beyond me.

    I am going to send you all some communications I received and my prior complaint re:2008.
    God’s wisdom and Peace,
    Dawn

    Next I’ll post what one misguided fellow wrote back.

  14. Dawn Gaye says:

    Next, one guy, who wants me to run to an attorney or a judge with this huge “South Carolina Pre-trial Order against Obama” that he wrote himself (not an attorney). It’s scary – just reading his email to me (which he cc’d everyone else in the group with his incorrect blather and negativity) there are more than 4 probably 6 or more glaring errors. I am going to post it here so y’all can see what I’m dealing with :) and what prompted my call for jbjd’s assistance.
    Here goes:
    Dawn,

    We can’t file a complaint with the SOS because the office round-files it.
    Even if they didn’t discard it, there is no provision to challenge a ballot through the SOS or scvotes.org .
    1) Chris Whitmire says there is none.
    2) I checked out the scvotes.org website, and there is none.
    3) I searched through the S.C. Code for such a provision, and there is none.

    Dawn, please be patient with me; I am trying very hard not to be sarcastic or cynical about the “election process,” particularly in S.C.. I am making an extreme effort to maintain the pretense that everything is done according to written, legislated, and signed rules, the way it is portrayed to the public and to small children visiting the State House. It’s hard not to get snarky, communicate from a bad attitude, and turn off anyone who might have a shred or a shard of attention left to pay. I don’t want to be negative, but as an electron, it comes naturally. It’s like trying to be positive about rotten tomatoes. Please forbear…

    We can’t do this the way it has been done in other states, by filing a complaint with the SOS. Why? Because S.C. doesn’t allow ballot complaints or objections. We the people of S.C. are not allowed to object to the candidates TPTB present for us to elect. And “NONE OF THE ABOVE” is not a selection, lest he be elected to fill every office on the ballot. We are serfs. We are only allowed to make more bricks. We are not allowed to object or complain, lest we be required to make even more bricks, but without straw to bind them together.

    Of course we have attempted to file ballot complaints with the S.C. SOS, both now and before the 2008 election. Our complaints are neither recognized nor acknowledged, any more than if we were dogs barking at the moon. We have no more clout than petitioners to the State of Hawaii Dept. of Health, Div. of Vital Records, who are not only rejected in their requests – they are charged as “vexatious requestors,” black-listed, and sanctioned or fined.

    Dawn, if you haven’t already complained to the S.C. SOS in the past and been ignored, then have at it. Knock yourself out. Spend another month corresponding with Mrs. “Just Say No” at the SOS office. Let the opportunity to challenge the Presidential Election ballot come and go and pass us by like the S.C. Democratic Primaries on Jan. 28th. Just don’t ask me to keep butting my head against a stone wall and to expect any different results. They are the Elect. We are the serfs. Serfs don’t speak, they just pay taxes. The system is set up to erect a wall between the Elect and the serfs, so that they don’t have to be bothered with anyone except their superiors.

    S.C. and most other states are having Democratic Primaries, but they are State Caucus Democratic Primaries, not state government-run Democratic Primaries, which are open to government interference and public objections. In order to avoid having anyone tell them that they can’t have Barack Obama’s name on the ballot, they forego the government money to stage a primary, and they just have Democratic caucuses. Of course you can’t object or complain to block a name on a Caucus Primary as they do for Government-sponsored Primaries … you think that might be why they’re having Democratic caucuses instead? Caucus Primaries are just opinion polls or straw votes among friends – nothing more serious than picking the winner of a round on “Dancing with the Stars”… nothing for the authorities to concern themselves with. Moving right along… nothing to see here…

    You wrote,
    HOWEVER, in SC, as well as a handful of other states, maybe 5 or 6, as well as possibly some I am not aware of, this should not be so complicated. Why? Because we require a candidate to be vetted PRIOR to being placed on the election ballot. The wording requiring constitutional eligibility is on our PRIMARY forms as well.
    Unfortunately, regardless of what may be printed on the forms, there are no such laws requiring that candidates be vetted in S.C.. Vetting is not required in S.C. because the requirements have been deleted from the S.C. Code. Even though one can see from reading the code that a secondary text is dependent upon or points to a primary text about vetting, the primary text is no longer there. Provisions that require some accountability of the Elect to the People have been removed until the elite no longer have to answer to anyone but the person above them on the organization chart. It appears that, over time, the officials get their job responsibilities legislated away, just as you mentioned about the removal of the S.C. Attorney General’s responsibilities to investigate elections fraud.

    If you want to go through the motions that I’ve already been through, you’re welcome to try. Just get back in touch with me when you get through being ignored by government functionaries, and you are ready to take our plaint to the next level.

    With my apologies for being so cynical and negative,

    M

    • jbjd says:

      Dawn Gaye: Do not despair. Hope is on the way.

      I wrote beginning in 2008, ballot challenges were the way to go; but only in states with laws that allow ballot challenges. Like GA.

      Back then, assuming President Obama is not a NBC; filing a ballot challenge in those states that require candidate eligibility to be printed on the ballot and allow ballot challenges; was the only way to keep him out of the WH. (Obviously, if he cannot survive a ballot challenge in one state; this will inform voters in other states, there’s a problem with his eligibility. Since that time, I have come to believe the D’s committed election fraud, based on those factors contained in the citizen complaints. I want the state AG to investigate (in those ballot eligibility states).

      And yes, the AG might fob you off even when you show up with the update complaint I am drafting. Unless you show up with the significant 7 (or however many people are in your contact group). And the press. AND KNOW YOUR FACTS INSIDE OUT; AND DON’T LET ANYONE CHARGE BARACK OBAMA IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB! AND DON’T RESPOND WHEN ANYONE FROM THE AG MENTIONS COLB OR BC OR

      YOU ARE NOT ASKING THE AG WHY HE THINKS OBAMA IS CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB SO AS TO QUALIFY TO GET ON SC BALLOTS.YOU ARE ASKING THE D’S WHO SWORE BACK IN AUGUST 2008 HE WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB TO TELL YOU, HOW THEY KNEW. BECAUSE WHEN ASKED, THEY REFUSED TO SAY. YOU ARE ASKING THEN STATE D PARTY TREASURER KATHY HENSLEY HOW SHE KNEW HE WAS ELIGIBLE IN NOVEMBER 2007, BEFORE THE SC PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARY, WHEN SHE STOOD IN THE OFFICE OF THE SC ELECTION COMMISSION TO SUBMIT THE LIST OF ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES AND, ON BEING TOLD THEY REFUSED TO ACCEPT HER SUBMISSION WITHOUT THE STATE MANDATED LANGUAGE OF ELIGIBILITY; WHIPPED OUT HER PEN AND ON THE SPOT SWORE BARACK OBAMA WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB.

      Let’s be perfectly clear here. If the voters of the good state of SC assume that because of the eligibility laws passed in that state, they can be assured, the candidate whose name appears on the ballot is qualified for the job; but, in fact, the parties can run any candidate they want; and no state official will check; that, too, is the truth. And the people are entitled to this truth.

      Of course, that means, we need to make those rules which will ensure candidate eligibility, too. Because the SoS, being responsible for the ballot, needs to have rules in place to ensure what is on the ballot is consistent with both the letter and the spirit of SC laws.

      Finally, make sure you understand this distinction: YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT TELLING PRIVATE POLITICAL PARTIES WHICH CANDIDATES TO RUN FOR OFFICE; YOU ARE MERELY ENSURING THAT IF THEY WANT TO USE THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE TO GET THAT CANDIDATE’S NAME ON THE BALLOT; THEY HAD BETTER BE ABLE TO SATISFY THE STATE’S THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT OF ELIGIBILITY FOR THE JOB. ADMINISTRATOR

  15. Dawn Gaye says:

    Yes. I do understand what you are saying and I see how I screwed up in my email to the SC SOS.
    I probably should NOT write anything in the morning, I’m not a morning person. I am shaky as heck now because I just read some more communications from my “group” and I realize how tough it’s going to be to get their support. I wish I could deliver your Chinese to you in person, jbjd. Sheesh, I’d go in your kitchen & cook it from scratch while you revised the SC AG complaint.

    • jbjd says:

      Dawn Gaye: I just found the portion of a 2008 posting in which I cautioned, in order to launch a ballot challenge with the SoS (or elections officials); you need to find 1) a law that requires the candidate on the ballot to be qualified for the job; and 2) a law that requires a ballot challenge. I will include this in the new post.

      The citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG is another matter. This is not a ballot challenge, per se. Rather, it’s a charge of criminal activity with relation to the ballot. For this, one only needs a law requiring candidate eligibility.

      People seem to have difficulty accepting that these are important distinctions. ADMINISTRATOR

  16. Dawn Gaye says:

    I meant to say SC AG, not SOS. I won’t post anything until later when the cobwebs have cleared. sorry.

  17. Dawn Gaye says:

    Yes. and that is where I missed the boat although I should have known better because of the work we did previously. This is quite a different situation and the fact that apparently SC doesn’t “Accept” ballot challenges should not matter here… what I want to do is submit a complaint to SC AG that a criminal activity took place that he needs to investigate.
    Whew! Do I get it now, finally?
    F all the others I was working with – they want to jump in and bring their own charges against BO in a lawsuit. Why do that when we can use the process already in place to our benefit?

    • jbjd says:

      Dawn Gaye: Better late than ever. Of course, this points to a problem with SC election laws which only her citizens can cure; and they are up against well-established political parties who benefit from national coordination. (Again, as was the case with suppressing votes from Clinton pledged delegates elected in vote binding states; I smell RICO…) ADMINISTRATION

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: