In the 4 years since the last general election; too bad more self-described patriots did not encourage voters in FL to shore up their election laws, rather than to just give them money, and more money, for the righteous battles purportedly fought on others’ behalf. Even now, your comments indicate you fail to grasp; election laws which were unable to guarantee the federal qualifications of candidates for office in 2008; are the same laws which will prevent unqualified candidates from appearing on the ballot in 2012. And all the diatribes against me will not change this fact: I am not the reason, citizens have failed to fix their laws.

Under TX law; no candidate who is not federally qualified is entitled to appear on the general election ballot. But until we could obtain the documents used by the D state party; we could not prove what I had only theorized since 2008: no one who certified Barack Obama to the state ballot could have ascertained he was federally qualified for the job. Until that time; we could only hope to establish, under TX law; not producing documents was tantamount to saying, there are none.

But either way; that is, even if no legal mechanism existed to verify a party candidate had been federally qualified; once this fact was established, back in 2010, when people first requested and the party refused to produce their documents; why would citizens put up with that, when federal qualification was a prerequisite to getting on the ballot? In other words; why didn’t they insist that the SoS had to verify those party candidates had been federally qualified to appear on the ballot or that she couldn’t certify their names to the ballot without evidence of such validation? I don’t know. ADMINISTRATOR

Try reading the complaints and motions, instead of just a ruling riddled with errors and omissions of fact and law.

I have not seen the results of your previous complaint. Since Obama is still on the Texas ballot, I’ll hazard a guess that it was denied or ignored.

No Petitioner will prevail in a ballot eligibility case, in whatever state forum; when that state has no law requiring that any candidate whose name appears on the ballot must be eligible for the job.

(Just to clarify your point that Mickey Mouse could appear on the NJ ballot, under the laws of that state. Yes, he could. Given that the citizens of that state have failed to enact laws that would bar such farce. However; notwithstanding there are no ballot eligibility laws to prevent this; the SoS, as the head of elections, may lawfully exercise the discretion of her office to keep off the ballot the name of someone she already knows is Constitutionally unqualified for the job.)

And, a correction. You write, “…stop badmouthing fellow patriots.” Of course, I don’t ‘badmouth fellow patriots’ in the first place. ADMINISTRATOR

(link to ART2 deleted by jbjd)

Do you honestly believe that all the attorneys and plaintiffs were totally wrong? I have been through the NH, NJ, GA, AL, FL cases, which were legitimate, but denied on bogus grounds. Did you know that even Mickey Mouse could run for President on the NJ ballot? Those were Obama’s lawyer’s words in court, embraced by the judge (she was removed from the case that week for her brutal frankness). Total nonsense, of course, but this is what passes for jurisprudence in 2012 America.

By the way, what ever happened to your TX administrative complaint? For various reasons, the power structure does not want Obama stopped. It will affect your new case(s), too. The solution is to mobilize public opinion– even take it to the streets if necessary. that will not happen until the pain level is high enough. Unfortunately, that may not happen before the election.

In the meantime, stop deluding yourself and stop badmouthing fellow patriots.

“101.252 Candidates entitled to have names printed on certain ballots; exception.—(1) Any candidate for nomination who has qualified as prescribed by law is entitled to have his or her name printed on the official primary election ballot. However, when there is only one candidate of any political party qualified for an office, the name of the candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot, and such candidate shall be declared nominated for the office”.

Notice it says “Any candidate for nomination”, and “who has qualified as prescribed by law”. Obama is a candidate for nomination AND he is the only candidate qualified to be on the ballot in Fla., thus he was “nominated”. You are outing yourself as an Obama internet operative– I see you’re getting “help” from another OBOT (kjcanon)– you better get reinforcements, because neither of you are smart enuf.— I knew all along that you work for the other side.

I have perfect standing, and Fla Siupreme Court says “eligibility is a judicial determination, upon any contest properly brought.” I presented evidence that Obama is not eligible, and the other side presented NOTHING but an argument that he wasn’t “nominated” (he was). Go ahead show us all more about how brilliant you are in suggesting that SOSs be sued for not determining that which you say doesn’t exist.