YOU DON’T HAVE TO GO TO COURT TO COMPLAIN NANCY PELOSI COMMITTED FRAUD

Take advantage of laws already on the book in your state to expose Nancy Pelosi’s fraud in Certifying BO is a NBC.

For example, all of you who live in a state with a law that says, the major political party must vet its candidate for POTUS for Constitutional eligibility; or the nominee of the party “shall” be eligible for the office sought, can file fraud complaints with your AG. Nancy Pelosi signed a Certification BO was eligible for the job. (See the FACTS in my military Complaint.) But no one made her prove this. And, BO’s Answer to Berg’s Hollister Complaint confirms what I proposed in my military Complaint, that is, his strongest ‘evidence’ he is eligible for POTUS is his old employer, Annenberg Political Fact Check, implies he is. And that organization is de-bunked in my military Complaint. So, on what documentation did NP rely before Certifying he was Constitutionally eligible for the job?

Do not let your state officials off the hook. We know the Democratic Party cannot have determined BO is a NBC, since he isn’t. And, by the way, the assistance given to political parties to get their candidates onto our state ballots comes with a price. In most states, if the party fails to ‘run’ a candidate in the general election – and this means, since BO is not a NBC, he was not really a candidate – the party is not entitled to get the name of their candidate on the next general election ballot. Check out your state elections laws and, policies from your state elections officials.

Visit your state offices. File formal Complaints. Bring along some friends. Have them file Complaints, too.

(Meanwhile, I am still working on drafting a civil fraud Complaint against NP.)

Advertisements

26 Responses to YOU DON’T HAVE TO GO TO COURT TO COMPLAIN NANCY PELOSI COMMITTED FRAUD

  1. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    jbjd,

    I’m interested in seeing the civil fraud complaint you are working on. I’m no lawyer, so my interest is purely intellectual curiousity.

  2. Mick says:

    Jbjd,
    In Fla. Statute 101.151 states:

    “The ballot shall have headings under which shall appear the names of the offices and names of duly nominated candidates for the respective offices in the following order: the heading “Electors for President and Vice President” and thereunder the names of the candidates for President and Vice President of the United States nominated by the political party which received the highest vote for Governor in the last general election of the Governor in this state, above which shall appear the name of said party.”

    So the candidate must be “duly” nominated. But Statute 102.166 states:

    “(1) Any candidate for nomination or election, or any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, shall have the right to protest the returns of the election as being erroneous by filing with the appropriate canvassing board a sworn, written protest.”

    Now as far as certifying the candidate Statute 99.021 states:

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

    State of Florida
    County of _____

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

    (Signature of candidate)

    (Address)

    Sworn to and subscribed before me this _____ day of _____, (year) , at _____ County, Florida.

    (Signature and title of officer administering oath)”

    Final certification is with the Dept. of State, in statute 99.061:

    “6) The Department of State shall certify to the supervisor of elections, within 7 days after the closing date for qualifying, the names of all duly qualified candidates for nomination or election who have qualified with the Department of State.”

    There is a provision that allows any taxpayer to “contest” an election.

    102.168 Contest of election.–

    “(1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively”

    3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:

    (a) Misconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of any election official or any member of the canvassing board sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.

    (b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”

    However, the “contesting” must be done within 10 days of the election certification. So it appears that it is too late to take this route in Fla. Other states also must have time constraints on this type of remedy, corrct?

    Mick: I am so pleased to see your questions. Again, I am not asking citizens to question whether BO is Constitutionally eligible for POTUS – he isn’t – or whether the election should be overturned. See my response to your comment about HI. I am saying, NP broke the law by claiming BO was eligible when he is not. As for FL, could you please obtain a copy of the document BO signed; I would like to see whether he signed this for the primary or for the general election. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Mick says:

    It appears that Hawaii also has a time limit on the ability of voters to contest an election for fraud. Hawaii revised statutes 11-171:

    “CONTESTS FOR CAUSE
    Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), states that with respect to any election, any candidate,
    or qualified political party, or any thirty voters of any election district, may file a
    complaint in the supreme court. The complaint shall set forth any cause or causes,
    such as but not limited to, provable fraud, overages, or underages, that could cause a
    difference in the election results. The complaint shall also set forth any reasons for
    reversing, correcting, or changing the decisions of the precinct officials or the officials at
    a counting center in an election using the electronic voting system.
    DEADLINE TO FILE CONTEST FOR CAUSE / COMPLAINT
    The complaint must be filed in the office of the clerk of the supreme court and must be
    accompanied by a deposit for costs of court as established by rules of the supreme
    court. Complaints must be filed by 4:30 p.m. as follows:
    Election ………………………………………….. Time…………………………….Deadline
    Primary Election ………………………………. 6 days after election………. Fri, Sept. 26, 2008
    Special Elections held w/ Primary ………. 6 days after election………. Fri, Sept. 26, 2008
    General Election………………………………. 20 days after election……..Mon, Nov. 24, 2008
    Special Elections held w/ General………. 20 days after election……..Mon, Nov. 24, 2008
    OHA Special Election……………………….. 20 days after election……..Mon, Nov. 24, 2008”

    It seems to me that this avenue is not viable at the state level (although I am no expert) and a challenge by the military could be the only game in town barring some miraculous finding by Berg and company.

    Mick: How heartwarming to find another citizen activist who does the research! And I have good news for you. This HI law only limits the options for a voter to challenge an election. I am not proposing that anyone seeks to overturn an election; rather, I am proposing that, NP, representing the DNC, perpetrated a fraud in those states where state law requires the Party to vet the nominee for POTUS as to Constitutional eligibility. See, other candidates who want to get onto the ballot for POTUS but who are not representing the major political parties, are vetted by the elections officials. Ceding this authority to private political parties does not mean, these parties can break the law. In sum, I am not proposing anyone seeks to overturn the election; rather, I am proposing, voters in the states go after NP for fraud. And the statute of limitations on civil fraud has a couple of years left to go. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Mick says:

    As far as Nancy Pelosi goes, do you think that USC 18-371 applies?

    I sent this email to Fla. Secretary of State Browning:

    Sent: Tue 2/10/09 2:00 PM
    To: sectretaryofstate@dos.state.fl.us

    Dear Mr. Browning,
    Pursuant to Fla. Statute 119.01 and Article 1 Section 24 of the Florida Constitution,
    I would like an original signed copy of the statute 99.021 forms signed by Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama prior to the Fla. Primaries. This is the form that Mr. Obama affirmed that he is qualified to hold the office of President of the U.S. You may send it to the email or home address below.

    99.021 Form of candidate oath.–
    (1)(a)1. Each candidate, whether a party candidate, a candidate with no party affiliation, or a write-in candidate, in order to qualify for nomination or election to any office other than a judicial office as defined in chapter 105 or a federal office, shall take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation in writing. A printed copy of the oath or affirmation shall be furnished to the candidate by the officer before whom such candidate seeks to qualify and shall be substantially in the following form:

    State of Florida
    County of_____

    Before me, an officer authorized to administer oaths, personally appeared (please print name as you wish it to appear on the ballot) , to me well known, who, being sworn, says that he or she is a candidate for the office of _____; that he or she is a qualified elector of _____ County, Florida; that he or she is qualified under the Constitution and the laws of Florida to hold the office to which he or she desires to be nominated or elected; that he or she has taken the oath required by ss. 876.05-876.10, Florida Statutes; that he or she has qualified for no other public office in the state, the term of which office or any part thereof runs concurrent with that of the office he or she seeks; and that he or she has resigned from any office from which he or she is required to resign pursuant to s. 99.012, Florida Statutes.
    I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.
    If there are any fees associated with this request, please let me know so that i may forward them to you.

    I noticed that the signing of the document affirms that the candidate is qualified Constitutionally to hold the office to which he is taking the oath!

    Mick

    Mick: I was thrilled to see your message. I have good news and bad news. First, the bad news. I read the FL law you cited, 99.021 Form of candidate oath. It says, “Each candidate, whether a party candidate, a candidate with no party affiliation, or a write-in candidate, in order to qualify for nomination or election to any office other than a judicial officeor a federal office, shall take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation in writing. (Emphasis added.) POTUS is a federal office. As such, under this FL law, BO was not required to sign this oath in order to get onto either the primary or general election ballot. The good news? You have put your elected officials on notice, you are watching. And you are familiar with your public records law. Now, using the public records law, get a copy of the Certification NP submitted to your state elections officials to get BO onto the ballot. (Do you know the document I am talking about? If not, let me know.) And look up the FL statutes relating to fraud. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Mick says:

    jbjd,
    The form that I originally referrenced is Statute 99.021(1)(a), the correct form is 99.021(1)(b), so I resent the emmail w/ the correct statute. It seems that BO may have committed fraud by signing this oath?

    Mick

    Mick: I agree with you that, BO, according to state statutes in several states I have already reviewed, satisfies the requisite elements to be hit with a Complaint of Fraud. However, for tactical reasons, I have decided that, focusing on NP will prove to be more fruitful. Because the Party was required by law, to produce a candidate Constitutionally eligible for the job. And she – in her role as the Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention – signed that Certification of eligibility. And yet, asked by citizens in several states to produce the documentation on which she based that Certification, she refused. Well, technically, she failed to respond. Looks to me like, fraud. Let me know what happens in FL. (May I pass on your email to another Floridian, who has done extensive work on these issues in that state?) ADMINISTRATOR

  6. ladyhawkke says:

    Mick, I have read all your research which is excellent. I will contact you by e-mail as I live in Florida also.

  7. Mick says:

    jbjd, Here is what I found out about the Florida process for installing Party candidates on the Florida ballot:

    The relevant Fla. Statute is 103.101—–

    Chapter 2
    President and Vice President
    A presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States; must be at least 35 years of age; and must be a resident of the United States for fourteen years.
    (U.S. Const. art. II, §1)
    2008 Presidential Preference Primary
    Each political party, other than a minor political party, shall submit a list to the Secretary of State of its presidential candidates to be placed on the Presidential Preference Primary Ballot, or candidates entitled to have delegates appear on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot, by October 31, 2007.
    The Secretary of State will submit the above list to the Presidential Candidate Selection Committee. The Presidential Candidate Selection Committee is composed of the Secretary of State (who shall be a nonvoting
    chair), the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate, the minority leader of each house of the Legislature, and the chair of each political party required to have a Presidential Preference Primary.
    The Presidential Candidate Selection Committee will meet in Tallahassee on November 6, 2007. Each person designated by the party as a presidential candidate shall have his or her name appear, or have his or her delegates’ names appear, on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot unless all committee members of the same political party as the candidate agree to delete such candidate’s name from the ballot. The committee will publicly announce and submit to the Department of State the names of the presidential candidates who shall have their names appear, or who are entitled to have their delegates’ names appear, on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 7, 2007. The Department of State will immediately notify each presidential candidate designated by the committee, in writing, by registered mail, with return receipt requested.
    A candidate’s name shall be printed on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot unless the candidate submits an affidavit to the Department of State on or before November 12, 2007 stating that he or she is not now, and does not presently intend to become, a candidate for President at the upcoming nominating convention. The Department of State will notify the appropriate state executive committee of any candidate whose name will not be placed on the ballot.
    No later than November 20, 2007, the Department of State will certify to each Supervisor of Elections the name of each candidate for political party nomination to be printed on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot.
    (Section 103.101, Florida Statutes)

    The Presidential Candidate selection Committee met on Tues. Nov. 6, 2007 @ 10:30AM and consisted of:
    Sec. of State– Ken Browning (R) (non voting)
    Speaker of House– Marco Rubio (R)
    Pres. of Senate– Ken Pruitt (R)
    Minority Leader of Senate– Steven Geller (D)
    Minority Leader of House– Dan Gelber (D)
    DNC Chair of Fla.— Karen Thurman (D)
    RNC Chair of Fla.—-Jim Greer (R)

    Democratic Candidates could only be deleted by PCSC members of their own party (Geller, Gelber, Thurman), who obviously chose not to delete Obama.

    The Slate is then given to the Department of State, who notifies the candidates and administers the Oath of Fla. Statute 99.021 (1)(b), in which the candidates affirm that they are constitutionally eleigible to hold the office.

    Division of Elections delivers the Slate of candidates to each county Supervisor of Elections.

    Could Geller, Gelber and Thurman be held liable?

    Mick: Whoa, wait a minute. This is the kind of law I was looking for. See, it specifically defines a Presidential candidate in FL as being a natural born citizen. (It says, the “presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States…”) It goes on to explain how the party’s candidate can get onto the primary ballot. “Each political party, other than a minor political party, shall submit a list to the Secretary of State of its presidential candidates to be placed on the Presidential Preference Primary Ballot.” But see, one cannot be a presidential candidate under FL law without first passing the threshold of being a NBC, according to FL law. Whoopee! So, Certifying someone is the candidate is tantamount to Certifying, he is Constitutionally eligible for the job! Get it? And, since BO is not eligible, this is fraud! Perhaps more importantly, since Constitutional eligibility is required in FL, by law, the burden of proof shifts to NP to show he is eligible! I really need to finish the Complaint. (School is off next week, thank goodness.) ADMINISTRATOR

  8. Mick says:

    JbJd,
    What does the Law say about the onus of political Parties to VET the Presidential
    Candidates of their partty?
    Mick

    Mick: Laws vary from state to state. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. Gordon says:

    I hope your civil fraud complaint against NP will be suitable for Arkansas. I would really like to have something I could do in my own neighborhood to bring that Babylonian destroyer down, along with the evil Babylonian usurper, of course.

    Gordon

    Gordon: This Complaint will be good in any state where a pledged delegate for BO would have voted differently knowing he is not a NBC; or a pledged delegate for HRC would have insisted on a bona fide floor vote at the Convention, for her; or a voter casting a vote for BO would have voted for someone else; or an elector from the Electoral College would have voted for John McCain. You get the picture. The suit will work in any state where anyone’s conduct would have changed based on the truth. I just think the case will be easier to ‘settle’ in those states that required the Party to vet the candidate. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. magna carta says:

    Dear Sir,
    Your point is well taken especially the idea that perhaps the DNC may have to pay a price in the future for putting a candidate on the ballot.I would like to know if you happen to know about Texas or have someone I can touch base with.I have about ten people who I think would participate.Let me know what I should research.
    Thanks

    magna carta: I am heartened that so many citizens are conscientiously pursuing strategies to achieve their desired results, rather than grasping at straws. You should scan my responses to other posters; every state is a gold mine of potential Plaintiffs (voters; pledged delegates; and government officials, etc.). For example, how would your TX S of S (or whoever is the chief elections officer in your state) feel knowing that, the private club called the Democratic Party tricked her or him into putting the name of an ineligible candidate onto the ballot? Especially given the thousands of complaints of caucus fraud in TX – contests to determine the nominee of the private club but paid for with tax revenues – I would anticipate that, government officials could be persuaded to become Plaintiffs against NP, even if only to recoup some of that money spent on this fraud! ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Mick says:

    Jbjd,
    I requested a copy of the oath (Statute 99.021(1)(b)) signed by Barack Obama from the DOS of Fla. Here is the response that I got from an “administrative assistant”, who sent me an attached file listing the 27 Electors of Fla., and the Democratic Candidates.

    In response to your public records request, I provide the following:

    Attached is a copy of the DNC’s list of candidates for placement on Florida’s Presidential Preference Primary ballot that occurred on January 29, 2008.
    We do not have a candidate oath for President Obama or any other document responsive to your request.

    The U.S. Constitution establishes the qualifying requirements for President. Under Florida law, the way a major party’s candidate is placed on the ballot is that the state executive committee of each political party submits its slate of presidential electors for its candidate before September 1st of each presidential election year; then, by law, the names of candidates are printed on the ballot. Those candidates are not required to provide any documents to the State that they meet the qualifications for office.

    The Florida Secretary of State performs only a ministerial function. So, the Secretary has no duty or responsibility to look beyond the filing documents to determine if a candidate is eligible. If a candidate, or in this case, the party files the necessary paperwork, which papers are complete on their face, the Secretary must qualify the candidate.

    Nolah Shotwell

    Office of the General Counsel

    Florida Department of State

    I sent her a reading of the Statute and the oath, and requested the documents again.

    Ms. Shotwell,
    Statute 99.021(1)(b) requires an oath by any federal candidate for office. Persuant of Satute 119.01 and Article 1 Section 24 of the Fla. Constituion I would like a copy of this document signed by Barack Hussein Obama. Here is the Statute so you know:

    Statute 99.021 section 2.

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

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

    (Signature of candidate)

    (Address)

    Sworn to and subscribed before me this _____ day of _____, (year) , at _____ County, Florida.

    (Signature and title of officer administering oath)

    If they did not not administer this oath then they are guilty of not even providing the basic ministerial function of the department, correct?

    I know that I am writing to you alot, but I am really dedicated to this cause.

    Mick

    Mick: I respond to these comments so that, people reading my blog will learn how their government works. No need to apologize. I had to learn this, too. (Only, I tend to learn very quickly and, am able to simplify what I learned to make the information usable. In real life, I am a teacher.) First of all, great work spelling out what is a ministerial function of an executive officer. If more lawyers understood this concept, we wouldn’t be seeing so many infirm mandamus cases on the issue! But the ministerial function you cite of administering the oath of eligibility does not apply to the major political party candidate for POTUS. However, while Ms. Shotwell was correct in saying, the S of S must accept the Party’s nominee as presented if on its face, all records are in order; what she did not provide to you was, these records she claims are in order. That’s what you want to see. Because the state Party had to certify BO was the name of the National Party nominee; and the state Party would have forwarded the Certification signed by NP. That’s what you really want. Here is a link to the Certification NP provided for SC. http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/foia-request-response-from-va-document-from-va-sos-signed-by-nancy-pelosi-stating-that-pelosi-certified-obamas-qualifications/dnc-certification_of_nomination-082908-2/ And here is the HI Certification. http://www.scribd.com/doc/9344926/Hawaii-Dems-and-Repubs-Say-Constitutionally-Eligible
    You want a copy of the Certification materials sent by the D State Party, that BO is the Nominee for POTUS of the DNC. (Technically, in order to sue NP in your state, you need to prove she perpetrated the fraud in your state.) ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Mick says:

    Jbjd,
    I will get the document from Pelosi. You may not have noticed but the oath that I list here is 99.021(1)(b).
    The original one a few posts ago that you said would not apply is 99.021(1)(a), which you correctly pointed out doesn’t apply to FEDERAL candidates. This one in Section 2 of 99.021(1)(b) says EACH CANDIDATE FOR FEDERAL OFFICE, WHETHER A PARTY CANDIDATE,…..
    So I think this oath certainly applies. I just got a second email back from the office of SOS saying that there was no such oath, but here it is. Go down to Section 2. It says EACH Candidate for FEDERAL OFFICE SHALL take the oath which affirms that they are qualified under laws of the US Constitution. I believe that it is part of the ministerial duty of the SOS to administer this oath.

    Mick

    http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0099/SEC021.HTM&Title=->2007->Ch0099->Section%20021#0099.021

  13. Mick says:

    Jbjd,
    Sorry to bother you but in reading the Fla. Statutes
    97.021 Section 4 Definition of “CANDIDATE”

    4)
    “Candidate” means any person to whom any one or more of the following applies:
    (a)
    Any person who seeks to qualify for nomination or election by means of the petitioning process.
    (b)
    Any person who seeks to qualify for election as a write-in candidate.
    (c)
    Any person who receives contributions or makes expenditures, or gives his or her consent for any other person to receive contributions or make expenditures,
    with a view to bringing about his or her nomination
    or election to, or retention in, public office.
    (d)
    Any person who appoints a treasurer and designates
    a primary depository.
    (e)
    Any person who files qualification papers and SUBSCRIBES TO A CANDIDATES OATH AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
    (emphasis added)

    Here it says that the “candidate” is required to take the oath of 99.021(1)(b) or of course if not a federal candidate or judge 99.021(1)(a).

    Carry on!!

    Mick

    Mick: I am glad you wrote back. Because I forgot to remind you to copy your state Senator and Representative on your communications with the S of S. Also, stop by their offices to ask them to explain this law regarding candidate oaths. Of course, you can always research the legislative history of the law, on line, or contact the legislative librarian. ADMINISTRATOR

  14. Mick says:

    jbjd,
    Fla. Statute 99.061 regarding ministerial duty of SOS and qualification of candidates:

    6)
    The Department of State shall certify to the supervisor of elections, within 7 days after the closing date for qualifying, the names of all duly qualified candidates
    for nomination or election who have qualified with the Department of State.
    (7)(a) In order for a candidate to be qualified, the following items must be received by the filing officer by the end of the qualifying period:

    2.
    The candidate’s oath required by s. 99.021, which must contain the name of the candidate as it is to appear on the ballot; the office sought, including the district or group number if applicable; and the signature of the candidate, duly acknowledged.

    4.
    If the office sought is partisan, the written statement
    of political party affiliation required by s. 99.021(1)(b).

    I know that you want to focus on NP, but these statutes provide an interesting avenue, especially since the candidate must affirm that he/she is constitutionally qualified to hold the office to which he/she is running. I find it curious that I am being told by the SOS office that the oath doesn’t exist. Meantime, I have requested the Certification of Nomination of Obama from the DNC to Fl. from the SOS.

    Mick

    Mick: I understand this is “interesting” to you; but what will you accomplish by obtaining clarification on what this means? If the goal is, initiating a court action through which you could obtain a ruling BO is not a NBC then, answers to these legislative drafting questions are insignificant. However, if your goal is to make sure these executive officers are not re-elected based on their failure to perform the job then, you might have something there. ADMINISTRATOR

  15. Mick says:

    jbjd,
    Response from SOS of Fla. (one of the attorneys there)

    Ms. Shotwell is correct that presidential candidates do not complete the candidate’s oath in s. 99.021 since they do not qualify at the state level through the Chapter 99 procedures. As a more specific chapter in the Florida Statutes concerning the presidential candidates, chapter 103 applies. Chapter 99 applies to other federal candidates. Please remember that when presidential candidates run for office, voters are actually voting for the presidential electors of that person, not the specific person. It’s not the person that gets elected from Florida, but the presidential electors supporting the person (see s. 103.011, Florida Statutes).

    Attached is the copy of the DNC certification regarding Senator Obama being its candidate for President, along with the state Democratic Party slate of electors. Under Chapter 103, Florida Statutes, these documents represent the totality of the qualifying papers required for a major political party candidate for President.

    Sincerely,

    Gary J. Holland

    Assistant General Counsel

    Florida Department of State

    R.A. Gray Building, 500 S. Bronough Street

    Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250

    Phone: 850-245-6536

    Fax: 850-245-6127

    Mick: Excellent work Can’t wait to see these. But, you are right; I cannot open these. Send them to the other FL voter I put you in touch with. ADMINISTRATOR

  16. njresident says:

    1. How about suing BO for ‘False swearing’? i.e. BO falsely swore under oath that he is a nbc on the certification paper he gave Arizona.
    2. Some W. Virginians (heard on Plains Radio) are initiating lawsuits to sue BO for ‘false swearing’ to their state.
    However, ALL judges are corrupt or too chicken. It just does not look like any lawsuits will get any results even if they obviously have merits.

    I am thinking of another way to get BO fast – by convincing the Republican congressmen to join our efforts. Before you say no…I believe we have a chance by appealing to their instinct for survival and their anger at BO/Dems: (they are facing a very dismal future because 1. lost of traditional republican supporters, 2. dems’ “job patronage system” and other vote buying measures in place will ensure rep.’s defeat in the next election etc.)
    So I am proposing massive campaign (personal visits, writing, faxing) to convince them to join us to remove BO (they still have the power to conduct hearing, right?), then we unite behind them to fight the vicious Dems, otherwise we let them sink.

    I received email from NRSC.org: “Rob Jesmer” titled ‘Rahm’s Empire’ to ask for donation to fight the Dems and BO.
    I replied:
    ‘Sorry ALL of us who voted against BO and the Dems, and ALL those who have since seen BO’s real face behind the mask, can’t help you in any way until you unite all Republican congressmen to remove the usurper BO by conducting hearing to prove he is not a natural born citizen and not eligible to be POTUS.

    We the people have tried very hard and are still trying to remove BO, and we welcome ALL of you to join us in our efforts.

    United we will win. With BO removed we have a chance to fight the Dems but if you insist in leaving the usurper up there, ALL of us (including you) will just sink with the ship and the Dems/Socialists/global bankers will rule the world!

    It is your choice!

    From
    Millions of us who are fighting for the Constitutional Republic”

    I encourage everybody to send any republicans soliciting donation messages similar to mines.

    Better yet, send to ALL Republican congressmen!
    Use a title (one that is NOT obvious of our intenttion) that will trick them into reading your messages.

    For list of all senators’ contact info –
    http://www.ourcountrydeservesbetter.com/issues/stopstimulus.html

    njresident: Wonderful that so many people “are fighting for the Constitutional Republic.” I understand that people think the lawsuits filed thus far have ‘obvious merit’; but from a legal perspective, each was procedurally infirm from the outset. Suing BO could work; but I think there are better Defendants, using the same legal cause of action. For example, Nancy Pelosi as Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention also swore BO is a NBC. But the point of this post is that, remedies to this problem exist outside of the courts. State officials are already getting paid to handle these issues. Just as I have counseled voters to hold their members of Congress accountable – we pay them $174,000 per year – I am reminding voters, hold your state officials accountable, too. ADMINISTRATOR

  17. njresident says:

    Jbjd,
    I understand – your advice is to go after the officials outside of court, be it Nancy Pelosi or BO for false swearing or fraud. I was just bringing up the fact that BO has sworn falsely and he could/should be held accountable for that, but who will hold him or any elected officials accountable, other than we the people? NO ONE so far! All judges and US attorneys and agencies that have the power are deaf and mute!
    So I am trying to think of a different approach and I think perhaps we can work on the Republican congressmen’s survival instincts and their anger and frustaration to win them over to our side. Forget about their betrayal but make use of their power (they still have much more power than we do) to achieve our goal of removing BO. Removing BO is top priority.
    Yes, we are fighting for the constitutional republic by any means! This is no laughing matter.

    njresident: I confused you; sorry. What I mean is, while the Courts offer one way to resolve this situation, I want to avoid giving the impression that, the only way to remedy this situation is through the Courts. Because it isn’t; and my first instinct is usually to avoid the Courts. First of all, this generally becomes an arduous way of resolving disputes, both in time and money. And we want to get BO out of our White House ASAP. Perhaps more importantly, we are already paying our members of Congress to do a job they are not doing. The next Congressional election is a year away; but we could compel these people to investigate BO’s eligibility for POTUS ‘tomorrow.’ Look at how quickly they passed BO’s ‘Generational Theft Act’! As for legal cases…my military Complaint, had it been filed when promised, could have already resolved the issue. ADMINISTRATOR

  18. George W says:

    jbjd
    I have exchanged viewpoints with you on Citizen Wells. At 76 years of age I have discovered that I can indeed learn new things,and I am here to say thank you for getting me to steer the “correct course”.Those of us who have steered large ships know what can happen when we get off course.Like many others I am committed to doing all that I can to help bring down the illegal President. I hope that we are able to effect his removal without bloodshed.

    George W: This whole situation is a case of first impression. So many of us who otherwise considered ourselves well-informed were caught unawares by those who knew the system better than us. And we are trying to fix things after the fact. Now, we know that the DNC is a private club that can rig its nomination process any way it wants without implicating Constitutional rights; no provision of any state or federal law requires any government official to vet the Party candidate as to Constitutional eligibility; and ordinary citizens lack standing to compel such a vetting through a court of law. Yes, I figured out how to circumvent these limitations to get us out of this mess; but it takes time to get other people seeking solutions to trust that, I know what I am talking about. ADMINISTRATOR

  19. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    jbjd,

    I started thinking about this post of yours and came back to it today to do my part. I noticed AZ hasn’t weighed in yet. I searched the AZ SOS website, and the following was all I could find in my search for Presidential elections, but look at it. It seems so simple and straightforward in AZ. Here’s what I found:

    PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE ELECTION
    CANDIDATE NOMINATION PAPER
    (A.R.S. § 16-242)

    You are hereby notified that I, _______________________________________________
    am seeking nomination as a candidate for the office of President of the United States from the
    ________________________________________ Party, at the Presidential Preference Election
    to be held on the 5th day of February 2008.
    I am a natural born citizen of the United States, am at least thirty-five years of age, and
    have been a resident within the United States for at least fourteen years.
    _____________________________________________________________________________________
    Candidate’s actual residence address or description of place of residence (city or town) (zip)
    ______________________________________________________________________________
    Candidate’s Post Office Address (city or town) (zip)
    Print or type your name on the following line in the exact manner you
    wish it to appear on the ballot, last name first. A.R.S. § 16-311.G.
    ,
    LAST NAME FIRST NAME
    Candidate’s Arizona committee information:
    Chairman’s
    Name ____________________________________________________________
    Address ____________________________________________________________
    (number and street) (city or town) (zip)
    Telephone ____________________________
    􀀀 I am )
    a registered voter in the state in which I reside.
    􀀀 I am not )
    􀀀 I am ) a member of the political party from which I am running as a
    􀀀 I am not ) candidate for the office of President of the United States.
    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that all the information in this Nomination Paper is true, that
    as to these and all other qualifications, I am qualified to hold the office that I seek, having fulfilled
    the United States constitutional requirements for holding said office. I further swear (or affirm) that
    I have fulfilled Arizona’s statutory requirement for placing my name on its Presidential Preference
    Election ballot.
    ___________________________________
    CANDIDATE SIGNATURE
    Subscribed AND SWORN to (or affirmed) before me this day of 20 __.
    ____________________________________
    Notary Public
    My Commission Expires:
    (Seal)
    File with:

    This document seems so simple. First it has to be signed by Barack Obama and second it states clearly in it he must be Natural Born Citizen.

    To move forward with this, is it as simple as me emailing the AZ Secretary of State and requesting the signed document by Barack Obama under the Freedom of Information Act? Or do I need to even reference the FOIA? Also, there doesn’t appear to be anything contained in this form that could be considered confidential since Barack Obama’s Hyde Park Home address is well known.

    If the SOS would provide this signed document to me, I would then pursue this with AZ AG for fraud by Obama.

    What do you think?

    curi0us0nefromthe60s: You ask what I think about your proposal to obtain records related to this past election, from your government officials. I think I like this comment so much more than your last one! Because now I see, you are committed to taking control of your government. And with the concerted efforts of patriots like you, who know as much about our government as those who would undermine it, we will fix the mess that is this past election cycle. Yes; by all means, get this document. In most states, voters have enacted public records laws that entitle the public to specific records. (The executive office responsible for listing which specific records are public; and how long these records must be preserved, is the S of S. That office works in conjunction with other Departments to create these documents lists.) Usually, these public records laws specify how to request information; usually, records must be requested in writing and, the request must reference that this is being made pursuant to the cited law. Now, having said all that, let me tell you, the document you are proposing to retrieve is posted on the internet. In fact, I reference the statement BO signed in AZ, swearing he is a natural born citizen, in the military Complaint posted below. (BTW, AZ is a binding vote state. Read the PRELUDE TO A LAWSUIT, below. Having gone the extra step to enact legislation that would ensure their views are honored, even in the Party primaries, I would imagine voters in your state will be suitably outraged to discover the Party perpetrated a fraud to get their man into the White House.) ADMINISTRATOR

  20. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    Thanks jbjd, I found the public records request form on the SOS site. I’m filling it out now. I’ll keep you posted on the results. Your guidance is very much appreciated.

    curi0us0nefromthe60s: You are welcome. Now, teach others. ADMINISTRATOR

  21. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    jbjd,

    May I ask a huge favor of you? I have outlined my plan on pursing this line of elibility on my blog site http://hesnotmypresident.wordpress.com. Would you be kind enough to look at the argument I am pursuing and let me know if I am on the right track? I would really appreciate having your eyes look upon it.

  22. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    I have modified my argument as follows:

    1. U.S. Code Title 8 § 1401 defines in part a Natural Born Citizen as a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Since Barack Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan and a British Subject at the time of Barack Obama Jr.’s birth Barack Obama Jr. was, therefore, also a British Subject, subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948.

    2. President Obama through his public website “Fight the Smears” acknowledges point #1 above. In addition he refers to himself as a Native Born Citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen.

    3. No President before Barack Obama where it was known at the time of the election (other than those protected under the Grandfather clause of Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution — “…or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”) were the offspring of parents where both parents were not citizens of the United States of America.

    I believe these three points show that by signing the form claiming he was a Natural Born Citizen would be considered fraud. At the very least he could not have definitively sworn he was a natural born citizen without furthe guidance by the courts.

    So I then would argue that my voter civil rights were violated because the Democratic Party did not place on the ballot an eligible candidate for the office of POTUS.

    Do you think this argument now has legs?

    Again, I very much appreciate your guidance.

    curi0us0nefromthe60s: Be careful not to mention fraud. This is a term of art; the elements of fraud are outside of the purview of what it seems you are attempting, which is to present a reasonable explanation to the Office of Civil Rights as to why you believe your voting rights were violated by the D Party. Call them; after all, they work for you, and are paid for by your tax dollars. Ask what you must allege to file the Complaint you have in mind. (Understand the distinction between public and private conduct, and that you might be told, the D Party is a private actor, outside of the jurisdiction of the OCR. Or, you might be told, you did not have to vote for the D candidate whose Constitutional status you contest.) Take notes. At least, you will put these people on notice, something is amiss about BO’s status as a NBC. I believe that all of our efforts to out BO contributes to the critical mass that will sooner or later get him out of the WH. ADMINISTRATOR

  23. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    JBJD,

    I’ve formulated a different tactical approach via a civil rights complaint with the AZ AG’s office that I would like your opinion on. Do you think this now has legs?

    1. U.S. Code Title 8 § 1401 defines in part a Natural Born Citizen as a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Since Barack Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan and a British Subject at the time of Barack Obama’s Jr.’s birth Barack Obama Jr. was, therefore, also a British Subject, subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948. I am not saying that President Obama knowingly signed (A.R.S. § 16-242) attesting he was a Natural Born Citizen when he was not, but because no further proof of his citizenship status was required, the Secretary of State cannot know for certain that he is a Natural Born Citizen.

    2. President Obama through his public website “Fight the Smears” acknowledges point #1 above in the sense that he acknowledges that he was a British Subject at birth. In addition, he refers to himself as a Native Born Citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen. But these claims made on his website did not occur until after he had signed (A.R.S. § 16-242), so again the fact remains that he may have unwittingly attested to Natural Born Citizen status when he did not posses such status.

    3. As a result of items #1 and #2 above, I am arguing that my voting civil rights and the voting civil rights of all Arizona voters on November 4th were jeopardized due to the fact that a potentially ineligible candidate for the Office of the President of the United States was placed on the 2008 General Election Ballot.

    4. As the Attorney General for the State of Arizona, I see at least three reponsibities within your purvue that are pertinent to this claim: a)You serve “as the chief legal officer of the State,” b)Your duty is to “bring and defend lawsuits on behalf of the State,” and c)Your office is charged with “representing and providing legal advice to most State agencies” — as stated on the State of Arizona Attorney General website.

    5. In accordance with the duties stated in item #4 above, I am asking that my future voter civil rights, all Arizona voter civil rights and our elected officials, in particular, the duties of the Arizona Secretary of State be protected in future elections by utilizing the aforementioned stated powers to ensure that proof of Natural Born Citizen status for Presidential candidates in addition to a sworn statement be indisputably proven.

    curi0us0nefromthe60s: Okay, better. But how about this. Pull up the page from the Hollister case filed by Berg, in which BO urges the Court to take judicial notice of the fact he is legit because ‘FactCheck’ says he is. Then, pull up my military Complaint, in which I walk the reader through the ‘de-bunking’ of FactCheck. (I explain, FactCheck is really Annenberg Political Fact Check; that BO worked for them for many years; and that Fact Check’s own web site contains a disclaimer, only their staff are responsible for what they say.) Also point out, under HI law, a foreign born baby can be registered as a HI birth. (Legal cite is in the Complaint.) And that, unlike AZ, HI law requires, in order to get the name of their nominee for POTUS onto the general election ballot, the Party must Certify not only that, he is their nominee but also that, he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. (Legal cite is in the Complaint.) Finally, point out that, when asked, NP refused to produce the documentation on which she based her determination, BO is Constitutionally eligible for the job. There. Now you have a Complaint to the AG that the D Party, spearheaded by NP, perpetrated fraud on the citizens of AZ to get BO onto the ballot in that state. (Does AZ law say, the nominee put forward by the Party “shall” be eligible for the job, or anything like that? That would be a bonus.) (I think I need to write this up as a Post.)

    As to proposals for the future…mentioning this to your sitting AG will do no harm. But effecting permanent change is going to take amending your current state laws. ADMINISTRATOR

  24. althausen says:

    If you want to see another take on Obama’s birth papers, search the name of RON POLARIK,PhD. Some mind bending stuff.

    althausen: No, it isn’t. ‘Analyzing’ a photopied document posted on the internet is pointless. I assume the ‘document’ certifying BO’s live birth is ‘real’; because the pertinent question is, assuming this certification is real, does it ‘prove’ what BO insists it does, that is, he a “native” citizen of HI? And, given HI law allowing registration of foreign births, the answer is, “No.” Plus, the eligibility standard in the Constitution is not whether the POTUS is a citizen but whether he is a NBC. ADMINISTRATOR

  25. Rocknee says:

    jbjd, emails from SOS and Attn Gen of Kentucky

    Good afternoon Mr. ,

    Thank you for sharing the Attorney General’s response relating to
    the eligibility of President Obama. The Office of Secretary of State is
    ministerial in its duties. The Courts have determined that filing
    officials must accept the filing document as long as it is regular on
    its face and that filing officials do not determine the eligibility or
    qualifications of a candidate. Kentucky statutes do not require any
    candidate to provide proof of citizenship or a birth certificate. We
    have no legal authority to investigate the qualifications of a candidate
    or the information a candidate provides on his/her filing form.

    I hope this information provides clarification of the role of a
    filing official in accepting filing documents from candidates.

    Thank you.

    Sincerely,

    Mary Sue Helm, Election Administrator for
    Trey Grayson, Secretary of State
    502-564-3490, ext 416

    —–Original Message—–
    From: webmaster@kentucky.gov [mailto:webmaster@kentucky.gov]
    Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 2:56 PM
    To: SOS Webmaster (SOS)
    Subject: Website Email: Obama’s Eligibility/Ineligibility to be
    president

    Name |
    Company |
    Address
    Address2 |
    City |
    State | KY
    Zip |
    Phone |
    Email |
    Date | 6/7/2009 2:55:43 PM
    Subject | Obama’s Eligibility/Ineligibility to be president

    I received this email for the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office
    and would like a response from you. Also, I will send this to
    you by mail as well.

    *****
    Thank you for your email alleging that President Obama is not
    a natural born citizen of this country. Because the President
    of the United States is elected in a federal election this office
    has no jurisdiction to undertake an investigation of these allegations.
    Therefore, we will be taking no action on this issue.

    Again, thank you for writing to General Conway.

    Tad Thomas on behalf of Attorney General Jack Conway

    Deputy Attorney General

    Office of the Attorney General

    700 Capitol Avenue, Suite 120

    Frankfort, KY 40601

    (502) 696-5300

    From: []
    Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 10:12 PM
    To: Attorney General (KYOAG)
    Subject: Investigating Barack Obama/AKA Barry Soetoro

    Dear Attorney General Jack Conway:

    I recently read where the Kentucky Secretary of State has asked
    you to investigate Barack Hussein Obama/AKA Barry Soetoro’s
    Constitutional
    eligibility for the Office of U.S. President.

    Frankly, the evidence that Barack Hussein Obama/AKA Barry Soetoro
    was born in Africa – not Hawaii as he claims -and, therefore,
    cannot serve as the President of the United States, is compelling.

    First, Mr. Obama’s refuses to release his birth certificate.
    If he has nothing to hide, what does he gain by refusing to
    allow the press to see the birth certificate?

    Second, the contention by Barack Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng,
    that Mr. Obama was born in a particular Hawaiian hospital, only
    to claim that it was in a different hospital several years later.

    Third, the erecting of a wall around Barack Obama’s grandmother,
    the late Madelyn Dunham, by Mr. Obama, thus cutting off access
    to the one person then alive who would have been present if he
    was actually born in Hawaii.

    Fourth, the posting of law enforcement personnel at the two hospitals
    in Honolulu mentioned by Ms. Soetoro-Ng in an effort to block
    the press from discovering the truth about the birth certificate.

    Fifth, a taped phone conversation with Mr. Obama’s step-grandmother
    in Kenya, who claims that she was present at his birth … in what
    is now called Kenya!

    Sixth, the “birth certificate” posted on the Obama campaign website
    and other liberal websites. Since Barack Obama was born in 1961,
    long before laser printers and office computers, his original
    birth certificate would be typewritten … unlike the laser printed
    “copy” purported to be genuine. The evidence demands that Barack
    Obama answer why he has been hiding the truth from the American
    people about his eligibility to run for, and serve as, President!

    That’s right. Not only does Mr. Obama continue to categorically
    refuse to produce the decisive evidence proving whether he is
    a “natural born” citizen, his high-priced LA-based “dream team”
    of attorneys are working hard to keep this information from the
    American people. Close to a millions dollars has been spent
    to keep his secret. Why?

    Barack Obama continues to battle any attempt to see his real
    birth certificate – producing only a phony one posted on his
    website – as well as fighting tooth and nail from seeking access
    to his college records… records which we believe may prove that
    he was foreign born! Also, records these records will indicate
    whether he attended college on foreign student loans. It is
    believed he is an Indonesian Citizen and never file to become
    an American citizen!

    There is also a concern about his fraudulent Selected Service
    Registration Form. Many things about this person need to be
    cleared before more harm is done to this great nation.

    I ask that you investigate Barack Hussein Obama/AKA Barry Soetoro
    so he will prove his eligibility to be the President of the United
    States.

    Rocknee: Can you imagine what would happen if everyone in KY who is concerned about BO’s Constitutional eligibility to be POTUS, wrote to state officials, like you did? At some point, only those people who wanted to serve the public would be in public office! ADMINISTRATOR

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

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: