MODEL COMPLAINT OF ELECTION FRAUD TO STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL (see new comments daily)

UPDATE 03.24.10:  All citizen complaints posted here are current.

UPDATE 10.03.09: THE NEW SC COMPLAINT IS POSTED AND IT’S DYNAMITE. I KNOW I SAID THAT ALL COMPLAINTS OF ELECTION FRAUD NAMING NP WOULD BE POSTED ON, “THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE,” BUT I HAD TO GIVE THIS SC COMPLAINT ITS OWN POST. READ IT; YOU WILL SEE WHY. “UP TO HERE IN ELECTION FRAUD IN SC, FROM THE CHAIR OF THE 2008 DNC CONVENTION TO THE CHAIR OF THE DNC.”

UPDATE 10.02.09: HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS. BASED ON NEW INFORMATION, I NEED TO REVISE THE SC COMPLAINT. IN FACT, I NEED TO GIVE IT ITS OWN POST. LOOK FOR IT.

UPDATE 09.24.09: THE GEORGIA MODEL COMPLAINT FOR ELECTION FRAUD IS NOW POSTED, ON THE NEXT SITE, “THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE.” JUST LIKE THE VIRGINIA COMPLAINT, GEORGIA, TOO, IS DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE NANCY PELOSI, ACTING IN A NON-GOVERNMENTAL ROLE AS CHAIR OF THE 2008 DNC CONVENTION. BECAUSE IN BOTH OF THOSE STATES, MS. PELOSI FORWARDED THE CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION TO THE STATE ELECTIONS OFFICIALS AND, THEREFORE, IS NAMED AS THE PERPETRATOR OF THE FRAUD. ALL COMPLAINTS NAMING HER WILL APPEAR ON THE OTHER SITE.

UPDATE 09.22.09: CALLING ALL TEXANS WHO SENT COMPLAINTS OF ELECTION FRAUD TO TEXAS AG ABBOTT: COULD YOU PLEASE CHECK IN WITH ME? I NEED A ‘NUMBER’ SO THAT I CAN DETERMINE BEST STRATEGY AT THIS POINT TO COMPEL A RESPONSE. (IF ANY OF YOU HAS RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO YOUR FILING OR, INITIATED FOLLOW-UP CONTACT WITH THE OFFICE OF THE AG, PLEASE, LET US KNOW.)

UPDATE 09.17.09: I ADDED THE SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTION FRAUD COMPLAINT BELOW TEXAS AND HAWAII. PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU ARE SENDING THE CORRECT COMPLAINT.

UPDATE 09.18.09:  PLEASE READ MY LENGTHY REMARKS POSTED IN “COMMENTS,” REGARDING THE THEFT AND SUBSEQUENT DISTRIBUTION OF WORK PRODUCED HERE ON THIS BLOG, AS RELATES TO THE BROUHAHA THIS THEFT HAS INCITED OVER WHETHER A VIABLE COMPLAINT OF ELECTION FRAUD SHOULD ISSUE IN NH.

UPDATE 09.17.09:  I ADDED THE SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTION FRAUD COMPLAINT BELOW TEXAS AND HAWAII.  PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU ARE SENDING THE CORRECT COMPLAINT.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************

If you live in a state with a law that requires the candidate for POTUS from the major political party to be eligible for the job before state elections officials will print his or her name on the general election ballot then, Certifying BO is the D nominee without ascertaining whether he is a NBC, just to get his name printed on the ballot, is election fraud.  Here’s how you can compel your elected Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer in the state, to do something about it.

The Model Complaint of Election Fraud immediately below is tailored specifically to the Attorney General in the State of Texas.  (HI immediately follows TX.)  If you live in Texas and use this complaint, make sure you fill in your name and address in the space marked “From.”  Also, remember to distribute copies to Hope Andrade, the SoS; and Boyd Richie, the state D party Chair.

View this document on Scribd

Here is the Model Complaint of Election Fraud tailored specifically to the Attorney General of Hawaii, citing Hawaii Revised Statutes and fitting the set of facts involved with the Hawaii Certifications to the law.  To send, download by clicking on the Scribd link below the image.  Make sure to fill in your name and address in the space marked “From.”  Also, remember to distribute copies to Brian E. Schatz, Democratic Party of Hawaii; and William Marston, Chairperson, Election Commission.

View this document on Scribd

The Model Complaint of Election Fraud immediately below is tailored specifically to the Attorney General in the State of South Carolina, citing South Carolina Code Annotated and fitting the set of facts involved with the Certifications submitted in South Carolina, to the law.   If you live in South Carolina and use this complaint, make sure you fill in your name and address in the space marked “From.”  Also, remember to distribute copies to Carol Fowler, Chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party; and Marci Andino, Executive Director, South Carolina Election Commission.

Hold onto your hats. Based on new information, I need to revise the SC complaint. In fact, I need to give it its own post. Look for it.

View this document on Scribd

Advertisements

156 Responses to MODEL COMPLAINT OF ELECTION FRAUD TO STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL (see new comments daily)

  1. jbjd says:

    To everyone living outside of TX, in a state with a law requiring the candidate for POTUS must be eligible for the job to have his or her name printed on the general election ballot, please, if you would rather not wait for me to post a complaint tailored specifically to your state, use this TX letter as a model to file your election fraud complaint but just substitute the facts in your state. That is, fill in the appropriate names of the state officials; cite to the correct law; and, most importantly, determine whether the Certification of BO’s nomination got to your state elections officials via NP or the state D party Chair. And charge the appropriate person with election fraud. Of course, count on me for whatever additional assistance you need.

    As for you TX patriots, I forgot to propose that you send copies of your complaints to the local (and national) press. No one reading this complaint in good faith could reasonably find there is no basis for doubt as to whether BO is a NBC.

  2. d2i says:

    jbjd – this Memorandum is outstanding and exposes the DNC leadership for election fraud. We’ve all known it but couldn’t put the pieces together like you have.

    Frankly, it’s about damned time someone focused resources on this disastrous heist. We all knew who the true victor was of the 2008 primary and it wasn’t 0!

    Thank you, jbjd, for needling the thread so to speak b/c this is where it all begins – the DNC’s leadership hubris is beyond recognizable to the average American. Their uppity selves think we American’s were too stupid to figure it out. You’re the best. I plan to print your letter and Treason 1 and 2 and hand it off to the appropriate athorities in my state.

    Applause!!!

    d2i: Thank you so much for your comments and for your editing assistance. You of all people know how hard I worked to pull this memo together; and, having accomplished that, how many more hours I spent trying to figure out how to post it, intact, so that people could use it exactly ‘as is.’ (Don’t you just love that screen shot of the DNC ad from August 2009, still sending people to FTS? I saw that on NQ and rushed to save it but could not figure out how. So I posted an immediate call for help and thank goodness, one of their readers responded immediately. I knew this information would come in handy.)

    I feel more optimistic about exposing BO than I have felt in a long time. Because much of my frustration was rooted in the fact, I could not construct the narrative that explained what happened. Now that I have, I know it is only a matter of time until the truth ‘outs.’ Know what I mean?

    Now, if someone from TX or any other state with a candidate eligibility law, would just file the complaint… ADMINISTRATOR

    • d2i says:

      C’mon Texans!!! America needs you. I’m doing what I can to ensure your AG has support. So c’mon one of you Texans, Red Hank, let’s roll!

      d2i: Thanks for trying to lasso those Texans back to the corral. I expect we will hear from them shortly. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. redhank says:

    Hi jbjd…the letter is very well done. I intend to print it off and send it…(Can you tell me what font you used…don’t want to have to retype the whole thing). I am going to wait a day or so to see if I get a response from Richie, although I don’t expect to.

    Do you think the following from Texas’ Election code (Title 16, Chapter 273) is applicable? ie they will be required to investigate if we get two registered voters to send in the complaint? I realize this was intended for incidents that occur more locally.
    http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/?link=EL

    Finally…and I am not getting cold feet…what do you think the ramifications will be to me personally if they choose to go after me? Just want to have a clear idea of what to expect. Thanks!

    redhank: Hey, pardner, nice to see you. Thank you for the compliment; yes, the letter is well done in that it conveys exactly what it is intended to convey, unambiguously. However, if there is anything you want to change, just let me know so that I can be sure, this does not alter its meaning.

    Okay, let me answer your questions. First, you are correct in saying that, Title 16, ch. 273 is unrelated to this issue. This section of the election code directly relates to conduct at the time of the election, intended to alter the bona fide results of the vote. Rather, here we are arguing, an investigation needs to be carried out not based on the conduct of any individuals involved in the physical process of casting and counting votes, which process could be witnessed by 2 (two) registered voters; but rather, in the state authorized function of printing the names of candidates appearing on the ballot, a function clearly obscured from the public view.

    I don’t want you to re-type the letter; I think I enabled you (and anyone else) to print out the letter from the Scribd site. If you have any problems with this, please, get back to me and we will figure out something else. MAKE SURE YOU FILL IN YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. However, AFTER you send this, block that information and distribute.

    I hear your concerns about retribution for citizen activism but, absolutely no one has any basis for going after you. First of all, you are not the only Texan contacting the AG to complain about voter fraud in your state. (Remember, the federal court just authorized the lawsuit filed against the DNC for unequal allocation of delegates per voters!) Besides, you are not carrying out any investigation; and you have no information critical to any such investigation that is not in the public domain.

    I am so proud of you. ADMINISTRATOR

    • redhank says:

      Couple of other questions…when you say block my details, do you mean when I send copies to Mr. Ritchie and the SoS? Should I send a copy through the mail as well or only send it via fax? Thanks and I am only doing what I think is right…even if we can not fix what has already occurred we can lay the ground work for, hopefully, future enforcement.
      Finally, thank you, jbjd for your efforts to frame these issues so logocally and eloquently

      redhank: No; you must identify yourself to both the SoS and Mr. Richie. Your ‘standing’ to compel action derives from your legal residence in TX. However, in the same way I block personal information before posting readers’ materials, I am suggesting, so as to avoid uninvited public contacts, take your name off the letter before you distribute this publicly. Yes; send however you want. But fax, first.

      Also, please get your friends and neighbors to send this, too. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. sirmrks says:

    I hope the fraud goes down in flames.

    sirmrks: I allowed the word “fraud” to remain in the posted comment because I could not say for certain whether by using that word you were referring to the whole situation. I deleted the remainder of your comment as it was totally unrelated to the work that goes on here. Are you from a state with a ballot eligibility law, such as the one described herein, in TX? If so, are you planning on filing a complaint to your AG to ensure that the whole ‘fraud’ goes up in flames? ADMINISTRATOR

  5. azgo says:

    Hi jbjd – Beautiful job! This puts everything together very well! The “Conclusion” is great!
    Would the “Paid for by Barack Obama” screen shot of the FTS/BC help or have on file for this letter. A commenter named “bho boo” has a screen shot – “I have the original site and artwork archived which says paid for by BO,” …
    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/wall-street-journal-via-james-taranto-continue-propaganda-lies/#comment-7880

    Also, in my experience here in AZ, it took nine of us to file complaints to the AG at the same time against persons who committed ‘big money’ consumer fraud against all of us. Initially, a couple of us filed individually and got no response. We had to actually meet with an official at an AG satellite office with other concerned citizens and he was immediately overwhelmed but became very concerned, so then they took the case to investigate. Unfortunately, in our case we had to create a ‘shock and awe’ situation to get the attention of the AG.
    Hopefully this won’t be the case in TX as your letter is very well written and demands attention by the AG. (Maybe plan ‘B’?)
    redhank, I found this to be a little scary at first, but realizing these people were still committing fraud against other people, which they were and retired people too, made it easy to commit myself and actually lead our little group.
    d2i – Yeppers, what a great inspiration you ‘shure as ‘ell are’!
    Thanks again, jbjd!

    azgo: The screen shot could be useful if and when any of the A’sG undertake an investigation of election fraud. As to plan “B,” individually, compelling our state officials to look into election fraud is the best route to address the issue of BO’s eligibility to be POTUS. Otherwise, individuals can exercise their rights to initiate court cases for fraud against the various players. However, I strongly recommend asserting our (collective) energies as citizens and compelling our elected officials to do the jobs for which we elected and are paying them. And, given the clarity in this model letter, I imagine, the media would be hard pressed to disparage the sanity of anyone advocating such an investigation.

    As for strength in numbers, I urge everyone to put out a call to all Texans, to file this complaint, which can be accessed by clicking on the link to Scribd underneath the memo on my blog; and downloaded from that site.

    Finally, thanks for the compliment.ADMINISTRATOR

  6. redhank says:

    Just checked the mail and nothing from Mr. Richie in response to my letter from last week. I decided not to wait and have faxed the letter to the appropriate parties…we shall see…

    redhank: Wonderful. (By “appropriate parties,” do you mean Mr. Richie, too?) Now, for at least a few days, we wait.. In the meantime, get your correspondence in order so as to be prepared if the AG contacts you, first, to discuss your filing ADMINISTRATOR

  7. redhank says:

    Yes…it has been faxed to Mr Richie and the SoS, as well. I called the TDP to get a fax number for him. As you said…now we wait. In terms of release to the media, Austin is a funny place…the one real pocket of “alternative” everything in Texas…Dallas press might be a better outlet…

    redhank: Yep; people are going to take that memo seriously. (Just an aside; I wonder whether that Notary who signed NP’s Certification in CO and, whose stamp appears on the Certification Mr. Richie ostensibly signed, on which he replaced the DNC letterhead on NP’s version, with the TDP letterhead, on his; actually witnessed Mr. Richie sign that Certification. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. redhank says:

    I agree jbjd…given that they already knew that they had missed the Texas deadline, I suspect all manner of corner was cut…

    redhank: Do you get the significance of this? When you examine the process, there is ample opportunity for fraud and malfeasance. Unbelievable. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. azgo says:

    That is a good question about the Notary and the Chair.

    Would it be helpful for those in other states, if you could post the names of the other known states that have a law that requires the candidate for POTUS from the major political party to be eligible for the job before they are put on the general election ballot?

    azgo: Here’s the problem with relying on someone else to carry out the chores of citizenship. How does my checking out laws in other states help to acquaint voters in those states with the content of legislation impacting their lives in areas other than the printing of the general election ballot; or with the voting record of their elected state officials? Democracy is not a spectator sport. And while I am proud to be able to provide guidance in this situation of first impression, this does not abrogate the responsibility of each of us to regain control of our government by becoming knowledgeable citizens and voters.

    I asked redhank to look up the laws in Texas and get back to me; he did. And I have already identified GA and HI as states whose laws trigger charges of election fraud. If anyone wants to send me a legal cite to review, I would happy to do that. And then, if applicable, I will draft the letter for that state, with names and contact information provided to me. ADMINISTRATOR

    • azgo says:

      GA and HI are also among the states identified as other known states whose laws prompt charges of election fraud and as identified on your prior posts. That’s all I wanted to know but thanks for a most meaningful explanation of the responsibility of being a citizen.
      States are changing their election laws and may be more difficult to dig up the applicable laws of the 2008 election time, so we will have to keep this in mind.
      Thank you, again!

      azgo: I will be posting additional fraud letters in the next few days. I think filing these complaints will change everything, for all of us. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. markcon says:

    first page has typo “as the of the” nominee is in wrong place

    markcon: Thank you! You have no idea how many eyes have read that page, and missed that typo. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Jason says:

    I haven’t followed the fraud since Hillary was abused of her rights but I’m very glad I came across this site.

    Well done all of you.

    Jason: Thank you so much; the more, the merrier. Tell your friends. ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Magna Carta says:

    Redhank,
    Should this action be done by multiple parties? or have you got Texas covered? I’m going to get on this next week. The news is keeping me insane.Busy week.
    Thanks for the excellent work Jb and the approach here I believe is meaningful because we need to tighten the integrity of the process itself. Thanks Again.

    Magna Carta: Nice to hear from you! I assume redhank gave you the same answer I am giving you, which is this. Until the AG commences a formal investigation into this matter, your request for such investigation remains timely. So, send it. ADMINISTRATOR

    • redhank says:

      I agree jbjd…we need multiple voices, so please, Magna Carta, try to find the time…only took me 15-20 minutes to fill in my name and address and fax it….Thanks!

      redhank: Could not have said this better myself. Thanks again. ADMINISTRATOR

  13. azgo says:

    jbjd – The bold print appears to be messed up on the letter or is it just my computer?

    azgo: Did you print off of Scribd? Click on their link, below the image on my blog. ADMINISTRATION

  14. redhank says:

    btw the fax number for SoS is 512 475 2761 and Boyd Richie is 512 480 2500

    redhank: Did you have any trouble downloading? Other comments indicate the “bold” is messed up. (This is the first time I used Scribd; I wanted to preserve all formatting from my original because it looked so professional, including the header.) ADMINISTRATOR

    • redhank says:

      No jbjd my download was clear…

      redhank: I think I figured out what happened…anyway, I uploaded an updated version, dated September 11, for those TX filers who follow your lead. ADMINISTRATOR

  15. azgo says:

    Yes, I did print as a Adobe PDF 7.0 and it still shows the bold print messed up. I don’t have a printer hooked up to this computer.

    azgo: See my reply to redhank. ADMINISTRATOR

  16. Patriot Dreamer says:

    Hi jbjd,

    I’m reporting back. Unfortunately, I do not think I can help with anyone in Texas (I live in a completely different part of the country). If it would be helpful, I can ask on the CW blog if anyone there lives in Texas and would be willing to send the letter. Would that work?

    On another note, I know that you do not like CFP, but check out the following article there today. It seems to fit in fairly well with your legal theory.

    (cite omitted)

    Patriot Dreamer: Please do not send anything from these people again. I looked at that article; they copied the narrative about the process relating Certifications, to elections officials, from my blog but misstated the facts/conclusions. (As to their theories well, they are entitled to these.) Swearing BO was “duly nominated” is tantamount to swearing, he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. Because DNC rules require, the nominee must be Constitutionally eligible for the job. No other state except HI requires that the party must explicitly say, our nominee is Constitutionally eligible for the job. But this is a distinction without a difference.

    Oh, and thank you, anyway about TX. We are all set. ADMINISTRATOR

  17. azgo says:

    Looks like the word is out there now!
    (cite omitted by jbjd: the ‘publication’ you cited is nothing but a front for Douglas Haggman. Google his name, along with Northeast Intelligence Network, or “NEIN,” for “no” in German, get it? )

    Interesting…..

    azgo: The ‘information’ has been ‘out there’ for some time and I have been posting the information both on my blog and in comments on other blogs. That is, way back in December 2008, Justin Riggs was contacting state elections officials all over the country to obtain Certifications of Nominations. HI sent back both the DNC and RNC Certifications, which he posted, along with the cover letter from elections officials. A blogger who has helped me on several projects, including distributing the memorandum I wrote proposing military Plaintiffs could gain standing in federal court to survive a Motion to Dismiss; thought I might be interested in Justin’s work and emailed the link. As soon as I saw the document, I noticed the extra line regarding BO’s Constitutional qualification. Then, I looked at the cover letter from HI elections officials; this contained a cite to Hawaiian Revised Statutes. I checked with Justin; no, he hadn’t cited this law to obtain the Certifications. So, I looked up the law. And sure enough, this was the requirement that party officials must Certify the candidate for POTUS is Constitutionally eligible for the job. I also noticed there was no “Received” stamp on the Certification from HI, as well as the signature anomaly. But none of these details was material to creating any cause of action that could halt the Congressional ratification of the EC vote; or, after such ratification, that could prompt Congress to initiate Impeachment proceedings.

    Now, if a state AG finds fraud in that state’s general election, implicating DNC officials with placing the name of a Constitutionally ineligible candidate on the ballot then, these details might come up to support such a finding. ADMINISTRATOR

  18. juriggs says:

    jbjd,

    That’s a very interesting question regarding Ms. Williamson (the Notary Public from Denver) and Mr. Richie. I live here in Denver, and believe that I can actually get access to Ms. Williamson’s records, if there’s a reason to (for example, there is the appearance that a D Party State pasted his statement on a document that bears her signature but wasn’t witnessed by her).

    I’ll poke around and see what I can find.

    juriggs: You know how these ‘details’ jump out at me… I would love to see what you find. But understand what is significant about any irregularity is this: see how easily one can rig an election? ADMINISTRATOR

  19. markcon says:

    my computer too- spaces in bold print through out paper- somebody messed it up– did not print- dont see how printing can fix it

    markcon: I re-posted. Should be okay now. ADMINISTRATOR

  20. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, Over at citizen wells, is an article by JB Williams, where he shows proof of two different letters of nomination by the DNC. The link is at CW site, “Protocol Be Damned”, in the comments section, go to Zach Jones 9/10/09 @ 2:24 pm see link to canada free press.
    This may be what you have been looking for. Looks as if one form of the letter said, the parties nominated, met the legal requirements to be POTUS, and VPOTUS, and the other letter, sent to the various states, left out the part about being qualified.

    bob strauss: They are copying me. That is, they are reading my blog and, in some cases, porting images posted there onto their sites. Only they are dramatizing their ‘findings’ as if they thought of something no one else had. FYI, I am the person who noticed the difference in the Certifications; and realized this resulted from a requirement of HI state law. LAST DECEMBER, 2008. And I can prove it. I have been posting this information since that time. I highlighted this distinction in “IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS un-AMERICAN THEN, IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS IS un-AMERICAN, TOO,” posted August 13. And again, I mention this difference in this letter of election fraud to state A’sG. ADMINISTRATOR

  21. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, It seems as if the issue of eligibility is picking up steam. I read your treason articles, but I didn’t pick up on the fact the DNC had two forms for the same purpose. Sometimes fraud is hard to detect, just the way it was intended.

    bob strauss: But it is featured prominently visually on the “un-AMERICAN” article. And I began mentioning this on the blog a long time ago. I am in touch with the person who retrieved the HI Certification. And I pointed out the problems with that Certification, to him. I am just saying, it is disingenuous for these people to feature this issue suddenly in their blog posts and then not credit the source of this information.

    I just went back and checked; there have been a substantial hits on my blog today and yesterday from CFP. And an uptake in searches for “HI Certification,” for example. They got their info from me. ADMINISTRATOR

  22. Ed Sunderland says:

    Good job Bob,
    I am interested in filing a complaint with the Texas AG. Can you PM me the details? I will cc Congressman Burgess and anyone else I can.

    Need to find PDF to print complaint, do I just use the Scribd doc on this page?

    Thanks

    Ed Sunderland: Who is “Bob”? To print out a Complaint, just click on the Scribd underneath the document posted on this blog; this will take you to the Scribd site, from which you can download the document. I salute another fellow citizen activist. ADMINISTRATOR

  23. Magna Carta says:

    Ok …guys I’m going to map this for next week when the kids are away at school.
    I can probably get others to do it also.
    I want to really get straight on the EVIDENCE issue.That is the type of evidence they used to put BO on the ballet.Do I need to be an expert in this area?
    Also the Canada Free Press has an article on this front too. Did you read it?
    Tell me what to read and study so I can really internalize this info.
    Many Thanks.

    Magna Carta: No, you don’t need to be an “evidence” expert. Let’s see whether the DNC used any ‘evidence’ to determine whether BO is a NBC before swearing, he is. Then let’s see whether a reasonable person would have used this ‘evidence’ as the basis for swearing anything. The CFP is just a front for Douglas Haggman and his Northeast Intelligence Network, or “NEIN,” which means “No” in German. They copied their stuff from my web site. Notice, they did not reveal where they obtained this information about the Certifications; but you will find these documents posted and/or referenced throughout my blog, beginning last December, when I first noticed the difference between the HI Certification and the SC Certification, and discovered the HI law that requires an explicit statement of Constitutional eligibility. ADMINISTRATOR

  24. redhank says:

    jbjd…I also got a ton of hits from CFP yesterday; they were looking at the Texas Certs. Although annoying to have your work usurped, ay least it increases the exposure of your idea.

    redhank: I know; but it’s still stealing because it is a direct usurpation and not an inadvertent one. Besides, this CFP is a front for Douglas Hagmann, whose ‘politics’ I find repugnant. ADMINISTRATOR

  25. Patriot Dreamer says:

    Let me know if you would like help (in the future) proofreading things. Just send me an e-mail.

    Patriot Dreamer: Thank you; I will. ADMINISTRATOR

  26. Patriot Dreamer says:

    jbjd, my apologies about the link earlier. I only scanned the article quickly and did not read it closely before sending it to you. I certainly did not know that they had stolen your work. The least they could have done is some attribution to you. Again, my apologies.

    Patriot Dreamer: No problem. And it’s not the theft of my work per se that bothers me. Rather, it is that this unscrupulous group will unjustly benefit from the caliber of the work, my work. And people will tend to credit other tripe that comes out of this group, assuming it has any intrinsic value whatsoever, which it does not. CPF is not a news organization; it is a front for the rants of a sinister man no one could rightfully credit as proposing any ideas or conduct that could uplift the human condition. ADMINISTRATOR

  27. Magna Carta says:

    Ok…I think I see now on the header of page one where to fill in my personal info.Anything else?

  28. juriggs says:

    jbjd and redhank,

    I need your help. I’ve contacted the Colorado SoS to gain access to Shalifa Williamson’s notary public journal, and have been invited to have a conversation with a representative from that office. Before I have that conversation, though, I need a couple of things.

    First, I am confused as to why there are two D Party documents on your website, redhank. Which one was submitted to TX state officials? jbjd, maybe you can help out here as well. I’m not familiar with any other state where two documents exist. I need to make sure that it’s the second document that was submitted, as that’s the one where it appears Mr. Richie pasted his letterhead, blocked out the secondary signature line, and submitted the form.

    Second, I need high quality copies of those forms. Redhank, can you send me the pdf’s that you received from the state? I’m going to need to submit these to the SoS’ office, and the quality on your site won’t be suitable. You can contact me through jbjd – she has my information.

    Thanks, and I’ll look forward to hearing back from both of you.

    juriggs: Whether the state D party Chair or, the DNC submits the Certification of Nomination to state elections officials is determined by state law. Presumably, in TX, state law required the Certification to come from the Chair. (redhank, can you get this law for juriggs, either by looking it up or asking your SoS?)

    But even in those states wherein the state D party Chair was required to submit the Certification, what usually occurred is that, the Chair submitted a letter announcing BO was the party nominee, along with a copy of NP’s Certification. This situation in TX is the first time I have seen NP’s Certification ‘replaced’ by a Certification from the state party Chair.

    juriggs, it would appear that now is the time to raise the issue of the anomalous NP signature on the HI Certification, which I first pointed out to you last December! ADMINISTRATOR

    • juriggs says:

      jbjd,

      Here’s the relevant statute…

      Sec. 192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE ’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT. A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States
      placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:
      (1)the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;

      (2)before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party ’s state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of:

      (A)the names of the party ’s nominees for
      president and vice-president;

      So you’re right, it had to be the party’s state chair. My question isn’t answered, though. At http://falseflagrag.wordpress.com/, redhank posted copies of all the docs that TX sent him; there are two docs from the D party, both of which appear to be Certifications of Nomination. I need to know which one was submitted in compliance with the above statute.

      Also, I noticed that the “cut and paste” copy isn’t just cut and paste. There are significant changes to the language. For example, it states “the following are the nominees of the Texas Democratic Party…”. In other words, Mr. Richie didn’t just paste his header on the document; he also changed the text in order to meet the regs of the law.

      I’m not taking this to my SoS’ office until I’m convinced that there was some malfeasance on the part of Mr. Richie. At this point, I’m not entirely convinced. Are we leaning completely on the “duly nominated” argument?

      juriggs: I am not sure what you are asking. Both documents were submitted; I checked with redhank. And it makes no difference to the analysis of fraud whether Mr. Richie Certified BO was “duly nominated” or just “nominated.” TX state law requires the nominee to be eligible for the job. Mr. Richie Certified BO was the nominee. Therefore, Mr. Richie Certified BO was eligible for the job. I want to know on what basis he determined such eligibility. I have no idea whether he ‘borrowed’ a Certification from NP and then tailored this to satisfy TX state law.’ I noticed the problems with the constructions of the Certifications and pointed this out; but this does not affect my analysis of election fraud. When you indicated you were looking into this aspect of the Certification, that is, these physical attributes, I assumed you were curious to find an explanation as to why the Certifications from both BR and NP reflect different letterhead but the same Notary. But your work has no bearing on my allegations of election fraud resulting from putting a candidate on the ballot before deterrmining his eligibility to be there.ADMINISTRATOR

      • redhank says:

        If you look at what I posted, I posted all the docs I received from the SoS with respect to the Certifications…5 docs. The Republicans actually used a “form” and I queried the SOS with respect to whether there was a specific “form” required and they responded “no”. The Deomcrats sent in two docs. One, the Official Certification, and the other more of a letter form. I believe the letter was in effect a cover sheet and as much as a form was not required, there was intent to comply with guidance from the State with respect to an “Official Certification”.
        I am also reading some stuff into this as both Parties missed the filing deadline. The pre-certification on my site from the republicans is I believe a way of showing thier “intent” to comply with the law which required Official Notification 70 days prior to the election.

        redhank: Yes; you are absolutely right. And Libertarian candidate Bob Barr filed lawsuit arguing both the D’s and the R’s had missed the filing deadline. the court dismissed the suit, noting that Barr had waited to file until 2 or 3 days before the absentee ballots, already printed, were scheduled to be sent out. (cite omitted) (The suit would have failed, anyway, because the law merely says, the party is “entitled” to have its nominee on the ballot if it gets the name in on time. This does not mean, the state cannot exercise its discretion to include late names on the ballot, anyway.) ADMINISTRATOR

  29. linder says:

    I’m not an attorney, nor do I completely understand election law, but is it possible that all of the certifications for all 50 states were done in Denver as part of the convention, thus utilizing the individual states Democratic Party letterhead and the same Notary? Maybe you can ask asgo if the Az docs submitted were on Az Democratic Party letterhead.

    linder: Welcome. First, let me reiterate, for the purpose of alleging and finding election fraud, issues as to who signed these Certifications, and where and when these were signed, is inconsequential. Now, to address the substance of your question. The problem is, somehow the name of the party’s nominee must get to the state elections officials in time to print on the state’s general election ballots. How the party’s nominee is presented to state elections officials to place on the ballot in that state, depends on the requirements of state law. So, in some states, a Certification signed by NP was used to get BO’s name on the ballot. In TX, Boyd Richie submitted the Certification. Your guess as to how these Certifications ended up with the same Notary is as good as mine. However, it makes no sense to me that the TX state Chair had to get a CO Notary to verify she saw him sign that Certification in CO, amended to suit TX laws; when he could have just as easily typed up a Certification in TX, and had someone in the office Notarize it there. ADMINISTRATOR

  30. Magna Carta says:

    jbjd,
    When I read that piece I knew it was your stuff.That was your idea to go for the outer ring all along. I am rallying many people by phone and person today to go to your site and get busy. I know I can get more people here to do this. I am psyched up! Plus I have e-mail contact with Leo Berman and US REp. Louie Gohmert of Tylet,Tx,used to be a Federal Judge. I’m going to get my papers out (after I am clear on 1-2-3- steps). Going to call his office and talk to a very listening-type secretary from his office. I know they will help if they can.I.E. contact-influence with Greg Abbott. Plus I now tons of activist group folks all active with the Republican party.Do not worry I will nail this bigtime!
    Now…the paperwork.Tell me if I’m correct.
    1.Fax a copy of the complaint listed above to SOS Hope Andrade and Mr. Ritchie.
    2. Do I need to create a cover sheet with my info? If so what should it look like?
    3.Send in complaint certified mail to Attorney General’s office or is fax OK?
    I’m sorry I’m not very knowlegeable about these little protocols.
    Thanks So Much!

    3. Do I wait a bit before forwarding

    Magna Carta: Thank you for your stellar citizen activism. (I wonder how many other people have actually filed this? Several people have downloaded this from Scribd.) As redhank has posted, just print out the Complaint and, assuming you don’t want to make any other changes, just fill in your name and address on the front and fax it to the AG. redhank posted the fax numbers for the SoS and, Chair of the TX state party; but you can also mail their copies. If you want to make any changes, just let me know; I want to make sure these don’t alter the meaning of the text.

    I just posted this comment on a couple of blogs featuring the CFP work.

    Canada Free Press is the front for Douglas Haggman, Founder of Northeast Intelligence Network, or “NEIN,” for “no” in German. “CFP” intentionally stole work produced on my blog, without accreditation, and are reaping the notoriety for this usurpation. My ire vests not in this theft of intellectual property but rather, in the knowledge that this unscrupulous group will unjustly benefit from the caliber of the work, my work. And people will tend to credit other tripe that comes out of this group, assuming it has any intrinsic value whatsoever, which it does not.

    Way back in December 2008, Justin Riggs was contacting state elections officials all over the country to obtain Certifications of Nominations. HI sent back both the DNC and RNC Certifications, which he posted, along with the cover letter from elections officials. A blogger who has helped me on several projects, including distributing the memorandum I wrote trying to resolve the issue of standing confronted by Plaintiffs in federal court, by proposing military Plaintiffs who could survive a Motion to Dismiss; thought I might be interested in Justin’s work and emailed the link. Already familiar with the SC Certification, s soon as I saw the HI Certification, I noticed the extra line regarding BO’s Constitutional qualification. Then, I looked at the cover letter from HI elections officials; this contained a cite to Hawaiian Revised Statutes. I checked with Justin; no, he hadn’t cited this law to obtain the Certifications. So, I looked up the law. And sure enough, this was the requirement that party officials must Certify the candidate for POTUS is Constitutionally eligible for the job. (I also noticed there was no “Received” stamp on the Certification from HI, as well as the signature anomaly. But none of these details was material to creating any cause of action that could halt the Congressional ratification of the EC vote; or, after such ratification, that could prompt Congress to initiate Impeachment proceedings.)

    You will find these documents posted and/or referenced throughout my blog, beginning last December, and recently highlighted in an article I posted on August 13, “IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS un-AMERICAN THEN, IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS IS un-AMERICAN, TOO.” The distinction is again pointed out in the just published “MODEL COMPLAINT OF ELECTION FRAUD TO STATE A’sG.” Notice, CFP did not reveal the provenance of information they just ‘published’ about the Certifications, or provide an explanation as to why it took them so long to ‘find’ this information and realize its significance.

    ADMINISTRATOR

  31. redhank says:

    I think we are off on a tangent…as we have said, both the Republican and Democratic Parties missed the deadline in Texas…I think the Dems signed and notarized in Colorado only because they were under the gun and were trying to show best intent to meet the deadline even though they it had already passed. This is just my speculation…While the notary is interesting, she is only noting that she witnessed the swearing, not that she had confirmed what had been sworn to.

    redhank: juriggs is undertaking to look into this, at his initiative. This does not reflect on the Complaints of Election Fraud against Boyd Richie to the TX AG. But in the course of our work here, we happened to uncover details that evoked questions from readers. ADMINISTRATOR

  32. AZ Conservative says:

    jbjd,

    My previous comment remains in moderation even though your comment within it states that you agree with my conclusions. So now, I wish to move on to my further legal question for you. As we both seem to have concurred, the citizens of Arizona DO NOT appear to have a complaint that they can file with the AZ Attorney General with regard to the 2008 general election and the placement of the names of Barack Obama and John McCain on the ballot for President.

    It may appear that the AZ State Legislature has come to a similar conclusion. In January of 2009, the Arizona Legislature introduced bill SB 1158 An Act Amending Sections 16-341 and 16-507, Arizona Revised Statutes; Relating to Conduct of Elections. The bill focuses on adding the following language in an attempt to make presidential candidates prove that they are natural born citizens:

    “Within ten days after filing the nomination paper, a presidential candidate shall submit an affidavit in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in ARTICLE II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.”

    As of 6/4/09, the bill is being held in committee and that status has not changed. In my analysis of the changes SB 1158 introduces to the current AZ election law, I find the following problematic. If the term “natural born citizen” has not been defined adequately and indisputably (which appears to be the present day case), then how can a candidate determine what supporting documents they must include? More importantly, how can the legislature make additional requirements on a term that is undefined within the legislation?

    It seems to me that the AZ State Legislature needs to define what their understanding of the term natural born citizen means. Without such a definition, they appear to create even more potential problems.

    So my legal question for you, jbjd, is this, would the AZ State Legislature be allowed to include language in their election laws that defined what their understanding of the term natural born citizen means? And if so, wouldn’t this seem to be the preferred method for ultimate resolution of this matter (should the matter not already be resolved by the 2012 election or at least the primary season in 2012) meaning someone could then contest the AZ Legislature’s definition and hopefully get the case heard by the Supreme Court.

    I will continue to watch this legislation closely, and dependent on your answer to my question above I may be attempting to contact the AZ Representatives sponsoring the bill to further discuss the matter.

    Cite of interest:

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

    AZ Conservative: Wonderful question. Recall that I said, even if an AG in only 1 (one) state finds election fraud, that is, determines that the D party perpetrated fraud in order to get BO’s name on the state election ballot, this only means, they failed to ascertain whether BO is a NBC before swearing he is. So, how does this impact on getting BO out of office? Well, as I said, news of this finding of election fraud will hit Congress. Remember, they told their constituents it was okay to ratify the EC vote for BO because APFC said, he’s for real. A finding of fraud means, that ‘documentation’ is insufficient to base a finding, BO is a NBC. At that point, I anticipate Congress would be compelled to begin an Impeachment investigation. Now, if BO can prove to their satisfaction he was born in this country to a Kenyan father then, Congress could determine he is not a NBC. (Based on my understanding of the intention of the founding fathers, given birth in America to an American mother and a Kenyan father, BO is not a NBC. But given the partisan legal opinions expressed thus far, for example, Larry Tribe’s strained opinion that JMc is a NBC; I cannot predict the tenor of such hearings.) At any rate, assuming Congress votes to Impeach based on BO’s failure to fulfill that definition of NBC, certainly BO would appeal and the case would be decided by the federal court. That’s one way to get a legal definition of NBC, predicated on fraud related to this past election.

    What you propose is tenable in the future. That is, the state may define what is a NBC FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE NOMINEE’S NAME PRINTED ON THE STATE’S GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT, in the same way it already determines who has access to the state ballot, for example, enacting law that says the nominee from the major political party is entitled to be on the ballot. (Note, this is a little different from determining as a matter of law, who is a NBC.) If the party wants to contest the state’s right to define NBC for the purpose of getting onto the ballot, the definition of NBC would come up almost as an incidental issue.

    Sorry about the Moderation. Total oversight. ADMINISTRATOR

    • AZ Conservative says:

      jbjd,

      Thank you very much for answering my question. I will be pushing my State Legislature to define NBC in SB 1158. I find it a very viable option because if they use de Vattel’s definition born on U.S. soil to citizen parents, then surely someone will bring a case disputing that claim and maybe finally the Supreme Court will hear the case (if they have not already heard a case under other means such as cases arising from your thoughtful post here).

      AZ Conservative: Of course, you are welcome. At some point, I will be posting model legislation. ADMINISTRATOR

      • AZ Conservative says:

        I very much look forward to reading that post jbjd.

        AZ Conservative: Thank you. I very much look forward to writing it. ADMINISTRATOR

  33. Magna Carta says:

    To AZ CONSERVATIVE,
    I would encourage those reps to write up the requirements based on the recent legal research of Donofrio,Kerchner and the Undead Revolution.If a nominee has a problem with AZ.’s definition of NBC they can do what we all are having to do now…the states can really run their own rodeos and only until the SCOTUS steps in do they need to revise their laws so I say GO FOR IT!
    JB…I’m having trouble getting a cursor to type in my info on your gorgeous document. Can I BLOCK PRINT by hand my personal info onto it and fax away. I will fax copies to AG,Andrade and Ritchie.

    Magna Carta: Of course, you can print that information. I appreciate your concern for altering the visuals of the document. I like your characterization of the election vetting as a “rodeo.” However, I see no need to conduct endless research into finding ‘best definitions’ of NBC. ADMINISTRATOR

  34. AZ Conservative says:

    jbjd,

    I have looked extensively at the AZ election laws (as I believe you have as well). From my research that I conducted in February of 2009, here are the three critical points that I found in AZ election law.

    1.A Presidential candidate had to sign Presidential Preference Election Form (A.R.S. § 16-242) attesting he or she is a Natural Born Citizen.

    2.In accordance with Qualifications for ballot nomination paper (A.R.S. § 16-242), the Arizona Secretary of State “shall certify to the officer in charge of elections, the names of the candidates who are qualified for the presidential preference election ballot.”

    3.A major party chairman must submit a candidate nomination form following the respective party’s national convention in order to have their Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates placed on the general election ballot.

    As a result of my research back in February, I made two FOIA requests to the SOS of AZ to obtain both Barack Obama’s signed Presidential Preference Election Form A.R.S. § 16-242 in part attesting to his natural born citizenship status and the document submitted by the DNC chair as the Democratic Party’s nomination form. I noted when I received the document that the DNC’s nomination form in AZ did not contain any eligibility language.

    As a result of my findings, I concluded that the AZ SOS seemed to be protected by the Candidate’s signed A.R.S. § 16-242 form. I concluded that the AZ SOS seemed to follow the election laws in that the nomination paper language in AZ law does not require the chairman of a party to submit eligibility language in their nomination form, thus I concluded the SOS was able to take Barack Obama’s signed Presidential Preference Election Form as enough to satisfy any SOS requirement to confirm eligibility.

    Is my analysis here correct? If my analysis is correct, I would like to follow up with another post posing a question for you specific to AZ law and pending legislation in the AZ State Legislature.

    Cites of interest:

    http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/PPE/Nomination_Paper_PPE_Feb_5_2008.pdf

    http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00242.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS

    AZ Conservative: Sounds good to me. Just a technical point… “qualified candidate” here means, the candidate whose paperwork is in order in accordance with AZ law; and not the candidate who meets the qualifications of office. ADMINISTRATOR

  35. Magna Carta says:

    I will be at a Sheriff Joe Arpaio event tommorrow and I plan where possible to distribute the 12 copies I have onhand with border-fighters.I know many people there so I feel I can lasso them into obedience.

    Magna Carta: Good luck. I will be there on the airwaves, as I have been asked to speak on Constitutional Radio. If people have questions about the issues, please send them here. Reading the comments alone is an education. ADMINISTRATOR

  36. Ed Sunderland says:

    Question, about the Memorandum of Complaint of Election Fraud Against Boyd Richie,

    I printed this out, now can we hand write our Name and address in, is anyone sending copies of same to their elected Reps so they know what is going down?

    I looked over AG Gregg Abbots website and would like to know which department to send it to. I couldn’t find “election fraud” but I know there has to be a venue.

    Are you mailing these?, Registered mail, return receipt requested, and how many do you think Gregg Abbot needs before he does something?

    Has anyone sent one in yet and received any response?

    Forgive me please if some of these questions have been answered, I am a little late finding this site but wish to participate quickly.

    I sent a letter to the editor of the Texas Insider to see about sending in a story to them. They have about 54,000 subscribers here in Texas. So I was thinking if we needed numbers, that might be a news site for an editorial from someone to get support. There are a lot of Patriots there if you read the comments.

    Thanks, Ed.

    Ed Sunderland: Forgiven. People have been faxing the letter to the AG; and yes, hand writing your name and address are fine. I also urge people to send copies of the complaints they send to the AG, to the press, afterward. (You may want to block out your identifying information.) Obviously, the person who sends this well-crafted letter is no right-wing crazy mobster. At some point, a member of the MSM will pick up this story. No responses from the AG so far; but it is early. ADMINISTRATOR

  37. Ed Sunderland says:

    Thank you sir.

    Ed Sunderland: You are welcome. ADMINISTRATOR

  38. bob strauss says:

    Another story, using your work product, at WND, this AM.

    bob strauss: Thank you, bob; let me take a look.

    Wow; WND copied my work wholesale, and credited Mr. Williams from CFP but not me. Having read my work, you know they fabricated the nuances, for example, they omitted the fact that, HI law required the extra line in the Certification. Well, from now on, I trust you will assume that, WND is stealing other people’s hard work, too. But this would only make sense. Because in the same way that CFP is the front for Douglas Hagmann; Center for Western Journalism is the front for WND and Farah. They can label their propaganda however they want; but essentially, they are in the business of shaping opinions and not investigating and reporting hard ‘news.’ ADMINISTRATOR

  39. jbjd says:

    EVERYONE, I AM LOOKING FOR PEOPLE FROM MARYLAND TO FILE A COMPLAINT. FIRST, I NEED TO KNOW WHETHER NP OR THE MD STATE D PARTY CHAIR SUBMITTED BO’S CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION TO ELECTIONS OFFICIALS IN THAT STATE. ANYONE FROM MD?

  40. Magna Carta says:

    I feel I made a lot of headway today at the Sheriff Joe Arpaio event. Lots of politically involved and active politicians. I got out 12 copies of your complaint plus gave out to many more your blog info. Many promised to fan out the info via e-mail lists. These people are fed up they will act.An asst. for Senator Kay Baily Hutchison took a copy as well as a very prominent Rep. Party lobbyist. They are all weell-channeled folk. One guy knows Abbotts right-hand man who he claims will be most interested in this approach.I will be getting in touch with aides to Culberson,State Rep. Berman and Rep. Riddle and Congressman Louie Gohmert as well.

    Magna Carta: This networking sounds promising. I have found that people tend to think these elected officials have access to more information than we do; and are generally more savvy than us. But this is not necessarily so. For example, I know that the DNC Call, the document that governs the rules of the Convention, says that when delegates vote, they should use their “good conscience” to represent the voters who elected them. http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:jgT0TJaGb8oJ:s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/c313170ef991f2ce12_iqm6iyofq.pdf+2008+dnc+call+to+convention&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a But through research I conducted before the nomination, I discovered, 13 (thirteen) states have enacted laws that say, the pledged delegate elected in the party primary is bound to vote at the party convention for the candidate she was elected to represent (through at least the first round of voting). (For states with these delegate binding laws, I penned the name, vote binding states.) I watched Governor Rendell of PA say on FOX, there’s no such thing as a pledged delegate because the DNC rules only require delegates to use their “good conscience.” I knew without researching, PA was not a vote binding state! (Interestingly, several days later, after my work was distributed in letters to A’sG, party chairs, and S’sofS in those vote binding states, Howard Wolfson was on FOX explaining, there really is such a thing as “pledged” delegate! I was howling.

    Anyway, I say all of this to point out, synthesizing the ‘story behind the story’ as I have done in the last several posts, hopefully takes the reader, whether lay person or elected official, through the election process to the point of understanding the wrong(s) that occurred during this past election cycle and determining how best to redress these wrongs, balancing the least harm to the country. ADMINISTRATOR

  41. Magna Carta says:

    Well said and indeed in general the grassroots activists are charged with educating the politician.It will be the case here and you are doing a great service by giving the grassroots the ammo.My work today was to get the ears so that the feeding of this info can occur.It seems the winds and climate are favorable for your work as I am hearing from my mom (I do not have cable) that 20,000 appeared in Ft. Worth Texas alone. I would hope this will bolster a cowardly AG.I have also posted your site on ALIPAC forum announcing for Action! Texas Voters!

    Magna Carta: Great news about TX! I remain cautiously optimistic. I really appreciate your marketing efforts. I am much better at identifying the problem and then formulating the solution. ADMINISTRATOR

  42. Magna Carta says:

    The Canada Press story is also on Obama File blog. I was trying to figure out how to get to the guy running this blog to notify about your efforts over the last several months.If anyone knows…tell me where to click.

    Magna Carta: Before I forget, I had inadvertently held one of your comments in Moderation, even though I had responded with quite a lengthy reply. Have you seen it?

    Please, people, if you see my work repeated without attribution, tell the owners of the blog! The integrity of the information I post here can be destroyed by one bogus presentation. It’s like inadvertently buying a knock-off Gucci bag that falls apart after one use; luckily, the name Gucci has been well-established to mean quality, and can survive random usurpation. But these issues I am presenting represent first impressions, that is, situations that have not been examined before. As one commenter wrote, I discuss these issues “sans” the drama. Because once these issues become mired in hyperbolic rant, they lose their import and we who discuss these issues and seek explanations and solutions lose our credibility outright. For example, knowing the Certifications of Nomination presented by the D party to elections officials in SC and HI were different, could be explained by screaming words like conspiracy, or cover-up. Or, noticing the difference in the forms could lead to a discussion that each state legislates the process by which the political parties can get the name of their nominee for POTUS onto the state’s general election ballot. (This means, the people in that state determined how the party would submit the name of its nominee to state elections officials.)

    You get what I mean. ADMINISTRATOR

  43. Eagle says:

    jbjd Says:
    Saturday, 12 September 2009 at 16:36

    Yes from Maryland, lived here all my life. please contact me if I can help

    Eagle: Welcome. And thank you so much for volunteering right away to help. Here’s what I need; and I need this ASAP. Presumably, having read this blog, you already understand that some states require in order for the name of the nominee for POTUS from the major political party to be printed on the ballot, he must be Constitutionally eligible for the job. Well, MD is such a state. Thus, Certifying BO is the nominee – according to DNC rules, this means, he is Constitutionally eligible – to get his name printed on MD’s general election ballot BEFORE ascertaining whether he is a NBC constitutes election fraud. But before you can file a complaint with your AG and request an investigation, you need to know whom to charge with fraud. And this depends on who submitted the Certification of Nomination to your elections officials, NP or the state D party Chair.

    I need you to submit a written request – this can be done via email – to your state elections officials, asking them to provide you with copies of all documents submitted by the D party to Certify BO was the party nominee so that his name could be printed on MD’s general election ballot, including any cover letters that accompanied any such certifications.

    Can you do this on Monday? ADMINISTRATOR

    • Justin Riggs says:

      Eagle,

      If you’d like a sample of the type of letter jbjd is asking you to send, let me know. I’ve sent several, so I know the format works. Should just be a cut and paste job. You can contact me at juriggs@yahoo.com.

      Thanks for being willing to step up to the plate on this. It’s important work. There’s lots of people here to support you!

      Justin Riggs: Thank you. Thank you so very much.

      Eagle, please email Justin. He writes letters to state officials with respect for the office, that elicit favorable responses. Email him ASAP to get a sample. As soon as you receive back the Certifications, post the results here.
      ADMINISTRATOR

  44. Eagle says:

    emailed you Justin

    Eagle: Hooray! Thank you so much. Cannot wait to see who submitted that MD Certification of Nomination, so that I can post the MD complaint of election fraud to the AG. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Eagle says:

      emailed at 8:40 AM today. Now we wait

      Eagle: Whoa, you gave me a little scare. I did not instantly understand ‘what’ you had emailed. I scrolled down to find your state; and when I came to a previous comment and saw MD, my heart skipped. Oh, no, did he email a Complaint tailored to TX, to MD? And then I READ the prior comment. Of course; you had emailed the request for documents. Phew! You should not have to wait long. State public records laws generally require the state to comply with the request within 10 (ten) days. Don’t worry; HI is being proofed as we speak, and will be posted later today. (I MIGHT get VA today; if so, they will be next. I will do MD as soon you receive the documents you requested.) ADMINISTRATOR

  45. Magna Carta says:

    Thanks Gordo. I wrote him a friendly note and encouraged him to come over and see JBJD’s work.Also, let him know Texas voters are letter-ready and Maryland is in progress.

    Magna Carta: Please, when referring to me, use small letters (“jbjd” but not JBJD). There is enough confusion already about my work.

    Also, FYI, getting out the additional complaints would be much quicker if people in those states with laws requiring the candidate to be eligible for the office, before his or her name will be printed on the ballot; would just obtain the Certifications of Nomination from their elected officials, through state public document laws, so that I can know who sent these to state elections officials and address the complaint accordingly. (The documents for MD and VA are in progress as we speak. Anyone from GA?) ADMINISTRATOR

  46. jbjd says:

    Are you from HI and, if I post the model complaint of election fraud letter to the AG of HI, will you file this? (I already have the D Certifications of Nomination presented to HI elections officials.)

  47. Sheila says:

    jbjd I have been following your blog for a while now and have seen the work you and other people are putting into this effort and I wanted to inform that there is an article written in THE POST AND EMAIL out of New Hampshire about the NH SOS investigating election fraud by NP,BO and the DEMS. In article they were crediting the Canadian Free Press with all of your work. I sent them an e-mail to inform them they had it wrong. Thought you might be interested!!!

    Sheila: Thank you so much. (Remember, Justin Riggs put in the work to obtain the HI documents; I merely noted the difference with other Certifications and ‘interpreted’ that difference to be required by state law.) Are you from NH? Does NH law require the candidate to be eligible to get onto the ballot? ADMINISTRATOR

    09.13.09
    OMG. This theft of my intellectual property could completely undermine all of our hard work.

    CFP copied my blog, making a big deal about the ‘newly’ discovered difference in signatures on Certifications of Nomination, concluding these differences in Certifications meant, the party had committed fraud. They failed to mention, state law dictates what goes on each Certification; and whether the Certification must originate with the DNC or the state D party Chair. Of course, all of this information is on my blog. No; for CFP, the fraud was proven merely by the different versions of the Certification. Then, WND copied my work wholesale, and credited Mr. Williams from CFP but not me. Just like CFP, WND also omitted the fact, HI law required the extra line in the Certification. (This makes sense, since in the same way that CFP is the front for Douglas Hagmann; Center for Western Journalism is the front for WND and Farah. They can label their propaganda however they want; but essentially, they are in the business of shaping opinions and not investigating and analyzing hard ‘news.’)

    Now, a state Rep. in NH – he is a Plaintiff in one of Orly’s cases – was given the information from CFP. He contacted the SoS in NH to look into fraud; evidently, she agreed. But no fraud occurred in NH. As I have been saying since last summer, no provision of any law, federal or state, requires any state official to check whether the nominee for POTUS from the major political party is Constitutionally eligible for the job. This is the reason that any lawsuit predicated on Mandamus was doomed to fail. That is, the court – judicial branch – will not order the SoS – executive branch – to perform a specific job function unless such function is spelled out in the law – legislative branch. Most state laws also fail to require the nominee to be Constitutionally eligible for the job. In fact, most laws entitle the name of the nominee to appear on the ballot. All the party is required to do is to Certify the name of its nominee, to appropriate state officials. And since NH law does not require the nominee to be a NBC, having legally Certified he is the nominee, no fraud occurred.
    We have begun filing election fraud complaints with A’sG in those states with laws requiring the candidate must be eligible for office to appear on the ballot. The complaints make clear, the D party submitted the Certifications that were required for the SoS to place BO’s name on the ballot. And the SoS did exactly what she was supposed to do, by placing his name on the ballot. In fact, by law, the party nominee is entitled to be on the ballot. However, the law in this state also requires the candidate to be eligible for the job. Now, we have no idea whether BO is eligible for the job; but we have a pretty good idea that based on the documentation in the public domain, as well as admissions by both the candidate and the party, the person signing the Certification on behalf of the party could not have ascertained whether BO is a NBC before signing the Certification submitted to the state.

    It is this false meaning underlying the true Certification that is the election fraud; and the job of the AG is to investigate that fraud.

    But let’s say, the SoS of NH reports, no fraud occurred. A’sG in other states will hear this and figure, no fraud occurred. So, what are these people filing these 4-page complaints of election fraud talking about?

    Does this mean, the D’s did not commit election fraud in states other than NH? Absolutely not. But, tragically, because of the malfeasance of people associated with CFP and WND, and Leo and the NH state Rep., only readers of my blog will ‘get’ that distinction.

    Leo Donofrio also posted this stolen information about the NH Rep., AFTER I alerted him CFP had stolen this from me. Here are the first two lines of the comment I sent him today, which comment he refuses to post. No surprise there.

    “I cannot believe you posted this after I alerted you that CFP had stolen my work.”

    “By stealing my work, CFP and WND have jeopardized the success of the project.”

    By the way, NH has no law requiring the nominee from the major political party to be eligible for the job in order to appear on the ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

  48. hapnHal says:

    jbjd

    Several days ago I sent you a request on CWs blog requesting if BO and NP besides committing fraud have they committed a felony? ( Don’t know if fraud and felonies are the same in court?) Examples I gave was BOs application of Certification in Az and NPs verification of BOs eligibilty in HI. Requested from you if you had other examples and it appears you do. I know you put a lot of work into election fraud and treason on this site. Don’t agree with these bozos taking your info for their oun use. Might want to check another site “thebirthers.org” We need to stick together on this mess until Barry gets tossed out.
    Keep up with your good hard work.

    hapnHal: What conduct constitutes fraud, or a felony, is determined on a state by state basis, according to locally enacted legislation. Most states have adopted the definition of fraud contained in the Restatement, which is a thesaurus of sorts of causes of action. If adopted by the states into their laws then, several states share the same definition of the infraction. Specifically, election fraud is defined in each state as a crime. In order to be considered a crime, the complained of conduct has to be greater than merely negligent, for example, it has to be reckless or intentional.

    The problem with “taking” my info for their own use is this. (This has already happened in NH.) CFP stole my work; a state Rep. in NH saw their work and contacted the SoS in NH to look into fraud. Now, as I have been saying since last summer, no provision of any law, federal or state, requires any state official to check whether the nominee for POTUS from the major political party is Constitutionally eligible for the job. This is the reason that any lawsuit predicated on Mandamus was doomed to fail. That is, the court – judicial branch – will not order the SoS – executive branch – to perform a specific job function unless such function is spelled out in the law – legislative branch. Most state laws also fail to require the nominee to be Constitutionally eligible for the job. In fact, most laws entitle the name of the nominee to appear on the ballot. All the party is required to do is to Certify the name of its nominee, to appropriate state officials. So, unless a NH law requires the nominee to be a NBC, no fraud occurred. Let’s say, the SoS of NH reports, no fraud occurred. A’sG in other states will hear this and figure, no fraud occurred. So, what are these people filing these 4-page complaints of election fraud talking about?

    Does this mean, the D’s did not commit fraud in other states? Absolutely not. But, tragically, because of the malfeasance of people associated with CFP and WND, only readers of this blog will ‘get’ that distinction. ADMINISTRATOR

  49. Ed Sunderland says:

    To Administrator;

    Faxed Election Fraud complaint form to TX ATTY General Greg Abbot 07:57 this eve.

    FYI

    Ed Sunderland: Excellent. Good for you! (I trust you read this, first, and understood and agreed with its contents.) ADMINISTRATOR

  50. Rocknee says:

    jbjd

    Sent Kentucky info to you before. Just looked at this: http://sos.ky.gov/elections/qualifications/

    For President, straight from the Constitution Article II, 35 yrs old, NBC, and resident for 14 years.

    Rocknee: I recall we went over this; sorry, but if I am remembering correctly, while KY would have been a great place to file due to its political climate, no law in KY requires the nominee for POTUS from the major political party to be eligible for the job before elections officials will print his name on the general election ballot. This chart you linked merely informs prospective candidates, say, people who might want to run in the party primary, what are the qualifications of the job. ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: