UPDATE 03.24.10:  All citizen complaints posted here are current.









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


  1. Ed Sunderland says:

    Yes sir, I read it a several times, understand and am on board. In my view however, regardless of whether or not a State has a requirement that a candidate meet constitutional muster, the mere fact that those “two” Official Nomination forms worded as they are should cancel each other out, thus making the candidates null and void.

    Those are like writing a law that says, “you are licensed drive on this road” and another that says, you are just a driver! This whole thing is so adolescent in it’s simple stupidity it’s beyond imagination. “Much like Congress and the Senate in general”.

    The question I have is “why oh’ why” “wasn’t there a single election official that didn’t question the basic validity of these two notarized instruments?”

    This act was either a raw cynical disregard for this country, our Constitution, and it’s people, or total blind biased ignorance! I submit that our Attorney General needs to ferret out the answer.

    Ed Sunderland: Let me try to explain. The steps the major political party is required to satisfy in order to get the name of its nominee for POTUS printed on the ballot depends on the laws in the state. As I wrote in the Complaint for Election Fraud, even without explicitly writing, its candidate is Constitutionally eligible for the job; the D party warranties he is eligible for the job by making him their nominee. That is, D rules require the nominee for POTUS to be Constitutionally eligible for the job. So, having this line in the Certification of Nomination is actually superfluous. However, at least theoretically, the DNC could change its rules, and omit that requirement. In HI, there’s still that law requiring the line of eligibility to be on the Certification.

    Please keep in mind, the authority of the state in relation to candidate eligibility only extends to determining under what circumstances the state agrees to pay to print the name of the candidate selected by the party, on the state’s general election ballot. But remember, you are not voting for the candidate in the general election but for the Electors for the party of that candidate. So, theoretically, the candidate’s name doesn’t even have to be on the ballot, anyway. And you only vote for these Electors because the U.S. Constitution says, the states will appoint Electors on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November; and each state decided to hold a general election on that day to allow the citizens of the state to choose those Electors, and then enacted laws to carry out this selection process. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Magna Carta says:

    Do you know what the actual text is in the NH election laws since that is a new hot spot? Is it the case where they do not have the same verbiage as Texas or Maryland?

    Magna Carta: NH has no law that requires the nominee for POTUS from the major political party to be eligible for the job as a condition of appearing on the general election ballot. But the people who stole my work – CFP, WND, Leo Donofrio, etc. – are unaware of the implications of these laws. No; guess why a NH Rep. took the CFP article to the SoS? Maybe because he is a Plaintiff in one of Orly Taitz’s cases. And the ‘smoke’ coming from the hyperbolic rants of people associated with CFP tricked some people into thinking, the information they posted means ‘something.’ But nothing in the law in NH requires the Certifications to be notarized in the first place. And while technically faulty notary stamps might jeopardize the license of the Notary, fraud related to submitting these Certifications to state elections officials would only vest under these conditions: 1) if the party could not have obtained places on the ballot without a notarized certification; AND 2) if the party could not have otherwise obtained a Notary stamp on those Certifications except through fraud.

    In sum, NH wasn’t chosen because the law we are using to file complaints of election fraud to the AG, applies there; it does not. Rather, the NH Rep. was chosen to pursue this ‘fraud,’ by people associated with both him and CFP, who are obviously more interested in gaining notoriety for themselves than in pursuing a responsible strategy to resolve this Presidential eligibility dilemma in a way that could produce favorable results. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Justin Riggs says:

      Magna Carta,

      Here’s the relevant NH language:

      655:17-b Declaration of Intent; Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates Who File Nomination Papers.

      I. Declarations of intent for each candidate for president and vice-president who seeks nomination by nomination papers shall be in the form provided in paragraph II. Declarations of intent required by this section shall be filed with the secretary of state, signed by the candidate, and notarized by a notary public.

      II. I, ________ declare that I am domiciled in the city (or town or unincorporated place) of _______, county of , state of ______________, and am a qualified voter therein; that I intend to be a candidate for the office of to be chosen at the general election to be held on the day of ; and I intend to file nomination papers by the deadline established under RSA 655:43. I further declare that, if qualified as a candidate for said office, I shall not withdraw; and that, if elected, I shall be qualified for and shall assume the duties of said office.”

      Here’s 655:43

      “655:43 Filing Deadline.

      I. Nomination papers shall be filed with the secretary of state no later than 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday one week before the primary. Nomination papers to be filed shall be grouped by municipality. No nomination papers shall be accepted by the secretary of state unless the candidate shall have met the age and domicile qualifications for the office he or she seeks at the time of the general election and meets all the other qualifications at the time of filing”

      A couple of questions I have:

      1) Who files the nomination papers?
      2) If the individual who files the nomination papers is saying to the state that the candidate “meets all the other qualifications” at the time of filing, isn’t this saying that the Presidential candidate is a NBC?

      Justin Riggs: 1. BO files the papers to get onto the state ballot for the party primary. (Recall that, HE pulled his name from the MI ballot; HRC left hers on.) Going after him for election fraud is not an option. 2. NH has no law requiring the nominee for POTUS from the major political party to be Constitutionally eligible for the job in order to have his name printed on the general election ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Magna Carta says:

    If there are any Texans on this blog interested in contacting the Austin American-Statesman…its an idea..I have their e-mail.I would prefer we notify as a group in some way.The telephone is:(512)445-3679.
    I filed today and I believe my husband will also. Also contacted U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert’s office in Tyler. Sent his secretary there all relevant links both to educate and refer directly to jbjd’s work posted here.

  4. Magna Carta says:

    ooops not e-mail ..telephone number.

  5. azgo says:

    Hello jbjd,

    I don’t know if you have seen this regarding SC law requiring written certification by the political party the qualifications of the candidate for office to be placed on the ballot.

    Note the date of August 14, 2008 on the SC Democratic Party letter from the political party chair as being two weeks prior to the DNC Convention’s official nomination paper by NP.

    And please also note according to the state law, “The written certification required by this section must contain a statement that each candidate certified meets,… the qualifications for the office for which he has filed.”

    Did the political party chair mislead the SC State Election Commission by this so called written certification as especially written in advance of the DNC nomination?

    Should the SC State Election Commission have accepted this information from the state political party and the DNC official nomination paper as verification according to the SC law as to “…must verify the qualifications of those candidates…”?

    From “Democratic Party Rules (pdf)”:

    “South Carolina Democratic Party Rules

    Candidate filing, nominations, primary elections, and election protests shall be governed by the laws of the State of South Carolina.”

    Interesting, I want to say, ‘election fraud’…..

    azgo: I just got home. Let me take a look at this and I will get back to you. ADMINISTRATOR

    azgo: This is the same stuff that has been out there since last year. Recall, the only way I knew the HI Certification of Nomination had that extra line about Constitutional eligibility was that I had already seen the SC Certification, which did not. But now that I have the SC law, yes, this is another state, like HI and TX, that needs a fraud complaint. There are many more states with these laws; we are just awaiting the Certifications to know whom to accuse of election fraud, the state D party Chair or, NP, the Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention.

    I will begin drafting SC. Thanks for feeding me the specifications; it makes looking up the law that much easier. (Yes; I always do my own research when you send the cites.)

    Finally, please recall, other federal offices are voted on, on the same day as the POTUS. But in SC, they use different ballots. The only candidate Certified ‘late’ is the POTUS (and VPOTUS) and Electors.

    ARTICLE 3.

    SECTION 7-13-310. Kinds of general election ballots; different colored paper shall be used.
    In the general elections provided for in Section 7-13-10, there shall be four kinds of ballots called, respectively: “Official Ballot for Presidential Elector”; “Official Ballot for State Offices, United States Senator and Members of Congress”; “Official Ballot for State Senator, Member of the House of Representatives, County, Circuit and Other Offices” and “Official Ballot on Constitutional Amendments or other Propositions Submitted.” Each such kind of ballot shall be printed upon different colored paper as shall be provided for by the executive director. Candidates ADMINISTRATOR

  6. redhank says:

    Hi jbjd…just got back from being away and have had no response as of yet to our TX complaint…Also wanted to say that I have read some of the other blogs and I hope you keep your spirits up…there is a lot of amateur hour going on out there (and regrettably self service)…and it jeopardizes all of us who only want the truth even if we are proven wrong…

    redhank: You have no idea how nice it is to hear this from you. I am in the midst of preparing the SC complaint – I am still waiting on MD and VA – and in your absence I posted HI, which clearly spells out that the Certifications specifically comply with HI state law. (Unfortunately, I have no information that anyone from HI has filed this election fraud complaint.) I have also begun to consider what is an appropriate time to re-contact the TX AG. Understand that usually, when you write to someone requesting a service, you say something like, ‘I will expect your response by (date),’ or some wording like that. But in this case, anything we said would sound like we were ordering compliance. And we are not. However, we expect compliance. If the AG exercises discretion not to investigate, we need to get this in writing. I will get back to you with ideas; let me know your thinking on the subject. (BTW, I believe several other people have now filed in TX. Check out comments from Magna Carta.) ADMINISTRATOR

  7. redhank says:

    Well I agree we need to have a followup…I have not contacted newspapers as I think we should try not to box them in yet…but a respectful followup and then perhaps consider seeking press…I look to you for guidance as I am an ex-banker, not a lawyer…

    redhank: I hear you but, this is a whole new ball game. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. Ed Sunderland says:

    I called the Texas AG office today and they didn’t know which department to direct me to-to find a case worker. I was passed around but was told someone would call. No name or case in the database.

    They didn’t know which department “election fraud” would be filed under.

    Admin, if you have info or a request contact me. Maybe a conference call or something like that would be good to get everyone on the same page.

    Ed Sunderland: Funny you should say that. We are trying to figure out how to do a once-a-week live chat. Believe me, I am dancing just as fast as I can. Interesting about the AG not knowing who is handling these complaints. But they had better be ‘docketed.’ ADMINISTRATOR

    (Note: I answered this yesterday and somehow forgot to post. I am so sorry.)

  9. Ed Sunderland says:

    A secretary said that someone would call and she asked for my number, so we’ll see about that. In any case, when you go to the AG site there is no category for political issues.

    I am wondering if we shouldn’t check with the Secretary of State like New Hampshire?

    You know, the more I think about this, the more irritated I get. I have to wonder if Acorn is running the DNC?

    Ed Sunderland: Interesting how A’sG set up their separate divisions for anticipated or previously encountered examples of ‘consumer fraud’ perpetrated in their state. Guess this election fraud is a newly discovered crime. I am curious to see how these A’sG will respond to so many complaining witnesses: ‘sorry we cannot help you, we have not assigned our attorneys to a unit with this title and so, we cannot investigate this heretofore unreported crime.’

    As for ‘reporting’ this crime to the SoS, well, that would be like calling the city trash collector to put out a house fire. Apples and oranges. As I have been posting in comments throughout the blogosphere for over a year now, no law in any state required the SoS to vet the candidate as to Constitutional eligibility. Plus, in NH, no election fraud was committed viz-a-viz S’s of S because all documents were submitted to the SoS in accordance with the law, and the SoS put the nominee’s name on the ballot as he was required to do, by law. What happened in NH resulted from only 2 (two) things: 1) CFP (and others) stole the work being done on this blog and thought they could make a name for themselves by ‘running’ with my idea but, having failed to do the leg work, had no idea what we meant by the use of the term, ‘election fraud’; and 2) the NH state representative whom they got to pitch the ‘investigation’ to the SoS is a Plaintiff in one of Orly’s cases and, because of this prior association, was specifically targeted to bring charges of election fraud raised on this blog. In other words, he did this because someone who stole my work but had no idea what it entailed, asked him to. ADMINISTRATOR

    If going to the S’s of S was a possible solution to this issue, I would have already proposed this solution months ago. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. Ed Sunderland says:

    I am going to contact my State Representative and see if I can get some traction there.

    (sent request for info on venue to State Rep)
    Awaiting reply from State Rep and TX ATTY, General.

    Ed Sunderland: I just want to point out, you are overlapping 2 (two) branches of government, the legislative and the executive. What party is your Rep.?

    Has anyone in TX heard back from the AG? ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Ed Sunderland says:

    Yea, I know about the overlapping, and I haven’t received anything from the AG yet.

    Ed Sunderland: Think I will post a ‘call for comments’ from Texans, on the blog. Let’s see how many of you are out there. ADMINISTRATOR

  12. azgo says:

    Hi jbjd,

    Re: SC Model Letter.

    Part 1. (A):
    Would it be wise to also include the line prior the one quoted from SC election law, “Political parties nominating candidates by primary or convention must verify the qualifications of those candidates prior to certification to the authority charged by law with preparing the ballot.”? (I like the words, ‘must verify the qualifications’ and it is underlined in the SC State Election Commission letter from Garry Baum as to Garry is making a point and the AG will be reading this letter. What do you think?)

    Part 2 of the SC model letter:
    The SC Official DNC Certification of Nomination is the “duly nominated” only version, not the “legally qualified” version (HI version).

    Doesn’t Carol Fowler’s initialed ‘Certification of Candidates’ email dated August 14, 2008 serve as written certification as required by state elections law? This email is then the only certification that uses the language, “meets the qualifications for the office…” as NP certification only states “duly nominated”. If so, should this SC letter be written similiar to the TX letter as to “…submitted 2 (two) documents…”?

    Also the Georgia model letter may be next as a blogger has sent info to the Georgia SoS and who then referred to the AG regarding the “famous” DNC certification letter article. I left a message directing this person here, jbjd web site, to review the information and to file a formal complaint to Georgia AG using the model letter format.

    azgo: In general, your suggestions point to language that makes a distinction without a difference. For example, you want me to add to the section of law quoted in the SC complaint, the lines from that law which are underlined in the letter that the SC elections commission sent to (?) along with copies of the party’s certifications for lesser offices, right? You think this will bolster the case for fraud presented to the AG, correct? Let me start backwards. Under SC law, submitting the name of the nominee to election officials to place his name on the ballot already means 1) he is qualified for the job sought; and 2) the party ascertained his qualifications. The reason the line, “Political parties nominating candidates by primary or convention must verify the qualifications of those candidates prior to certification…” was added to the law was so as to make clear, vetting the candidate is the job of the parties, not the state. Think about it. The state cannot order the parties to vet party candidates; that is interfering with internal party operations. But the state can legislate conduct involving the state. So, it said, parties handing us names they want included on our ballots must only hand us names of eligible candidates or, nominees. For the purpose of establishing fraud, since the law requires the party to submit only eligible candidates to the state for publication on the state ballot then, the party would have to determine such eligibility before certifying the name of the nominee, to the state.

    On August 14, SC did not know who was the D nominee for POTUS. According to SC law, the Certification for POTUS is in September.

    As for comparing the TX complaint to the one filed in SC, in TX, no NP signed Certification was submitted, but only a Certification and letter signed by the state D party Chair. In SC, we have the NP Certification but not the cover letter. But since SC law requires the Certification to come from the state party Chair, we know., that Certification of Nomination signed by NP and stamped Received by SC had to have come from the state party Chair. It doesn’t matter what she wrote in that letter; the mere submission of the Certification of Nomination evidences the fraud.

    Let me know if you have any more questions. And thank you for making sure I haven’t missed something.

    As for GA, well, that is a very special state to me. Because during the primary, I learned about vote binding states, that is, states that enacted laws requiring delegates elected to represent certain candidates had to follow those candidates into the Convention. But I documented before the convention a pattern of harassment of HRC delegates by BO’s people, in vote binding states, trying to get them to pledge to vote for him. I reasoned that they were enticing HRC pledged delegates to break the law. So, I reported these activities to the A’sG of these states. The GA AG wrote a letter to pledged delegates reminding them, by law in GA, they had to vote for the person they were elected to represent on at least the first round of voting at the Convention! So, I look forward to getting the GA Certifications. ADMINISTRATOR

    • azgo says:

      Woops, regarding Georgia, the blogger forwarded the info to the local election supervisor requesting an investigation and she forwarded it to the GA Secretary of State. Sorry!

      azgo: That’s okay. Get me the GA documents. ADMINISTRATOR

    • azgo says:

      Hello jbjd,

      Thank you for your answers above!

      This one needs to be addressed as I stated above re:
      “Part 2 of the SC model letter:
      The SC Official DNC Certification of Nomination is the “duly nominated” only version, not the “legally qualified” version (HI version).”

      The South Carolina “DNC, Official Certification of Nomination” letter says:

      “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were (duly nominated) as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:” [emphasis added]

      In your “The Model Complaint of Election Fraud” letter for South Carolina in part 2., paragraph 2, it says:

      Carol Fowler submitted….. contained the line, he was “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

      The last part of this statement is from the Hawaii DNC, Official Certification of Nomination” letter. This last part needs to be changed to reflect the South Carolina “DNC, Official Certification of Nomination” letter – “duly nominated”.

      azgo: Good catch! Thank you. ADMINISTRATOR

  13. DABIG says:

    (I’m getting back to you from another site)
    Sweet site you have here as well as amazingly detailed research. Hats off to you sir.

    Must one hold the status of Permanent Residence/Registered Voter in said state?
    If so, I may not qualify, as I hold dual Residence, however, I do have contacts who would qualify.

    DABIG: Boy, am I glad to see you here. (Thank you for the compliment. I am better than I would otherwise be, because of the contributions of my readers.) As a resident, you are entitled to the services of the state. In this case, you are a complaining witness to the election fraud. The state is the investigator/prosecutor. Just make sure to fill in your HI address instead of your other address. Please, file away; and tell your friends! ADMINISTRATOR

  14. Margie says:

    I sent an E-Mail to the AG in Michigan, asking who was responsible to make sure nominees were natural born, I have not received a reply. Anyone have the knowledge here about it in michigan?

    Margie: Welcome. No provision of any federal or state law requires any state official to vet the nominee for POTUS from the major political party as to Constitutional eligibility for the job. But some state laws say, the nominee must be eligible. Can you look up MI laws to see whether they contain any such provision? To get a better idea of what I am talking about, just read the complaints already posted. These cite to laws in those states. (Not all states have such laws; we are only filing complaints of election fraud in states with these eligibility laws that apply to nominees from the major political parties.) ADMINISTRATOR

  15. kamikaz says:

    jbjd, please check

    New Hampshire Secretary of State refers Rappaport’s complaint to NH Attorney General

    kamikaz: I cannot click on that site. After CFP (JB Williams) stole my work and somehow Rep. Rappaport, Orly’s Plaintiff, misused it to pursue a fraud complaint in NH, where no such fraud occurred, with the SoS, who has no authority to investigate fraud, anyway, I wrote to that web site to explain JB Williams stole my work, and to point out the danger to the bona fide cases we are filing with A’sG, of having a SoS rule there was no fraud. The author refused to post my comment. (He did mention my name.) Now, your news is even worse. With CFP’s (JB Williams’) misplaced focus on fraud as the difference in Certifications of Nominations between HI and other states – HI law requires an extra line explicitly saying the candidate is Constitutionally eligible for the job – the AG will find no election fraud. And all the other A’sG will point to that decision to justify refusing to investigate the real election fraud we are reporting. (Assuming the reports in the article you cite are true.)

    JB Williams was on Sentinel Radio and other programs repeating he had obtained the work from an anonymous source. ADMINISTRATOR

  16. jbjd says:

    Readers, I want to edit my response to Justin Riggs, on his comment submitted on 09.14.09, at 1:02 am. He sent to the attention of Magna Carta, the law from NH regarding candidate participation in NH’s Presidential primary. Then, he asked me these questions:

    A couple of questions I have:

    1) Who files the nomination papers?
    2) If the individual who files the nomination papers is saying to the state that the candidate “meets all the other qualifications” at the time of filing, isn’t this saying that the Presidential candidate is a NBC?

    Here was my reply.

    Justin Riggs: 1. BO files the papers to get onto the state ballot for the party primary. (Recall that, HE pulled his name from the MI ballot; HRC left hers on.) Going after him for election fraud is not an option. 2. NH has no law requiring the nominee for POTUS from the major political party to be Constitutionally eligible for the job in order to have his name printed on the general election ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

    I want to clarify something. When I said, going after BO for fraud was not an option in NH, what I meant, is this. In order to go after him, you would have to alert the AG that BO submitted a fraudulent affidavit of eligibility for the primary. This allegation differs from the charge in the present complaints. In the case we present to the AG, we are defining the fraud was in swearing something was true, before ascertaining whether it was, for the benefit of getting the name of the party nominee printed on the ballot. But with BO, we would have to allege, he lied to get himself on the ballot. Because he certainly knows whether he is eligible to be POTUS. I have no evidence, he lied. But I have a pretty strong circumstantial case to establish, no one else could have determined his eligibility given the public records. See the difference?

    UPDATE ONE HOUR LATER: I just got a ping back from another blog whose author, John Charlton, had previously posted the story that NH Rep. Rappaport had asked the NH SoS to look into charges of election fraud related to the NH ballot. As you know, information stolen from my blog has been appearing everywhere, without attribution to me. I complained to Mr. Charlton not only that, he was printing information stolen from my blog, but also that, he was enabling the thieves to jeopardize the success of the whole project. That is, having failed to study the work that goes on here, the thieves had failed to grasp the nuances of our mission; thus, just by bringing this ‘complaint’ to the SoS, they had sabotaged our complaints to state A’sG. (Since there was no election fraud in NH, a ruling would issue from the SoS saying, there was no fraud. But an AG in, say, TX, where fraud occurred, could hear this ruling from the NH SoS, and have a convenient excuse not to pursue our legitimate charges in his state.) Not surprisingly, my comments were not posted.

    Well, now I see, the people associated with the initial theft – CFP writer JB Williams, who claimed on Sentinel Radio he received the information he would talk about on the show, “anonymously”; and Orly Taitz, whose Plaintiff in other of her cases, Rep. Rappaport, somehow got hold of this bootleg material and decided to petition the NH SoS to look into election fraud – have now come up with a variation on a theme of fraud. Now they allege, the fraud in NH occurred when BO signed the written oath required of candidates seeking to enter the NH Presidential primary, swearing they are eligible for the job. And this time, the ‘author’ refers to me, saying, their claim is valid notwithstanding my statement, in NH there is no basis to charge fraud. (Of course, when I say, there is no basis to charge election fraud, in any state, I mean, under the same legal theory that applies to the complaints I have been drafting in applicable states. However, there is no basis to bring a charge of fraud under their theory, either.) Here is the reply I left on that blog, which may or may not get posted.

    You really should read my blog before posting opinions in opposition to findings I publish.

    In order to go after Mr. Obama under your scheme, you would have to alert the NH AG that he submitted a fraudulent affidavit of eligibility to appear on the primary ballot. This allegation differs from the charge in the present complaints, posted on my blog. As you can see, in the cases we present to the A’sG, we are defining the fraud was in swearing something was true, before ascertaining whether it was, for the benefit of getting the name of the party nominee printed on the general election ballot. But to pursue the case you laid out against Mr. Obama, you would have to allege, the fraud was lying to get himself on the primary ballot. Because he certainly knows whether he is eligible to be POTUS. See the difference? Your way, you would need proof he lied. Do you have evidence that could prove, he lied? I don’t. But I have a pretty strong circumstantial case to establish, no one else could have determined his eligibility given the public records. See the difference?

    If filing a complaint of fraud in NH was a viable option to getting a state official to rule on the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to be POTUS, I would have fashioned such a complaint. There are no shortcuts to maintaining a Democracy. You have to put in the time to learn how it works, in order to make it work.

    UPDATE ONE HOUR AFTER THAT: Well, Mr. Charlton printed my comment. And here is his response.


    Thanks for stopping by.

    Your comment contains several false or unsubstantiated allegations:

    1) that I did not read your blog.
    2) that I should read your blog before disagreeing with your public opinions.
    3) that I don’t have evidence he lied.
    4) that I presented a scheme.
    5) that I advocated a particular line of investigation.
    6) that the SOS has no duty to determine if the sworn oath is false.
    7) that the AG of NH has no duty to determine that fraud was committed by filing a false oath or paper.
    8) that an oath is only indicative of personal knowledge, not objective facts.

    You see, jbjd, unlike you I believe in objective truth; you are famous for taking the juridical positivistic view of everything. And you are very sloppy with your charges.

    I have replied to this comment of yours so that readers can understand better where you are comming from. Being that you are a Democrat, I understand that. Being such a push and rude lady, as you are, I do not.

    UPDATE ONE HOUR AFTER THAT: Mr. Charlton has now removed from his blog, both my comment and his reply. And he has added these remarks at the end of his article.

    Mr. John Charlton welcomes criticms (sic) on his reading of NH laws. Not all comments will be posted, but corrections will be made, when errors are found and identified.

    This article was updated on Sept. 18th, 2009, at 9:48 AM WordPress Time, following comments by jbjd.

    • juriggs says:


      Thanks for that clarification. I now better understand the distinction between the type of fraud you are alleging, and the type of fraud that might have occured, but that we have no proof of.

      As for Mr. Charlton, his remarks are unfortunate. Civility is a desirable character trait, but his comments show no such grace. I would hope that we could disagree, but do so in a pleasant manner.

      juriggs: You are welcome. And this only makes sense; if we could prove BO is not a NBC, we would be petitioning our elected officials to commence Impeachment hearings, immediately, and not devising election fraud complaints against Chairs of the state D parties. ADMINISTRATOR

  17. azgo says:

    Post&Email has an update article on NH.
    “Basis for Election Fraud in New Hampsire?”

    azgo: Thanks. I had just updated my comments, before reading this one, from you. ADMINISTRATOR

  18. Margie says:

    Thanks for the reply, I will keep investigating. God Bless America.

    Margie: No need to thank me; that is what I am here for. After what happened during the D primary in MI, I would love to be able to file a complaint for that state. Just look at the laws; use the sample complaints to get an idea what language I am looking for. ADMINISTRATOR

  19. HLC says:

    You asked how many Texans are out here. I am one
    who has followed your site and is considering filing
    a complaint. I am very familiar with your premise and completely agree. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote in,
    before you wrote the complaints, and have been too busy
    recently to do anything more that try to keep up with your progress. If you feel another complaint should be
    sent in Texas at this time, I will send one. If FAX numbers are available, that would help expedite this.
    Let me know. By the way, thanks for all your energy and concern. This has to be very time consuming, and if everyone could put in what time they have available, a lot could be done. Thanks again.

    HLC: Hello. You are most welcome. Yes, by all means, send a complaint; the FAX number is on the front. Soon I will do a round-up of Texans who have filed complaints, to determine next steps. ADMINISTRATOR

  20. HLC says:

    Thanks for the reply. I will print out and get mine
    ready to send on Monday morning. Start their week off
    right! I will keep a close eye out for a ’round-up”
    of Texans (a very appropriate term!). I’ll let you know when I send the complaints. I’m also thinking about sending one to the Governor, Rick Perry, who has talked
    about Secession over several issues. Maybe he would put
    his money where his mouth is and encourage the AG to act on this. What do you think?

    HLC: Keep it simple. The AG is an elected position. This complaint rightly belongs with the AG, with copies only to the people mentioned in the complaint. Let him do his job. The FAX number to the AG is on the front of the complaint. Somewhere in the comments is the FAX to the SoS, I believe. And remember to send one to the state D party Chair. Of course, you can always send copies to the press. ADMINISTRATOR

  21. Alecia says:

    I just found your site yesterday (a little slow) I stayed up all night and read you entire site. OMG you are brilliant!!!! I have been going from site to site for a very long time reading and trying to find what needed to be done. This is it. You are correct about other sites using your stuff. I recognized it after reading your site inforation. Anyway,to the point. I live in Texas and have my complaints ready to mail certified mail tomorrow. I have all my friends ready to do the same thing. Then in mass, we are going to get this out to the media…Yee Haa. Great work you are doing. I’m not a lawyer, but a darn good pack mule. Let me know how to help.

    Alecia: Welcome. Thank you for appreciating my hard work. Yes, please send a complaint to your Texas AG. Soon, I will be brainstorming with all of you to figure out next steps. In the meantime, I had to post the complaint to VA because, this one is against The Honorable Nancy Pelosi. ADMINISTRATOR

  22. socalannie says:

    Just finished reading your Texas complaint; its fascinating, extremely well done. You always come up with the interesting angles! The thread has also been very interesting. I’m so sorry that you’re hard work and innovative ideas have been stolen over and over. This has become a real problem all over the web. I don’t like CFP or WND, and have found them to be untrustworthy (sorry to any conservatives here…no offense…& I’m indy myself); however, do you want us to leave comments on these sites about your work, & if so, anything specific? Thanks for all your time & hard work jbjd!

    socalannie: Hello. People like you who have followed my work know which work product is mine, from the impostors. I object less to the theft of my work than to the fallout from that theft, which could be, sabotaging a viable solution to this dilemma of whether our POTUS is Constitutionally ineligible for the job. The fact that I posted a well-reasoned and drafted lengthy article on my blog and then, days later, that work was re-posted on CFP – I have written extensively in comments to my readers that this ‘publication’ is nothing more than a front for unsavory characters of extreme political persuasion – by JB Williams, is not coincidental. Yes; unfortunately, we share the first two initials. There is a discussion going on over at Free Republic right now, where I just posted “THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE,” as to who first came up with the idea to target NP. One reader posted, JB has this idea on the blog last December. Of course, he means, I had this idea posted; and I am jbjd.

    Have you read, “THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE?” This contains the Virginia complaint of election fraud against NP. This is the first time we could actually name her as having committed the fraud. Let’s see what AG Mims does with this. He is not running for re-election for AG but will be running for Governor. ADMINISTRATOR

  23. Alecia says:

    jbjd, Sent mine to gregg abbott and others on Monday (yesterday) Confirmation sig.required. Will let you know when I receive reply to delivered. Then let you know if any reply from Attny Gen (if I get one)
    Talked with Congressman Ralph Hall’s office today. Linda in McKinney Texas is very interested in this. I am sending to her today. She promised she will get this out to all in North Texas. Will make sure Ralph Hall has it, and he contacts Attny Gen office to pressure action. Ralph is a Repub. but use to be a Dem. One of those Blue Dogs. He knows everyone and will work both sides to get this straight.

    Alecia: Nothing like being late to the party and getting right in to the thick of it! I would be interested in their take on the problem that is, not their opinion of BO’s eligibility, which is not at issue here, but the problem of establishing the D party in TX has complied with state law, when no one associated with the party will reveal on what basis s/he issued the Certification of Nomination confirming BO is a NBC. ADMINISTRATOR

  24. Alecia says:

    jbjd, I explained in about 20 minutes what you had set up. They liked what they heard and wanted to see the complaint. They said this was the most interesting thing they had heard of so far. They promised to get back with me after reading it. They promised to call the Attny Gen office and stay updated. I don’t think they would promise and not follow through. Ralph Hall took my Uncle’s place in Congress many years ago and they were very good friends. My Uncle was H.Ray Roberts. Ray was my father’s,sister’s husband,s brother….ooooh that even confused me 🙂 It does not sound like it, but we were a fairly close family. We all campaigned for him. Anyway.. I don’t think he will put me off. If he sees a problem or expects a problem…I’ll let you know. If he lets me know what the AG says…I’ll keep you updated.

    Alecia: You might also want to point these people to the next blog post, which is the VA complaint. Because in this one, Nancy Pelosi is the accused; and in this complaint, I actually link to refusals by both her and former DNC General Counsel Joe Sandler to produce documents requested by voters anxious to see the basis on which the DNC Certified BO is a NBC. ADMINISTRATOR

  25. Ed Sunderland says:

    Well, it’s been over a week now since I submitted my complaint, and a follow up phone call has been ignored. So, tomorrow I’ll personally deliver a copy to Congressman Burgess’s office and my State rep. I’ll also send a hard copy as well to the AG.

    From reviewing the blog here I’ve not noted any return communication from the AG,


    I plan to contact the AG office by phone again tomorrow to see if there has been a case worker assigned.


    Ed Sunderland: Unbelievable. I am working on drafting a press release; I would like to coordinate filers in all states, so that we release the statement on the same day. ADMINISTRATOR

  26. HLC says:


    I contacted you Sunday about sending complaints. Just
    an update. My Fax machine was not working, so I sent them this morning, return receipt by priority mail.
    Sounds like no responses by others so far, so it will be time soon for another strategy, like press releases.
    I am reluctant to release to the press here with my name
    on this, as I know a lot of people in the Austin area, and I am on a couple of boards, and it could cause repercussions, and if I redact it, the press will probably ignore it. I don’t mind this coming out through the AG’s office, as that would lend it credibility, but right now that prospect seems doubtful. Thoughts?

    HLC: Oh, no, there is no need for EVERYONE who filed a complaint to appear at a press conference. Knowing how many people have not received a response is important but identifying all of these people to the press, is not. (Let me assure you, some filers both in Texas and in other states are similarly situated. I am so angry that this fraudulent conduct has placed so many of you in uncomfortable situations.) ADMINISTRATOR

  27. HLC says:

    I will keep you informed, and will keep an eye on
    this blog for updates as well. Thanks again.

    HLC: I am a teacher. I had time during the summer to do all of this work; I worked all day on this stuff. Now, I am back at school; but I am dancing as fast as I can. ADMINISTRATOR

  28. Alecia says:

    jbjd, Talked with 3 more people today that mailed their complaints. I also e mailed a short note, your site info, and a copy of the complaint to about half of the counties in Texas. I asked them to read, give to friends and family and send to AG’s office. Im tryng to set some fires. Let’s see if this heats up. Will call congressman’s office back tomorrow. They have had time to read the complaint.

    Alecia: I am so proud of your efforts. If you scan my work since the summer before last, in comments I wrote on other people’s blogs for months before I set up my own, I kept saying, it’s not up to us to prove the man who would be our POTUS is not eligible for the job but rather up to him to prove, he is. Finally, in this case of first impression, people like you have read the argument I synthesized; understood it; and, believing they have been victims of a massive fraud, brought this to the attention of the people who should have prevented this from happening, and who need to step up to the plate now.

    According to reader feedback, the Texas AG has not even acknowledged receipt of any of these complaints. Does this mean he has not begun an investigation? We will know soon.

    Just a quick question; you said it takes you about 20 minutes to explain what we are doing here. How do your listeners respond? Do they ‘get it?’ ADMINISTRATOR

  29. Alecia says:

    Sadly, most do not. But some do. I will continue to share. The people that “get it” are working hard. Each day, a few more “get it” Slow but steady. Drip,drip,drip. People are so frustrated that “someone is not doing something” That is my “in” to explain this. Most do not have to do anything because simply, it is not in their job discription. When they realize this…they start to understand your position and say “brilliant!”

    Alecia: The reason I ask whether people understand your explanation of this election fraud complaint initiative, is this. Perhaps they might read a summary or overview of this election fraud, in “NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON” (1 and 2). The links in this article will take the reader to several other useful articles, especially, “IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING VIEWS IS un-AMERICAN THEN, IGNORING UNPLEASANT VIEWS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO.” Sometimes, it takes more than 1 (one) explanation to see the whole picture. But once this comes into focus, the reader will ask, why didn’t I see this sooner? That’s when you know, s/he ‘gets’ it. ADMINISTRATOR

  30. Alecia says:

    jbjd, Oh yes! the first thing I send them to is your site to read. Without reading your site…it could take years of explaining. I just need to get their attention to get them to read. Have you noticed that the one of the biggest problems we have in the US is that people do not read….They depend on the media. I ask them to promise not to send the complaint until they read your site. The 20 minute short is only to get them interested.

    Alecia: This is wonderful; because as you imply, it does no good to get someone to do the right thing just because you tell him or her to do it. Because if persuasion motivates the person to act then, when the next more persuasive person comes along and says, do this, but ‘this’ is the wrong thing… But once you understand how your government works or, is supposed to work then, no one can undermine your Constitutional republic ever again. You have no idea how long it took to synthesize the story; because once I was through, it really looked so simple. Thank you again for all you have done and continue to do to get the word out. I think ‘knowing’ what happened at least eases the frustration of those people who could not put their anger into words.

    Over the week-end, I will post THE END GAME, to explain what comes next. (I intended to get that out today but, one of my Georgians, Susan, obtained her state’s documentation today and so, I got up that Complaint, instead.) ADMINISTRATOR

  31. Alecia says:

    jbjd, Just received return receipt from Attnorny General Gregg Abbott. Dated received in mail center on September 23,2009 by Office of the Attorney General. Now, no excuses. Game on.

    Alecia: AG Abbott will step up to the plate. He has to. More than 30 (thirty) citizens of the great state of Texas, from red hank and now, to you, have filed this complaint of election fraud with his office. The theory of the case was developed for him; the leg work was laid out at his feet. All he has to now is his job. ADMINISTRATOR

  32. g. amos says:


    First-timer here.

    Looking for a bit of legal perspective on a subject that is tangental to your discussion, but related.

    Topic: Security Clearance of Elected Officials.

    Any insights or links?

    Thanks in advance.

    g. amos: Welcome. Quick answer: well, there is no quick answer. Just a reminder that, the CIC is a civilian position. Thus, the founders wanted a civilian in charge of the armed services. Also, the POTUS is elected by the people, through state appointments of Electors and, Congressional ratification of the EC vote. Thus, s/he is not required to undergo any additional security screening. If we had concerns as to whether the candidate for the Oval Office was to be trusted with our contry’s secrets then, we should have not elected him or her. ADMINISTRATOR

  33. Ed Sunderland says:

    Called the AG’s office again today to see if there was a case worker assigned yet, got another telephone shuffle then dropped into someones voice mail box where I left my phone number for the second time.

    No response by phone from AG’s office but I am undeterred.

    Will call again Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of next week until I get a response.

    Their phone number is 512-463-2100. Punch it into your cell. If they start getting tons of calls they have to do something. FYIA

    Ed Sunderland: Thank you; this is so important. I am planning an action for next week. No elected official can be allowed to ignore the voters who elected him, with impunity. None. ADMINISTRATOR

  34. d2i says:

    I’m moving to Texas! That’s it, y’all are AWESOME!!!

    Still quiet in Virginia. Hand delivered and emailed complaint Monday and Sunday respectively. Follow up is critical and will be making the rounds this upcoming week.

    d2i: I know, these Texans are fabulous. On the other hand, the complaint for South Carolina has not been downloaded once. And the HI complaint was downloaded only once. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Susan says:

      d2i boy Texas really has steped up to the plate.
      Has anyone downloaded GA other than me. Anything to help you out in VA?
      I sent an email to my daughter in law and asked if she could send jbjd’s website around to some of the folks in SC.
      Nothing on Ga yet, I know it was delivered to the AG.

      Susan: Yes, 5 (five) downloads in GA, including yours; but still, only 1 (one) in HI and 0 (zero) in SC. And my MD reader hasn’t gotten back to me with news of the Certifications. This is so sad. I wish I knew better how to ring the bells and whistles about this election fraud strategy (and this blog). Ideas? ADMINISTRATOR

      • Susan says:

        That’s great, what I have been doing is leaving a tease on website I think might have some of the states we need. Like this
        Here’s how you can compel your elected Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer in the state, to do something about it, if you want answers…. visit
        I have even left them some SC sites and GA sites.

        Susan: So that was you! Thank you so much! Also, I found, saying something like, ‘By filing posted complaints of election fraud to the Attorneys General in selected states, you can help to clear the path to Articles of Impeachment.’ … (Did you read “THE END GAME”?) ADMINISTRATOR

  35. g. amos says:

    Thanks for the quick reply and the welcome. A couple of thoughts down this avenue, if you have the time to consider them:

    1) “Just a reminder that, the CIC is a civilian position.”

    You jumped the gun on me,. but true, “CIC” was a possible punchline. Still, I’d like to keep my question more general here, as in “any elected officials.” If you could refresh my memory on the particulars of the constitution in regard to the CIC, that would definitely be noteworthy, and I’d be obliged.

    However, it seems that you are under the impression that a security clearance is synonymous with a pseudo military rank, and therefore mutually exclusive with the idea of “civilian.” That would be incorrect, though I wonder how many more of us share the same view. Indeed, this is the first salient point that has seized my attention and inquisitiveness.

    2) “Thus, the founders wanted a civilian in charge of the armed services.

    Is that in the language of the constitution, or in the logic of the constitution? I think the language will lead us into original constitutional intent much better than the logic alone will, and I think that perhaps you’d agree. Is there language in the constitution that gives us a scope for the office of CIC, or must we look elsewhere? (e.g. “NBC”)

    It ought to be pointed out that there is, at the least, an apparent fusing of two distinct executive roles into one office, which operates under the name “president.” But I’m not so convinced right now that that is how the framers saw it. “Separation of powers” was in the constitution’s DNA. Rolling more power all up into one big ball was not. I’m more than curious. But before we climb that rope ladder, I’d like to discover more details in the venue of security clearances for any elected official. That is really the right place to search the field for provocative questions.

    3) “The POTUS is elected by the people, through state appointments of Electors and, Congressional ratification of the EC vote.

    Interesting to me the response from Virginia AG (or commonwealth attn. office?, not sure) to VA resident’s petition for redress. Something to the effect of “besides, the citizens of Virginia do not actually cast a single vote for the POTUS – whether eligible or not – the Constitution establishes the electoral college for such a purpose…” Apparently, Virginia voters are only informing the state for the purpose of the legitamate vote, hence a citizen can not possibly have standing in court, per the Constitution, because they do not have voting authority for the POTUS. Please tell me if I’m wrong about this. Otherwise, please add the entire citizenry of the Commonwealth of Virginia to your “off the hook” list – by the declaration of that state’s AG (?) office.

    I thought to be more cursory and terse at the first as I venture into new legal/constitutional blog sites like yours, but since you’ve been so accommodating….allow me to swing for the fence at your last pitch, maybe I can get a lucky hit and drive it home….

    4) “Thus, s/he is not required to undergo any additional security screening.

    Exactly what I have surmised up to this point, though I still hope to find out that I’m wrong and sadly mistaken. The upshot to this present line of thinking, jbjd, is that our constitutional republic rewards elected officials with non-disclosure, when in fact we say we stand for the opposite.
    We are pragmatically in opposition to our so-called professed ideal of freedom and equality.

    If this be true (and I hope not), we have exchanged the notion of the “Divine Right of Monarchs” for nothing more than the “Divine Right of Elected Officials.” I honestly hope I’m overstating things a bit. Time will tell.

    So I swing for the fence: Is there anyone out there who is not o.k. with a citizen denied a security clearance for a valid reason, while an elected official with the identical statutory issue and condition is absolved merely by the fact of being “elected or appointed?”

    Usually when I’d swing for the fence in little league, I’d completely miss. Here’s hoping that I can keep my lousy batting average intact.

    g. amos: Wow. It is my pleasure to respond to another informed citizen. Here goes.

    1. I never intended to give the impression, I perceived the CIC/POTUS as anything other than a civilian role. On the contrary, I understand the founders purposefully placed civilians in charge of the military. (See Article II of the U.S. Constitution.)
    2. See my response to 1, above.
    3. Well, yes and no. Yes, citizens do not elect the POTUS but rather, they elect the Electors (“appoint” is the word in the Constitution). However, given that the ballot only displays the name of the nominee and not the Electors, citizens understandably could equate voting for the (Electors for) the nominee with, electing the POTUS. And, given his appearance on the ballot in concert with VA laws only allowing the names of eligible candidates to appear, citizens could assume he was Constitutionally eligible for the job. This means, by alleging fraud occurred with getting his name on the ballot, I am saying, had citizens known the nominee was not vetted then, they would not have voted for (Electors for) him.
    4. Ha; we all have our opinions as to the absurd results of various tenets of our Constitutional Republic, taken to the extreme. Fine tuning the Constitution is what amendments are for.

    Still batting 1,000. Any more questions? ADMINISTRATOR

  36. DABIG says:

    We will have more Hawaii’s filed very soon 🙂

    DABIG: I am thrilled you filed this complaint of election fraud in HI. As you know, the Certification of Nomination filed in HI is unique, not just as the result of HI Revised Statutes requiring that line explicitly saying, BO is Constitutionally eligible for the job but also for the anomalous NP signature. ADMINISTRATOR

  37. Ed Sunderland says:

    JB, read your article over on TB and it ‘s pretty good. I’ll shoot it over to some people I know in Hawaii.

    Can you track that to see who picks it up?

    I will send it to my those I know well on my email list.


    JB, read your article over on TB and it ‘s pretty good. I’ll shoot it over to some people I know in Hawaii.

    Can you track that to see who picks it up?

    I will send it to my those I know well on my email list.


    Ed Sunderland: Sorry, Ed, I have no idea what you are talking about. Who is “TB”? (And who is “JB”? I am “jbjd.”) ADMINISTRATOR

    Ed: I just did a search for “jbjd” and Hawaii and came up with, The Betrayal at Oil for Immigration. Geesh! David Crockett at OFI copied a complete post of mine, in August, and not only changed my name to “JBJD” but also changed a link in my article, with THEIR site. Now, guess what he did? He referenced my work crediting JB Williams from CFP, the neo-Nazi rag founded by Douglas Hagmann. (I have written about this group in comments to this blog.) And JB Williams is copying updates appearing on this blog since his initial theft. I write; he plagiarizes. Some racket.

    Please, Ed, do not give away the work that goes on here to people who steal it already. And make sure everyone on your email knows the difference between JB Williams, the thief from the neo-Nazi rag, CFP; and me, “jbjd,” of the blog by that same name. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. I wrote a comment to David Crockett at OFI but, as he did not print my last accusation he had stolen my work, I suspect he will refuse to print this charge as well, accusing him of posting my work which was stolen by JB Williams from CFP. ADMINISTRATOR

  38. Ed Sunderland says:

    Enough said and will do, I am trying to find ways to help you get the message out and see who is picking up your articles posted here. Also, I am looking to see if there is any activity in other states looking at election fraud and see what they are doing. It seems New Hampshire is the only one moving forward so far but man, there are a lot of people who are craving this information.

    At lest half this country didn’t vote for Obama in the last election and I am sure they would like to know they were fleeced. Millions and millions of conservatives, independents, just plain folks were not told the truth about this fake and fraud. More evidence is cropping up each day from your tremendous contribution and other evidence not seen here.

    I am sending this site link to associates that I know. I’ll also be sure to let them know who developed this information and advise them to stay at this site for the latest.

    I often use letters to name sources because I am not sure I want to spread a link until I am confident of the source. Yea, they credited JB Williams for your information.

    I understand and know the feeling, I’ve written some trade articles that were picked up by other commercial sites that did not reference me as the writer. I don’t mind if someone else uses my work it’s for everyone, but the terms of service from the site they pulled it from requires them to credit the author but some do not.

    This is entirely different in scope and scale and I wish to help all I can here.

    Ed Sunderland: Appreciate the help. Note that in NH, the fraud that Orly’s Plaintiff, Rep. Rappaport; and JB Williams from CFP, who stole my work, are alleging, is now directed at BO and the SoS. That is, they are alleging he committed fraud by lying on his application for the NH Presidential primary that he fulfilled the requirements of office. And they wanted the SoS to investigate. Of course, in order to prove fraud, these thieves must prove, he is not a NBC. And they can’t. They (said they) brought their fraud charges to the SoS, although this made no sense. Nothing in his job description includes investigating whether applicants wanting their names printed on the ballot are actually eligible for the job. Sure enough, some days later, these people claimed, the SoS had forwarded their charges against BO, to the AG. But he cannot initiate an investigation into whether BO committed fraud based only on accusations, he is not a NBC.

    Merely stealing the work that goes on here on this blog, without doing the leg work – reading through the posts and comments, and my replies to readers’ questions – only makes a person a thief but not a well-informed citizen. Being willing to jeopardize our efforts to compel A’sG to investigate our well-written complaints of election fraud, just to get attention, makes them something else altogether. ADMINISTRATOR

  39. Alecia says:

    jbjd, Just talked with Donna @ Texas Attorney Generals office. 512)463-2100.
    1. She asked me for my name and my address (guess she wanted to know that I lived in Texas.)
    2. She asked if I sent a copy to Secretary of State. I said yes and to Boyd Richie and congressman, and media. She said that the SoS could “certify” a complaint to the AG’s office to prosecute.???
    3.Donna said “all complaints will be reviewed”
    4. Donna said: We will not comment on any complaint unless the AG’s office decides to prosecute. Then it will be released to the medfia (I asked the Mainstream media and she said ..yes) And it will be posted on the AG’s site. She said we could subscribe to the postings.
    5. I asked Donna…so we will not hear anything about this unless you decide to prosecute. She said yes. I said….So we will not get any letters to inform us what happens to our complaint….She said no.
    jbjd, I think we have a right to know…do we not??? I am scouring the AG website for procedure….I’m not good at this….Has anyone else gotten any info on this subject? I will keep trying.

    Alecia: This is fabulous. Now, just so that I have this right; Donna from the AG’s office did not acknowledge receipt of your complaint, correct? (FYI, you are on absolutely the right track. Most A’sG have broad discretion whether to initiate investigations. However, their ministerial duty is to acknowledge receipt of complaints from voters. So, until I received this comment from you, I was considering, if we cannot even obtain verification these complaints were received, I might have to draft a mandamus complaint!) Can you just find out whether the office received the complaint. If she refuses to provide this information, please ask her to point you to the law or regulation that authorizes this silence. Thanks. ADMINISTRATOR

  40. Alecia says:

    No she would not discuss even recept. I did get the return recept from the post office.
    Here is something else I found.
    Sec.273.001. Investigation of Criminal Conduct.
    a. If two or more registered voters of the territory covered by an election present affidavits alleging criminal conduct in connection with the election to the county or district attorney having juisdiction in that territory, the county or district attorney shall investigate the allegatons. If the election covers territory in more than one county,the voters may present the affidvits to the attorney general, and the attorney general shall investigate the allegations………
    c. On receipt of an afficavit under Secion 15.028, the country or district attorney having jurisdiction and, if applicable, the attorney general shall investigate the matter…….
    e. Not later than the 30th day after the date on which a county or district attorney begins an investigation under this section, the cuonty or district attorney shall deliver notice of the investigation to the secretary of state. The notice must include a statement that a criminal investigation is being conducted and the date on which the election that is the subject of the investigaion was held. the secretary of state may disclose information relating to a criinal investigation received under this subsection only if the county or district attorney has disclosed the informaton or would b required by law to disclose the information.
    There is more…but I’m not sure what you need. Looks like they MUST (SHALL) investigate, and notify the secretary of state..Then it is up to that office. It did say “or would be required by law to disclose the information. I’ll work and try to find the “law”

    Alecia: Okay, I know this looks like it afford a means for redress. But it doesn’t. (Someone else from the great state of Texas had brought this same provision to me, previously.) The requirement that 2 (two) or more registered voters must submit affidavits alleging criminal conduct is the hint as to the scope of this law. That is, this refers to an act seen or experienced by these 2 (two) voters, impinging on their ability to vote. The law requires the AG to conduct an investigation; by definition, this investigation would include contact with these 2 complaining witnesses. In the present situation, the diminished ability to vote was caused not by conduct occurring at the polls but, out of sight. Sorry.

    Could you – this means, anyone from TX – look up the enabling statute for the AG, that is, the law that set up the office and described the function and responsibilities of the AG, and send me the cite? Thanks.

    I am working on how to proceed. ADMINISTRATOR

  41. Alecia says:

    I’m not very good at this…Is this what you need?

    Alecia: Thank you so much; I will take it from here. FYI, for every executive office, like the AG, a law was passed authorizing or, “enabling” that office to be. This is called the enabling statute. It spells out the purpose of the office, the personnel running the show, and the responsibilities of the major players. I wanted to see whether some language in the law required the AG to acknowledge receipt of complaints. (The language might have been broader than this but, the Office of the AG would have enacted rules and regulations to carry out the statute and these could provide better guidance of procedures.) This is different from the evidence you possess that tends to prove the complaint was received.

    The information you provided led me back to the office of the AG, a consumer friendly site that summarizes the office and its functions. I found a form for requesting public records. Now, I need to find out 1) must the AG acknowledge receipt of citizen complaints; and 2) are such complaints public records. I will reveal what I have in mind after I have completed this research.

    Everyone, sit tight. I work on these issues as zealously as time allows (outside of my regular job and, my parental responsibilities). ADMINISTRATOR

    • d2i says:

      jbjd – having this information is so important to those of us who have filed said complaints w/our AGs.

      I have chosen not to contact AG Mims, Virginia, due to the fact that he may need time to study the law to ensure your legal argument stands on solid ground, which you and I, and the rest of the good citizens who have filed their respective complaints to their AGs, know it does. Yet, we the citizen who takes such action has little to no opportunity to learn what the AG has received, what he/she is doing with the complaint, etc.

      Do I need to look up Virginia code? If so, let me know.

      d2i: Yes, please. In order to appropriately gauge next steps, I need to know whether the Office of the AG is legally obligated to acknowledge receipt of a citizen complaint; and whether such complaint is obtainable through the state’s freedom of information laws. Thank you.

      At this point, I am weighing options as to how best to proceed to accomplish our goal, which is getting A’sG to exercise their discretion to investigate these well crafted yet potentially explosive charges of election fraud. The means we exercise to achieve this goal must not sabotage the mission. ADMINISTRATOR

  42. g. amos says:


    I believe I’m stumbling over my own words by broadening my comment rather than narrowing it. My mistake.

    [jbjd says: “On the contrary, I understand the founders purposefully placed civilians in charge of the military.”]

    My original question on this blog, restated:

    How is it than an elected official does not require a security clearance BY LAW, when a civilian with
    access to the exact same information requires one by THE SAME LAW?

    jbjd, can you answer this?

    And I shall reread you blog.

    g. amos: This one is easy. Based on contemporaneous writings of the Founders, it appears that the vetting of a POTUS is designed to be accomplished through appointed Electors; security clearances for contract employees have nothing to do with electing a CIC as prescribed by the Constitution. (It still amazes me that so many millions of people voted for BO with only the belief he is a NBC.) ADMINISTRATOR

  43. g. amos says:


    Very good. It appears that I was able to make my question distinguishable enough, terribly hard to do for some reason.

    Just gotta say that your thoughtful responses are encouraging. It’s a unique moment in time, I’d say, when people can freely converse in an open forum about their very own government and the meaning of law, and when people offer their professional advice just as freely – unique, and appreciated, regardless of the cause, I’d like you to know. I’m sure that I’m not alone.

    Cognizant that I’m jumping in here with things at full tilt, and hesitant that any kind of counter-inertia might be viewed by even the most noble-minded with suspicion, I thought that I’d still give it a go, as I am truly beginning to think that a golden opportunity might yet be hidden among us. But it might only be a fool’s golden opportunity, that’s what I’d like to find out. When and if I do, I shant think twice about it – it’s not like I haven’t been in the possession of false conclusions before. Easy to overcome, I try to make it a habit. Truth be told, I’ve even played the part of Chicken Little…..maybe more than once, but I’m not going to say exactly how many times….enough times to decide that Hysteria is a fair weather friend at best, and at its worst, a boisterous yet fantastically disoriented travel guide. It’s as lost as we are, and zero fun to hang out with. But to each his own.

    Since you have been more than polite, and seemingly willing to dialogue over genuine questions outside the present scope of your blog, I am encouraged to proceed. (I follow you so far on your take of the state ballot fraud, and think that it significantly reveals how election things work in the u.s. Felt questions spring up on that thread, but I’ve promised to refrain and reread all your posts.)

    However, jbjd, my mind would be much more clear and prepared to absorb your work if you’d do me the honor of disabusing me of this silly notion (if you needed anymore motivation than mere politeness, this ought’a do).

    My silly notion: Yes, you gave me a concise answer. Just what I was hoping for. And no, it isn’t an answer that will yield closure for me. That, my friend, is what I need from you, if you’re willing. So allow me to follow up:

    The kernel of your response, as I see it, is this:

    “…security clearances for contract employees have nothing to do with electing a CIC as prescribed by the Constitution.”

    Your answer is fair enough. The textbook dosen’t address it. This is precisely where I fear that any friendly ship seeking harbor in the bay of the constitution will run aground among the shoals, or be seen as an enemy encroaching the sacred port, and fired upon without question, until sunk. The remains might be discovered centuries later. And not just my question mind you, but any valid question, whether you, or I, or any citizen has in earnest, so as to hear what the constitution has to say to the people for which it is purported to exist. Sounds way too philosophical for my taste, honestly, but I don’t know how to say it any other way. That’s why I beg your patience, but not your pardon. Not yet, at least.

    Perhaps I need to be more risky here, I just don’t want to come off the wrong way, that’s all. The political climate is way too conspiratorial-steeped and polarized these days. Not many believe in legitimate questions anymore, seems like, unless its your favorite pundit’s question, and then it’s the only legitimate one in existence. Too bad.

    Consider this, jbjd. Could it be that what the authors of the constitution meant to provide by chiseling into the bedrock, ‘nbc’, actually exists today among us, though that name has long ago been forgotten? (Sounds so mysterious and spooky, dosen’t it? I am actually having fun writing this….) Could we speak of ‘nbc’ as if a progenitor of an idea? If so, question: Could it be that the conceptual DNA of ‘nbc’, if you will, is quite alive and well among us today, and in full health and operation?

    Who cares, and why even ask? someone might ask. Valid responses. We all might care if and when it becomes apparent that there is no true remedy in our life time to the defining of the phrase, “natural born citizen.” That would become a runaway train if the courts refuse to even establish that POTUS must be at least be a citizen. Illogical? yes. Absurd? not a doubt. But my intuition tells me that IF the ‘separation of powers’ doctrine is so firmly set and strongly built, logic and reason might have a tough time scaling that wall. Now the second, why ask? Easy. If what I think might be so factually is (though I don’t have a clue how to prove it…), then copious, ample examples of NBC abound all around, no need to even hazard a SCOTUS decision that might create a whole new level of obfuscation. And think of this…, might it not even be seen as a blow to the commonsense of our constitution, not to mention the notion of what is and is not a self-evident truth, if we all are biting our nails as we wait for SCOTUS to define ‘nbc’ for us? I believe we might be asking the Wizard of Oz to certify that we indeed have a brain.

    O.K. Getting way too long here. Can we gloss over the players for the sake of argument. Not just BO, put NP too. Fraud, could be. Exploitation, for sure. But before we plug up the leaks and keep going, can we pause to consider the implausible?

    For the sake of argument, I’ll take the luxury of defining the terms myself. It’s the deductive process that you ought to analyze. I’ll make it as tantalizing to you as I possibly can.

    Yankee White security clearance = highest level security issued. No foreign entanglements, absolutely no dual citizenships, extremely restrictive, irrespective of civilian/military roles.

    Any citizen seeking a position which requires access to certain sensitive information, must undergo a corresponding mandatory background check. He waives his constitutional “right to privacy” voluntarily and under no compulsion, by nature of his seeking a sensitive position. Everyone is presumably checked the same, whether civilian or military. The requirements are about the position, not the person seeking to fill it.

    If this isn’t the photographic negative of NBC, then I wouldn’t know what it is. The deal is, all the mechanisms, all the procedural guidelines, all the information routing, the network operandi, the case history of appeals for denial, judicial opinions, everything is in place today. Its like the entire electrical circuit is in place, all that remains is for someone to throw the switch, and the whole playing field will suddenly light up.

    The switch might be this: an elected official is most definitely a fellow citizen and is most definitely applying for a “contractor employee” position, if that’s what you think it should be called – the idea is identical. They call themselves public servants – they offer they services under contract with a termination – that’s exactly what a term is; it’s a time delineated agreement between the candidate and the constituents, there’s no way to turn that on its head and come up with any other ‘beast.’ It’s not just logically the same, it’s legally the same. I bet the IRS has a nice, simple outline on how to define ‘contractors’ for tax purposes. See, can’t we be fairly confident that everything has already been defined and is on the books, starting with maybe some statutory guidelines on how to go about defining terms for the purpose of proceeding with the proper security clearance.

    Right now, I’d feel pretty safe to guess that BO (name gloss, please) would be stripped of his Yankee White security clearance while still in the Oval office. No, seriously. What does the Constitution say about a duly elected POTUS that was denied any security clearance whatsoever by the clear guidelines laid down within the very executive branch of government that he is the present head of?

    This might be a mirage of my own making. True. I’ll quickly acknowledge that when I am aware of it. Please make me aware, I ask you. But in the meantime, rather than think it a gross juggernaut of a constitutional conundrum as I did at first, I now see it differently: it might be a huge, magnificent opportunity for anyone/everyone at one time to follow the yellow brick road. Could it be that it’s all laid out with pavers?

    Or try this different angle I first thought of when I happened upon your blog.

    Unbeknownst to the voters, and unintended by the authors of the constitution, they have the dubious honor of bestowing the designation of ‘Yankee White’ (i.e. clean as a whistle’) upon any individual they so choose.

    But it gets even better. To recompute this formula using jbjd’s conversion factor for ‘who’s behind all this mess’, the New Reality is:

    In 2008, BO was granted full Yankee White security clearance by NP, and the constitution will help keep it that way.

    There. I said it. I can’t for the life of me think up a single scenario derived from the tenets of our constitutional republic taken to the extreme that could approach the above. Not that I’ve been accused of overt creativity.

    Now, please jbjd, rattle my cage, before I run off somewhere to find a monarch that I could swear allegiance to, to protect me from “yankee-white-carte-blanche” electoral republicanism.

    g. amos: Don’t go anywhere, just yet. Even though I reject your characterization of the POTUS qua “contract employee,” let us proceed with the analysis of the issue you present applying that definition. In order to establish whether the candidate?/nominee?/POTUS-elect?/name-on-the-state-primary-ballot-wannabe? could pass a given level of security scrutiny, the procedure for such scrutiny would have to be spelled out in law. (When facing a multi-faceted legal question, if eliminating the problem can be accomplished by erecting procedural barriers, why not start there. If we get past implementation then, we can discuss substantive issues.) If the Constitutional requirements for POTUS are seen as a floor then, theoretically, legislation could be crafted requiring some sort of security vetting. On the other hand, if these requirements are construed as the ceiling then, the Constitution could be Amended to include some sort of security vetting as a 4th requirement.

    Who would perform such a security check? Contrary to your assertion, NP sets the bar, the only body authorized to elect the POTUS under the Constitution are the Electors. Presumably, these would be the natural choice for undertaking such an investigation. (For a discussion of the role of Electors, see “NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON.”) And, as no provision of the Constitution spells out to Electors on what basis they cast their votes for the POTUS, this same scenario spelled out for adjusting eligibility requirements for POTUS, must be repeated as applied to Electors.

    Now, a general disclaimer. Any analysis I provide on discerning the intent of the Founders is necessarily constrained by my reason for setting up this blog. I have read extensively the words of the ‘original’ documents; and these have formed my opinions on many of the issues you mention. But I cannot produce a legal treatise on this blog; this is, to paraphrase you, “outside of the scope” of my work here. Suffice to say, there was an ideal inherent in the 3 (three) requirements for POTUS echoed in those writings. Specifically, the Founders wanted as POTUS/CIC a person so imbued with all that was America that his loyalties would not for a second be diverted or suspect.

    Finally, I want to take exception to one of your assumptions.

    Unbeknownst to the voters, and unintended by the authors of the constitution, they have the dubious honor of bestowing the designation of ‘Yankee White’ (i.e. clean as a whistle’) upon any individual they so choose.

    If ‘electing’ a POTUS about which even his ability to obtain a security clearance would be doubtful had he been a contract employee – close personal associations with foreign and domestic felons, for example – this voting for BO notwithstanding these facts evidenced the will of the people. Surely this result illustrates precisely what the Drafters intended.


  44. Ed Sunderland says:

    I talked to the AG’s office again today on a follow up (apparently word is getting out because when I mentioned “election fraud” I didn’t get the usual telephone rodeo). “I was directed to Bill”, and to check status of my complaint. He said I needed to contact the Secretary of State.

    I asked some specific questions about this and and he still referred me to the Secretary of State. “All election fraud charges go through the SOS I asked?”, “yes” he said, “want their phone number?”

    I read above where Alecia was asked if she’d contacted the SOS. I’ll call tomorrow and see what I can dig up.

    Ed Sunderland: Good for you! I am going to give you a brief answer. It could legitimately be the case that, under TX laws, any complaints alleging problems related to elections must come to the AG from the SoS. (d2i sent me VA laws to research and I happened to catch out of the corner of my eye something about original jurisdiction, meaning, complaints on certain issues must be referred from other agencies.) I hadn’t considered that, as I was almost thinking of these complaints as consumer fraud complaints. So, having not researched the TX laws, re-directing these complaints of election fraud to the SoS might be just procedural. I will research more and wait till I hear from you to apply the facts to law.

    When you contact the SoS, please ask whether s/he has been forwarded the dozens of complaints filed with the AG; and whether s/he must give his or her official imprimatur that fraud could have taken place before referring the charges back to the AG. ADMINISTRATOR

  45. Ed Sunderland says:

    “Roger,Copy that, will do”.

    Ed Sunderland: Good luck. ADMINISTRATOR

  46. g. amos says:

    I hardly blink and you respond. You’re fast, like quicksilver.

    It’s marvelous that you’re taking me to task on this. I would like to fell this tree as fast as possible, if weedy by nature. A clearer view it would bring to me, as right now I can only see the limbs and leaves of this thing.

    It’s a darn shame that I have to use words in order to attempt the communication of a decent idea, I always used to say. I can see that I’m butchering just about every point I was trying to make with my handy word-hatchet.

    My last comment was a run-on. Too diffuse. Here’s the gist of my assertion: the nbc POTUS requirement is translatable into the language of ‘the security clearance’.

    But before this phrase causes a black out, let me draw attention to the ‘c’ in ‘nbc’, just as you have, in your citing the logic of “minimally a ‘c’. At the beginning of the day, all through the day, and at the end of the day, the POTUS is a citizen. Period. (‘She/He’ – abbv. to ‘he’ in ff.) is a citizen presiding over the government of citizens. Isn’t this true? Is there any other classification known to the constitution? If that statement is debatable, please tell me how. I’d be sadly mistaken about my own country’s constitution.

    So let’s forget for a moment that ‘nbc’ even exists in the constitution at all. Just for my comment’s sake. Easy to do, seeing that for most of us, it’s been invisible for as long as we can remember.

    Now look at it this way: does the constitution make provision for citizens with ‘elected’ status to have special entitlements and immunities that other citizens without ‘elected’ status do not possess? Wouldn’t we all call that unconstitutional? Where is that statute that says ‘elected’ civilians opt out of a background check? Bring that statute forward, let’s hear it’s own explanation…or place it before the constitution for examination. The constitution knows nothing of security clearances, but it dosen’t have to. It can hammer that nail home just as well as any other “each citizen is on equal footing, and therefore entitled to the same rights, benefits and privileges as any other citizen is” kind-of nail. Am I missing something?

    You said:

    “Finally, I want to take exception to one of your assumptions.”

    [g. amos:” Unbeknownst to the voters, and unintended by the authors of the constitution, they have the dubious honor of bestowing the designation of ‘Yankee White’ (i.e. clean as a whistle’) upon any individual they so choose.”]


    “If ‘electing’ a POTUS about which even his ability to obtain a security clearance would be doubtful… this voting for BO … evidenced the will of the people.”

    Please help me understand your exception. You’re conceding my assertion that ‘nbc’ = security clearance. That is my assertion. If the ‘will of the people’ runs roughshod through the constitutional requirements for POTUS, then you’re satisfied that, “… this result illustrates precisely what the Drafters intended?” I don’t think you meant to say that. Or I’ve missed the point of your entire blog.

    No, please reconsider. Since you concede my assertion for the sake of argument, my point still must stand:

    To elect BO as POTUS EFFECTIVELY means issuing a clearance that legally should not be granted through such a manner. Just as the ‘nbc’ should not be violated b/c popular vote EFFECTIVELY overrides the constitution. It’s that same argument that I’m using. I hope you can see that.

    g. amos: No; drop the assumption for the separate paragraph. For the sake of argument regarding whether the POTUS can be considered as a contract employee, I discussed how such a scheme could be implemented. At the end of that last response, when I addressed your point that the Drafters could not have intended a person who could not obtain a security clearance to become POTUS, I was going back to my belief, which I had expressed in previous remarks and, at the beginning of my last reply, that no security clearance requirement is appropriate as applied to the POTUS qua contract employee. Thus, I am saying, given that the Founders and Drafters set up a system whereby the people do the vetting; if the people give a ‘security clearance’ to a nominee for POTUS who, were he a contract employee, would not pass a security clearance, that is how our Constitutional Republlic was intended to work. ADMINISTRATOR

  47. g. amos says:

    I am prepared to concede, jbjd.

    If this is indeed your real belief:

    “Thus, I am saying, given that the Founders and Drafters set up a system whereby the people do the vetting…”,

    then I shall cease and desist upon ideological grounds.

    But maybe this is for you a mere hypothetical belief for the purpose of discussion…I’m getting so confused. You really got me spinning.

    Sure, if the Founders had set up the election in such a way that they expected the citizenry to vet each and every candidate, then of course A=B=C.

    I thought that we AGREED that they did not set it up that way. I was under the impression that your opinion was that the Founder’s established the electors to vet, no?

    I shall relent, and ask no more. Perhaps this is not the time for such a discussion, but I do appreciate your consideration of it.

    g. amos: Not all citizens need to be natural born to vote but only to be POTUS; thus, this undermines your implication with regard to ‘security clearances,’ that all citizens should be created equal. You indicated in remarks which I quoted in my last response, that citizens unwittingly ‘elected’ a POTUS who could not pass a security clearance, a result neither envisioned nor desired by the Founders and Drafters. I merely pointed out, through an expression of their preference for POTUS at the general election, people indicated, they did not care that BO could not pass a ‘security clearance,’ were he theoretically obligated to undergo such scrutiny for the job. ADMINISTRATOR

  48. Eagle says:

    “And my MD reader hasn’t gotten back to me with news of the Certifications.”

    Sent the first request by email on 9/14. Followed up today with a fax of my original request. If I don’t hear anything soon I’ll deliver the request in person

    Eagle: You bring a smile to my face. Listen, I am certain that MD public records law requires a quicker turnaround than 15 (fifteen) days. Can you call them? Especially given the shenanigans in MD regarding ACORN, I would really like to include a complaint of election fraud to their AG. Thank you. ADMINISTRATOR

  49. Eagle says:

    Yes, I’ll call them this Friday if I haven’t heard from them by then. I will not let this just go away.

    Eagle: Thank you for that reassurance. ADMINISTRATOR

  50. Ed Sunderland says:

    Contacted SOS this afternoon. They said if we prepare a “compelling” case they would review it and pass it on to the AG’s office if it passes muster.

    I guess it is up to the SOS to determine if State laws were broken or not (and I suppose that hinges upon the party affiliation of the SOS, just my view).

    This took several minutes and several questions to get to the first sentence above. At first the conversation appeared as if getting judicial satisfaction on this objective was impossible and too late. But, I reminded the spokesmen that legal challenges were brought forth prior to the election.

    I asked to speak to her supervisor who was a staff attorney and was out of the office. Dammit!

    So it appears we need to work through the SOS and I would like to chat with you about the horsepower needed to get that done.

    My Texas State Congressmen responded to my email by snail mail and said if we exhaust all opportunities through the SOS, to contact him to seek other contacts.

    If you have my email address shoot me a message, I’d like to respond by phone if possible when you have a couple minutes. I have an idea or two.


    Ed Sunderland: I am so glad you said this:

    At first the conversation appeared as if getting judicial satisfaction on this objective was impossible and too late. But, I reminded the spokesmen that legal challenges were brought forth prior to the election.

    Understand, this complaint of election fraud has absolutely nothing to do with whether BO is a NBC. No ballot challenge timely submitted before the general election has anything to do with this. We are not alleging BO should not have had his name on the ballot on the grounds, he is not a NBC. Remember, on the front of the complaint is a disclaimer that says:

    (Note: This Complaint takes no position on whether Mr. Obama is a NBC. Its sole focus is on uncovering whether Mr. Richie committed election fraud by failing to ascertain whether Mr. Obama is a NBC before swearing he was, in order to get the State of Texas elections officials to print his name on the state’s general election ballot.)

    We are charging Boyd Richie with election fraud. That is, we allege that at the time he swore to TX election officials BO was a NBC in order that these officials would print BO’s name on the TX general election ballot, Mr. Richie hadn’t ascertained whether BO really is a NBC. That’s the fraud. And that’s criminal. So, citizens are only complaining witnesses; they are not Plaintiffs. The AG would be prosecuting on behalf of the citizens of TX. But long before that, as soon as the AG finds fraud, we will be petitioning Congress to file Articles of Impeachment.

    I anticipated state officials would try to fob people off. Don’t let them. As for suggestions on how to proceed, tell me what you have in mind; if you don’t want me to post this, just say so. ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: