IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK…

There’s an old saying that goes something like, ‘If it looks like a duck; walks like a duck; and quacks, it’s a duck.’

Well, election fraud in the Palmetto State is quacking its head off.

The cast of characters in the South Carolina election scene reads like a ‘Who’s Who’ of Democratic politics. The Fowlers, Carol and Don, are as much a touchstone of the SC Democratic Party as are the Kennedys in Massachusetts. Don is the former DNC Chair. Carol is the Chair of the SC Democratic Committee. Although married for only 3½ years, they have worked together in party politics for over 30 years. Both are members of the DNC’s powerful Rules and Bylaws Committee; both were Super Delegates to the 2008 DNC Convention. In the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary election, Don claimed he supported HRC; his wife supported BO.

Kathy Hensley, Treasurer of the SC Democratic Party, has been active in politics for over 40 (forty) years. In 1968, she was the National Finance Manager, McCarthy for President; she was Assistant to the State Director, Richard Gephardt for President 2004. She has been President and board member of a number of local, regional, and national non-profit organizations and participated as a volunteer and staff member in many local, state, and national campaigns in both Virginia and South Carolina. Currently she is Chair of the Lexington County Democratic Party in Virginia.

Garry Staub is currently the Public Information Officer for the South Carolina Election Commission. He has worked for the Commission at least 8 (eight) years, being mentioned in the minutes of the meeting of the SCEC back on April 19, 2001. (Note: At that time, he was their Training Coordinator.)

As previously posted on this blog, on November 1, 2007 Carol Fowler typed a memorandum to the SC Election Commission, certifying the names of the D candidates that should appear on the January 28, 2008 Presidential Primary ballot. The names of these candidates, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and others, were typed below. Then, she informed the SCEC enclosed was a check for $160,000, $20,000 for each of the “seven” candidates and signed her name. (There were 8 (eight) candidates in all.) But as you saw, beneath the typed portion of the memo and, partially superimposed over her signature, appeared several handwritten lines, below which was the signature of Kathy Hensley, and the date, November 1. (Scroll to the 4th document shown.)

View this document on Scribd

I recognized that the language of her handwritten note mimicked the SC statute. So, I wondered, how did Kathy Hensley come to hand write the statutory language that appears on the bottom of Carol Fowler’s typed candidate certification memo? Enlisting Dawn’s help, I can now answer that question.

Turns out, Kathy Hensley hand-delivered Carol Fowler’s November 1, 2007 memo to the offices of the SCEC. Garry Baum said so. He remembered that someone in the office – he could not recall whether he or another staffer – pointed out, ‘she’ “forgot” to add the statutory language that the D candidates listed to get their names printed on the SC primary ballot were eligible for the job. He said she had not noticed this language was missing, on her own.

So, Ms. Hensley added the required language, then and there, along with her signature. And that explains the unusual appearance of the state D party Certification of names for the Presidential Preference primary election.

This omission begs the question: Was Chairwoman Fowler’s oversight intentional? Who knows. On the one hand, she was only elected to that position in April 2007. On the other hand, along with her husband, she had been involved in party politics for over 30 years. Ms. Hensley, another party veteran, ostensibly had not seen this omission. Had she seen the letter at any time before she handed it over to the Election Commission and failed to notice the missing language of eligibility verification? Maybe, maybe not.

And this: Does the organization of the D party or, the laws of the state of SC authorize the Treasurer of the party to authenticate the eligibility of the names of the D candidates submitted to the Election Commission to be placed on the ballot?

These are only some of the questions appropriately asked in the context of a criminal investigation.

Now, I want to explain how people throughout the blogosphere thoroughly misconstrued the (posting of the) August 14, 2008 letter from Carol Fowler to the SCEC, Certifying the names of the candidates that should be placed on the general election ballot as well as their eligibility for the job, which was posted on the web site, “americamustknow,” and linked to from the blog “yourfellowcitizen.” http://americamustknow.com/Documents/southcarolinabologna.pdf

As you can see, this August 14, 2008 document appears to be 1 of 3 documents faxed to the recipient, shown by page numbers in the upper right hand corner, “1,” “2,” and “3.” Ms. Fowler’s August 14 letter is page 2; the document on page 3 is the Official DNC Certification of Nomination signed by NP on August 27. People who read these documents – Ms. Fowler’s August 14 letter and the Official DNC Certification of BO’s nomination – have expressed their indignation that Ms. Fowler certified the nominees 2 (two) weeks before the DNC Convention. How did she know BO and JB would win the nomination! But this outrage was, understandably, based on their mistaken belief that, the DNC Official Certification of Nomination posted as page 3, necessarily contains the information referenced in Ms. Fowler’s August 14 letter, page 2, which immediately precedes it on the published pages. But in fact, notwithstanding they are numbered sequentially, page 2 of the fax had absolutely nothing to do with page 3.

As we know, the Official DNC Certification of Nomination was submitted to the SCEC by DNC General Counsel Sandler; you can access his letter posted on this blog in “UP TO HERE IN ELECTION FRAUD IN SC. FROM THE CHAIR OF THE 2008 DNC CONVENTION TO THE CHAIR OF THE DNC.” (As you have seen, Mr. Sandler’s letter contained no Certification of eligibility for BO or JB but, as we have just discussed above, their eligibility was sworn to by Ms. Hensley, in November 2007, when their names were submitted for inclusion on that state’s January 2008 Presidential Preference primary ballot.) Rather, the candidates to whose eligibility Ms. Fowler attested in that August 14 letter, did not include BO and JB as the Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominees for the party, but all of the ‘down ticket’ Democrats whose names the state D party wanted to appear on SC’s general election ballot, names listed on pages that were attached to her filing with the SCEC but omitted from subsequent postings on the above-sited blogs. Here is that list of D candidates, in its entirety.

View this document on Scribd

In sum, the August 14 letter from SC D state party Chair Carol Fowler Certifying the names and the eligibility of D candidates to appear on that state’s general election ballot appears to be kosher. On the other hand, that November 1, 2007 typed and hand-written memo Certifying the names and eligibility of D candidates to appear on that state’s Presidential Preference primary, signed by both Ms. Fowler and Ms. Hensley, could have ‘election fraud’ written all over it.

Biographical information taken from these sites.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/05/30/its-not-all-in-the-family-for-some-dnc-rules-committee-members.html
http://www.scvotes.org/files/ACCT.%20REPORT%2008-09.pdf
http://www.lexingtonchronicle.com/clients/lexingtonchronicle/20090514PageA6.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/biden/bidenorgsc.html
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:oILs9qPDv7oJ:www.aspaonline.org/swpa/BTGFall_08%255B5%255D.pdf+profiles+of+outstanding+women+kathy+hensley+south+carolina&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
http://www.state.sc.us/scsec/minutes/apr01.htm

Advertisements

19 Responses to IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK…

  1. azgo says:

    Wow, Thanks for the clarification and research!

    South Carolina Code of Laws

    “SECTION 7-13-350. Certification of candidates; verification of qualifications.

    (A) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the nominees in a party primary or party convention held under the provisions of this title by any political party certified by the commission for one or more of the offices, national, state, circuit, multi-county district, countywide, less than countywide, or municipal to be voted on in the general election, held on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November, must be placed upon the appropriate ballot for the election as candidates nominated by the party by the authority charged by law with preparing the ballot if the names of the nominees are certified, in writing, by the political party chairman, vice-chairman, or secretary to the authority, for general elections held under Section 7-13-10,…

    Woops, the “now current through the 2008 session” law doesn’t say ‘treasurer’, what now!

    Did Ms. Hensley make a BO BO?

    azgo: You are having much too much fun on this fraud hunt.

    must be placed upon the …ballot if the names of the nominees are certified … by

    All this means is, the state of SC is not obligated to place these names on the ballot if they are not certified by the people listed in this section of the law. This does not mean, the state may not exercise its discretion to place those names on the ballot when certified by someone other than the official so designated in this law. But now, South Carolinians know, ‘anyone’ from the party may certify the eligibility of the D candidates and those candidates can still get their names printed on your primary and general election ballots.

    No; what I was wondering is whether under the rules or by-laws of the state D party, the office of Treasurer defines as its role, either vetting or, certifying to the state, the eligibility of candidates who want to represent the party in the primary election. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. JustMe says:

    Hey jbjd not to be fussy in the top section of your post you say go to 3rd doc shown it’s actually the 4th doc. As always I always learn so much when coming to your site. Thank you for all your hard work.

    JustMe: Thank you; I don’t want to add to the confusion. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. bob strauss says:

    Mr Baum’s letter says they were supposed to certify the candidates before 12:00 PM, Sept 10, and the certification is dated Nov 1. Does it matter that they were late in certifying the candidates for the ballot?

    bob strauss: No; election laws pertaining to days or times by which the names of candidates must be submitted to the election officials reflect the deadline for ‘entitlement’ to get on the ballot. After that, these officials may use their discretion as to whether to place those names on the state ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Just one of the people says:

    Were you aware that the SC election Law was amended effective 6/19/07
    R108, S99 Section2(b)…Political parties must not certify any candidate who does not or will not by the time of the general election meet the qualifications in the United States Constitution, statutory law, and party rules for the presidential preference primary for which the candidate desires to file, and such candidate’s name must not be placed on a primary ballot.

    They broke the laws in less than five months.

    Just one of the people: Yes, I knew about this law, which explains why I directed the complaint of election fraud in SC to both the party filers in the general election AND the primary. But I did not know that the law was enacted in June 2007. Wow, know what this means? Carol Fowler, who as we said, became Chair of the state D party in April 2007; surely was aware of the new state law enacted in June. Now, does this mean, she would know that the wording of that Certification as to eligibility had to be included along with the ‘name’ Certification submitted to state elections officials? I don’t know. But I know that Kathy Hensley, Treasurer of the D state party, wrote that language on November 1, 2007, and not Carol Fowler. And if I was AG McMaster, I would want to know, why. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Just one of the people says:

    sorry forgot to put in the link to the amended bill
    http://www.votesmart.org/billtext/14059.htm

    Just one of the people: No matter; I had cited that law, and quoted the text, on the front of the SC complaint of election fraud to the AG! ADMINISTRATOR

  6. azgo says:

    The fraud hunt continues, more information!

    South Carolina Delegate Selection Plan And Affirmative Action Plan

    “VI. Responsibilities and Rights of Presidential Candidates
    A. Filing by Candidates for President

    1. A presidential candidate gains access to the South Carolina ballot by filing a statement of candidacy with the South Carolina Democratic Party. Filing opens at 9:00 AM, Monday, October 22, 2007. A filing fee of $2,500 is required. Filing must be completed by 12:00 noon, Thursday, November 1, 2007. Pursuant to section 7-11-20(B)(2) of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, a candidate seeking the nomination of the Democratic
    Party for President of the U.S. will be certified by the SC Democratic Party to the State Election Commission as a candidate for the Democratic presidential preference primary. Only those candidates, as determined by vote of the State Party Executive Council to be generally acknowledged or recognized in news media throughout the United States as viable candidates for that office and who are actively campaigning for the South Carolina Democratic presidential preference primary, will be certified. Only those candidates as to which such determination is made by the Executive Council shall be deemed to meet the qualifications of party rules under and for purposes of section 7-11-20(B)(2) of the Code of Laws. Additionally, no one may gain access to the South Carolina Democratic ballot unless he or she is a registered voter, is legally qualified to hold the office of President of the United States, and is entitled to obtain delegates. The Executive Council will meet at 1:00 p.m. on November 1, 2007, to certify candidates for the presidential primary ballot.”

    http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:m9310i8HfLcJ:www.scdp.org/public/files/docs/SCDP_DelegateSelectionPlan2008_070822.pdf+south+carolina+democratic+party,+certification,+nomination+paper&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNG57nho5Vt00d1V0gDxorQFmlKZuQ
    SECTION 7-11-20. Conduct of party conventions or party primary elections generally; presidential preference primaries.

    SECTION 7-11-20. Conduct of party conventions or party primary elections generally; presidential preference primaries.

    “(2)… and (b) the state committee of the party shall set the date and the filing requirements, including a certification fee. Political parties must verify the qualifications of candidates prior to certifying to the State Election Commission the names of candidates to be placed on primary ballots. The written certification required by this section must contain a statement that each certified candidate meets, or will meet by the time of the general election, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications in the United States Constitution, statutory law, and party rules to participate in the presidential preference primary for which he has filed. Political parties must not certify any candidate who does not or will not by the time of the general election meet the qualifications in the United States Constitution, statutory law, and party rules for the presidential preference primary for which the candidate desires to file, and such candidate’s name must not be placed on a primary ballot.”

    http://www.scstatehouse.gov/CODE/t07c011.htm

    SECTION 7-13-350. Certification of candidates; verification of qualifications.

    “…the nominees in a party primary or party convention…must be placed upon the appropriate ballot …if the names of the nominees are certified, in writing, by the political party chairman, vice-chairman, or secretary to the authority, for general elections held under Section 7-13-10,…”

    http://www.scstatehouse.gov/CODE/t07c013.htm

    The SC AG has a lot to think about or not!

    azgo: These points are covered in both the SC complaint (this explains why we are charging not only the D’s who submitted BO’s name for the general election ballot but also the D’s who Certified his eligibility for the primary ballot); and subsequent posts. Yes, I would say, AG McMaster has a lot to consider before actively campaigning for Governor. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. drkate says:

    Wow. jbjd, and to your commenters, superb work.

    This site and the dialogue here is terrific and extremely educational. It also reads like a novel!!

    thank you.

    drkate: I know; it’s an honor to be a part of the work that goes on here. And you are welcome. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. Dawn says:

    I found what I believe to be SC’s five most conservative newspapers. They will have the SC complaint to the SC AG in their hands tomorrow. Next will be TV & radio stations (are their conservative stations at all in this state?:) and finally, blogs. I am wondering whether I’m correct in thinking that liberal versions of these would toss your hard work into the trash (?) And i think I already expressed my concern about sending to ANY blogs – is my gut feeling right with that or how about just to the blogs linked with your page? I’m leaning to no blogs. What say you? Now, I am following my gut feeling when it comes to starting with & staying with conservative media outlets? Is five enough?
    They are:
    The Times Examiner, Greenville
    The State, Columbia
    The Edgefield Advertiser, Edgefield
    The Post and Courier – Charleston
    Spartanburg Herald-Journal, Spartanburg
    I’m ALSO having second thoughts about anonymity.
    It’s really “not me” and will it limit our accomplishing what we want to do with the info. any input appreciated.

    Dawn: Let’s hear from other filers in SC.

    As for me, well, I cannot imagine a liberal reader will find these complaints any less credible than a conservative reader. Ultimately, we just want AG McMaster to read these complaints and investigate the ‘well-pleaded’ charges of election fraud. It makes no sense to appeal to the voters to elect him Governor on promises he will be effective in that position; if he cannot even establish he is receptive to the concerns of the voters as their AG. That’s the benefit you have in SC: your AG wants to be your Governor.

    I also cannot help thinking, the press, once they READ the complaint, will at least call for the AG to investigate the citizen charges. (I would also include a brief cover note, which references complaints filed in other states like TX, HI, VA, and GA; and provides the links to the “UP TO HERE IN ELECTION FRAUD IN SC, FROM THE CHAIR OF THE 2008 DNC CONVENTION TO THE CHAIR OF THE DNC”: and “IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK…” posts, on this blog. Some intrepid reporter is apt to take on this story based on the scent, this could be of interest nationwide. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. My blog roll is woefully incomplete.

  9. Just_Saying says:

    Are you all right, jbjd? Haven’t heard from you for awhile, and wondering…

    Just_Saying: How considerate of you to wonder. I am fine; tired, but fine. See, from the middle of September through the middle of June, I teach. Over the summer, I am ‘off.’ I spent upwards of 12 hours a day ‘working’ on election issues over the summer – you cannot imagine how much time goes into crafting 1 (one) complaint for election fraud, from researching the laws in the state, to tailoring the language of the complaint to suit the fact pattern present in just that 1 (one) applicable state – but I had to scale down the hours devoted to this endeavor now. I am trying to find the balance between working at my paying job, an adequate number of days to cover expenses; and taking off as many days as necessary to keep up the ‘free’ work I produce for this blog. I have to tell you, I absolutely love teaching; but I am in love with the work I do here. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. Just_Saying says:

    Thanks for the reply and explanation, jpjd. I’m sure your students are lucky, and we are also in love with the work you do here! Take care!!
    .
    Just_Saying: Wait until you see the next post…You will love this work. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. […] In every other state and the District of Columbia, Certifications of Nomination signed by The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, acting in the non-governmental role of Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Convention, were forwarded to election officials to get them to print the name of Barack Obama next to the “D” on the 2008 general election ballot.*  But not in TX.  Nope; in TX, only Mr.  Richie signed those Certifications.  And for all of the citizens in those states where only the names of qualified candidates may be printed on the ballot, who filed charges of election fraud with their state A’sG charging members of the D party swore to state election officials BO was Constitutionally eligible for the job to get them to print his name on the ballot but failed to ascertain beforehand whether he is a NBC; the fact that NP did not sign the TX Certification but BR did, makes all the difference in the world. *In order to get BO’s name printed on SC’s Presidential Preference Primary ballot, the SC D state party Treasurer, Kathy Hensley, hand-wrote the certification on the memo typed by Carol Fowler, party Chair, assuring the Board of Elections that he was Constitutionally eligible for POTUS. “IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK…“ […]

  12. […] You know what this reminds me of? Back in the fall of 2007, then DPSC Treasurer Kathy Hensley tried to deliver Carol Fowler’s list of candidates for the 2008 Presidential Preference primary to the SCEC but they wouldn’t take it. Because for some reason, Ms. Fowler had left out the eligibility Certification. Well, this was no problem for Ms. Hensley. She just whipped out her pen and scribbled out her own Certification, on the spot! (Who said Barack Obama isn’t a Natural Born Citizen!) https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/if-it-looks-like-a-duck/ […]

  13. […] CAROL FOWLER is CRYING “FOWL” in SOUTH CAROLINA (and I can’t stop smiling!); IF IT LOOKS LIKE a DUCK…; and OPEN LETTER to THE HONORABLE HENRY McMASTER, ATTORNEY GENERAL of SOUTH […]

  14. […] on 10.10.09, less than a month after I posted this article, I posted another article entitled, IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK, pointing to the fact, just like in HI, under SC law, in order to get the name of the candidate on […]

  15. […] after I posted the August article containing the images of the HI and SC Certifications, I posted  UP to HERE in ELECTION FRAUD in SC, FROM the CHAIR of the 2008 DNC CONVENTION to the CHAIR of the […]

  16. […] one other state, SC, also requires this explicit language of eligibility on its ballot application. IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK…) I assume Hawaiians enacted this law because of that earlier law allowing foreign births. That is, […]

  17. http://scvotes.org/files/SEC%20FRM%201010-200911%20Statement%20of%20Intention%20of%20Candidacy%20-%20Partisan.pdf

    “Candidate’s Oath
    I affirm that I meet, or will meet by the time of the general or special election, the qualifications for this office.”

    Is there other mention of eligibility in the SC ballot application, jbjd? Where is it codified? I find no hits for “eligibility” at http://scvotes.org “Search”.

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

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: