Comments on: DNC’s Obama Certification: Merely a State-to-State Change?; Update: Both were Filed; History

By: MGB

MGB — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:54:38 +0000

Some people are simply too concerned with “credit” when the issue is so much more important than that. I’ve done a great deal of independent research and submitted the results in comments on various blogs, often to see someone else take it and run with it, without giving due credit. (Unlike Phil, who always credits the people who bring him new information.) Texas Darling, whose blog is currently on hiatus, is one place were a LOT of background was developed, by a large, collaborating group of regular posters. Much of what you now read on Breitbart’s new blog or hear on Hannity and Glenn Beck, was discussed there months and months ago. Most don’t care about getting credit because saving our Republic and the Constitution is why everybody engaged in this grassroots, group effort in the first place. Thousands of people independently research the same subjects, so it’s likely that many of them separately turned up the same facts, without knowing that it was already revealed elsewhere. Who cares, so long as the goal is achieved?

By: da verg

da verg — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:42:53 +0000

well i was the one who gave both
Justin and jbjb and to Orly and to countusout.com
all my contact information, and responses, from SOSs
with all the states that bothered to respond. Well
over 30 of them.

that’s ok

they know it- i didn’t ask for glory

only truth and justice

to prevail

By: ch

ch — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:49:59 +0000

There seem to be layers to this onion, and many stages of eligibility requirements. If the DNC has in its bylaws they select a candidate eligible according to the constitution, then even if the final form does not state that, it is implied in the bylaws. The history of the party candidates is they observed their bylaws. I think the major parties get a “free pass” because they have never broken their own laws. This time they betrayed that trust, and need to be investigated and if they solicited money from the public during their campaign while knowingly had an ineligible candidate, then they have participate in a federal crime, and the FBI need to get involved. Soliciting money from the general public under false pretenses and placing fraudulent ineligible candidates on state ballots. I would think their party bylaws would be as significant as a final paper submitted and even if that phrase is not on the actual paper they sent, since the states also require eligible candidates according to the constitution, they are guilty if their candidate is not eligible. There are three eligibility points, the party bylaws, the candidate nomination paper Pelosi signs, and the state requirements. Good luck, Pelosi!

By: MGB

MGB — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:26:10 +0000

Greg Goss: How instructive! So, if the candidate volunteers the disqualifying information, then the SoS does his job and strikes the candidate from the ballot. However, if the candidate lies by omission, or lies outright, or simply says nothing, then the Sos doesn’t verify anything and puts the person on the ballot, whether or not he’s eligible under the law or the Constitution. Got it. That’s what I call serving the best interests of the People and respecting your oath to the Constitution.

By: Greg Goss

Greg Goss — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:58:53 +0000

My email exchange with the SOS of NH back in January.

No we did not. Candidates sign a declaration of candidacy and we accept that. Mr. Mohamed; however, submitted a biography of himself stating that he was born in Egypt..
—–Original Message—–
From: Greg Goss [mailto:Gwg1955@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:46 AM
To: Elections
Subject: Re: Presidential Ballot Rules

So you are telling me that you verified all candidates documentation for eligibility under US Constitution Article II?
—– Original Message —–
From: Elections
To: Greg Goss
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:32 AM
Subject: RE: Presidential Ballot Rules

Mr. Mohamed was disqualified because he was born in Egypt; therefore he is not a natural born United States Citizen.

—–Original Message—–
From: Greg Goss [mailto:Gwg1955@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:22 AM
To: Elections
Subject: Re: Presidential Ballot Rules

Thank you very much for the reply. I have one question. On your website it list the candidates that filed http://www.sos.nh.gov:80/presprim2008/candidatesfiled.htm. One candidate, “Sal Mohamed” is listed as “Disqualified”. What was the disqualification for?

Greg Goss
—– Original Message —–
From: Elections
To: Greg Goss
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Presidential Ballot Rules

I can tell you what the law currently says regarding your questions (subject to change between now and next presidential election).

To be a candidate on the NH PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ballot, a candidate must file a declaration of candiday and pay a $1,000 filing fee during the filing period which usually occurs in late October or November of the year preceding the presidential primary eleciton.

To be a third party (independent, libertarian, etc) candidate on the NH GENERAL ELECTION ballot as a candidate for president, the candidate must file a declaration of intent during the June filing period and pay a $250. filing fee. THEN, the candidate must obtain 3,000 individual signatures on nomination papers — signed by registered voters in NH — have those signatures certified by the supervisors of the checklist where the voter lives, and then file those papers with the Secretary of State’s Office. There are deadlines for all of the above, but since that next election isn’t until the year 2012, I don’t have the exact dates.
I hope this helps answer your questions.
Karen Ladd
Assistant Secretary of State
—–Original Message—–
From: Greg Goss [mailto:Gwg1955@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:46 PM
To: Elections
Subject: Presidential Ballot Rules

This will mark the third attempt at obtaining information concerning the election of federal offices that appear on NH ballots. I have two questions.

1.) What is required for a candidate for President to appear on the NH ballot?

2.) What is the process for meeting or verifying those requirements?

Your attention is required and much appreciated.

Greg Goss
Hudson NH

By: Kevin J

Kevin J — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:40:09 +0000

How does one go about requesting these “certification” letters from the state in which you live for both parties over the last several elections?

By: Manchurian Messiah

Manchurian Messiah — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:21:40 +0000

Can ALIENS be President?

Maybe, I’m from MARS!!

By: magna carta

magna carta — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:59:05 +0000

I recommend people spend some time on the jbjd blog. He has been researching this for some time also J. Riggs.
I have been trying to spread the news of this complaint form to fellow Texas voters. Right now he is trying to get Maryland voters onboard for this complaint. I got to speak to many folks yesterday at a Sheriff Joe event.He recommends everyone research their own state election laws and he can help get a complaint letter for you urging the state AG to investigate.AZ is not able because it is not specifically stipulated in their state election laws.
I also read that this matter is addressed in the Kerchner case and that is why Pelosi is listed as a defendant.

By: David

David — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 06:56:39 +0000

Bob,

“Yet the South Carolina certification (above) doesn’t contain the ‘legally qualified’ verbiage that the other (presumably Hawaiian) certification (also above) does contain. Why is that? Because the South Carolina Democratic Party made the necessary certification in a letter. ‘Mystery’ solved.”

Don’t you find it strange that the South Carolina Democratic Party certified that the candidates met the eligibility requirements two weeks before the nomination was officially made? Or that there were no names mentioned in their attached letter? Essentially, it was a pre-certification of candidates not yet nominated. I’m not sure about the relevant South Carolina statutes, but it would seem to me that such a certification would not hold up in any court if challenged.

And what documentation or other evidence did they use to verify this claim?

It appears that the Democratic Party of S. Carolina has some explaining to do – if anyone in that state should raise the issue, of course.

By: Jacqlyn Smith

Jacqlyn Smith — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 05:04:56 +0000

old1 says:
September 11, 2009 at 3:32 pm

If we had a real live functioning DOJ, don’t you think it would be about time to start investigating this instead of running defense for the guilty parties?

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

That is exactly right….instead our corrupt DOJ is trying to bring an investigation against CIA agents who have already been investigated and proven to have done nothing wrong…..people….when are we going to rise up and take back our country…..this protection of the criminals by our justice department is Criminal in itself!!!

By: misanthropicus

misanthropicus — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 04:34:50 +0000

I can’t say how many states and in what wording require from a political party to certify a presidential constitutional eligibility – yet I do remember that we already saw a few lawsuits trying to catch states in this affair, and the states’ uniform answer (and accepted by courts) was that the burden of proof in this matter stays with the candidate’s party, not with the state. “We take their words at face value and are not required to reasearch their claim…”
Colorado comes to my mind, then…

By: misanthropicus

misanthropicus — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 04:11:10 +0000

Curioser and curioser – with close to 2 million people marching in Washington, with a performance rating soon equaling Mugabe’s, the act of not cleaning up this BC story appears more and more suicidal.
Mane, Tekel, Fares? Hope so – I’m tired of this crew.

By: HLC

HLC — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:08:23 +0000

To all:
I realize very few of you read all the current comments
before responding….Justin Riggs comment that Hawaii is the
only state to require constitutional eligibility is not correct.
See http://jbjd.wordpress.com/ and read it fully. There is a
model complaint form there that uses Texas for filing a complaint
on this issue to the Texas AG. Texas clearly requires a candidate
to meet all Federal and state requirements in order for their name(s)
to appear on the Texas ballot. There are several others states that
require this as well. In Texas, by applying to have the names put on the ballot, the DNC is certifying this requirement, whether they state
it on their application or not. In Texas, the chairman of the State
Democrat Party applied for Pelosi, but did not make any statement of
certification. Copies of this are available in comments by redhank in the comments section on the jbjd blog (link above).

By: Justin W. Riggs

Justin W. Riggs — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:26:44 +0000

rqlretired –

Could you please email me the 2000 and 2004 Certifications of Nomination that you refer to above? My email address is juriggs@yahoo.com.

There are a lot of people who want to see those docs right now (I, for one, don’t really care – this whole CFP thing is a mess), and I’d like to put the “debate” to bed.

Thanks!

By: yo

yo — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:48:10 +0000

State to state change?

BULL!

wnd contacted the dnc and they had no explanation. The state to state explanation only sounds plausible until you think about it. There can be no explanation for holding out that phrase from specific states.

The one thing ol jbwilliams should have nailed down before he said it though, is that the one w/o the phrase was sent to all 50 states. It doesn’t look like he really knows that for sure.