Category Archives: Election Law

Vermont Supreme Court decision in Paige natural born citizen lawsuit, June 16, 2017, H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont Secretary of State James Condos Ted Cruz Marco Rubio, 3-2 decision

Vermont Supreme Court decision in Paige natural born citizen lawsuit, June 16, 2017, H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont Secretary of State James Condos Ted Cruz Marco Rubio, 3-2 decision

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.”
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”…Marbury V Madison

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”…Thomas Paine

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

From  H. Brooke Paige.

“A quick read finds that the court chose not to reach the merits and
rendered a split (3-2) decision on the issue of mootness. While not
stated, it appears that they did not find that plaintiff/appellant lacked
standing or that the court lacked jurisdiction.  The court erred in
assigning blame for procedural delays entirely on plaintiff as I did not
make requests for elongation of time in filing while the defendants did so
on five occasions.

Robinson, with Eaton concurring, took exception with the court’s failure
to find that case presented a permissible exception to mootness.”

From the decision:

“¶ 12. As to the second prong, appellant recognizes the change in the facts, acknowledging in his brief that “[w]e are beyond the primary election in Vermont.” In response, he re-directs his argument away from the fall 2016 election and toward future elections. First, he maintains that
addressing the issue of whether Senators Cruz and Rubio are constitutionally qualified to appear on future ballots not only would redress his injuries but also would be practical for the public as a whole:
The Court can give plaintiff a remedy which will redress his injuries,
that remedy being a declaration that Cruz and Rubio are not Article
II natural born citizens and that the Vermont Secretary of State is
not to place their names on the primary or general election ballot in
future presidential elections. . . . At this stage, it will not cause the
State of Vermont any inconvenience or extra expense for it to follow
a judgment of this Court as to whether the names of Cruz or Rubio
should be allowed to be printed on future election ballots.
Addressing the issue at this early stage will avoid any confusion or
interference with the rights of Vermont voters to cast their ballots
during future elections. (Emphasis added)
And later appellant directly argues that the issue is bound to come up again:
The issue of what is a natural born citizen and the state’s role in
answering that question as it applies to placing candidates for
president on the state election ballots remains even though the
election is over . . . this issue just keeps coming up but is never
resolved for one reason or another. (Emphasis added)
¶ 13. Without assessing the first prong of the test for cases that are capable of repetition but evading review, we determine that appellant is unable to satisfy the second prong—he is unable to show that there is a reasonable expectation that he “will be subjected to the same action again.”
Id. ¶ 6. Appellant’s argument here boils down to mere speculation: “Cruz and Rubio will probably be running for President again in 2020.” While it is true that the Senators may run for president during the next election, appellant must show that it is more than just “theoretically possible” that the situation he currently objects to will repeat itself; rather, he must show a “demonstrated probability” that he will become embroiled again in this same situation. In re Green Mountain
Power Corp., 148 Vt. 333, 335, 532 A.2d 582, 584 (1987). But appellant offers nothing to support his speculation—no legal filings by either Senator and no statements by either Senator to the effect that they will run for president in the future.
¶ 14. A decision by this Court regarding the meaning of the phrase “natural born
Citizen”—and, ultimately, whether the Senators may run for president in Vermont—cannot be based on mere speculation. Appellant’s case is similar to those in which we have found that the capable-of-repetition-but-evading-review exception does not apply. See In re P.S., 167 Vt. at 68,
702 A.2d at 101 (holding that appeal of revocation of nonhospitalization order of mental patient who had later been released under separate order did not meet mootness exception because court’s findings regarding first order were specific to month in which they were made and any future revocations would “be based on new fact patterns”); Dor ia, 156 Vt. at 119-20, 589 A.2d at 319
(finding that mootness exception did not apply in case in which defeated gubernatorial candidate objected to poll conducted by university professor, because candidate did not “show any reasonable expectation that he will be subjected to the same type of political poll” in future elections); see also State v. Gundlah, 160 Vt. 193, 196, 624 A.2d 368, 370 (1993) (holding that no
mootness exception applied in journalist’s appeal of contempt-of-court conviction for refusing to testify at prosecution of prison escapee who subsequently pleaded no contest, because “[a] repetition of the fact pattern presented seems highly unlikely and certainly does not rise to a
reasonable expectation.”). ”

“¶ 17. Appellant’s case is moot because it no longer involves an actual controversy, appellant no longer has a legally cognizable interest in its outcome, and it does not meet either exception to the mootness doctrine argued by appellant. At this time, any opinion issued by this Court on the issues raised by appellant would merely be advisory, and would not be within our
constitutional authority to render. See Doria, 156 Vt. at 117, 589 A.2d at 318. We therefore affirm its dismissal by the trial court.”

https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/sites/default/files/documents/op16-202.pdf

Thank you Mr. Paige for your efforts.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

CA state senator DeLeon admits ID fraud and should be prosecuted, Illegal aliens stealing our IDs jobs money resources and committing crimes, Alamance County NC 2008 report on illegals ID theft

CA state senator DeLeon admits ID fraud and should be prosecuted, Illegal aliens stealing our IDs jobs money resources and committing crimes, Alamance County NC 2008 report on illegals ID theft

“Maria Sanchez was arrested on May 6, 2008 by investigators of the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office for stealing and using the identity of Veronica Arias.
Sanchez used the name, SSN, DOB, of Veronica Arias who is a living resident of Texas.
As a post-arrest procedure, Maria Sanchez was processed under the 287G program and identified as an illegal alien. She was subsequently processed for deportation.
Sanchez was provided work notes by the Alamance County Health Department to return to work at HondaPower Equipment (this creates substantial tax implications for the real Veronica Arias who is a lawful U.S. resident/citizen).”…Alamance County NC sheriff report 2008

“What is your threshold for acceptable voter fraud since 1 vote can win most elections?”…Citizen Wells

 

Illegal aliens are stealing our IDs, jobs, money, resources and in some cases lives.

California state senator DeLeon had the audacity to admit that half of his family was here illegally and using fake IDs.

The left wants you to believe that is ok.

People like DeLeon are trying to mainstream accepting illegals as being good for the country, not doing anything wrong.

From Breitbart February 5, 2017.

“California State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Léon (D-Los Angeles) said last Tuesday that “half his family” was in the country illegally, using false documents, and eligible for deportation under President Trump’s new executive order against “sanctuary” jurisdictions.

De Léon, who introduced the bill, made his remarks at a hearing in Sacramento on SB54, the bill to make California a “Sanctuary State.

He said (at 1:27:34 in the video that follows):

… I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [President Donald Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB60, if they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work. They are eligible for massive deportation.”

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/02/05/california-state-senate-leader-family-illegal-false-documents-deportation/

You can listen to Senator DeLeon here:’

http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=4107#.WJUuibp1PqY.email

Senator DeLeon, et al should be prosecuted.

I hope that Donald Trump and Mike Pence will do so.

Did the illegal members of his family vote too?

From Citizen Wells November 2, 2010.

“The following controversy in NC received brief national attention in 2008.

From the Alamance County Sheriff’s Ofice, Alamance County Health Department Investigation, 2008.
(Alamance County is just east of Greensboro)

“On Monday June 23rd, 2008 the SBI initiated an
investigation into allegations that employees of the
Alamance County Health Department specifically Dr.
Kathleen Shapley-Quinn and Nurse Karen Saxer were
knowingly and willingly falsifying patient medical
records.”
“At the request of some patients, Alamance
County Health Department provided work
notes and prescriptions in alias names.

Providing these services would assist illegal
aliens with maintaining assumed or stolen
identities, which may be a violation of state, or
federal law. (Identity Theft, Fraud, etc.)”
“The staff was divided with some believing the practice of writing
work notes (utilizing aliases) to suspected illegal aliens was wrong
and therefore they refused to do so. Subsequently they reported
feeling pressured or feared repercussions.

Others, particularly Shapely-Quinn and Saxer believed the
guidance they had sought and received was vague at best, but
believed their actions did not violate the law and they were
providing care for their patients. Furthermore, according to
them, an illegal alien can not be refused medical care.”
“On more than one occasion Nurse Karen Saxer at the
direction of Dr. Shapley-Quinn prepared or made
health related employer work notes for patients under
alias names, knowing that the names on the documents
were in fact not the birth name or legal name of the
patient.”
“Veronica Arias, of Texas, reported on May 2nd, 2008 to
the ACSO that someone in Swepsonville, NC had
stolen her identity and was using same to be employed.

Maria Sanchez was arrested on May 6, 2008 by
investigators of the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office
for stealing and using the identity of Veronica Arias.

Sanchez used the name, SSN, DOB, of Veronica Arias
who is a living resident of Texas.”

https://citizenwells.com/2010/11/02/nc-voter-fraud-update-voting-machine-errors-nc-gop-lawsuit-status-voter-registration-issues/

https://www.scribd.com/document/338655969/Alamance-County-NC-Sheriff-Terry-Johnson-2008-report-on-illegal-aliens-and-ID-fraud

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

Vice President Mike Pence voter fraud commission revealed in Bill O’Reilly Super Bowl interview, Transcript, “take a look at the registration”, Dead people illegals non citizens are on registration rolls

Vice President Mike Pence voter fraud commission revealed in Bill O’Reilly Super Bowl interview, Transcript, “take a look at the registration”, Dead people illegals non citizens are on registration rolls

“What is your threshold for acceptable voter fraud since 1 vote can win most elections?”…Citizen Wells

“North Carolina is the latest state featured by Project Veritas in its series on how America’s electoral system is extremely vulnerable to voter fraud. During last week’s North Carolina primary, James O’Keefe and his colleagues demonstrated how easy it is to obtain ballots even if the person has publicly professed not to be a U.S. citizen.”
O’Keefe also tells WND about his group’s visit to the University of North Carolina, where a dean and a program director laugh off confessions of voter fraud and even seem to encourage it. Yet a day later, both officials tell conservatives that voter fraud never happens.”…WND May 15, 2012

“High importance. I met with Jim and Mike in Denver. They are both old friends of the Clintons and have lots of experience. Mike hosted our Boulder Road Show event. They are reliving the 08 caucuses where they believe the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters. They want to organize lawyers for caucus protection, election protection and to raise hard $.”…Podesta Wikileaks email leak

 

 

Voter fraud is real and widespread.

Even the Democrats were concerned about it as revealed in a Podesta email leak.

Donald Trump is setting up a voter fraud commission headed by Vice President Mike Pence.

From the transcript of the Trump Bill O’Reilly Super Bowl interview Sunday, February 5, 2017.

“O’Reilly: Let’s turn to domestic policy. I just spent the week in California. As you know, they are now voting on whether they should become a sanctuary state. So California, and the USA, are on a collision course. How do you see it?

Trump: Well, I think it’s ridiculous. Sanctuary cities, as you know, I’m very much opposed to sanctuary cities. They breed crime, there’s a lot of problems. If we have to, we’ll defund. We give tremendous amounts of money to California — California in many ways is out of control, as you know. Obviously the voters agree, otherwise they wouldn’t have voted for me.

O’Reilly: So defunding is your weapon of choice?

Trump: Well it’s a weapon. I don’t want to defund a state, a city.

O’Reilly: But you’re willing to do it?

Trump: I don’t want to defund anyone. I want to give them the money they need to properly operate as a city or state. If they’re going to have sanctuary cities, we may have to do that. Certainly that would be a weapon.

O’Reilly: Is there any validity to the criticism of you that you say things you can’t back up factually, and as the president, if you say, for example, that there are 3 million illegal aliens who voted and then you don’t have the data to back it up, some people are gonna say that it’s irresponsible for a president to say that. Is there any validity to that?

Trump: Many people have come out and said I’m right. You know that.

O’Reilly: I know, but you’ve gotta have data to back that up.

Trump: Let me just tell you. And it doesn’t have to do with the vote, although that’s the end result. It has to do with the registration. And when you look at the registration and you see dead people that have voted, when you see people that are registered in two states that voted in two states, when you see other things, when you see illegals, people that are not citizens, and they’re on the registration rolls. Look, Bill, we can be babies, but you take a look at the registration, you have illegals, you have dead people, you have this. It’s really a bad situation. It’s really bad.

O’Reilly: So you think you’re gonna be proven correct in that statement?

Trump: Well, I think I already have. A lot of people have come out and said that I am correct.

O’Reilly: But the data has to show that 3 million illegals voted.

Trump: Forget that. Forget all of that. Just take a look at the registration, and we’re gonna do it, and I’m gonna set up a commission, to be headed by Vice President Mike Pence, and we’re gonna look at it very, very carefully.”

Read more:

http://www.sbnation.com/2017/2/5/14516156/donald-trump-interview-transcript-bill-oreilly-super-bowl-2017

 

 

 

 

Electoral college electors meet today December 19, 2016 to vote for president and vice president, Six Certificates of Vote paired with six Certificates of Ascertainment, January 6, 2017 congress meets to count and certify electoral votes

Electoral college electors meet today December 19, 2016 to vote for president and vice president, Six Certificates of Vote paired with six Certificates of Ascertainment, January 6, 2017 congress meets to count and certify electoral votes

“”My good friend Ann here actually got some sort of irritant in one of the letter. My son had his car vandalized,” said Mike Delk, President of the NC Electoral College. “Other people have received threats, attempted bribes.”

But the electors say they are not swayed by these actions. All 15 said they will cast their votes for Trump which will go toward the 270 elector votes required. Trump’s nationwide total is 306.

The members said they have a message for those protesting the results.

“It really shows a lack of understanding of our democracy,” said Dr. Glenn Pinckney, Secretary of the NC Electoral College. “It shows an honest lack and disrespect.””…WTVD

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

 

From the US Electoral College.

THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

“December 19, 2016

The Electors meet in their state and vote for President and Vice President on separate ballots. The electors record their votes on six “Certificates of Vote,” which are paired with the six remaining Certificates of Ascertainment.

The electors sign, seal, and certify six sets of electoral votes. A set of electoral votes consists of one Certificate of Ascertainment and one Certificate of Vote. These are distributed immediately as follows:

  • one set to the President of the Senate (the Vice President) for the official count of the electoral votes in January;
  • two packages to the Secretary of State in the state where the electors met—one is an archival set that becomes part of the public record of the Secretary of State’s office and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes;
  • two packages to the Archivist—one is an archival set that becomes part of the permanent collection at the National Archives and Records Administration and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes; and
  • one set to the presiding judge in the district where the Electors met—this is also a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes.

December 28, 2016

Electoral votes (the Certificates of Vote) must be received by the President of the Senate and the Archivist no later than nine days after the meeting of the electors. States face no legal penalty for failure to comply.

If votes are lost or delayed, the Archivist may take extraordinary measures to retrieve duplicate originals.

On or Before January 3, 2017

The Archivist and/or representatives from the Office of the Federal Register meet with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House in late December or early January. This is, in part, a ceremonial occasion. Informal meetings may take place earlier.

January 6, 2017

The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. Congress may pass a law to change this date.

The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.

If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State on the Certificate of Ascertainment would be counted in Congress.

If no Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the House of Representatives to decide the Presidential election. If necessary the House would elect the President by majority vote, choosing from the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each state having one vote.

If no Vice Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment provides for the Senate to elect the Vice President. If necessary, the Senate would elect the Vice President by majority vote, choosing from the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each Senator having one vote.

If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.

January 20, 2017 at Noon—Inauguration Day

The President-elect takes the Oath of Office and becomes the President of the United States.”

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/key-dates.html

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Durham County NC recount results, Cooper gains 90 McCrory gains 40, Close enough for government work?, 131 votes off in 1 of 100 counties, Damned NC media lying to public, 339 illegal felons found voting in state, Civitas lawsuit challenges same day registration, Citizen Wells real news

Durham County NC recount results, Cooper gains 90 McCrory gains 40, Close enough for government work?, 131 votes off in 1 of 100 counties, Damned NC media lying to public, 339 illegal felons found voting in state, Civitas lawsuit challenges same day registration, Citizen Wells real news

“Other payments which are disclosed on Bladen County Improvement Association PAC contribution reports include
the following:

Mary Johnson, witness for 74 ballots, $450;
Lola Wooten, witness for 58 ballots, $500;
Deborah Cogdell, witness for 45 ballots (including both witnesses on 1 ballot), $300; and
Bridgette Keaton, witness for 16 ballots, $630.”…Bladen County NC election protest

“The end justifies the means, the template of the left.”…Citizen Wells

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

Citizen Wells here to present the real news about the Durham County NC recount in the gubernatorial election.

You sure as hell are not getting it from the “fake news” based mainstream media.

There are errors of commission and omission.

And then of course there is evil.

In the past several days I can find no other source on the internet reporting the following.

Despite what the Durham County Board of Elections has been trying to cover up for, the change in recount that was reported to the state is significant. A change of 131 votes in one county out of 100.

I would be willing to bet that even this number is not accurate.

Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens:

“Durham historically hasn’t figured out how to carry out an election properly.”

Here are the results:

Roy Cooper gain of 90 votes.

Pat McCrory gain of 40 votes.

Lon Cecil gain of 1 vote.

Durham County Canvass:

November 29, 2016.

http://dconc.gov/home/showdocument?id=19916

December 8, 2016.

http://dconc.gov/home/showdocument?id=19980

From the Raleigh News Observer December 5, 2016.

“Cooper picks up six votes on McCrory in Durham County recount”

“Durham County Board of Elections officials said their recount of 94,000 votes proved once again that the results that they reported on election night were accurate.

“We’ve been run through the wringer on this, and now proven to everybody that there was no problem,” said Durham County Board of Elections Chairman Bill Brian. “We have now proven to them three or four times there was no problem.”

In the recount completed Monday afternoon, Attorney General Roy Cooper picked up six votes, while Gov. Pat McCrory’s total stayed the same. Republican McCrory conceded to Democrat Cooper on Monday as the recount wrapped up.

After receiving the new count, Durham County officials made the election results official, marking the end of a two-week delay that followed Republican leaders and McCrory questioning the legitimacy of Durham County votes. Questions about the votes arose after the left-leaning county’s results were reported about 11:45 p.m. election night, pushing Cooper ahead of McCrory.

Brian, a Republican, along with the two other board members, a Republican and a Democrat, said the recount results remove the idea of a “taint” on the Durham County election that the State Board of Elections referred to when they ordered the recount last week.

The Republican-led State Board of Elections voted 3-2 along party lines Wednesday to order a machine recount of about 94,000 votes in Durham County by 7 p.m. Monday. The order backed the request from Republicans and McCrory’s campaign. The state board’s decision overturned the Durham County board, which had rejected the recount request as baseless.

“The only taint that was ever on Durham was put there by the state board,” Brian said.

Durham County officials had defended the original results, saying the votes came in late after they had to manually enter voting information because they were unable to upload data from six cards that saved information from ballot tabulators.

Data from five of the cards could not be uploaded to software because the number of votes per race exceeded the software’s memory limitation. A sixth card may have had a battery problem. Officials instead entered the information from the tabulators’ paper tapes.

Thomas Stark, general counsel for the N.C. Republican Party, said the recount results show that part of the process worked out the way it should, in spite of some glitches.

Stark said he still wasn’t confident that the statewide count was accurate.

“I think we have a lot of ineligible voters that are voting in North Carolina,” he said, and officials need to take a closer look at the issue. But proving those concerns takes “a lot longer than you have in the post-election canvass process,” he said.”

Read more:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/community/durham-news/article119008643.html

From the Civitas Institute December 6, 2016.

“Yesterday the Civitas Institute decided to withdraw its request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to remove same-day ballots from certification, while the lawsuit requesting voter verification of same-day registrants in accordance with the law and constitution moves forward.

Civitas president Francis De Luca said, “Our decision to drop the request for the temporary injunction avoids any continued disruption to the conclusion of the election, given the political realities. It is important to focus on the core issue of the suit, which seeks to ensure the equal treatment of voters under the law. To count ballots without proper verification of same-day registration information discriminates by treating one class of voters differently from another and ignores federal and state laws. We hope all can now focus on the important issue of voter verification. The federal lawsuit will move forward.””

https://www.nccivitas.org/2016/21758/

 

 

 

 

NC State Board of Elections denies Bladen County protest that implicated North Carolina Democrat Party of possible fraud, Criminal investigation mentioned in Nov 20 meeting, Perkins Coie helped Obama now helping Cooper et al to hide fraud?

NC State Board of Elections denies Bladen County protest that implicated North Carolina Democrat Party of possible fraud, Criminal investigation mentioned in Nov 20 meeting, Perkins Coie helped Obama now helping Cooper et al to hide fraud?

Mary Johnson, witness for 74 ballots, $450;
Lola Wooten, witness for 58 ballots, $500;
Deborah Cogdell, witness for 45 ballots (including both witnesses on 1 ballot), $300; and
Bridgette Keaton, witness for 16 ballots, $630.”…Bladen County NC election protest

“The end justifies the means, the template of the left.”…Citizen Wells

“We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

The following facts regarding the Bladen County NC election protest are  presented without commentary.

From Citizen Wells November 19, 2016.

“From the McCrory website.

“Hundreds of Fraudulent Cooper Ballots Discovered, Challenged In Bladen County

N.C. Democrat Party-Funded PAC Involved In Apparent Massive Voter Fraud Scheme”

“A formal protest has been filed with the Bladen County Board of Elections to challenge several hundred apparently fraudulent absentee ballots cast for Roy Cooper and other Democrats in Bladen County. Initial evidence laid out in the protest suggests a “massive scheme to run an absentee ballot mill involving hundreds of ballots, perpetrated by and through the Bladen County Improvement Association PAC,” a political action committee funded by the N.C. Democrat Party and other prominent statewide Democrats.””

https://citizenwells.com/2016/11/19/nc-democrat-party-complicit-in-massive-voter-fraud-in-north-carolina-funded-bladen-county-improvement-association-pac-protest-filed-first-by-voter-and-candidate-mccrae-dowless-governor-pat-mccrory/

From the NC State Board of Elections emergency meeting of November 20, 2016.

Mr. Malcolm: “Ms Strach is it true that state board staff has been deployed to Bladen County to investigate allegations related to the most recent election?”

Director Strach: “Yes sir.”

Mr. Malcolm: “Is it true you’ve been in constant contact with those folks as to what they have learned during the course of their investigation?”

Director Strach: “Yes sir.”

Mr. Malcolm: “Is it true that what’s been reported back to you rises to the level to create concern in your mind to whether inappropriate activities by individuals within or perhaps outside the county whether things like that have occurred.

Director Strach: “Yes sir.”

Mr. Malcolm: “Umm, Mr. Chairman in the interest of keeping the active, what may be perceived as a criminal investigation outside the purview of the public, it’s my recommendation that this board exercise its authority under 163-182.12 and take jurisdiction over the allegations known and unknown that are occurring or have occurred in Bladen county as it relates to the most recent election on November 8.”

The dialogue can be heard at 1:41:38.

Kevin Hamilton of Perkins Coie on December 2, 2016 sent a letter to the NC State Board of Elections on behalf of Roy Cooper and NC Democrat Party.

“Re: In re Protest of Election by Leslie McCrae Dowless Jr.

Dear Members of the North Carolina State Board of Elections:

I write on behalf of Roy Cooper and the North Carolina Democratic Party. The purpose of this letter is to request that the Board take no action with regard to the Election Protest filed by Leslie McCrae Dowless Jr. that would disenfranchise voters who committed no election law violation, and to count their votes, at least with regard to elections that are not implicated in Mr. Dowless’s Protest.

Mr. Dowless’s Protest alleges that individuals assisting voters, rather than the voters themselves, wrote the name of write-in candidate “Franklin Graham” on “hundreds” of ballots. See Protest § 6. The protest appears to be alleging a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. §163-226.3(a)(1), which makes it a felony “[f]or any person except the voter’s near relative or the voter’s verifiable legal guardian to assist the voter to vote an absentee ballot when the voter is voting an absentee ballot other than under the procedure described in G.S. 163-227.2;
provided that if there is not a near relative or legal guardian available to assist the voter, the voter may request some other person to give assistance.”1

1 To the extent Mr. Dowless’s Protest alleges that individuals served as a witness for multiple absentee ballots, that is not a violation of law; and it certainly is not a violation of law by the voter, who would have no reason to know how many envelopes a particular individual has signed as a witness.

We do not know what evidence the Board will hear during its hearing to consider this protest. If the Board determines that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-226.3(a)(1) was violated, but that the voters themselves did intend to vote in the manner indicated on their ballots, then we would respectfully submit that those ballots should be counted.

North Carolina law is clear that voter’s choices are to be determined and respected. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-182.1(a). “No official ballot shall be rejected because of technical errors in marking it, unless it is impossible to clearly determine the voter’s choice.” Id. § 163-182(a)(2). Improper assistance may be a crime on the part of the assister, but it is certainly not a crime committed by the voter, much less a reason to disregard his or her ballot. See id. § 163-226.3(a)(1).

Even if the Board determines that certain write-in votes were not, in fact, the choice of the voter, North Carolina law still compels the counting of other votes on the ballot so long as those votes reflect the voter’s choice. “If it is impossible to clearly determine a voter’s choice in a ballot item, the official ballot shall not be counted for that ballot item, but shall be counted in all other ballot items in which the voter’s choice can be clearly determined.” Id. §163-182.1(a)(3).

Finally, the only election specifically protested by Mr. Dowless was “November 8, 2016, Bladen County, Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor.” Protest § 4. While Mr. Dowless does make a general reference to “all other candidates on the ballot in this November 8, 2016 General Election in Bladen County,” id., the removal of any ballots implicated would not “cast doubt on the results of” most of those elections. N.C. Gen. Stat. §163-182.10(d)(2)c. It would be contrary to the letter and spirit of North Carolina law, and contrary to the Board’s order of November 28, 2016, ordering the dismissal of protests that do not allege sufficient numerical issues to cast doubt on the results of an election, to refuse
to give effect to voters’ intent in elections that are not cast in doubt. Thus, the Board should count voters’ choices in the gubernatorial election, and in all other elections that are neither affected by the write-in vote nor close enough to be affected by the potential removal of these votes.

Thank you for your consideration.

Very truly yours,

Kevin J. Hamilton
Attorney for Cooper for North Carolina and the North Carolina Democratic Party”

https://www.scribd.com/document/333199634/Kevin-Hamilton-of-Perkins-Coie-December-2-2016-letter-to-NC-State-Board-of-Elections-on-behalf-of-Roy-Cooper-and-NC-Democrat-Party

John Branch, McCrory attorney, letter to NC Board of Elections.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/State_Board_Meeting_Docs/2016-12-03/Correspondence_McCrory_2016-12-2-.pdf

From the NC State Board of Elections December 4, 2016.

State Board dismisses Bladen County protests

SBE: State Board dismisses Bladen County protests

 

RALEIGH, N.C. – The State Board of Elections voted Saturday to dismiss the election protest of Leslie McCrae Dowless Jr. of Bladen County, citing a lack of substantial evidence of a violation of election law or other irregularity or misconduct sufficient to cast doubt on the results of the election.

 

The State Board also unanimously dismissed a protest on appeal from Kenneth Register of Bladen County, citing the same reason.

 

Board member Joshua D. Malcolm also made a motion for the State Board to make available to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina any and all information in the State Board’s possession regarding the 2016 general election in Bladen County. That motion passed unanimously.

http://www.ncsbe.gov/press-releases?udt_2226_param_detail=146

From the Greensboro News Record December 3, 2016.

“McCrory asks SBI to look into potential voter fraud

The State Board of Elections dismissed a complaint originating from a rural North Carolina county that could have prevented scores of ballots from being counted in close races for governor and auditor.

The board voted 3-2 on Saturday to reject the protest from a Bladen County candidate, who with assistance from Republican Gov. Pat McCrory’s campaign, alleged workers for a political committee that received Democratic funds fraudulently filled out absentee ballots.

Lawyers pushing the complaint suggested the board could throw out as many as 419 mail-in absentee ballots. They said evidence showed that a losing write-in candidate for soil and water conservation district supervisor showed up on nearly 170 ballots and may have originated from only seven people. The lawyers said none of those ballots should be tallied for any races.”

“”We have an obligation to ensure that every vote is counted accurately and that our elections process is conducted legally,” said McCrory. “Any verified instance of voter fraud or other illegal activity should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Republican elections board member James Baker joined the panel’s two Democrats in dismissing the complaint, saying voters signed the absentee ballots. There was no substantial evidence to suggest the choices weren’t their own, they said.

“I don’t see how we could deprive them of their vote … for every other race because we have some pretty serious misgivings about the soil and water race,” Baker said at the close of four hours of testimony and discussion. The board’s other two Republicans voted against dismissal.”

http://www.greensboro.com/ap/mccrory-asks-sbi-to-look-into-potential-voter-fraud/article_28af896b-11ba-5cdf-a069-e42b396b0e06.html

Perkins Coie represented Obama in numerous legal cases.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont, Secretary of State, James Condos, Attorney General William Sorrell, Rafael Edward Cruz and Marco Antonio Rubio oral argument November 30, 2016, Audio and transcript

H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont, Secretary of State, James Condos, Attorney General William Sorrell, Rafael Edward Cruz and Marco Antonio Rubio oral argument November 30, 2016, Audio and transcript

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

From H. Brooke Paige.

H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont, Secretary of State, James Condos, Attorney General William Sorrell, Rafael Edward Cruz and Marco Antonio Rubio  November 30, 2016

Transcript:

https://www.scribd.com/document/332952543/H-Brooke-Paige-v-State-of-Vermont-Secretary-of-State-James-Condos-Attorney-General-William-Sorrell-Rafael-Edward-Cruz-and-Marco-Antonio-Rubio-Tr

From Mr. Paige today:

“With a Little Divine Intervention !

I know that many do not believe that “the big guy” keeps an eye out for us – even when we ask him to do so, today was one of those days that again confirmed, at least for me, that He most certainly does – truly the “invisible hand” rested firmly on my shoulder as I discussed the A/G’s procedural objections and the underlying merits of the case with the Vermont Supreme Court Justices

The justices were well read on the case and asked pointed question. primarily on the procedural issues of standing, venue, jurisdiction and timeliness (mootness/ripeness), One justice stated to AA/G Daloz that “I believe that we will get past the procedural questions” to the issues of the case and then asked several probing question that Daloz seemed ill-prepared to address. Rubio’s “K Street” attorney, Brady Toesing was in attendance but had informed the court that he would not participate in Oral Argument – a decision he may now regret (I suspect that Rubio cut the cash flow to Brady?).

Daloz suggested that if the court found in my favor, that the case should be returned to the lower court for further briefing – however the justices did not seem amused, enquiring how additional briefing could help to clarify the issues. Between the lower court and the Supreme Court docket, the combined parties, State Defendants, Cruz and Rubio and I have submitted over a three thousand pages of material (taking up two file drawers in the clerk’s office!) I believe that the Attorney General’s office fears that if the court proceeds to the merits the issue of the Sec. of State’s responsibility to prohibit unqualified candidates from ballot access, the court’s jurisdiction to decide and the underlying question of confirming the SCOTUS definition of the birth circumstances* will not go well for the opposition !

It was a Good Day for Justice in the Green Mountains !”

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/