Category Archives: Electors

Ohio races undecided, Absentee and provisional ballots create nightmare, To count or not to count that is the question, Military votes counted?

Ohio races undecided, Absentee and provisional ballots create nightmare, To count or not to count that is the question, Military votes counted?

“Late last night Congressman West maintained a district wide lead of nearly 2000 votes until the St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections “recounted” thousands of early ballots. Following that “recount” Congressman West trailed by 2,400 votes. In addition, there were numerous other disturbing irregularities reported at polls across St. Lucie County including the doors to polling places being locked when the polls closed in direct violation of Florida law, thereby preventing the public from witnessing the procedures used to tabulate results. The St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections office clearly ignored proper rules and procedures, and the scene at the Supervisor’s office last night could only be described as complete chaos. Given the hostility and demonstrated incompetence of the St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections, we believe it is critical that a full hand recount of the ballots take place in St. Lucie County. We will continue to fight to ensure every vote is counted properly and fairly, and accordingly we will pursue all legal means necessary.”…Allen West campaign

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes”…Joseph Stalin

Ballots are still being counted across the country. Fraud and poor procedures have occurred in Florida and elsewhere. Does anyone have a warm and fuzzy feeling about the elections? I do not.

Massive numbers of mail in or absentee ballots have been or could have been sent. As of Monday, November 19, 2012, over 1.5 million ballots in California had not been processed. 580,071 mail in, 923,768 provisional and 56,293 other.

Due to a court ruling delay, Ohio just began counting provisional ballots, apparently a large number of ballots created by the confusion of mailing so many absentee ballots.

From the Royalton Post November 20, 2012.

“Ohio House District 7 race awaiting provisional ballots count”

“As famed New York Yankee Yogi Berra once said, “It’ ain’t over until it’s over.” And the Ohio House District 7 race between Mike Dovilla (R-Berea) and Matt Patten (D-Strongsville) is far from over.

The Nov. 6 election results had Dovilla winning the election with 50.3 percent (27,091 votes) to Patten’s 49.7 percent (26,786 votes), a difference of only 305 votes.

There are 1,930 provisional ballots to be counted, however. The breakdown of these as yet to be counted votes looks like this: Berea – 356; North Royalton – 488; Olmsted Falls – 146; Olmsted Township – 242 and Strongsville – 698.

Provisional ballots were to have begun to be counted on Nov. 16 or 10 days after Election Day. Final results were to have been released on Nov. 27 at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections certification meeting.

The Board of Elections, as of this writing, was still in the process of determining which provisional ballots are valid.

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted issued a directive to local election officials on Nov. 2 that gave them new instructions to reject certain provisional ballots from voters who did not properly fill out the portion of the ballot application that asks for a form of identification.

U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley issued a scathing 17-page ruling stating the directive issued on Nov. 2 was “a flagrant violation of a state elections law” that could disenfranchise voters.

Provisional ballots are given to voters whose eligibility is in question at the polls. Voters have up to 10 days after the election to prove their eligibility in order to ensure that their vote is counted.

Throughout his ruling, Marbley criticized the provisional ballot application Husted designed for the presidential election. Marbley questioned whether the poor drafting was “by design or accident.”

Marbley said the form illegally shifted the responsibility for recording identification information on the provisional ballot application from the poll worker to the voter. He also said the form makes it difficult for election officials to determine if erroneous applications are the fault of the poll worker or the voter.

Husted spokesman Matt McClellan said the Secretary of State would appeal the ruling “because it allows potentially fraudulent votes to be counted. By eliminating the ID requirement on provisional ballots, the ruling is contrary to Ohio law and undermines the integrity of the election.”

Pending any further legal actions, the Board of Elections was to meet on Nov. 20 (past The Post Newspapers deadline) to determine the validity and invalidity of all provisional ballots and review any provisional ballots recommended by the Board of Elections staff for review.

Following the Nov. 20 meeting Board meeting, all provisional voter envelopes were to be opened and the ballots reviewed to ensure the voter cast a ballot in the correct precinct.

In addition to the provisional ballots, there are 175 vote by mail ballots in District 7 that have not been counted. This takes the total of uncounted ballots over to the 2,105 mark when added to the provisionals.

During the 10 days following Election Day, the Board of Elections could receive vote by mail ballots that could be accepted and counted if the return envelopes were postmarked by Nov. 5.

“You would need about 58 percent of everything remaining to flip this in the other direction,” Dovilla said. “He’ll (Patten) pick up a few hundred and I’ll pick up a few hundred I would guess. I think the margin will remain the same. We’re cautiously optimistic that the verdict will hold.”

There is a chance that determination of final numbers could be delayed into December. Even after all the provisional votes are counted, there could very well be an automatic recount of the votes if the difference between the votes cast for the two candidates is equal to or less than one quarter of one percent of the total votes in the race. Either candidate can request a recount if the difference is equal to or less than one half of one percent.

“This is wide open. I’m sure that both of us agree it would be nice to have this done with,” Patten said. “You have to put your life on hold because you just don’t know. I think he and I are both learning more than we ever wanted to about provisionals.””

http://www.thepostnewspapers.com/north_royalton/local_news/article_471b10f8-c38b-5c50-8217-3114132a0744.html

From NewsMax November 1, 2012.

“Ohio Voting Count ‘Nightmare’ Looms”

“With the presidential election expected to hinge on Ohio, the state’s former secretary of state, GOP stalwart Kenneth Blackwell, is warning that a little-known change in the Buckeye State’s absentee-ballot process could lead to a “nightmare scenario.”

And that scenario could force the entire country to wait 10 days after the election to find out who will be the next president of the United States. It’s a complicated situation, to say the least, but one that could have a far-reaching impact on the Nov. 6 election process.

For the first time in the key swing state’s history, Blackwell says, virtually all Ohio voters this year were mailed an application for an absentee ballot. In previous elections, most Ohio voters had to request an application for an absentee ballot to receive one.

The concern is that thousands of Ohio voters may complete the absentee-ballot application and receive an absentee ballot, but not bother to complete and mail in the ballot.

Anyone who is sent an absentee ballot — including those who do not complete it and mail it in — and later shows up at the polls on Election Day to cast their ballot in person will be instructed to instead complete a provisional ballot.

And under Ohio election law, provisional ballots cannot be opened until 10 days after an election.

“I would just say that this is a potential nightmare-in-waiting,” says Blackwell.

Blackwell believes that could result in an unprecedented number of provisional ballots being filed – some 250,000 or more. Such a large number of ballots being held, presumably under armed guard, for 10 days until they can be opened, would bring to mind the historic 2000 post-election battle in Florida. That recount was marked by ballot disputes — and inevitably, lawsuits.

“You’re talking about craziness for 10 days,” Blackwell tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview. “They won’t even be opened to be counted for 10 days.”
According to a report by Barry M. Horstman of the Cincinnati Enquirer, absentee-ballot applications were mailed to 6.9 million of Ohio’s 7.8 million registered voters.

As of Oct. 26, Ohio election officials had mailed out 1.3 absentee ballots. Of those absentee ballots, 950,000 had been completed and mailed back in.
That leaves some 350,000 absentee ballots that had been requested and sent to voters, but had not yet been received.

Ohio voters who requested an absentee ballot, but did not complete it and mail it back in, will not be allowed to vote normally.

Explains Blackwell: “So they go to the polls and say, ‘I want my ballot.’ And [poll workers] say, ‘Oh, we see you applied for an absentee ballot.’ The voter says, ‘Oh, I changed my mind.’ And they say, ‘That’s well and good, but we have to guarantee that you don’t vote twice. You have to fill out a provisional ballot.’”

Provisional ballots are used whenever someone shows up at the polls whose eligibility to vote cannot be immediately verified. Their name may not show up on the voter rolls, for example.

Rather than turn them away, state election officials typically have those individuals indicate their voting preference with a provisional ballot. Once their eligibility to vote has been established, the vote can be counted.

The use of provisional ballots is intended to prevent any voter from casting one ballot by mail, and then a second ballot at the polling place.

Ohio’s current secretary of state, Republican Jon Husted, pushed for the absentee-ballot applications to go out to all voters, according to Blackwell.
In previous Ohio elections, a few counties would automatically send out absentee-ballot applications to all their residents, while the vast majority of counties would not. Husted sought to make the absentee ballot process uniform across Ohio’s 88 counties.

In a news release, Husted said the new system would “help reduce the chance of long lines at the polls during the presidential election, and voters in smaller counties will have the same conveniences as voters in larger counties.”

No one can say how many absentee ballots will remain outstanding as of Election Day. Ohio voters have until Nov. 3 to request an absentee ballot. Election officials will accept and count absentee ballots as long as they are postmarked by Nov. 5, the day before the election.

Ordinarily, the number of provisional ballots outstanding in Ohio probably would be inconsequential. In 2008, according to the Enquirer, only about 70,000 were actually cast.

But uncertainly over perhaps a quarter-million votes would be a serious concern in Ohio, given the historically close margins of victory there.

Democrat Jimmy Carter carried Ohio by only about 11,000 votes over incumbent Republican President Gerald Ford in 1976. In 2004, GOP President George W. Bush carried the state by 118,775 votes over Democratic Sen. John Kerry, in a controversial finish that occurred during Blackwell’s tenure as secretary of state.

As of Wednesday, the RealClearPolitics average of polls in Ohio showed President Barack Obama leading GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney by 2.4 percent. That site, and many others, rate the contest as a toss-up.

No Republican has ever won the presidency without carrying Ohio. The Obama campaign has rested its re-election hopes on a firewall strategy that hinges on winning Ohio’s 18 Electoral College votes. Doing so would greatly complicate Romney’s path to garnering the 270 Electoral College votes needed to capture the presidency.

If the voter turnout in Ohio matches the 2008 level of 67 percent, some 5,226,000 votes would be cast. Under that scenario, 250,000 provisional ballots would amount to 4.8 percent of the entire vote — well over the current difference between the two candidates, according to RealClearPolitics poll average.

Other than Horstman’s report in the Cincinnati Enquirer, Ohio’s provisional ballot issue has largely flown under the radar of the national political press.

Blackwell tells Newsmax that given the uncertainty over how voters may respond to the widespread, unsolicited invitation to obtain an absentee ballot, the potential for a 10-day delay “is a major concern in terms of the management of a process that is perceived as being free, fair, and as unsuspenseful as possible.”

Hamilton County Board of Elections director Amy Searcy echoes Blackwell’s concern. She told the Enquirer that a 10-day lag while the entire nation waited for Ohio to declare who won its election “would be called my nightmare scenario.”

Matt McClellan, press secretary for the Ohio Secretary of State’s office, tells Newsmax it will be late Tuesday or early Wednesday morning before a final tally is available of how many absentee provisional ballots have been cast.
He confirmed that 2012 marks the first election year in which virtually all registered voters in Ohio were sent absentee ballot applications.

He said the department has not made any projections on how that change might impact absentee and provisional ballot voting trends. However, he emphasized that the vote-counting process in Ohio will be reliable, secure, and in accord with the state’s election laws.

“I disagree with the Enquirer story,” said McClellan. “There is not a nightmare scenario for Ohio.

“If the margin is too close, and we’re just not able to tell definitely at that point, that doesn’t mean anything bad has happened in Ohio. It means the process is proceeding as is required under law. So, will we have outstanding absentees and provisional ballots? Yes. We don’t know how many yet; we won’t know until Election Day.”

McClellan emphasized that every legal ballot will be counted.

Blackwell agrees there is no way to know yet how many provisional ballots Ohio will ultimately have to count, or if the nation might have a 10-day cliffhanger before the winner of the presidential election is known.

But he adds, “It is not an unreasonable scenario to plan against, given that this is the first time in the history of the state that every registered voter got mailed – unrequested – an absentee ballot [application].””

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ohio-provisional-ballots-delay/2012/11/01/id/462413

I am still concerned about our overseas military personnel being disenfranchised. I will continue to evaluate vote counts, especially those from military absentee ballots.

2012 election extremely close, Citizen Wells analysis, Congressional races too close to call, Florida must have recount, Low turnout fraud or both help Obama

2012 election extremely close, Citizen Wells analysis, Congressional races too close to call, Florida must have recount, Low turnout fraud or both help Obama

“Late last night Congressman West maintained a district wide lead of nearly 2000 votes until the St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections “recounted” thousands of early ballots. Following that “recount” Congressman West trailed by 2,400 votes. In addition, there were numerous other disturbing irregularities reported at polls across St. Lucie County including the doors to polling places being locked when the polls closed in direct violation of Florida law, thereby preventing the public from witnessing the procedures used to tabulate results. The St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections office clearly ignored proper rules and procedures, and the scene at the Supervisor’s office last night could only be described as complete chaos. Given the hostility and demonstrated incompetence of the St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections, we believe it is critical that a full hand recount of the ballots take place in St. Lucie County. We will continue to fight to ensure every vote is counted properly and fairly, and accordingly we will pursue all legal means necessary.”…Allen West campaign

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes”…Joseph Stalin

The 2012 elections were hardly a mandate for Barack Obama. Even if the elections counts were fair, and I do not believe that they were, the presidential election was closer than most people realize. Here are the results, based on recent counts, by county.

The preponderance of the geographical area of the US went for Romney. Obama dominated in  many large cities and in  areas with large black and hispanic populations. A good example is Cuyahoga County Ohio. Obama won by 420,953 to 184,475 for Romney. Obama won Ohio by 103,481 votes.

To show you just how close this election was at the presidential level, here are 4 states with the vote spreads and electoral votes. In each state, if the number of people shown had voted for Romney instead of Obama or if Obama got the votes instead of Romney due to voter fraud or voting machine irregularities, the result would have been a Romney win.

State            Vote difference   One half         Electoral votes

Florida              73,189                36,595                       29

Virginia           115,910               57,955                       13

Ohio                  103,481               51,741                       18

Nevada               66,379               33,190                        6

Totals                                             179,481                      66

You read it correctly. Approximately 179, 481 votes could have made the difference in the election.

Do I believe that voter fraud occurred. Yes. The question is how much. We know for a fact that there were numerous machine malfunctions, errors in counts and ballots that were not counted. One of my biggest concerns is absentee ballots being processed and counted. I have been looking over NC reports and they do not make sense.

Our biggest chance for rectifying election results is in congressional races such as Allen West in Florida. The latest news indicates he may have to seek remedy in the FL Supreme Court.

Another extremely close race is in NC District 7 between Democrat Mike McIntyre who currently leads Republican  David Rouzer by 655 votes. I have concerns about voting machine problems in that district as well as absentee ballots from soldiers who live in the area. The following comment was placed here on October 24 in response to the article about touch screen voting machines defaulting to Obama:

“Same thing happened to me in fayetteville”

This is not over. The states have certification periods and various remedies for challenging election results. Let’s make sure that we at least keep the congressional races as clean as possible and in a case like Florida, based on all of the issues that have arisen, that the entire state do a recount.

California mail in provisional and other total over 3 million uncounted, Prop 37 defeated?, Romney votes being counted?, Over half of ballots mailed

California mail in provisional and other total over 3 million uncounted, Prop 37 defeated?, Romney votes being counted?, Over half of ballots mailed

“I’m here to vote because I’m standing on my religious views. I’m a Democrat but I’m voting for Romney because he believes in the same values and morals that I stand on,”...CA voter, KABC News

“The statewide ballot initiative to label genetically engineered food known as Proposition 37 was soundly defeated on election day, by 53 percent to 47 percent.”…Mercury News
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984”

The great Citizen Wells commenter zachjonesishome provided this update today, November 11, 2012 at 11:00 AM.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2958246/posts DID PROP 37 REALLY LOSE OR WAS IT VOTE FRAUD?
NoMoreFakeNews.com ^ | 11-8-2012 | John Rappaport

Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2012 10:32:18 AM by Renfield

Hold your horses.

On election night, not long after the polls closed in California, the announcement came out: Prop 37 was losing. A little while later, it was all over. 37 had gone down to defeat.

But is that the whole story? No.

As of 2:30PM today, Thursday, November 8th, two days after the election, many votes in California remain uncounted.

I tried to find out how many.

It turns out that the Secretary of State of CA, responsible for elections in the state, doesn’t know.

I was told all counties in California have been asked, not ordered, to report in with those figures. It’s voluntary.

So I picked out a few of the biggest counties and called their voter registrar offices. Here are the boggling results:

Santa Clara County: 180,000 votes remain uncounted.

Orange County: 241,336 votes remain uncounted.

San Diego County: 475,000 votes remain uncounted.

LA County: 782,658 votes remain uncounted.

In just those four counties, 1.6 million votes remain uncounted.

The California Secretary of State’s website indicates that Prop 37 is behind by 559,776 votes.

So in the four counties I looked into, there are roughly three times as many uncounted votes as the margin of Prop 37′s defeat.

And as I say, I checked the numbers in only four counties. There are 54 other counties in the state. Who knows how many votes they still need to process?

So why is anyone saying Prop 37 lost?

People will say, “Well, it’s all about projections. There are experts. They know what they’re doing. They made a prediction…”

Really? Who are those experts? I have yet to find them.

For big elections, the television networks rely on a private consortium called the National Election Pool (NEP). NEP does projections and predictions. Did NEP make the premature call on Prop 37? So far I see no evidence one way or the other.

NEP makes some calls for the television networks, but NEP is composed of CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, and AP. It could hardly be called an independent source of information for those networks.

NEP has AP (Associated Press) do the actual vote tabulating, and NEP also contracts work out to Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International to do exit polls and projections based on those polls.

Edison Media Research did the exit polls in the state of Washington for this election. How? They surveyed 1493 people by phone. Based on that, I assume they made all the projections for elections in that state, even though there is no in-person voting in Washington, and voters can submit their ballots by mail, postmarked no later than election Tuesday. So how could Edison know anything worth knowing or projecting on election night?

Both Edison Research and Mitofsky were involved in the 2004 election scandal (Kerry-Bush), in which their exit polls confounded network news anchors, because the poll results were so far off from the incoming vote-counts.

Edison and Mitofsky issued a later report explaining how the disparity could have occurred; they tried to validate their own exit-poll data and the vote-count, which was like explaining a sudden shift in ocean tides by saying clouds covered the moon. It made no sense.

So if NEP did the premature Prop 37 projections that handed 37 a resounding loss, there is little reason to accept their word.

We’re faced with a scandal here. An early unwarranted projection against Prop 37 was made, when so many votes were still uncounted.

Those votes are still uncounted.

Why should we believe anything that comes next?”

This is a snapshot of the vote tally for California taken at approximately 9:00 AM on November 10, 2012.

Obama……..Romney….Johnson.. Stein….. Barr ..Hoefling.. Total

5,863,499   3,816,757   104,350   61,004   39,031     0     9,884,641

The latest Estimated Unprocessed Ballots for November 6, 2012, General Election from California is dated November 9, 2012, 5:00 PM.

Vote by mail:  2,314,609

Provisionals:  922,446

Other:  97,440

Estimated total remaining: 3,334,495

Click to access unprocessed-ballots-report.pdf

Obama DNC convention September 2, 2012, Obama house built on sand, Obama corruption past still haunts despite efforts to hide

Obama DNC convention September 2, 2012, Obama house built on sand, Obama corruption past still haunts despite efforts to hide

 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”…Matthew 7:24-27

“Why wasn’t Rod Blagojevich, Governor of IL, prosecuted before Tony Rezko, a businessman?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

Just as Obama’s unwise “house of sand” economy has collapsed, symbolically, the sand sculpture bust of  Obama has been damaged by the water and wind.

From the Washington Times September 1, 2012.
“Rains wash away Mount Obama in Charlotte, N.C.”
“A torrential downpour that struck Charlotte Saturday afternoon damaged the Mount Rushmore-style sand sculpture bust of President Obama — an ominous beginning to what many fear is a plagued convention.

Workers were trying Saturday afternoon to reform the base of the sculpture, built from sand brought in from Myrtle Beach, S.C., pounding and smoothing out the sand that had washed off the facade of the waist-up rendering of the chief executive.

The sand sculpture was protected from above, and Mr. Obama’s face didn’t see too much damage. But the storm was so strong that its heavy winds blew the rain sideways, pelting the president’s right side and leaving the sand pockmarked and completely erasing his right elbow.

Democrats’ choice of Charlotte has drawn criticism from unions who don’t like North Carolina’s labor laws, and the state seems to be tilting away from Democrats politically.

The large Rushmore-style sculpture drew comparisons to Mr. Obama’s 2008 convention in Denver, when he accepted his party’s nomination on a stage that looked like a Greek temple.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/sep/1/rains-wash-away-mount-obama/

Deja vu for Obama Democrat Convention.

The Obama camp and mainstream media, in conjuction with the US Justice Department, spared Obama from more embarrassing questions about his ties to Chicago pay to play corruption with the delay of the arrest of Rod Blagojevich until after the 2008 election. This time around, the appeal process for Blagojevich has been delayed.

From Citizen Wells August 25, 2012.

“You have read it here at Citizen Wells for some time. The delays in prosecuting Rod Blagojevich were designed to protect Obama. You also read here that the appeal process for Blagojevich would drag on past the election. We now have more proof.”

“It’s been almost eight months since Blagojevich was sentenced on Dec. 7, 2011. His attorneys discussed how they’d appeal six days after that.

“Well there’s a tremendous amount of work to do now, we need to read through all the transcripts,” defense attorney Lauren Kaeseberg said. “There’s two trials, there’s a significant amount of work.”

“But FOX Chicago News learned that since then, that first key step toward an appeal – getting the 16,000 pages of transcripts – has not yet been accomplished.

“They have to file briefs. The briefs have to be based on alleged errors that occurred in the course of the trial,” Kent College of Law professor Richard Kling said. “Those errors, if they occurred, are reflected in the transcript.”

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently warned Kaeseberg that she could face monetary or disciplinary sanctions if she didn’t explain why the transcripts weren’t done yet.

Kaeseberg responded by producing these emails she had sent to Judge James Zagel’s court reporter, asking for the transcripts.

Finally, about two weeks ago, the court reporter filed her own motion asking for more time, saying she had taken a leave of absence for five and half months and has been swamped with work since her return.

She has now promised to have the transcripts done by late September, with any appellate review not likely for months after then.”

As you can see, appeals cases transcripts are expected to be produced in a timely fashion. There are numerous clearly defined rules for processing them. The responsibilities and contingencies are well covered.
So why is this possibly a perfect Chicago crime?

First of all, without a doubt, this protects Obama again during an election cycle. News from a Blagojevich appeal stays out of the media as does Blagojevich himself.

Secondly, this is another nail in the coffin of judicial misconduct during the Blagojevich prosecutions and another reason for an appeals court judge to throw out the convictions.

Who engineered these delays and who is responsible?”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/blagojevich-appeal-delay-perfect-chicago-crime-prosecution-and-appeal-delay-protect-obama-help-blagojevich-judge-zagel-usdoj-violate-federal-court-rules/

Democrat 2012 platform endorses same sex marriage, 2007 DNC party rules put Democrat Party above nation and Constitution, Norman Mattoon Thomas DNC adopted socialist platform

Democrat 2012 platform endorses same sex marriage, 2007 DNC party rules put Democrat Party above nation and Constitution, Norman Mattoon Thomas DNC adopted socialist platform

“It is presumed that the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, when certified pursuant to the Call, are bona fide Democrats who are faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States”…Rules for 2008 DNC Convention and Electors

“The term “presidential candidate” herein shall mean any person who, as determined by the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, has accrued delegates in the nominating process and plans to seek the nomination,….affirmatively demonstrates that he or she is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States”…Rules for 2008 DNC Convention and Electors

“In selecting delegates and alternate delegates to the national convention, no state law shall be observed which hinders, abridges, or denies to any citizen of the United States, eligible under the Constitution of the United States to hold the office of President of the United States or Vice President of the United States,”…Rules for 2008 RNC Convention and Electors

From Business Week August 11, 2012.

“Democratic Party Backs Same-Sex Marriage for 2012 Platform”

“Democrats unanimously voted today to endorse same-sex marriage in their party’s platform, the first time a major political party has supported the issue in its statement of policies.

Today’s action at the platform committee meeting in Detroit sends the document for ratification by delegates to next month’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. President Barack Obama, a Democrat, said in May that he supports same-sex marriage. Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney doesn’t.

A drafting committee included the same-sex marriage provision in the platform last month. Platform committee members raised no objections.

“The 14th Amendment is very clear — equal protection under the law,” said the platform committee co-chairman, Cory Booker, the mayor of Newark, New Jersey. “We as a party have really embraced the president’s ideas.”

While calling the action “very significant,” Booker told reporters after the committee meeting that the top issue in the presidential campaign would be the economy, not same-sex marriage.

“It may repel some, it may attract others,” he said. “This campaign is not going to turn on gay marriage.”

Immigration Overhaul
The platform also calls for “comprehensive immigration reform,” citing the Dream Act, legislation that would allow children brought to the U.S. by undocumented-immigrant parents to get legal status if they go to college or join the military. Congressional Republicans have blocked the legislation. Obama said June 15 that his administration would no longer deport some young adults brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

Senate Democratic candidates in Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico had asked that Dream Act provisions be part of the party platform.

While the platform promises to “preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms,” it also says that “the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation,” such as restoring the ban on assault-style weapons and strengthening background checks.

Twelve people were killed and at least 58 were injured on July 20 when a gunman opened fire during a midnight showing of “The Dark Knight Rises” in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater. Seven people, including the alleged gunman, died in a shooting at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, on Aug. 5.

Corporate Donations
The platform also addresses the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which removed restrictions on corporate and union independent expenditures and has led to an increase in campaign spending by outside groups, many of which don’t disclose their donors. The platform calls for “immediate action” to overhaul the campaign finance system, including requiring nonprofit groups running political ads to disclose their contributors.

“You have huge amounts of secret money coming in and changing every level of government,” said Matthew Lesser, a state representative in Connecticut and a member of the platform committee.”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-11/democratic-platform-mirrors-obama-and-backs-same-sex-marriage

Obviously no one was surprised.

The 2007 DNC party rules made no mention of adhering to the US Constitution. It did, however, reveal the priority of the Democrat Party.

“II. QUALIFICATIONS OF STATE DELEGATIONS”

“C. It is presumed that the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, when certified pursuant to the Call, are bona fide Democrats who are faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States, who subscribe to the substance, intent and principles of the Charter and the Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States, and who will participate in the Convention in good faith. Therefore, no additional assurances shall be
required of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in the absence of a credentials contest or challenge.”

“VI. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

The term “presidential candidate” herein shall mean any person who, as determined by the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, has accrued delegates in the nominating process and plans to seek the nomination, has established substantial support for his or her nomination as the
Democratic candidate for the Office of the President of the United States, is a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service, accomplishment, public writings and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrates that he or she is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the
United States, and will participate in the Convention in good faith.”

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/c313170ef991f2ce12_iqm6iyofq.pdf

Obviously no one was surprised.

FROM A 1944 speech by Norman Mattoon Thomas, a leading American Socialist and six time Socialist Party of America Presidential Candidate.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism.
But, under the name of “liberalism”,
they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program,
until one day America will be a socialist nation,
without knowing how it happened.”

“I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party.
The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/norman-thomas-socialist-party-of-america-leading-american-socialist-liberalism-presidential-candidate-democratic-party-has-adopted-our-platform/
Obviously no one was surprised.

The 2007 Republican Party rules at least state the following constitutional requirement for the presidency.

“In selecting delegates and alternate delegates to the national convention,
no state law shall be observed which hinders, abridges, or denies to any citizen of the United States, eligible under the Constitution of the United States to hold the office of President of the United States or Vice President of the United States, the right or privilege of being a candidate under such state law for the nomination for President of the United States or Vice President of the United States or which authorizes the election of a number of delegates or alternate delegates from any state to the national convention different from that fixed in these rules.”

http://devvy.net/pdf/mar08/2008_Call_FINAL.pdf

I would like to see a reaffirmation of upholding the US Constitution.

Bill Clinton Barack Obama Not Eligible, Bettina Viviano Hollywood Producer interview, DNC Pelosi Dean Reid committed fraud, Obama stole 2008 election

Bill Clinton Barack Obama Not Eligible, Bettina Viviano Hollywood Producer interview, DNC Pelosi Dean Reid committed fraud, Obama stole 2008 election

“Why did the Clintons withhold information about Obama’s eligibility deficiency in 2008?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

I consider Bettina Viviano, a Hollywood Producer, a friend and a patriot. I have not spoken to her in a while so I left her a message a few minutes ago to thank her for her work and the interview.

Birther Report has supplied some key points of the interview. Hats off to them.

“Minute – Mark Conversation Subject
17:00 – 1st Portion with Bettina Viviano. How she came to become involved, overview of all complaints.
20:39 – Accuses Pelosi, Dean, Reid of committing the fraud
21:00 – California withheld vote because they were going to stand for Hillary despite railroading
22:00 – Claims Democrats would drive through skid row and pay them to vote with liquor and booze as well as getting Alzheimer’s patients to vote.
23:30 – Has seen the New Black Panther party HQ in Houston to plan to steal election.
53:00 – Women from Trinity United Church who knows Obama well, witnessed intimidation similar to Philadelphia Black Panther incident.
55:30 – Bettina’s partner may be intimidated by threats.
56:45 – 21 year old Black Delegated Threatened With Murder
57:15 – Obama campaigns for Islamist, Terrorist Cousin in Kenya (Odinga)
1:00:15 – The ORIGINAL BIRTHERS were Bill & Hillary Clinton. Bettina heard it DIRECTLY out of their mouths.
1:01:42 – She has personal knowledge Hillary made a deal the night before she stepped down. Her friends said the Obama and Clinton camps were yelling and screaming at each other for 3 days in the ugliest exhibition of politics they’d ever seen.
1:02:00 – She claims it was widely known at the time that John McCain was not qualified as a natural born citizen either. Link
1:04:00 – From a top Democrat Party leader: George Soros had meetings with both Barack and Hillary telling them his agenda was to tear this country to the ground. Obama reportedly said “no problem.”
1:12:24 – She was at the caucus for Rick Perry in Iowa and at one, 99% of the votes were for Ron Paul and they were all Democrats.
1:43:15 – She “knows for a fact” they threatened to kill Bill Clinton and did kill his friend, Bill Gwaltney.
1:44:30 – I heard it out of Bill Clinton’s mouth that Obama wasn’t legitimate.”

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/03/hollywood-producer-bettina-viviano-bill.html

From Citizen Wells September 25, 2009.

I first began hearing about ACORN in early 2008. I first began writing about ACORN in August of 2008 when I discovered they were involved in corruption and voter fraud. Then I read some of the analysis of Dr. Lynette Long, who took data from the primaries and caucuses as well as witness stories of ACORN and Obama thugs controlling these processes. I soon discovered that a documentary was being produced of voter fraud. I went to the website and from time to time checked on their progress. Early in 2009, a mutual friend of the producer, Bettina Viviano, introduced me to her and I had several conversations with Bettina about the documentary and the sad state of political affairs in this country.

I spoke to Bettina last night about the status of the documentary. It was on track to be completed next year, but she was receiving a lot of interest due to the recent events exposing ACORN corruption to a wider audience. They may be able to complete the documentary sooner. She also admitted that when she first began investigating voter fraud, she was not aware that ACORN was behind much of it. We also discussed our other projects. It is good to know there are level headed, real Americans in HOllywood.

Here is a short bio from the website:

“Bettina Sofia Viviano
Producer/Literary Manager

Bettina Viviano has had a successful career in entertainment as a producer and literary manager for twenty-five years. She began her career at the prestigious William Morris as an agent trainee, before moving on to Steven Spielberg’s Amblin Entertainment, where she attained the position of Vice President of Production. At Amblin, Bettina worked on such movies as Back to the Future 2 and 3, Cape Fear, Land Before Time, Schindler’s List, Always, Roger Rabbit, Indiana Jones 3, etc.

After leaving Amblin, Bettina became a literary agent at BBMW, representing writers and directors. In 1990 she began her own production and management company, Viviano Entertainment, Inc. and since has sold pitches, scripts books, etc. for millions of dollars on behalf of her clients. As producer, Bettina has made a long list of movies including Three to Tango, Mom’s Got a Date With a Vampire, Family Sins, Strange Hearts, Nightmare Man, Alibi, and Caught in the Act. She currently has many high level studios pictures in development and is producing Freedom House for Reliant Pictures/MGM, starring Terrence Howard, Jack and Jill starring Adam Sandler, and indie film American Crawl to be directed by Bradley Novicoff in the Fall of 2008.”

Dr. Lynette Long short bio

“BIO: Dr. Lynette Long is a licensed psychologist practicing in Bethesda, Maryland.  She is the author of twenty books including fourteen math books.  Dr. Long has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and was the host of One on One with Dr. Lynette Long.  She recently published Op-Ed’s in both USA Today and the Baltimore Sun about the current election cycle. Her blog is LynetteLong.com.”

Reported  on August 25, 2008 here:

“FROM THE TEXAS CONVENTION   They shoved Obama signs in Clinton delegates’ faces, three inches from the nose, called them racists, and told my friend that she had to move from her third-row seat in one meeting and go sit in the back.  She also said that the proceedings were heavily laced with black power speeches by preachers as well as public officials.” Here are some exerpts from the analysis of data by  Dr. Lynette Long:

“by Lynette Long

On March 4, 2008, Texas held its Democratic Primary, affectionately called the Texas-Two Step.  Polls were open from 7 am to 7 pm and then after the polls closed, persons who voted in primary could participate in a caucus. According to CNN a total of 2,867,454 votes were cast in the Democratic Primary with 1,458,814 (51%) votes cast for Senator Hillary Clinton and 1,358,785 (47%) votes cast for Senator Barack Obama, and a smattering of votes (49,855) for John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd combined. A total of 8,247 precinct conventions, commonly called caucuses, took place throughout the 254 counties in Texas, most of which were held at each precinct’s Primary polling place. If 100 people attended each of these “caucuses” than at least 800,000 people attended caucuses. The Dallas Morning News reported a projected turnout of 1.1 million.  Overwhelmed by the participation, Texas stopped counting the results at only 41% of precincts counted. As a result of the Texas caucus, Obama was awarded 56% of precinct delegates and Clinton was awarded 44% of the precinct delegates. Since people who voted in the caucuses were required to have voted in their precinct, the voters in the caucus were statistically a subset of the voters in primary, but the results were statistically different.  A more sophisticated analysis is required.”

“Concerns about high voter turnout and the inability of the precincts to adequately handle the number of participants and monitor the election process are rampant.   On the night of the caucus itself, the Clinton Campaign brought many instances of these irregularities to the attention of the State Party. The
campaign received in excess of 2,000 complaints of rules violations, indicating widespread violations of the Party’s rules, including the following specific occurrences that are clear violations of specific
rules:

  • Voter Fraud – Temporary Chair packets were released by the election judge prior to 7:00 pm. Sign-in sheets were filled out before 7:00 pm by voters participating in the primary who did not participate in the caucus.
  • Voter Fraud –  Inaccurate written records of participants’ presidential preferences.
  • Voter Fraud – Precincts were consolidated for purposes of holding a convention.
  • Voter Disenfranchisement – Precinct caucuses began before polls closed for the primary.
  • Voter Fraud  – Ineligible participants voted or ineligible delegates were elected, including participants who were not registered voters, participants who did not vote in the primary, and provisional voters whose votes were counted; and no verification was made of the eligibility of participants or delegates.
  • Voter Fraud – Participants’ names and presidential preference were entered on sign-in sheets by someone other than the eligible individual participants.
  • Voter Fraud – Results were taken from a head count or hand count rather than the written roll.
  • Due Process – Delegate votes were not ratified by the precinct convention.
  • Due Process – Failure to follow Robert’s Rules of Order at the precinct convention.”

Citizen Wells article – Dr. Lynette Long & Texas voter fraud

Here is a sample video from Bettina Viviano’s production group, “We will not be Silenced.”

Watch the 20 minute documentary segment and more videos:

http://www.wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/video/index.htm

What you have just viewed is the tip of the iceberg.
Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the US. Obama signed a statement in Arizona attesting that he was qualified and a natural born citizen. Nancy Pelosi’s signature is on many documents implying that Obama was a qualified candidate. There is now controversy regarding two different documents in New Hampsire with Nancy Pelosi’s signature.

Barack Obama stole the Democratic caucuses, primaries and nomination and then went on to steal the POTUS. ACORN has worked beside him before and every step along the election process.
When you contact Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others, remind them that a Hollywood producer began investigating and filming about voter fraud and ACORN in 2008.

And, oh, by the way, what has Patrick Fitzgerald been doing?

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/acorn-voter-fraud-acorn-corruption-obama-primaries-caucuses-bettina-viviano-documentary-dr-lynette-long-we-will-not-be-silenced-obama-voter-fraud-patrick-fitzgerald/

 

Obama FL ballot challenge, Florida advisory opinion, Abdul Hassan and Obama not natural born citizens, Litigation or contested election

Obama FL ballot challenge, Florida advisory opinion, Abdul Hassan and Obama not natural born citizens, Litigation or contested election

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

This article began as a reminder, a plea, for someone in Florida, after the primary, as we were all led to believe, to contest Obama winning the FL primary due to his lack of eligibility as a non natural born citizen. I vaguely remembered someone getting a response from the FL Secretary of State’s office and an internet search returned little. I found an advisory opinion from the FL Election Department in response to an inquiry from Abdul Hassan, the same person who queried the FEC and got an advisory opinion stating that he was not eligible foe presidential matching funds because he is not a natural born citizen. After a request for assistance on this blog, I was redirected back to the Obama Ballot Challenge where I discovered they had reported the Hassan opinion. So, this article will remain a reminder for someone to challenge Obama in FL and as to how this played out from 2008 to the present.

In November of 2008, after reading the Florida Election Statutes, I contacted the FL Secretary of State’s office for clarification and was told that the only way to remove a candidate was to contest an election after the fact.

From Citizen Wells November 24, 2008.

“The state of Florida has a statute provision for challenging the “certification of election or nomination of any person to office…”.

Florida Election statutes

Title IX

102.168 Contest of election.–
“(1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by
referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in
the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

(2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after
midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

(3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the
election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:”

“(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”

Citizen Wells verified this statute with the office of the Secretary of State of Florida.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/florida-2008-election-obama-not-eligible-us-constitution-florida-election-statutes-fl-secretary-of-state-kurt-browning-contest-of-election-unsuccessful-candidate-qualified-elector-taxpayer-p/

From Obama Ballot Challenge January 1, 2012.

“Florida SOS’s unsatisfactory answer to Obama Ballot Challenge”

“This (non)response from Florida Assistant General Counsel Gary Holland suggests that since there is no specific procedure to remove an ineligible candidate from the ballot, that it simply cannot be done and that officials cannot even try to figure out a way to do it. So, they would have him wait until the election is over, with the nation waiting with bated breath, while a court action is initiated and litigated. Simply asinine. Florida: what are you paying your overpriced civil servants for?”

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/florida-soss-unsatisfactory-answer-to-obama-ballot-challenge

This is consistent with what I read and was told in 2008.

Florida has a procedure for advisory opinions.

“Division of Election Advisory Opinions

Who May Request an Opinion?

By law, the Division of Elections may provide advisory opinions only to a supervisor of elections, candidate, local officer having election related duties, political party, political committee, committee of continuous existence or other person or organization engaged in political activity, relating to any provisions or possible violations of Florida election laws.
Legal Effect of an Opinion:

The Division of Elections provides a historical database of advisory opinions for reference purposes only. An advisory opinion represents the Division’s interpretation of the law applicable at the time the opinion is issued, as applied to a particular set of facts or chcircumstances, and is binding solely on the person or organization who requested the opinion. A previously issued advisory opinion may or may not apply to your situation depending upon your particular facts and circumstances and the current state of applicable law. Therefore, before drawing any legal conclusions based upon the information in this database, you or an attorney engaged on your behalf should refer to the current Florida Statutes, rules adopted by the Division of Elections, and applicable case law.”

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/opinions/TOC_Opinions.shtml

Abdul Hassan requested an advisory opinion from the FEC in July 2011.

“No, as a naturalized American citizen, Mr. Hassan is not eligible to receive
presidential matching funds under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act (“Matching Payment Act”).

The United States Constitution provides that “[n]o Person except a natural born
Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” U.S. Const. art. II, sec. 1, cl. 5.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/obama-ga-ballot-challenge-fec-hassan-opinion-quotes-natural-born-citizen-requirement-judge-michael-malihi-why-did-obama-refuse-matching-funds-in-2008-part-5-fec-us-constitution-presidential-eli/

Mr. Hassan received the following advisory opinion response from Florida.

“Section 103.021, Florida Statutes, as amended by Ch. 2011-40, § 45, Laws of Florida (2011), governs ballot access in Florida for presidential candidates who have no party affiliation and those who_are the nominees of political parties. Assuming you satisfy all requirements of section 103.021, the Secretary of State of Florida performs only a ministerial function as a filing officer for such candidates. The Secretary of State has no authority to look beyond the filing documents to determine i f a candidate is eligible. The Florida Supreme Court long ago stated: “The law does not give the secretary of state any power or authority to inquire into or pass upon the eligibility of a candidate to hold office for the nomination for which he is running.” Davis ex rel. Taylor v. Crawford, 116 So. 41, 42 (Fla. 1928). I f a presidential candidate (or the party in the
case of a political party nominee) files the required papers under Chapter 1 03, Florida Statutes, which papers are complete on their face, the Secretary must grant ballot access to the candidate. However, the Secretary’s ministerial granting of ballot access would not preclude litigation from proper plaintiffs to remove a candidate’s name from the ballot i f the candidate does not satisfy
the qualifications for the office of President of the United States.”

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/opinions/new/2011/de1103.pdf

Perhaps the following

“However, the Secretary’s ministerial granting of ballot access would not preclude litigation from proper plaintiffs to remove a candidate’s name from the ballot if the candidate does not satisfy the qualifications for the office of President of the United States.”

is stating the obvious. However, in my estimation, it proclaims that the Secretary of State is not the final arbiter and specifically mentions the eligibility aspect. Of course what is left open to interpretation is “proper plaintiffs.”

The Florida Primary takes place next Tuesday, January 31, 2012. Judge Michael Malihi has indicated he will provide a ruling in the GA Obama ballot hearing by February 5 and Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp has stated that he will abide by the ruling. A ruling in favor of Obama could result in appeals that, even with expedited handling, could drag on for weeks.

We need to have a strong challenge to contest Obama after the primary. In 2008 I contacted and spoke with Bob Barr’s assistant on several occasions to no avail. Let’s get the ball rolling on this initiative.

For more info on a FL challenge:

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-to-challenge-obama-being-on-ballot.html

 

Obama GA ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 2, Robert Bauer et al help Obama hide records

Obama GA ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 2, Robert Bauer et al help Obama hide records

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?

PART 2

Robert Bauer, et al help Obama keep his records hidden.

In Part 1 it was revealed that Obama, in 2008, despite support for and a earlier pledge to accept them, opted out of Federal Matching Funds.

“If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

“Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, announced this morning that he will not enter into the public financing system, despite a previous pledge to do so.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/obama-ga-ballot-challenge-natural-born-citizen-status-judge-michael-malihi-why-did-obama-refuse-matching-funds-in-2008-part-1/

Advisory Opinion Request: General Election Public Funding

From Obama attorney Robert Bauer to FEC

February 1,2007
“This request for an Advisory Opinion is filed on behalf of Senator Barack Obama and the committee, the Obama Exploratory Committee, that he established to fund his exploration of a Presidential candidacy. The question on which he seeks the Commission’s guidance is whether, if Senator Obama becomes a candidate, he may provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option, upon nomination, of returning these contributions and accepting the public funds for which he would be eligible as the Democratic Party’s nominee.”

“Senator Obama, fully committed to competition on the same terms as all other
candidates, has decided that, if he becomes a candidate, he will also instruct his campaign to proceed with active fundraising for the general election. But the Senator would not, if the law allows, rule out the possibility of a publicly funded campaign if both major parties’ nominees eventually decide, or even agree, on this course. Should both major party nominees elect to receive public funding, this would preserve the public financing system, now in danger of collapse, and facilitate the conduct of campaigns freed from any dependence on private fundraising.”

“The legal question presented under Commission regulations is whether a candidate provisionally raising general election funds, segregated from other funds and not available for expenditure until nomination, has “accepted” this money. Candidates establishing eligibility must certify that they have not accepted money for the general election. 11 C.F.R. § 9003.2(a)(2). The rules do not address the question posed here: has the candidate accepted the money if it is held in escrow and never used, allowing for these funds to be returned and for the candidate to qualify for public funding?”

FEC advisory opinion

From Robert D. Lenhard to Robert Bauer

March 1, 2007

“We are responding to your advisory opinion request on behalf of Senator Barack Obama and Obama for America, formerly known as the Obama Exploratory  Committee (the “Committee”),1 requesting whether Senator Obama may, under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act (the “Fund Act”), as amended, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (“FECA”), and Commission regulations, solicit and receive private contributions for the 2008 presidential general election while retaining the option of refunding the contributions and receiving public funds for the general election if he receives his party’s nomination for President.

The Commission concludes that Senator Obama may solicit and receive private contributions for the 2008 presidential general election without losing his
eligibility to receive public funding if he receives his party’s nomination for President, if he (1) deposits and maintains all private contributions
designated for the general election in a separate account, (2) refrains from using these contributions for any purpose, and (3) refunds the private
contributions in full if he ultimately decides to receive public funds.”
“Senator Barack Obama is a United States Senator from Illinois, elected in 2004, who is a candidate seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for the office of President of the United States in the 2008 election. The Committee is his principal campaign committee.”

“If a candidate fails to qualify for the general election, any contributions designated for the general election that have been received from contributors who have already reached their contribution limit for the primary election would exceed FECA’s contribution limits.”

Obama helps block Republican FEC appointee.

From the Washington Post December 11, 2007.

“Paralyze The FEC? Splendid.”

“What if the country held an election and there was no one to make sure that candidates played by the rules — no agency that could issue regulations, write advisory opinions or bring enforcement actions against those breaking the law?”

“The six-person FEC — three members from each party — enforces the rules it writes about how Americans are permitted to participate in politics.”

“The FEC’s policing powers may soon be splendidly paralyzed. Three current FEC members, two Democrats and one Republican, are recess appointees whose terms will end in a few days when this session of Congress ends — unless they are confirmed to full six-year terms.

Four Senate Democrats decided to block the Republican, Hans von Spakovsky. Republicans have responded: “All three or none.” If this standoff persists until Congress adjourns, the three recess appointments will expire and the FEC will have just two members — a Republican vacancy has existed since April. If so, the commission will be prohibited from official actions, including the disbursement of funds for presidential candidates seeking taxpayer financing.”

“The Post wants von Spakovsky confirmed only to keep the FEC functioning. He is being blocked because four senators have put “holds” on his nomination. One of those four who might be responsible for preventing the FEC from being able to disburse taxpayer funds to Democratic presidential candidates Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and John Edwards is . . . Barack Obama.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001559.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Philip J Berg files lawsuit in Philadelphia Federal Court

August 21, 2008

Defendants: Obama, DNC, FEC

Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and therefore ineligible to be President.

August 27, 2008

Complaint served on the U.S. Attorney for DNC and FEC

Motion filed by Robert Bauer, et al October 6, 2008

“BRIEF OF DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
AND DEFENDANT SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON
DISPOSITIVE MOTION”
“In his Complaint, plaintiff Berg alleges that Senator Barack Obama, the
Democratic Party’s nominee for President of the United States, is not eligible to serve as President under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution because, Mr. Berg alleges (falsely), Senator Obama is purportedly not a natural-born citizen. Complaint ¶3. Mr. Berg seeks a declaratory judgment that Senator Obama is ineligible to run for President; an injunction barring Senator Obama from running for that office; and an injunction barring the DNC from nominating him.

On September 15, 2008, plaintiff Berg served on Senator Obama’s office a
request for production of seventeen different categories of documents, including copies of all of the Senator’s college and law school applications, requests for financial aid, college and law school papers, and “a copy of your entire presidential file pertaining to being vetted.” Plaintiff also served 56 requests for admission on Senator Obama. On that same date, plaintiff served on the DNC 27 requests for admission and requests for production of five categories of documents, including all documents in the possession of the DNC
relating to Senator Obama.1

On September 24, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, on the grounds that, as a matter of law, plaintiff has no standing to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for President of the U.S. and has no federal cause of action.”

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S OPPOSITION TO
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE INJUNCTION TO STAY
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 4, 2008

October 21, 2008

“II. BECAUSE THE COMMISSION HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE WHETHER CANDIDATES MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY, IT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FROM THIS CASE

The Commission is the independent agency of the United States government vested with exclusive jurisdiction to administer, interpret and enforce civilly the FECA. See 2 U.S.C. §§ 437c(b)(1), 437d(a), 437d(e) and 437g. The Commission also exercises jurisdiction over the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9001 et seq., and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9031 et seq.2 These statutes only confer on the Commission jurisdiction over issues concerning the financing of federal campaigns: regulating the organization of campaign committees; the raising, spending, and disclosing of campaign funds; and the receipt and use of public funding for qualifying candidates.

None of these statutes delegates to the FEC authority to determine the constitutional eligibility of federal candidates, and Berg does not allege otherwise. Although the Commission determines whether certain presidential candidates are eligible for public funding, it has no power to determine who qualifies for ballot access or who is eligible to serve as president. Thus, because the Commission has no authority to take action against Senator Obama as suggested by Berg, the Commission should be dismissed from this case with prejudice.”

From the FEC motion above:

“On September 24, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, on the grounds that, as a matter of law, plaintiff has no standing to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for President of the U.S. and has no federal cause of action.”

This is true.

From Robert Bauer, et al’s motion:

“Although the Commission determines whether certain presidential candidates are eligible for public funding, it has no power to determine who qualifies for ballot access or who is eligible to serve as president.”

This is also true. However, if an advisory opinion requesting Obama’s eligibility for matching funds, questioning his Natural Born Citizen status, had been submitted before Obama opted out, it appears that the FEC would have been compelled to respond and their response could be challenged.

It is becoming clear why Obama did not accept matching federal funds in 2008.

More on this chicanery to come.

Obama motion to dismiss Georgia ballot challenge denied, David Farrar et al vs Barack Obama, Judge Michael M. Malihi

Obama motion to dismiss Georgia ballot challenge denied, David Farrar et al vs Barack Obama, Judge Michael M. Malihi

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells


“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

The Obama motion to dismiss the Georgia ballot challenge has been denied.

First some background.

From Citizen Wells December 20, 2011.

“Obama has engaged private attorney Michael Jablonski to respond to the Pre Trial order filed by David Farrar. The order requests that Barack Obama’s name be removed from the Georgia State ballot because Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore not qualified for the office of the president.”

“From David Farrar V Barack Obama.
“(4) The issues for determination by the Court are as follows:
A. Is the candidate’s proffered birth certificates, authentic state-issued documents that verify his actual, physical birth in Hawaii?
B. Is the candidate an Article II natural born citizen of the United States as established in US. Supreme Court case: Minor vs Happersett 1875 Page 88 U. S. 163
C. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-560 Making of False Statements Generally. Is the candidate’s Social Security number, authentic?”

“The GA Democratic Party may put anyone they want on the ballot. However, that right does not trump the US Constitution dictate that the president must be a natural born citizen. GA election law clearly provides the Secretary of State and electors the power to challenge the qualifications of candidates. Also, to my knowledge, no court in this country has ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen.

I was born and raised in NC, have some experience reading legal documents and we also have some good dictionaries in NC. I have read the motion from Mr. Jablonski as well as the 2008 and 2011 versions of Georgia election laws. I will leave it for the reader to evaluate the accuracy of the following statements by Michael Jablonski in the hope that good dictionaries and logical thought capabilities exist in other parts of the country.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/david-farrar-v-barack-obama-georgia-ballot-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-attorney-michael-jablonski-motion-ga-election-laws/

From Orly Taitz January 3, 2012.

Order to deny Obama motion:

“ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

On December 15, 2011, Defendant, President Barack Obama, moved for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ challenge to his qualifications for office. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this contested case pursuant to Chapter 13 of Title 50, the “Georgia Administrative Procedure Act.”

For the reasons indicated below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

I. Discussion
1.

The Georgia Election Code (the “Code”) mandates that “[e]very candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(a).

2.

Both the Secretary of State and the electors of Georgia are granted the authority under the Code to challenge the qualifications of a candidate. The challenge procedures are defined in Code Section 21-2-5(b), which authorizes any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate to challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

3.

The Georgia law governing presidential preference primaries mandates that “[o]n a date set by the Secretary of State . . . the state executive committee of each party which is to conduct a presidential preference primary shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot.” O.C.G.A. § 21-
2-193. On October 6, 2011, Secretary Kemp issued a notice to the chairman of each political party to notify them that the deadline for submitting the list of candidate names for the 2012 presidential preference primary was November 15, 2011. On November 1, 2011, the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party submitted President Barack Obama’s name as the sole candidate for the Democratic Party. To be timely, complaints challenging a presidential
candidate’s qualifications in the presidential preference primary had to be filed no later than November 29, 2011. Plaintiffs, as electors eligible to vote for Defendant, timely filed challenges with the Secretary of State before the deadline of November 29, 2011.

4.

In the instant motion, Defendant contends that Georgia law does not give Plaintiffs authority to challenge a political party’s nominee for president in a presidential preference primary because Code Section 21-2-5 does not apply to the presidential preference primary.

5.

Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the “first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.” Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). “Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.” Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other “natural and reasonable construction” of the statutory language, this Court is “not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.”
Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).

6.

Code Section 21-2-5(a) states that “every candidate for federal and state office” must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this Court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary. O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(a) (emphasis added). Although the word “candidate” is not explicitly defined in the Code, Section 21-2-193 states that the political party for the presidential preference primary “shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot.” O.C.G.A. 21-2-193 (emphasis added). Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office.

7.

Code Sections 21-2-190 to 21-2-200 set out the procedures of the presidential preference primary and also provide no exception to the Section 21-2-5 qualification requirement. This Court finds no basis under Georgia law why the qualification requirements in Section 21-2-5 would not apply to a candidate for the office of the president in the presidential preference primary.

8.

Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

II. Decision

Based on the foregoing, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 3 rd day of January, 2012.
MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge”

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Farrar-Motion-to-dismiss-by-Obama-is-denied.pdf

Thanks to commenter Pat 1789.

Rick Santorum Iowa Caucus, January 3, 2012, Meet the Press interview, Santorum interview impressive, Citizen Wells endorsement

Rick Santorum Iowa Caucus, January 3, 2012, Meet the Press interview, Santorum interview impressive, Citizen Wells endorsement

Tonight, January 3, 2012, the Iowa Caucus will be held. Rick Santorum has been surging in the polls, close to the front runner , Mitt Romney.

I have been listening to Rick Santorum being interviewed for years and have always been impresssed with his solid, consistent answers. Santorum was interviewed on Meet The Press on Sunday, January 1, 2012. It is clear from the interview that Rick Santorum is the right man to be the Republican candidate and President. The antidote for Obama.

Watch the entire interview and read the transcript here. If the interview disappears, let me know.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45840626/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/meet-press-transcript-jan/#.TwMZmNQV33c

From the transcript:

“it’s funny. i haven’t asked anybody. and the reason i haven’t asked anybody, i’m sitting at 3% in the national polls. and i really haven’t gone out and asked any united states senator, i haven’t asked a single one to endorse me. but i felt like i had to earn it first. that i had to go out and prove to — you know, i lost my last race. and the general consensus was, you know, we like rick, but, you know, you can’t — who goes from losing their last senate race to winning the presidential nomination? my answer to that was, well abraham lincoln. but other than abraham lincoln, this is not a common occurrence”

“if people want to endorse me, i’d love their endorsements. but i’m not coming to be buddies with my — with, you know, my friends in the senate and house, i’m coming to change the entire nature of washington, d.c. it’s one — one of the benefits, frankly, of being out and looking in, and seeing what, you know, sometimes you said i was running as a consistent conservative. there are votes that i took, not that i advocated these things but i voted for some things and look back and say, why the heck did i do that? you get involved in sort of the the — the idea that well, you got to make things happen, and you forget sometimes, you know, sometimes making some things happen is not — you’re better off”
“what i’ve said is your role as a member of congress, if you look at the constitution, is to appropriate money. of course if you appropriate money you’re going to say where that money’s going to go. and historically congress has taken the role of, you know, allocating those resources, and jim demint who led the charge on pork barrel spending, earmarked things for years and years. so what happened, after i left congress, was budgets began to explode. when i was in the senate, i voted for tough budgets, i voted for restrictions on spending, and made sure that that didn’t happen. and as president, i propose cutting $5 trillion over five years. i propose we’re going to balance the budget in at least five years, hopefully sooner. so if you’re looking for someone who’s voted for tough budgets, voted for spending restraints, and”

“well, what changed was who he’s running against. at the time, that was five days or four days before super tuesday, it was after florida. it became clear to me that there were two candidates in the race at that point. i thought mike huckabee– i would have loved to have mike huckabee out there. but i made the political judgment, right or wrong, that the best chance to stop john mccain, which was what my concern was, i had served 12 years with john mccain, i like and respect john mccain immensely personally, and he’s done a lot of great things, obviously, for this country. but i did not think he was the right person, based on my experience and deep knowledge of his record, that he was the right person to be the nominee”

“of course my background is to find compromise. that’s what you have to do in order to get things done. but you don’t compromise on your principles. i use welfare reform as an example. i — i went out and helped author the welfare reform bill that became the contract with america bill, and then when i was in the united states senate, i managed that bill as a first-term, first-year member of the united states senate. i went up against daniel patrick moynihan and ted kennedy and battled over two vetoes of president clinton and was able to get it done. did i make compromises? you bet. but the compromises i made were not fundamental to the transformation that was important in welfare. which was to end the federal entitlement, the only bill that i’m aware of, only law that’s actually ever ended a broad-based federal entitlement. i was the author and manager of the bill on. and we put time limits on welfare. and we put a work requirement in place. those were the things that i believe were transformational. was i willing to compromise on day care funding? yes, i was. was i willing to compromise on transportation to get folks from welfare to work? yes, i was. but what we did was something that was moving the direction of a more limited government, and in order to get the necessary votes to get that done, you have to make compromise. but, we did a direction of limited government, maybe less than what we wanted to. but we weren’t going in the direction of more government, and getting less of more. that’s where republicans have been in error for so many years. and that is, compromising on just a little less big government, instead of saying no. no more compromises and less big government. we’ll compromise on less-less government. but, not going the other way.”

“you have to have someone you can work with. and this president has done more to divide than any other president that i’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime. this president goes out and gives speech after speech after speech trying to divide america between class, between income group, between racial and ethnic groups. this is the great divider in chief. and it’s very difficult when you’re being led by the president on a regular basis, not just as a party but individually, to then — and the president, who i don’t believe has met with boehner or any of the republican leadership, and now six months, hard to compromise and work with someone who won’t meet with you. who won’t sit down and try to negotiate things and try to talk. so i’m not surprised at all that republicans are having a difficult time with someone who has no interest”

“number one, he didn’t support the pro- democracy movement in iran in 2009 during the green revolution. almost immediately after the election — i mean, excuse me, like within hours after the polls closed ahmadinejad announced he won with 62% of the vote. within a few days, president obama basically said that that election was a legitimate one.”

“i understand why the president announcing a minute after the polls close he won, he comes from chicago, so i get it. the problem was this was an illegitimate election, the people in the streets were rioting saying please support us president obama, we are the pro- democracy movement. we want to turn this theocracy that’s been at war with the united states, that’s developing a nuclear weapon, that’s killing our troops in afghanistan and iraq with ieds and the president of the united states turned his back on them. at the same time, a year later we have the same situation where muslim brotherhood and islamists are in the streets of egypt opposing an ally of ours, not a sworn enemy like iran, but an ally of ours like mubarak and he joins the radicals instead of standing with our friends.”
“we know by the israelis. we don’t have any evidence, if you look at what’s being done, most of the evidence to actually trails back to the israelis and the methodology that they use. there’s no evidence the united states is at all complicit in working at that. that’s what — i would be very direct that we would, in fact, and openly talk about this. why? because i want to make sure that iran knows that when i say that iran is not getting a nuclear weapon, that we will actually affect out policies that make that happen. this president has not done that. he has opposed tough sanctions on iran, on their oil program. why? because he’s concerned about the economy and his re-election instead of the long-term national security interests of this country. i would say to every foreign scientist that’s going in to iran to help them with their program, you will be treated as an enemy combatant like an al qaeda member. and finally i would be working openly with the state of israel and i would be saying to the iranis you need to open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors or we will degrade those facilities with air strikes and make it very public.”

“iran would not get a nuclear weapon under my watch.”

“yes, that’s the plan. i mean you can’t go out and say, this is — this is the problem with this administration. you can’t go out and say this is what i’m for and then do nothing. you become a paper tiger. and people don’t respect our country. and our allies can’t trust us. that’s the problem with this administration.”

I was pleased to hear Rick Santorum make the following statement:

“i understand why the president announcing a minute after the polls close he won, he comes from chicago, so i get it.”

I continue to endorse Rick Santorum for the Republican nomination and the presidency. He is the breathe of fresh air that this country needs.