Category Archives: Pennsylvania voters

Jesse Morgan affidavit and testimony and Trump tweet “very big illegal ballot drop that cannot be accounted for”, Long Island, New York

Jesse Morgan affidavit and testimony and Trump tweet “very big illegal ballot drop that cannot be accounted for”, Ballot origin Long Island, New York

“We’ve Identified 450,000 Ballots that Miraculously ONLY have a Vote for Joe Biden”…Attorney Sidney Powell

“Trump’s not gonna win. I made f*cking sure of that!”...Eric Coomer, executive with Dominion Voting Systems

“Urges the United States Congress to declare the selection of presidential electors in this Commonwealth to be in dispute.” PA House Resolution 1094

 

President Trump tweeted the following on December 21, 2020.

From Team Trump December 1, 2020.

Truck Driver Jesse Morgan gave testimony at a Amistad Project press conference on December 1, 2020.

At around 57:00

From the Jesse Morgan affidavit:

“So, I go over to the trailer and I’m, and I’m standing there, they’re unloading me, they start bringing gaylords out. Two pallets for Lancaster that they
put in the nose and they were tall, tall gaylords. Alright? The rest was for Harrisburg. There where about 24 bins of mail -in ballots. I call them A and B units. I don’t know exact names for them but their own rollers there on like, aluminum rollers.”

“Morgan: I could see they where mail in ballots that were already used, you could see the names in the return corner of the envelope and there was a strange blue marking on the envelope.”

“Morgan: No, I know it wasn’t one or two. No, but we know there was a significant amount of mail -in ballots being shipped from Bethpage, New York.”

“Smith: So at the end of the day on October 21, 2020, you drop the truck off at Auto One You
lock up You’re done, you go home?
Morgan: Yes
Morgan: I come in next day and I do not have my trailer number, 10R140.
Smith: You come in the next day, your trailer is gone.
Morgan: It was gone. I have not seen it since.”

“This was the very first time I’ve ever had a trailer that had a camera in it. So I went into the transportation loading supervisor. I pointed out to him and asked him if he ever seen a trailer with a camera. And he said, ‘No.’ I asked Loader if she has ever seen a trailer with a camera, and she said, ‘No.’ And I asked the guy
from Harrisburg if he ever seen a trailer with a camera, and he said, ‘No, never, never seen a trailer or trailer with a camera in it.’ And I took that trailer and I dropped it off this past Sunday.
(Video documentation provided and secured of this interaction).”

“Morgan: I think that trailer 1081440 with the ballots ended up going to Philadelphia.”

Read more:

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7896/file-10836.pdf?cb=d7f3cc

From the Pennsylvania State Legislature Election Hearing.

 

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Pennsylvania House Resolution Nov 27 “Declaring the results of statewide electoral contests in the 2020 General Election to be in dispute”, Co- sponsorship memorandum

Pennsylvania House Resolution Nov 27 “Declaring the results of statewide electoral contests in the 2020 General Election to be in dispute”, Co- sponsorship memorandum

“We discovered that these systems are subject to different types of unauthorized manipulation and potential fraud,”  “There is a reason that Texas rejected it,”...Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

“Trump’s not gonna win. I made f*cking sure of that!”...Eric Coomer, executive with Dominion Voting Systems

“We’ve Identified 450,000 Ballots that Miraculously ONLY have a Vote for Joe Biden”…Attorney Sidney Powell

 

From the Pennsylvania House of Representatives November 27, 2020.

“A RESOLUTION

Declaring the results of statewide electoral contests in the 2020 General Election to be in dispute.

WHEREAS, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution empowers state legislatures, including the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to prescribe the “Times, Places, and Manner” of conducting elections; and

WHEREAS, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution empowers state legislatures, including the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to direct the manner of appointing electors for President and Vice President of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has exercised its authority to establish election administration procedures for the Commonwealth, known as the Pennsylvania Election Code; and

WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania Election Code requires all mail-in ballots to be received by eight o’clock P.M. on the day of the election; and

WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania Election Code requires election officials at polling places to authenticate the signatures of in-person voters; and

WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania Election Code requires that county boards of elections shall not meet to conduct a pre-canvass of all absentee and mail-in ballots until seven o’clock A.M. on Election Day, during which time defects on mail-in ballots would be identified; and

WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania Election Code prohibits the counting of defective absentee or mail-in ballots; and

WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania Election Code authorizes “watchers,” selected by candidates and political parties, to observe the process of canvassing absentee and mail-in ballots; and

WHEREAS, the Commonwealth conducted an election on November 3, 2020 for federal offices, including selecting electors for President and Vice President of the United States; and

WHEREAS, officials in the Executive and Judicial Branches of the Commonwealth infringed upon the General Assembly’s authority under the United States Constitution by unlawfully changing the rules governing the November 3, 2020 election in the Commonwealth; and

WHEREAS, on September 17, 2020, less than seven weeks before the November 3, 2020 election, the partisan majority on the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania unlawfully and unilaterally extended the deadline for mail-in ballots to be received, mandated that ballots mailed without a postmark would be presumed to be received timely, and could be accepted without a verified voter signature; and

WHEREAS, on October 23, 2020, less than two weeks before the November 3, 2020 election and upon a petition from the Secretary of the Commonwealth, the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ruled that mail-in ballots need not authenticate signatures for mail-in ballots, thereby treating in-person and mail-in voters dissimilarly and eliminating a critical safeguard against potential election crime; and

WHEREAS, on November 2, 2020, the night before the November 3, 2020 election and prior to the prescribed time for pre-canvassing mail-in ballots, the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth encouraged certain counties to notify party and candidate representatives of mail-in voters whose ballots contained defects; and

WHEREAS, heavily Democrat counties permitted mail-in voters to cure ballot defects while heavily Republican counties followed the law and invalidated defective ballots; and

WHEREAS, in certain counties in the Commonwealth, watchers were not allowed to meaningfully observe the pre-canvassing and canvassing activities relating to absentee and mail-in ballots; and

WHEREAS, in other parts of the Commonwealth, watchers observed irregularities concerning the pre-canvassing and canvassing of absentee and mail-in ballots; and

WHEREAS, postal employees in Pennsylvania have reported anomalies relating to mail-in ballots, including multiple ballots delivered to a single address with unfamiliar addressees, ballots mailed to vacant homes, empty lots, and addresses that did not exist; and

WHEREAS, witnesses testifying before the Pennsylvania Senate Majority Policy Committee on November 25, 2020 have provided additional compelling information regarding the questionable nature of the administration of the 2020 General Election; and

WHEREAS, there remains ongoing litigation concerning the administration of the November 3, 2020 election in the Commonwealth; and

WHEREAS, in 2016, Pennsylvania’s general election results were certified on December 12, 2016, and on November 24, 2020, the Secretary of the Commonwealth unilaterally and prematurely certified results of the November 3, 2020 election regarding presidential electors despite ongoing litigation; and

WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives has the duty to ensure that no citizen of this Commonwealth is disenfranchised, to insist that all elections are conducted according to the law, and to satisfy the general public that every legal vote is counted accurately;

THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED that the Pennsylvania House of Representatives—

1. Recognizes substantial irregularities and improprieties associated with mail-in balloting, pre-canvassing, and canvassing during the November 3, 2020 election; and

2. Disapproves of the infringement on the General Assembly’s authority pursuant to the United States Constitution to regulate elections; and

3. Disapproves of and disagrees with the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s premature certification of the results of the November 3, 2020 election regarding presidential electors; and

4. Declares that the selection of presidential electors and other statewide electoral contest results in this Commonwealth is in dispute; and

5. Urges the Secretary of the Commonwealth and the Governor to withdraw or vacate the certification of presidential electors and to delay certification of results in other statewide electoral contests voted on at the 2020 General Election; and

6. Urges the United States Congress to declare the selection of presidential electors in this Commonwealth to be in dispute.”

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=H&SPick=20190&cosponId=32628&mobile_choice=suppress

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

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.

Rick Santorum endorsement, Citizen Wells endorses Santorum for presidency, God Family Constitution Defense Budget, Legal immigration, Obama eligibility

Rick Santorum endorsement, Citizen Wells endorses Santorum for presidency, God Family Constitution Defense Budget, Legal immigration, Obama eligibility

My friends have been asking me for weeks what my preference in a presidential candidate is. For weeks I have been stating, Rick Santorum. An intelligent, well informed friend of mine who I have known for many years agrees.

So far my biggest gripe with Santorum was his response to Obama’s eligibility deficiency. However, many otherwise good Americans have been fooled by the Orwellian brainwashing of the mainstream media. Like many decisions in life, Santorum for me is the lesser of evils, however, I find most of his positions appealing.

From the DesMoines Register August 7, 2011.

“Candidate profile: Rick Santorum refuses to compromise on principles”

“Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum knew he was in trouble as he sought re-election to his third term in 2006.

Public opinion was hardening against the war in Iraq and the president who started it. All signs pointed to a bad year for Republicans.

His supporters were blunt, recalled Charlie Artz, a Harrisburg lawyer and a friend since they were in their 20s. To win, they said, you need to change
course. You need to soften your opinions.

But Santorum wouldn’t budge. He described the state of America’s families as a moral crisis. He declared the nation at a critical crossroads in a fight
against radical Islamists. And he ultimately lost by 18 points to Bob Casey Jr., the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent senator since 1980.

“Rick is a very devout Catholic guy, and he believes in the principles of the founding fathers of this country,” Artz said. “He is not willing to compromise
on that. He will stand for his beliefs and his principles above any political expediency.”

Santorum, 53, is not about to start mincing words now that he’s seeking the Republican presidential nomination. That leaves little room in the middle between his supporters and his detractors.

Jamie Johnson of Stratford is a Christian pastor who has worked in 40 Republican political campaigns over the past two decades. He said he was drawn to join Santorum’s presidential bid after watching him lead the charge on family values legislation in Congress.

“I thought, ‘Wow. This guy is a guy of energy and passion and convictions,’ ” Johnson said. “If there was ever a time for a muscular Republican leader to
stand up against President Obama, it is now. I don’t see Michele Bachmann or Tim Pawlenty or Rick Perry having the intellectual or spiritual muscle to go toe
to toe with Barack Obama.”

Jim Burn, chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, has closely monitored Santorum’s political career, too, but sees him in an entirely different light.
By 2006, Pennsylvanians had come to view Santorum as completely out of touch with their values, he said.

“He was viewed as a Republican with extreme right-wing beliefs and was not viable,” Burn said.

His story starts with emigrating granddad
Santorum’s political outlook is firmly rooted in family.

On the campaign trail, he frequently tells the story of how his grandfather came to America from Italy in the 1920s because he detested living under fascist
dictator Benito Mussolini. His grandfather worked in Pennsylvania’s coal mines until he was 72, Santorum said.

During a campaign stop in July in Marion, Ia., Santorum told of kneeling before his grandfather’s casket as a teenager and looking at his large folded hands,
holding a rosary. His grandfather’s independence and hard work brought freedom to his family, he said.

“He gave me the opportunities that I have,” Santorum said. “I feel like I am standing on his shoulders.”

He describes his grandfather, Pietro, known as Pete, and his father, Aldo, a psychologist, as strong-willed, a trait he shares.

His dad was a typical Italian father who “would always yell first and speak softly later,” he said.

Santorum grew up in Virginia and Pennsylvania. Both his father and mother, Catherine, a nurse, worked for the Veterans Administration.

After earning bachelor’s and master’s degrees, he became a staffer for Republican state Sen. Doyle Corman while he earned a law degree. Then, too, he
demonstrated his strong-willed streak.

Corman said he hired Santorum because he was bright and ambitious, and Corman let Santorum know he was free to argue with his boss about politics.

“If Rick thought that I was headed in the wrong direction, we would have debates over it, and the staff couldn’t believe how hot our debates would get at
times,” Corman recalled in a phone interview. “You could hear us through the walls, but I wanted that, and Rick made me think things out well.”

Fast-rising career in U.S. House, Senate
He was a young man on a fast track. He started work for a prominent Pittsburgh law firm and did some lobbying at the Pennsylvania Capitol. Four years after
graduating from law school, he launched a bid for Congress.

Corman and others told him to forget it because it would be too difficult to defeat a long-term Democratic incumbent.

“He beat that seven-term incumbent, and the rest is history,” Corman said.

As a 32-year-old freshman, Santorum joined former U.S. Rep. Jim Nussle of Iowa and others to focus on government reform, becoming a member of the “Gang of Seven” that exposed the House banking and post office scandals.

In 1994, at 36, he won election to the Senate, once again unseating an incumbent, Democrat Harris Wofford. Two years later, he was an author and floor manager of a landmark welfare reform act that moved millions of people from the welfare rolls to the work force.

Again and again, he pressed abortion fight
It was about this time that he and his family experienced a defining moment, underlining his commitment to reverence for life.

After Santorum and his wife arrived in Washington, D.C., their family quickly grew to three children. But in 1996, Karen Santorum, who had worked as a neo-
natal nurse and a lawyer, experienced a difficult pregnancy.

During labor, she developed a severe infection in her uterus, and her temperature soared to 105 degrees. Their son was born prematurely and lived only two hours.

Karen Santorum describes how she and her husband brought their deceased infant home instead of allowing the child to be placed in a refrigerated morgue.
Their daughter, Elizabeth, cuddled the infant and announced, “This is my baby brother, Gabriel; he is an angel.”

A priest celebrated the Mass of the Angels in his grandparents’ living room, and the casket was placed in the back seat of the family’s van as they drove to
the cemetery.

Karen Santorum wrote a book about her son, “Letters to Gabriel: The True Story of Gabriel Michael Santorum,” which includes a forward by Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

At the same time, Rick Santorum was leading efforts in the U.S. Senate to ban what he describes as partial-birth abortions.

Santorum acknowledges that other Republican presidential candidates also say they oppose abortion. But he portrays himself as the candidate who has a proven
record fighting to restrict it.

He has spoken of losing a battle against President Bill Clinton for a partial-birth abortion act.

“I didn’t just offer (the bill), but I stood there and fought … year in and year out,” Santorum said. “We lost because Bill Clinton would veto the bill. …
But I continued to fight. I continued to stand up for life, and God blessed us.” (The bill was signed into law under President George W. Bush.)

As senator, called for balancing the budget
Besides championing anti-abortion legislation in the Senate, he supported a balanced federal budget and a line-item veto to curb spending.

That record makes him the right choice to lead a nation confronting out-of-control spending and a downgraded credit rating, he says.

Even before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Santorum proposed transforming the U.S. military from a Cold War force to a more agile one to meet modern threats. He was also a leader on U.S.-Israeli relations, authoring the “Syria Accountability Act” and the “Iran Freedom and Support Act,” despite initial opposition from President Bush.”

“Santorum has campaigned more days and conducted more events in Iowa than any other candidate. But he has had difficulty gaining traction. In The Des Moines Register’s Iowa Poll in June, he registered 4 percent support among likely Republican caucusgoers.

But he takes heart in a Quinnipiac University poll released last week that showed him in a dead heat with Obama in a theoretical presidential matchup in
Pennsylvania, a key swing state. And he reminds voters that he has twice defeated incumbent Democrats.

He also notes that Abraham Lincoln lost two Senate races before he was elected president.

His friend Artz says Santorum will outwork other candidates and would make a great president because he would always put the country first.

“I think he is going to surprise some people out there,” Artz said.”

““Rick won’t apologize for America being great, and he will defend Israel. He didn’t shy away from taking on the partial-birth abortion ban or welfare reform,
and he’s certainly not going to shy away from getting this country back on track.” — Kim Lehman, Iowa’s National Republican Committeewoman and former president of Iowa Right to Life

“I don’t comment on who would be a good president or a bad president, but I can tell you that a lot of Rick Santorum’s policies and priorities are not in
keeping with core constitutional principles.” — Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State

“Not many politicians have spine; this one does.” — Talk-show host Glenn Beck, introducing Santorum before a June interview on Fox News”

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/08/07/santorum-refuses-to-compromise-on-principles/

Rick Santorum meets my priorities of :

God
Family
Constitution
Defense
Budget

Rick Santorum, like other decent members of Congress such as Howard Coble was brainwashed by the mainstream media and their own congressional resources.

Rick Santorum told WND, “My understanding is that issue was solved. If there’s evidence to the contrary [showing Obama is not eligible], they should bring it forth.”

When Santorum was reminded about the Natural Born Citizen requirement he allegedly responded “I don’t think that’s what the Constitution requires, and he (President Obama) was born in the country, so it doesn’t matter.”

I personally believe that Rick Santorum, when properly advised , will reconsider his position on Obama’s eligibility and will be open to ask more questions and seek more answers.

Mr. Santorum, I am at your service.

Contact me.

Wells

James D Schneller, Obama lawsuit, Update, June 16, 2009, Obama Suit Scheduled For Supreme Court Conference, Acorn fraud

This was received from James D. Schneller regarding his lawsuit:

“Obama Suit Scheduled For Supreme Court Conference

Obama Fires U.S. Whistleblower Who Uncovered $$ 75 Million ACORN-type fraud !

 

Dear citizen who is horrified by events in Washington,
 
This is a news item that concerns our Supreme Court’s fourth chance to address the Obama birth certificate issue.  I wrote most of you in January, at a prior turning point.  Because you are a concerned citizen, you have to know about this, and I hope you’ll share it with your friends and family and pastor.  This is not a request for donation.
 
I have filed a supplementary brief in the Supreme Court of the United States in Case No. 08-9797 objecting to the failure of Barack Obama to file an answer, and requesting that the Supreme Court enable  newer evidence in the Obama birth issue.   The Supreme Court has set this case for a conference on June 18th.
 
I filed the appeal on April 6, 2009, asking reversal of denial of my petition for injunction filed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in December of 2008.  That petition requested a delay of the tally by the Pennsylvania electoral college, because the ballots of the Pennsylvania electors had been unlawfully finalized despite the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s erroneous and fraudulent certifying of the ballot to all County officials, without any examination, nor investigation, of the eligibility and qualification of Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States. 
 
Why are all the cases in this issue filed by concerned citizens , rather than organizations ?  To my belief, many firms believe it to be futile, and most of the others have been warned against it. (see the article following this letter)  The fact that only citizens have sued does not mean that a Court, at some time or other, could decide to address this issue.
 
In my suit I am demanding that the Secretary of the Commonwealth perform his duty, as was required, by requiring Obama to prove that he is a natural born citizen.  I claim that the Secretary had ample time to demand proofs from Obama in December, before the vote was certified and delivered to the Electoral College.
 
I also am objecting that the Pennsylvania election law makes the Office of the President of the United States exempt from the requirement that candidates file an affidavit swearing that they are eligible for office.  I’ve asked the Justices to declare that this 2006 amendment is arbitrary and unconstitutional.  (Anyone so inclined – please check your state’s election law for this type of amendment and email me any findings !)
 
I raise new material in the brief in order to encourage the Supreme Court to address the gaping absence of eligibility of our head of state:  
 
  – Obama’s recent, biased, dropping of the suit against certain Philadelphia Black Panther members for voter intimidation,
  – recent ill-conceived “stimulus” awards to ACORN and efforts to make ACORN a census participant,
  – recent White House efforts to create unprecedented levels of security around common documents that are normally available to the public.
  – national celebrations and official proclamations in the Nation of Kenya, on the basis of Obama’s  birthplace being there !  
  – the fact that the United States Attorney General avoided several opportunities to investigate substantial complaints presented against ACORN during the 2008 campaign, despite ample time and manpower available,
  – the White House’s unpredicted and unconstitutional policy of doubling the national debt, nationalizing  decrepit industries, and pardoning violent terrorists, despite the public’s not being made aware of this intent during the campaign.
  – the Homeland Security boondoggle alleging that veterans and pro-life citizens are extremists.
  – I also claim that Obama was required to answer my petition because he claims to hold the highest office in the land, and must therefore be open with the people rather than clandestine.  Since he didnt answer, he has in essence admitted to all of the allegations made against him.
 
There is much more, which is why I ask the Court to allow new evidence !  Just last week outrageous news happened :

 
Obama Fired the U.S. Whistleblower Who Uncovered $$ 75 Million ACORN-type fraud !
 
The patriots who are continuing to file suits and to blog, newsletter, and report the case against Obama for his clear cut illegal acts are greater in number now, and you may want to check some of the websites at intervals.  This story about huge government fraud is a news item carried by Judicial Watch, which is a respected watchdog organization, who recently began to actively cover Obama in respect to his constant illegal behavior.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/jun/obama-fires-ig-who-exposed-supporter-s-fraud
 
Help Make Prosecution Happen

Since the Supreme Court case is up for Court Conference on Thursday, I hope you’ll be able to offer prayers or a moment of silence, and to make serious talk at work and leisure, to impress all with the hard truth of our new government.  I firmly believe in an ability granted by the Creator, for America to rise, despite great odds, above this unnatural situation, and to redirect our Republic onto a positive and moral path, rather than a descent to oblivion.”

“James D. Schneller”

2008 Electoral College votes, Certification of Voters, State laws, US Constitution, Electors signed Certification, Certifications invalid, Obama ineligible, Violators should be prosecuted, Constitution violated

The ultimate objective of a presidential election to inaugurate a
constitutionally qualified president that as closely as possible
reflects the will of the people.
The states have been given the power and the duty to control presidential
elections by the US Constitution.

The pervasive attitudes of the state officers and election officials is
that they, incorrectly, have no power to qualify presidential candidates
and/or they depend on political parties to vet the candidates.

The political parties have evolved and changed since the creation of the
US Consitution and are given no powers. However, members of the parties,
as US Citizens have an implied duty to uphold the Constitution and party
officers typically have taken oaths as elected officials to uphold the
US Constitution.

Clearly, the intent of the US Constitution and Federal Election Law is
for an eligible candidate to move through this election process to allow
for a constitutionally valid vote by Electors.

All officers and election officials, most judges and most Electoral
College Electors were informed prior to the general election and
particularly prior to the Electors meeting and voting, of compelling
evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president. Despite
these warnings, Electors met and voted on the basis of party loyalty or
perceived directives from the states. State or party policies dictating
how an Elector votes violate the spirit and letter of constitutional
and federal law.

Even though the manner of Electoral College voting in clearly defined by
the US Constitution and Federal Election Law, some states have included
explicit references to law in their Certificates of Voters that are
signed by Electors and state officers. Below are certificates from 2004.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004_certificates/

Alabama

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and this state, certify”

Alaska

“by authority of law vested in us”

Arizona

“by authority of law in us vested”

Arkansas

“as provided by law”

California

“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and the state of california, do hereby certify”

Connecticut

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States
and in the manner provided by the laws of the state of Connecticut”

Hawaii

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Idaho

“having met agreeably to the provisions of law”

Illinois

“as provided by law”

Indiana

“as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States”

Iowa

“in accordance with law”

Kansas

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Kentucky

“In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and with sections 7-11 of Title III of the
United States Code”

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Manner of voting

§ 8.   The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.
“No 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Minnesota

“In testimony whereof, and as required by the Twelth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States we have hereunto set
our hands”

Montana

“agreeable to the provisions of law”

Nevada

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

New Jersey

“proceeded to perform the duties required of us by the Constitution
and laws of the United States.”

North Carolina

“by authority of law in us vested”

Pennsylvania

“agreeably to the provisions of law”

Rhode Island

“in pursuance of law”

South Carolina

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Tennessee

“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”

Utah

“in pursuance of the statutes of the United States and of the statutes
of the State of Utah”

Virginia

“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”

Washington

“pursuant to the provisions of federal and state law”

Conclusion

  • The US Constitution is clear on presidential eligibility and how
    Electoral Colleges Electors are to vote.
  • Ignorance is no excuse. Everyone involved was forewarned. Voting
    party line over law will not be tolerated.
  • Electors and state officers have signed or will sign Certificates of Voters
    for the 2008 Election. As you can see from the above, they will
    certify that they are aware of the law and are abiding by the law.
  • Kentucky gets the award for the most constitutionally clear wording
    and should be applauded for doing so.
  • There are consequences for false attesting.
  • One of the consequences is that the votes of many Electors are now
    null and void.
  • Impeachment, recall, firing, criminal charges forthcoming?

Constitution 101 classes will begin soon.

State officers, election officials, judges and, of course,
US Supreme Court Justices will be invited. Stay tuned for a
class near you. I suppose Washington DC should be first.

2008 US Presidential Election, Electoral College, Electors, US Constitution, Federal Election Law, State Election Laws, State officers, State Election Officials, Judges, US Supreme Court Justices, Democratic Disaster, Questions and answers

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”     Benjamin Franklin

Presidential Election

Electoral College Questions and Answers

Q: What is the Electoral College?:

A: The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers
as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and
election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for
the electors who then vote for the President. Read more

Q: Frequently asked questions:

A: Read more here

Q: Why did the Founding Fathers create the Electoral College?:

A:  The Founding Father’s intent

Here is a quote by Alexander Hamilton who, like many of the founding
fathers, was “afraid a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come
to power.” Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made
by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station,
and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a
judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were
proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by
their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to
possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated
investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little
opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least
to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so
important an agency in the administration of the government as the
President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so
happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an
effectual security against this mischief.”

Q: What are the state laws governing Electors?:

A: List of states and restrictions on Electors

Q: What are so called “Faithless Electors”?:

A: “The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require
that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore,
political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the
parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called “faithless
electors” may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting
an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme
Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges
and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under
the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to
vote as pledged.” Read more here

The US Supreme Court Obviously has not given Electors the option to
violate the US Constitution. Therefore, obviously, if the presidential
candidate is qualified, party pledges and state laws are permissable.

Q: What must an Elector be aware of when voting for a presidential candidate?:

 A: The following are important considerations when casting a vote. Voting
as instructed by a political party, another person, or a state law in
conflict with the US Constitution or Federal Election Laws is a serious
matter. Those not voting in accordance with higher laws are subject to
prosecution and may be guilty of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
High Crimes and Misdemeanors

UNITED STATES ELECTION LAW

“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):”

“§ 8.   The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”

Are Electors required to vote according to Popular Vote?

“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires
electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in
their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their
votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two
categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges
to political parties.”   (From US National Archives)

So called “Faithless Electors”

“It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to
vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so,
more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the
popular vote or their party. These electors are called “faithless
electors.”

In response to these faithless electors’ actions, several states
have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party
vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to
assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example,
the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless
electors.

It’s important to note, that although these states have created these
laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws
hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.”
Read more here

State Law Example: Pennsylvania

Ҥ 3192. Meeting of electors; duties.
The electors chosen, as aforesaid, shall assemble at the seat
of government of this Commonwealth, at 12 o’clock noon of the
day which is, or may be, directed by the Congress of the United
States, and shall then and there perform the duties enjoined upon
them by the Constitution and laws of the United States
.”

“The mysteries of the Electoral College has enabled Pennsylvania
to play an unusually major role in determining who is President.
In 1796, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in Pennsylvania’s
popular election by only 62 votes, but the Pennsylvania electors
gave Jefferson 14 votes and Adams 1, though Adams did win the
Electoral vote, 71 to 68.” Read more here

Electors helped save the Union

1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas,
voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.

Q: What happens after the Electoral College vote?:

A: Electoral College procedures

Q: What is the significance of your vote?:

A: The US Constitution clearly gives the states the power
and duties associated with electing a qualified president.
It is also clear that the states have not performed their
duties to ensure that the Electoral College votes will be
for a Qualified candidate. The Electors have a constitutional
duty to perform that supersedes any party contract or state
law. Each day that passes without verification of eligibility
of any candidate being voted for by Electors, brings us closer
to a constitutional crisis. There are pending court cases before
the US Supreme Court and state courts. Congress will meet in
January to count and certify votes and there will certainly be
challenges in Congress. If Congress or the courts shall fail to
do their duty, a Supreme Court Justice will be faced with a
decision to uphold the Constitution. The crisis will increase
in intensity.

If anyone has any further questions they can be asked on this
blog or go to:

http://www.democratic-disaster.com/


Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the
Citizen Wells blog. Every effort has been made to ensure the
accuracy of the content. Readers are encouraged to visit source
material such as the US Constitution, Federal Election law and
state laws.

James Schneller Petition, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Writ of mandamus, Injunction, Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth, Demand proof from Senator Barack Obama, Natural born citizen, US Constitution, Prevent certification of the vote, Electors meeting, December 9, 2008

I received the following comment on this blog from James Schneller:

“Submitted on 2008/12/08 at 11:45pm
I’ve filed a petition for review No, 199 MM 2008, to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, seeking a writ of mandamus and an immediate injunction ordering the Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth to demand proof from Senator Barack Obama of his sworn statement, filed with his application for placement on the ballot, that he is qualified as a natural born citizen under the United States Constitution.

The petition seeks urgent attention to the requested injunction and additionally requests an injunction preventing the certification of the vote and of the Pennsylvania electors ballot, by the Secretary, including any certification to Pennsylvania’s Governor, and postponing of the scheduled meeting of the electors, which by law usually occurs on the third Monday of December.

I seek in the request for injunction, a submitting of proof of birthplace and of any additional elements required to be a natural born citizen, by Senator Obama, prior to the certification of the electors’ vote by the State to the Governor, and prior to certification that would then occur to the Joint Session of Congress, which would convene for the purpose of formalizing the electoral vote in early January.

If the candidate has not shown his eligibility under the Constitution, the electors should not have their votes certified, their votes should not be tallied in the traditional meeting before the Governor, nor should the certified ballots be lodged with the President of the Senate, nor the joint session of Congress early in January.

It is astounding that no official has demanded proof of this gentleman’s eligibility under what is a most simple and basic requirement for the Presidency. A bare statement by the Hawaii Health Director that they have a valid birth certificate is completely insufficient, and the fact that Senator Obama apparently has placed a doctored “certificate of live birth” on the internet, and may have falsely sworn in his candidate affidavits in thirty or more states, should put every American on notice that the Presidency may be being sought invalidly.

Under my request, the Secretary of the Commonwealth should be ordered to quickly demand proof. If Mr. Obama’s birth certificate is as he says, he has 20 days to produce it, and the Pennsylvania officials will still have 10 days to transmit the ballot to Washington.”

Philip J Berg lawsuit, US Supreme Court, Update December 2, 2008, Emergency Injunction, Writ of Certiorari deadline, Obama and DNC have not responded

Jeff Schreiber has provided an update from Philip J Berg on his US Supreme Court Writ of Certiori.

“One day after the deadline set by Supreme Court Justice David Souter for Barack Obama and the DNC to respond to attorney Philip Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari has passed without an answer, Berg is filing a motion in the Court in an attempt to further prevent Obama from taking office in January as the 44th president of the United States.

From what I could gather, the emergency motion for immediate injunction contains two main parts — in filing the motion, Berg is looking for the Court (1) to prohibit the certification of electors by the governors of each individual state in order to stay the Electoral College from casting votes for Obama on December 15, and (2) to stay the official counting of any votes for Obama by Vice President Dick Cheney, the House of Representatives and United States Senate on January 6, 2009, pending any decision on his appeal.

“As I’ve said over and over and over again, we’re headed toward a constitutional crisis, and it is absolutely imperative that we find out now, before he is sworn in, whether Obama is qualified under the United States Constitution to be president,” Berg said.

“It is my firm belief, my one thousand percent firm belief,” he said, “that he does not meet the natural born qualifications, that he should not be voted for by the electors, and that he should not be sworn in this January unless he shows his credentials … which he of course cannot, simply because he does not have them.”

The motion comes one day after Obama and the DNC were directed to respond to Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari (the parties, however, are allowed two more days for mail service). On Wed., Nov. 19, the Federal Election Commission formally waived its right to respond to Berg’s petition and, while such waiver is not necessary, neither is any such response to a petition. Like the FEC, Obama and the DNC could essentially bank on the low odds that any one matter will be heard by the Court (only somewhere between 70 and 120 of the approximately 8,000 petitions are granted each year), or rely on arguments already made that Berg lacks standing to sue at all.”

Read more here:

http://www.americasright.com/

2008 Presidential Election, Obama Indonesian, Obama stole Nomination, Obama attempts to steal election, US Constitution, Electoral College Electors, Chaos, Anarchy, Electors must uphold Constitution

US Constitution

Tenth Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.”

2008 Presidential Election

Phase II

An Indonesian citizen, an illegal alien, with strong ties to corruption
in Chicago, Illinois and the Middle East, has apparently won the US
general election. Barack Obama, who stole the nomination for the Democrat
Party using tactics of diversions, lies, illegal campaign donations,
voter fraud and help from idiots like Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, is
trying to steal the election. State officials, lacking in integrity
and knowledge of the US Constitution, and federal and state laws, allowed
Obama to remain on the ballot despite warnings and compelling evidence
that Obama is an Indonesian citizen, and no legal evidence that Obama is
a US citizen. These state officials will have a day of reckoning and will
be subject to removal from office and/or prosecution.

Now we come to the safeguards put in place by our wise founding fathers.
In the forefront is the Electoral College. The general election does not
elect a president. It echoes the will of the general population and serves
as a guideline for the Electoral College Electors to vote. State laws vary
on how the Electors must vote. However, two things are certain:

  • The Electoral College was set up to protect the American public from
    unwise choices and in the words of Delegate Gerry on July 19, 1787:

“The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.”

  • Electoral College Electors swear an oath to uphold the US Constitution. Voting for a presidential candidate, faced with compelling evidence that the candidate is not eligible to be president, would be a severe violation of constitutional law. The US Constitution rules. 24 potential Electors have stated that they were filing suit demanding evidence of Obama’s eligibility.

What happens next.

Philip J Berg still has his appeal before the US Supreme Court. Mr. Berg
has the burden of proof and standing. This is a safeguard built into
lawsuits. Philip J Berg has done an outstanding job of trying to prevent
a constitutional crisis. The Democrat party, the states and federal judges
have put aside his plea to uphold the Constitution. The Judges, restrained
by lawsuit protocol, have some excuse. This does not relieve anyone
charged with upholding the Constitution of their responsibility.

More lawsuits and voting challenges will occur, more Electoral College
Electors will become involved and I strongly believe this country will
be thrust into chaos, if not anarchy, for several months. Some combination
of the Supreme Court, Federal court, state courts and Electors demanding
proof of citizenship will come into play.

What can you do?

Read up on the election process, starting on this blog, and demand that your State Electoral College Electors uphold the Constitution. Follow the efforts of Philip J Berg and others to demand that the US Constitution be upheld. Regardless of any concession speeches by John McCain, we cannot allow Obama, an illegal alien, to be elected and innaugurated.

 Election Law explained and Electoral College Electors

I will leave you with a quote by Alexander Hamilton who, like many of the founding fathers, was “afraid a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power.” Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.”

 

power