Category Archives: Secretary of State

Scott Brown MA senate race, Massachusetts Senate Mystery: Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley, WSJ, Boston Globe poll, Ted Kennedy’s senate seat, likely voters, race is closing, Wall Street Journal January 11, 2010

From the Wall Street Journal, January 11, 2010.

“Massachusetts Senate Mystery: Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley – WSJ.com”

“Turnout for special elections is notoriously hard to predict, especially for a Massachusetts race in the dead of winter. ”

“People trying to follow the suddenly hot Massachusetts race to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s senate seat can be excused if they’re getting poll whiplash. On Saturday, the Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling announced a startling survey of 744 likely voters that found Republican Scott Brown taking a 48% to 47% lead over Democrat Martha Coakley. “The Massachusetts Senate race is shaping up as a potential disaster for Democrats,” said Dean Debnam, president of PPP.

The next day, the Boston Globe displayed its own poll of 554 people, showing Ms. Coakley with a comfortable 15-point lead. “If there was ever a time for a Republican to win here, now is the time,” Andrew Smith, the director of the polling firm used by the Globe, reported. “The problem is you’ve got a special election and a relatively unknown Republican going up against a well-liked Democrat.””

“No one knows exactly who will turn out on January 19. But the evidence suggests the race is closing. In three polls taken before the December primary that made Ms. Coakley her party’s nominee, she had an average 29-point lead over Mr. Brown. In three surveys taken over the last ten days or so, her lead has shrunk to an average of eight points. Ms. Coakley is ahead, but Mr. Brown is making a late surge. He can only hope it isn’t stopped because previously apathetic Democrats respond to the polls by deciding to drag themselves out to vote.”

Read more:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652442227001988.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

Scott Brown election certification delayed for Health Care Bill vote?, Nancy Pelosi swore in Bill Owens early, Niki Tsongas precedent, William Francis Galvin, MA Secretary of the Commonwealth, State Ethics Committee, MA Election statutes

Scott Brown’s election certification will be delayed to allow temporary Senator Paul Kirk to vote for the Health Care Bill. Sound familiar? Nancy Pelosi did just the opposite in November 2009, to allow just elected Representative Bill Owens to vote for the House version of the Health Care Bill.

Reported here yesterday, January 9, 2010.
“From The Boston Herald, January 9, 2010.
“Scott Brown swearing-in would be stalled to pass health-care reform”
“It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform – and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill.
The longtime aide and confidant of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was handpicked by Gov. Deval Patrick after a controversial legal change to hold Kennedy’s seat, vowed to vote for the bill even if Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, who opposes the health-care reform legislation, prevails in a Jan. 19 special election.”
MA Democrats will delay Scott Brown’s certification

Nancy Pelosi chicanery from November 12, 2009

“John Charlton of The Post & Email just brought a breaking story to our attention.

“It looks increasingly that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her zeal to get the Health Care Federalization Bill passed, may have sworn in an unelected candidate for the NY-23 Congressional District, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and New York State laws.

As a matter of fact, the Secretary of State of New York has not certified the election, in which Dough Hoffman and Bill Owens vied in a special election, nearly head to head, after Scozzafava retired in humiliation, having lost the support of conservatives in her district.”
“It turns out that Pelosi’s swearing-in of Owens had the political effect of garnering the addition Republican vote, of Cao, in the vote for the Health Care Bill, which passed narrowly, 220-215.  The election fraud therefore puts in doubt the legitimacy of that vote also.””
Nancy Pelosi swears in Bill Owens before he is certified

On November 19, 2009 we learn of election night irregularities and voting machine viruses

“We already knew there were election night irregularities in the New York District 23 congressional race between Doug Hoffman and Bill Owens and that Nancy Pelosi prematurely certified Owens as the winner. Now we find out that some of the voting machines had computer viruses.

From The Gouverneur Times, November 19, 2009.

“VIRUS in the VOTING MACHINES: Tainted Results in NY-23″””
New York voting machines had viruses

The Democrats have a history of using the voting process not as it was intended, to echo the will of the people, but to further their own agenda.

From CBS News, October 17, 2007.
“Niki Tsongas Wins U.S. House Race”
“Tsongas said Wednesday that she expected to be sworn in on Thursday, and was eager to participate in the House vote scheduled for that day to override President Bush’s veto of expanded funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance program.”

Read more:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/17/politics/main3376886.shtml?source=related_story
From Fox News, October 18, 2007.
“Massachusetts Democrat Niki Tsongas Sworn In as Congresswoman”
“Shortly after being sworn in to the seat her late husband Paul Tsongas held in the 1970s, she joined her Massachusetts colleagues in voting to override President Bush’s veto of a bill that would have expanded the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The effort failed by 13 votes.”

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303180,00.html

Here is a recent letter addressed to John Kerry, Niki Tsongas and Paul Kirk.

“Are Massachusetts Democrats planning to obstruct the voice of the people?

To:
Sen. John Kerry
Rep. Niki Tsongas
Sen. Paul Kirk

January 9, 2010

I read in today’s Boston Herald that the Massachusetts Democrat organization is now planning to delay the certification of the January 19th election to keep Scott Brown out of the Senate until a health reform bill can be rushed through Congress.

This is unacceptable and I hope that you will take a strong stand AGAINST it.

When Sen Brown wins the election, the people will have spoken, and their voice must be heard, not stifled underneath layers of obstruction.

Rep Tsongas was voting in Washington ONE DAY after winning her special election.

So why is Massachusetts Sec. of State Galvin’s office saying that they will not certify the Jan 19 election for 10 days because that is the rule for ALL special elections?

This is CLEARLY NOT TRUE.”

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=4500181596

From the Massachusetts Election Statutes

“PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE VIII. ELECTIONS”

“CHAPTER 50. GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO PRIMARIES, CAUCUSES AND ELECTIONS
DETERMINATION OF RESULTS
Chapter 50: Section 2. Results of election; determination
Section 2. In elections, the person receiving the highest number of votes for an office shall be deemed and declared to be elected to such office; and if two or more are to be elected to the same office, the several persons, to the number to be chosen to such office, receiving the highest number of votes, shall be deemed and declared to be elected; but persons receiving the same number of votes shall not be deemed to be elected if thereby a greater number would be elected than are to be chosen. Except as otherwise provided, this section shall apply to all nominations and elections by ballot at primaries or caucuses. Nothing herein shall derogate from the provisions of chapter fifty-four A.”

“CHAPTER 56. VIOLATIONS OF ELECTION LAWS
PENALTIES ON OFFICERS FOR OFFENCES IN THE CONDUCT OF PRIMARIES, CAUCUSES, CONVENTIONS AND ELECTIONS
Chapter 56: Section 12. Misconduct of officers; failure to perform duties
Section 12. An officer of a primary, caucus or convention who knowingly makes any false count of ballots or votes, or makes a false statement or declaration of the result of a ballot or vote, or knowingly refuses to receive any ballot offered by a person qualified to vote at such primary, caucus or convention, or wilfully alters, defaces or destroys any ballot cast, or voting list used thereat, before the requirements of law have been complied with, or refuses or wilfully fails to receive any written request made as thereby required, or refuses or wilfully fails to perform any duty or obligation imposed thereby shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months.”

Election Day Legal Summary by William Francis Galvin, MA Secretary of the Commonwealth

“Counting Votes
The process of counting the ballots differs depending on the type of voting equipment used. However, the basic requirements are the same. The clerk must record the final register number on the ballot box. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.). A count must be made of the voters on both the check in and check out lists, and the voting lists must thereafter be sealed in an envelope. Id.; see also G. L. c. 54, § 107 (1998 ed.) (procedure for sealing voting lists and ballots; applicable to all of the materials required to be sealed as indicated below). The escrow ballots must be counted, placed in an envelope, the number placed on the outside of the envelope, and the envelope must then be sealed. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.).
The election officers shall canvass and count the ballots if paper ballots are used, and otherwise, the election officers shall read the vote totals from the counting device after the polls close, either by a printer mechanism or otherwise. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.). The ballots not able to be read by the machines must be hand counted. Id. Election officers may not hold a pen or any other kind of marking device during the counting of the ballots, except for the person actually recorded the votes. G. L. c. 54, § 80 (1998 ed.). Furthermore, such election officials may only use red pencils or red ink to record or tabulate votes. Id. For the purpose of ascertaining the results of a state election, city election, or a town election where official ballots are used, or of question submitted to the voters, the election officials must use the blank forms and apparatus provided by the Secretary of the Commonwealth. G. L. c. 54, § 104 (1998 ed.).
The unused and spoiled ballots must also be counted, placed in a container under seal, and the clerk must record the numbers. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.). The counted ballots are placed into a designated container, which is then sealed a certificate is affixed thereto stating that only ballots cast and no other ballots are contained therein. Id. The total tally sheets are placed in an envelope, sealed, and the warden and clerk also sign the outside of the envelope. Id. In communities using a central tabulation facility, the ballots will then be transported thereto, and then transmitted to the city or town clerk who must retain them in a secure location. G. L. c. 54, § 105A (1998 ed.). In all other communities, the sealed envelopes and containers will be returned directly to the city or town clerk who must retain them in a secure location. G. L. c. 54, §§ 105, 105A (1998 ed.).”

http://www.medford.org/Pages/MedfordMA_BComm/ELECTIONSummary.pdf

From the MA State Ethics Committee

“Section 23 contains standards of conduct applicable to all public employees.” 
 
“Political Activity
Section 23(b)(2) provides that a public employee may not use his official position to secure unwarranted privileges or exemptions of substantial value for himself or others.  This prohibition has been applied by the Commission to restrict a number of political activities involving, for example, campaign use of public resources, campaigning on the job, and certain types of solicitation and fundraising.”

“Section 23(b)(3)  Appearances of a Conflict of Interest”
“Section 23(b)(3) prohibits a public employee from knowingly, or with reason to know, engaging in conduct which would cause a reasonable person to conclude that any person or entity can improperly influence the employee or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, or position of any person.
For example, issues may arise under this section if a matter involving a non-immediate family relative, a close friend or business associate, or a civic organization in which a public employee is a member comes before the public employee in his official capacity, even if the public employee is not otherwise required to abstain under G.L. c. 268A, sections 6, 13 or 19.  The public employee’s private relationship with such an individual or organization creates an impression that he could be biased in his official actions as a result of the private relationship.”

“Supplemental provisions; standards of conduct.”
“Section 23. (a) In addition to the other provisions of this chapter, and in supplement thereto, standards of conduct, as hereinafter set forth, are hereby established for all state, county and municipal employees.”
“(3) act in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that any person can improperly influence or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence of any party or person. It shall be unreasonable to so conclude if such officer or employee has disclosed in writing to his appointing authority or, if no appointing authority exists, discloses in a manner which is public in nature, the facts which would otherwise lead to such a conclusion;”

 http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ethhomepage&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Ieth
William Francis Galvin, MA Secretary of the Commonwealth, is responsible for elections

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/Ele/elespeif/senatorincongressma.htm

Given the MA statutes, state ethics laws and the precedent of swearing in Representative Niki Tsongas one day after the election, the Democrats have a major problem trying to perpetrate another illegal act, especially after they have advertised it ahead of time. 

Al Franken, MN senate election, Minnesota judge declares uncounted absentee ballots open to public inspection, January 8, 2010, Norm Coleman Republican opponent, Recount and court battle 312 votes

The MN senate race between Democrat Al Franken and Republican Norm Coleman smelled from start to finish. Recounts and a court decision handed Al Franken the senate seat with a margin of 312 votes.

From the Star Tribune, January 6, 2010.

“Minn. judge grants access to rejected ’08 ballots”

“ST. PAUL, Minn. – Six months after Democrat Al Franken tardily joined the U.S. Senate, a Minnesota judge has declared that uncounted absentee ballots from the drawn-out 2008 election should be open to public inspection.
The New Year’s Eve ruling from Ramsey County Judge Dale Lindman granted a media outlet’s request to inspect absentee ballots rejected as flawed, potentially giving a new glimpse into a Senate race that stretched well into 2009. Franken outlasted Republican incumbent Norm Coleman in a recount and court battle and won by 312 votes.
The ruling has its limitations and could be appealed. And there doesn’t appear to be any legal avenue for Coleman to change the election’s outcome.
For now, the decision applies only to Ramsey County, Minnesota’s second most populous. KSTP-TV and other Hubbard Broadcasting Corp. affiliates sued for access to the ballots there and have begun the legal process in Douglas, Olmsted and St. Louis counties, said Mark Anfinson, an attorney for the stations. No political interest is a party to the lawsuit.
Anfinson said he hopes Minnesota’s other 86 counties voluntarily defer to Lindman’s ruling. The goal of the ballot examination is to fully understand what worked and what didn’t in Minnesota’s election so policymakers can consider law changes, he said.
But even if as many as 10,000 uncounted ballots are eventually opened, it won’t be as simple as adding to each candidate’s tally.
“There’s no doubt that under any scheme of absentee ballot regulation some of those would be rejected,” Anfinson said. “There’s considerable effort that’s going to have to be invested in understanding why certain ballots weren’t accepted and others were.”

Rejected absentee ballots were a point of contention in the protracted election. Franken’s lawyers fought to get them re-examined and have some included in the count. During an election trial, Coleman’s attorneys tried to get more added by arguing that standards were inconsistently applied, with some counties taking a tougher stand than others.
For absentee ballots to count in Minnesota, voters must be registered, have a qualified witness, mail their signed ballot envelopes back before to Election Day and not cast a replacement ballot at the polls.”

Read more:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/80791362.html?elr=KArks:DCiUocOaL_nDaycUiacyKUUr

We have so much on our plates already. However, this procedural catastrophe, which I consider to be chicanery, should be investigated further. 

Thanks to the great commenter and patriot Joyce.

Kerchner V Obama and Congress, Support Kerchner lawsuit, Charles Kerchner CDR USNR, Attorney Mario Apuzzo, US Constitution, Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury V Madison, Obama birth certificate, Father Kenyan British, Barack Obama not natural born citizen, No birth certificate, Obama spends millions to avoid

“Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.”

“So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of  these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.” …Chief Justice Marshall, “Marbury V Madison”

 

I have been in contact with lead plaintiff Charles Kerchner and attorney Mario Apuzzo since the inception of their lawsuit against Obama and Congress. The lawsuit is still alive and they are actively engaged in raising public awareness about the lawsuit and eligibility issues. One of their efforts has been to advertise in the Washington Times. Advertising and court cases require much money. Charles Kerchner has asked for my assistance. The Citizen Wells blog has a new page devoted to the Kerchner V Obama lawsuit and there is a link on that page and blog front page for donations to the cause.

Why is this lawsuit and other lawsuits important, aside from the obvious objection of removing an illegal usurper from office and saving this country?

By mid 2008, two things were abundantly clear:
1. There was enough evidence against Obama to stop his campaign for the presidency and the mainstream media was in bed with him.

  • Documented close ties to Tony Rezko, Rod Blagojevich and numerous crime and corruption figures.
  • Obama had kept hidden almost all of his important records.
  • There was no legitimate evidence that Obama was eligible and much compelling evidence that Obama was not a natural born citizen.

2. A Chicken V Egg scenario was emerging due to the Orwellian public perception crafting of the Obama camp and mainstream media. The court cases must emerge and move forward.

  • The US Constitution must be upheld.
  • The US Citizens must know the truth.
  • A constitutional crisis had to be avoided by preventing an illegal usurper from taking the presidency.

The merits of eligibility lawsuits will not be discussed here. That exercise has it’s place in the classrooms, court rooms and forums of the nation. No one desires to diminish the protocols and thought processes. However, it is clear from reading the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall, in “Marbury V Madison” that he adheres to the intent of the founding fathers to follow the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land, trumping other legislation and procedures. It is also clear that judges and state officials have forgotten or ignored their solemn oaths to uphold the US Constitution. Judges appear to be more concerned about subtle nuances, protocol, and yes, politics, than fulfilling their constitutional roles.

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.”…Chief Justice Marshall, “Marbury V Madison”

So even though the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility is governed by the US Constitution and subsequent Admendments, judges and state officials have chosen to ignore their sacred duties and leave the American people devoid of the crucial protection of checks and balances and the protection of the supreme law of the land.

This has transformed the many eligibility lawsuits into a watershed role probably not envisioned by the founding fathers. We now have the lawsuits proving a point, critical to the survival of this nation, in the court of public information and common sense. Before the appearance of the multitude of lawsuits, the mainstream media in cahoots with the Obama camp, controlled public perceptions of Obama’s records and eligibility as well as legal definitions such as natural born citizen. Public awareness of Obama’s eligibility is still to a large extent governed by these Orwellian attempts. The straw that broke the camel’s back, imprisoned Al Capone and ultimately will be the Achilles heel of Obama, is a detail. In Capone’s case he was indicted on tax evasion charges. In Obama’s case it is the fact that he has spent so many resources to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and other records. This has been the blessing of the court cases. Despite the best attempts to pass the buck, play party politics and ignore constitutional responsibility, the truth about Barack Obama’s eligibility is emerging.
So why should you support an eligibility lawsuit? First and foremost we must demand that the US Constitution be adhered to as the supreme law of the land. Secondly, and what will ultimately indict Obama in the hearts and souls of the American public…

Why?

Barack Obama has employed a legion of private and government attorneys to prevent revealing his country of birth. Innocent and eligible persons seeking the office of president do not do that.
Support the Kerchner V Obama lawsuit and make certain you inform as many people as possible, Ask the simple question above.

From the new page at Citizen Wells.

 

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr, V Barack Hussein Obama II

Charles Kerchner
CDR USNR (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

Donate To The Cause

Charles Kerchner, Attorney Mario Apuzzo interview.

For more information about the history of this case:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Lt Col Donald Sullivan V NC Board of Elections, Elaine Marshall, NC Secretary of State, Update, December 7, 2009, Obama eligibility, Obama Kenyan born

 Here is the latest update December 7, 2009, from Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, plaintiff in a lawsuit against North Carolina Board of Elections, and Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State For North Carolina. Following the update is a copy of the lawsuit.

“Sullivan v. Secretary of State for North Carolina, 08CVS1076
RE:  Obama Eligibility
 
12-4-09:  Hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to amend, alter or vacate Judge Cobb’s order of October 10, 2008, dismissing subject lawsuit with prejudice.
 
Judge Cobb called the case for hearing at 11:00 AM.  Present were myself and Brandon Truman, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the Defendant.  I made my statement in support of my motion to delete the words “with prejudice” from the order dismissing the case.  I wanted this done because my filing of the second complaint against Obama’s eligibility included as defendants both the secretary of state and the board of elections.  The “with prejudice” made any future complaint against the secretary of state filed by me, including mine, moot “res judicata”. 
 
I argued that the case had been dismissed, not on its merits, but on procedural arguments from the State.  I argued that the order had been drafted by the State’s attorney at the request of the judge, and that the term “with prejudice” had not been the subject of any discussion during the hearing on the complaint.  Further, the Rule governing dismissals makes it clear that dismissals for procedure in first complaints typically are considered to be without prejudice unless otherwise noted.  Such a dismissal on a second complaint in the same matter is typically “with prejudice”.  This was my first case in the series.  I had no way of knowing whether or not the attorney put those words into the order or if the judge had done that himself; since I was not given the privilege of reviewing the proposed order prior to its being given to the judge.  I also made a “point of order” on the court’s not being properly set, since, upon information and belief, the State’s attorney did not have a proper oath of office.  I did this without argument, just for the record.
 
The State’s attorney responded that he did not recollect adding that language to his order, but he might have.  He just couldn’t be sure.  He argued that the case was not only dismissed on procedural errors, but also due to the fact that the Secretary of State has no statutory duty to do that which I requested the court to order her to do.  He also introduced the dismissal order from my second Obama case showing its mootness since Obama had already been inaugurated.  I objected to that order as being irrelevant to the instant case, but the judge allowed it. 
 
I responded that I agreed there was no statutory duty of the Secretary to do as I requested, but that there was a higher, constitutional authority to do so. 
 
Judge Cobb denied the motion, telling me in no uncertain terms that it was he who put the words “with prejudice” into the order.  I had told the State’s attorney I would not appeal this ruling prior to the hearing.  I will put all my effort into Obama II.  The denial in this case means the second case will lose the Secretary of State as a defendant, leaving only the Board of Elections to carry the ball.  Again, the only argument in that case is the constitutional duty also.  I have a hearing being scheduled for later this month or early in January to hear a similar motion to amend, alter or vacate the dismissal order from last March, 2009.  It will be heard by Judge Osmond Smith III out of Caswell County.”

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF WAKE File # 08CV21393
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, )

Plaintiff ) NOTICE AND DEMAND ) TO AMEND FINAL

v. ) JUDGMENT ORDER

) (CLASS ACTION)

North Carolina Board of Elections, and )

Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State )

For North Carolina, )

Defendants )

________________________________________________________________________

 
NOTICE AND DEMAND
 
 

 

Now come I, Lt. Colonel Donald Sullivan, Plaintiff, on behalf of myself and all others similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 59(a)(7), (8) and (e) and Rule 60 (b)(2), et seq., to notice and demand this court vacate, amend or alter its final order “signed” March 16, 2009, but dated October 2, 2009, and received by me on October 6, 2009, dismissing this action. This demand is based upon the newly discovered evidence infra, and upon the sworn duty of this court to “support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States” (Art. VI, Section 7, NC Const.).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
 
 

 

On November 7, 2008, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, I filed a class action complaint in this instant matter with the Pender County Clerk of Court demanding injunctive relief in the matter of the citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., his eligibility to have been a candidate on the North Carolina ballot for the office of President of the United States of America, and his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States of America. Defendants moved for a change of venue to Wake County; Motion was granted December 1, 2008. I filed in this action a Notice and Demand for a TRO on November 26, 2008, to prevent the NC Board of Elections from certifying the vote for the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States until the defendants had certified the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section 1. The Honorable R. Allen Baddour, Jr., presiding Superior Court Judge, denied said motion for TRO on December 15, 2008. On December 19, 2008, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss my complaint in its entirety pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to mootness, res judicata, and lack of standing; and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. I filed by mail a Motion to Amend my Notice and Demand for Injunctive Relief on December 19, 2008, seeking to add as defendants the Governor and the General Assembly, delete Para. 8.7, and delete the attachment of the claims for relief to the timing of the inauguration of the President, since the unreasonable and calculated court delays in this matter had rendered that element moot (A demand for injunctive relief being an extraordinary remedy which is normally heard immediately rather than being handled routinely as in the instant matter). On January 19, 2009, I filed a Notice and Demand for Class Certification seeking to represent all voters of North Carolina. Hearing was held on March 16, 2009, on the defendantÕs Motion to Dismiss and my Motion to Amend. On September 16, 2009, the attorney for the defendant e-mailed for my review a copy of the proposed order dismissing my case and denying my Demand. On September 21, 2009, I submitted my Objections to the Proposed Order by return e-mail. The subject order dismissing this action was issued by the Honorable W. Osmond Smith, Jr., on October 2, 2009, and dated March 16, 2009, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The final order contained no changes from that originally proposed.

PRESENTATION OF NEW EVIDENCE
 
 
 

 

The following is a statement of newly discovered evidence which was not available to me prior to the hearing on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and which was unknown and unavailable to me at that time:

1. A syndicated report by the Associated Press, published Sunday, June 27, 2004, by the Kenyan Standard Times and available in their electronic edition for that date at http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/ap-declares-obama-kenyan-born/ . The article, though well concealed by Google, may also be found posted at http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm  The AP reporter stated the following:

“Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat…” (Emphasis added).

One would expect that an AP reporter is too professional to submit a story which was not based on confirmed sources (ostensibly the Obama campaign in this case), the inference seems inescapable: Obama himself was putting out in 2004 that he was born in Kenya. This article was not refuted by the Obama camp. Further, during that same campaign in 2004, Mr. Obama, for the record and in response to Mr. Alan Keyes’ statement that Obama was not a Ònatural born citizenÓ, stated in quick retort, “So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency”.

2. On September 4, 2009, an Affidavit was filed as evidence in a federal case with the United States District Court in Santa Ana, California, by Mr. Lucas Smith. In this affidavit, he certified the legitimacy of a certified copy of a Kenyan birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., which he had personally obtained from Kenyan records. A copy of this birth certificate was filed concurrently with the affidavit, including a baby footprint, for the man who is currently referred to as President Barack Hussein Obama. The document is a legal affidavit that declares Lucas Smith to be of sound mind and judgment. Lucas Smith could go to jail if he lied on this affidavit.

3. On November 24, 2008, the following excerpts from an article by Chelsea Schilling appeared in the World Net Daily:

“A radio interview with Kenyan Ambassador Peter N.R.O. Ogego has been widely publicized since the ambassador called President-elect Barack Obama’s Kenyan birthplace a ‘well-known’ attraction – but the embassy is now telling WND the hosts misunderstood his comments.

“On Nov. 6, only two days after the election, Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF’s ‘Mike In The Morning’ called the Embassy of Kenya in Washington, D.C., to speak with Ambassador Ogego.

“The radio hosts were surprised when their light-hearted interview with Ogego reignited suspicions that Obama may have been born in Kenya.

“An assistant to the ambassador, referring to herself only as ‘Trudy,’ confirmed today that Ogego had indeed participated in the radio interview. But she said the show made leading statements and took the following comments out of context:

‘Clark: “We want to congratulate you on Barack Obama, our new president, and you must be very proud.”
‘Ogego: “We are. We are. We are also proud of the U.S. for having made history as well.”
‘Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”
‘Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.”

‘Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”

‘Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.'”

…”‘If you listen to the call in its entirety, you will find it was very obvious we were all talking about President-elect Barack Obama and not his father,’ Clark said.”

4. Here’s what it says at Obama’s web portal, Fight The Smears:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United KingdomÕs dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.”
(Emphasis and italics added.)Obama is telling us himself that his status was “governed” by a foreign jurisdiction.  This is no theory.  This is a fact. Like it or not, rich or poor, great or strong, Democrat or Republican, Obama was born under the jurisdiction of Great Britain via Kenya.  There is nothing conspiratorial about saying that.  Obama has it posted on his own web site. So, even if we accept that Mr Obama was born in Hawaii of a black Kenyan father and a 17-year-old white American mother, his citizenship is and constitutional eligibility for the presidency is still in question, since he is either a Brtish or Kenyan by birth, not an American. His American citizenship has never been confirmed or reinstated.
 
 

 

5. A letter dated 2 Februrary, 2009, from Michael Angelus to US Senator Maria Cantwell (D., VA) submitted four attachments including the following:

A. The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795;

B. The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790;

C. The actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789;

D. The actual text in a January 26, 2009 letter issued by United States Senator, Mark R. Warner.

Mr. Angelus also went on to include, Òand we also witness the apparent denial in the current United States Congress to address the phrase “natural born citizen.”

The purpose of the letter is to define what the Congress has concluded “natural born citizenship” to mean. Mr. Obama fails each of these tests for being natural born as required by Article 2, Section 1.

6. Upon information and belief, as one of his first acts as the newly installed “President”, Mr. Obama issued an executive order which sealed his personal papers, documents, records, transcripts, etc. from public scrutiny.

CONCLUSION
Therefore, because of the sworn duty of this court “to support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States”, and pursuant to the provisions of Rule 59 and Rule 60, supra, this court has the subject matter jurisdiction and the authority to grant the relief I am requesting based upon the new evidence herein provided, to vacate or alter the order of the court dismissing my complaint for injunctive relief and force the State of North Carolina, in the form of its elected and appointed officials, to properly and adequately protect the combined citizens of this State from an unconstitutionally elected chief executive of the United States; or, in the alternative, to confirm that Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., is indeed eligible to hold that office. Each of these elected and appointed officials, including this Honorable Court, has taken a solemn oath to do no less.
 
 

 

Any act repugnant to the Constitution is void ab initio. It carries no authority and creates no law. We learn this the first week of law school. Ignorance of the law, therefore, does not apply in this matter. I demand this court do its duty to the People, to this country and to themselves and confirm the constitutionality of the Obama “Presidency”. We have seen already the unintended consequences of enthroning an apparent imposter. There will be more unless we all do our duty. Honor requires no less.

Respectfully submitted this the Twenty-Ninth Day of October, 2009.

____________________________________ Donald Sullivan, Plaintiff, sui juris Lt. Col., USAFR(R) PO Box 3061 Wilmington, NC 28406 910-617-2559

 
 
 
 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do certify I have this Tewenty-Ninth Day of October, 2009, served a copy of the foregoing “Notice and Demand Amend Final Judgment Order” by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mails, certified with return receipt requested, or hand-delivered, and addressed as follows:
For Defendant Board of Elections:
State of North Carolina Department of Justice

ATTN: Susan K. Nichols, Special Attorney General

PO Box 629

Raleigh, NC 27602-0629

For Defendant Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State:

Brandon L. Truman

Assistant Attorney General

PO Box 629

Raleigh, NC 27626-0629

A copy is also being filed with the Clerk of Court for Wake County.

BY: ________________________________

Donald Sullivan, Lt Col, USAFR (Ret)

Plaintiff, Sui JurisPO Box 3061

Wilmington, NC 28406

  

Doug Hoffman winner?, Bill Owens’ Campaign orchestrated Election Fraud in NY-23?, Pre Election warning signs, Absentee ballots, Military votes, Election Night Irregularities

John Charlton, of The Post & Email, has just reported on election night irregularities in the Doug Hoffman, Bill Owens contest in NY-23. Is Doug Hoffman the winner?

“Looks Like Bill Owens’ Campaign orchestrated Election Fraud in NY-23”

“IMPOUNDMENT ORDER SOUGHT BY OWENS’ CAMPAIGN ENABLED HIS HOUSE APPOINTMENT”

“Even before a single vote was cast in the special election in the New York State 23rd Congressional District, the Times Union and Associated Press were reporting warning signs that might mar the credibility of the vote count.”

“But Tuesday’s vote will also mark one of the first large-scale uses of the state’s new digital devices, part of the long-awaited move from decades-old mechanical lever voting technology.

Of the 11 counties in the 23rd, seven will be using paper ballot/optical scanning voting systems rather than the lever machines, said John Conklin, spokesman for the state Board of Elections. Two counties will combine old and new systems, while another two — Clinton and Essex — are keeping lever machines.”

“Election-Night Irregularities

In the unofficial tally of votes in Madison County — published by the TCOT report — Hoffman received no votes in precincts in the towns of Fenner, Hamilton, Sullivan.  In Fenner and Sullivan, it appears that Hoffman’s votes were given to Scozzafava. It is not know whether these precincts were using the old lever-balloting systems or the new electronic scanning systems.  It should be noted that even in the electronic scanning systems, it is very easy to perpetrate voter fraud by tampering with the machinery or submitting duplicate ballots.

Impoundment Order sought by Owens’ Campaign used to his advantage

Nathan Barker of the Gouverneur Times reported just 50 minutes ago, that it was Bill Owens’ campaign which sought to have the voting machines impounded on Nov. 2nd, out of allegations of possible voter fraud, thus establishing cause and giving reasonable motive why Nancy Pelosi should not have seated Owens in the House.

The Owens’ campaign obtained an impound order, and kept the results under lock and key, until Hoffman conceded the race.  Only then did the Owens campaign release the impound order and allow the alleged initial vote count to support his claim to be victor. Nathan Barker writes:”

“Indeed, Nathan Barker of the Gouveneur Times just reported in a second article, 10 minutes ago, that this impounding order and the effect of preventing the U.S. House clerk knowing the actual election results on the day of the election, until such time as Hoffman conceded:

The Clerk of the House of Representatives requested results of the election from the NYS Board of Elections.  The NY Board of Elections could not release those results while the vote was impounded but after Mr. Hoffman’s concession of the election, based on erroneous information Hoffman had received with regard to the vote count, the Owens’ Campaign released their impound order.  This put the Board of Elections in a position where they could report the vote count to the Clerk of the House, although they emphasized that the results were unofficial and that they could not certify the result.”

“Hoffman’s Chance of Winning

Jude Seymour of the Watertown Daily Times, reported early this morning, also, that Hoffman does have a mathematical chance of winning, though it will be very difficult:

At the low point of her support during her active campaign, a Siena Research Institute poll released the day Ms. Scozzafava suspended her run suggested she had support from 20 percent of voters. If Ms. Scozzafava takes 20 percent of the absentee vote, Mr. Owens will need just 1,282 votes, or 18 percent, to hold off Mr. Hoffman.

The gap between Mr. Owens and Mr. Hoffman has shrunk by 2,159 since election night, after Oswego and Jefferson elections commissioners discovered human error had led to inaccurate reporting of results.”

Read more:

 http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/looks-like-bill-owens-campaign-orchestrated-election-fraud-in-ny-2r3d/#comment-2519

Nancy Pelosi certified Bill Owens illegally?, Voter fraud, November 12, 2009, Doug Hoffman winner?, NY-23 election, Oswego County voter fraud?, Pelosi corruption, NY congressional seat, Absentee ballots not counted

Did Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats steal the NY congressional seat?

 Barack Obama gained the Democratic nomination with voter fraud and strong arm tactics during the primaries and caucuses along with Nancy Pelosi’s help during the convention. Obama has strong longtime ties to ACORN, masters of corruption and voter fraud. With the focus on voter fraud in 2008 that continues on into 2009, Nancy Pelosi and her corrupt cronies have achieved another level of corruption and voter fraud.
Nancy Pelosi ramroded through an unpopular, socialist Health Care Bill last weekend by a margin of 2 votes.  Bill Owens apparent victory made a difference in the vote. Did Owens win the NY-23 election?

John Charlton of The Post & Email just brought a breaking story to our attention.

“It looks increasingly that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her zeal to get the Health Care Federalization Bill passed, may have sworn in an unelected candidate for the NY-23 Congressional District, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and New York State laws.

As a matter of fact, the Secretary of State of New York has not certified the election, in which Dough Hoffman and Bill Owens vied in a special election, nearly head to head, after Scozzafava retired in humiliation, having lost the support of conservatives in her district.”
“It turns out that Pelosi’s swearing-in of Owens had the political effect of garnering the addition Republican vote, of Cao, in the vote for the Health Care Bill, which passed narrowly, 220-215.  The election fraud therefore puts in doubt the legitimacy of that vote also.”

Read more:

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/massive-election-fraud-threw-vote-count-against-hoffman/

From the Syracuse Post Standard, November 12, 2009.

“Recanvassing shows NY-23 race tightens even as Rep. Bill Owens is sworn into House seat”

“Conservative Doug Hoffman conceded the race in the 23rd Congressional District last week after receiving two pieces of grim news for his campaign: He was down 5,335 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted on election night, and he had barely won his stronghold in Oswego County.

As it turns out, neither was true.

But Hoffman’s concession — based on snafus in Oswego County and elsewhere that left his vote undercounted — set off a chain of events that echoed all the way to Washington, D.C., and helped secure passage of a historic health care reform bill.

Democratic Rep. Bill Owens was quickly sworn into office on Friday, a day before the rare weekend vote in the House of Representatives. His support sealed his party’s narrow victory on the health care legislation.

Now a recanvassing in the 11-county district shows that Owens’ lead has narrowed to 3,026 votes over Hoffman, 66,698 to 63,672, according to the latest unofficial results from the state Board of Elections.

In Oswego County, where Hoffman was reported to lead by only 500 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted election night, inspectors found Hoffman actually won by 1,748 votes — 12,748 to 11,000.

The new vote totals mean the race will be decided by absentee ballots, of which about 10,200 were distributed, said John Conklin, communications director for the state Board of Elections.

Under a new law in New York that extended deadlines, military and overseas ballots received by this coming Monday (and postmarked by Nov. 2) will be counted. Standard absentee ballots had to be returned this past Monday.

Conklin said the state sent a letter to the House Clerk last week explaining that no winner had been determined in the 23rd District, and therefore the state had not certified the election. But the letter noted that Owens still led by about 3,000 votes, and that the special election was not contested — two factors that legally allowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to swear in Owens on Friday.

“We sent a letter to the clerk laying out the totals,” Conklin said. “The key is that Hoffman conceded, which means the race is not contested. However, all ballots will be counted, and if the result changes, Owens will have to be removed.”

Before Owens was sworn in Friday, Rep. John Garamendi, a Democrat who won a special election in California, was sworn in Thursday. The two gave Pelosi the votes she needed to reach a majority of 218 and pass the historic health care reform legislation in the House.”

“Ryan said an important factor in the decision to concede was the unexpected — and erroneous — close vote in Oswego County, where polls had Hoffman with a double digit percentage point lead heading into Election Day.

“That’s the thing that threw us off,” Ryan said.

Oswego County elections officials blame the mistakes on “chaos” in their call-in center that included a phone system foul-up and inspectors who read numbers incorrectly when phoning in results. Of 245 races in the county — not including the congressional and court races — 84 had incorrect totals reported election night.

In the congressional race, more votes were cast in Oswego County than any other in the 11-county district.”

“Jerry Eaton, the Republican elections commissioner for Jefferson County, said inspectors found a problem in four districts where Hoffman’s vote total was mistakenly entered as zero.

“Hoffman definitely gained votes where he didn’t have them,” Eaton said.”

“Ryan said the absentee ballots are likely to favor Hoffman because most were likely mailed before Republican Dede Scozzafava suspended her campaign three days before the election.

“For Doug to win, we needed a three-way race,” Ryan said, adding that the campaign’s internal polls showed Hoffman would win with all three candidates.

“Given the majority of these ballots are from a three-way race, we think the ballots are going to break Doug’s way,” Ryan said.”

Read more:

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/its_not_over_recanvassing_shows_ny23_race.html

Corzine, Christie, NJ Governor race, Voter fraud, Absentee ballots, Mismatched Signatures, New Jersey Democratic party, provisional ballots, Republican Chris Christie lead, Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells, absentee ballot fraud

We watched voter fraud and voter intimidation occur repeatedly during the primaries, caucuses and general election in 2008. The Governor’s race in NJ is close between Jon Corzine and Chris Christie and Obama is making his third campaign visit for Corzine on Monday. No one will be surprised to find out that controversies are already arising about possible voting irregularities.

From The National Review Online, October 29, 2009.

“Democrats Ask New Jersey Secretary of State to Ignore Mismatched Signatures on Absentee-Ballot Requests

This year, New Jersey’s registered voters can request a mail-in ballot for any reason. (Before 2005, voters needed to provide a reason for why they needed an absentee ballot.) The state received about 150,000 absentee-ballot applications this year.

On about 2,300 of those applications so far, the signature on the request form does not match the signature on the voter’s registration forms with the state.

In a development that is depressingly predictable, the New Jersey Democratic party is asking the state to provide provisional ballots for all these voters. Those ballots could, presumably, be used to overcome any narrow lead by Republican Chris Christie over Democrat Jon Corzine on Election Day.”
“Could some of these cases be an election official misjudging the natural deviation in two handwriting samples from the same person? Certainly, and that’s why the current system has clerks reaching out to rejected voters (presuming they actually exist) to sort out the discrepancy. But Democrats want to short-circuit the established methods of sorting out the problem, and in fact to ban rejections based on signature mismatches entirely.

Paul P. Josephson, a lawyer representing the New Jersey Democratic State Committee, wrote to Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells, asking her to “instruct County Clerks not to deny (vote by mail) applications on the basis of signature comparison alone.””
“The fears of absentee-ballot fraud in New Jersey is not theoretical or far-fetched. Earlier this year, Atlantic City councilman Marty Small and 13 people who worked on his unsuccessful mayoral campaign “were indicted on charges they conspired to commit election fraud during the June Democratic primary through a variety of schemes involving messenger absentee ballots, state Attorney General Anne Milgram announced in Trenton.” One of those workers has already pled guilty. Five workers were indicted on similar charges in Essex County in August.

Suspicious minds see the letter as an attempt to create a pool of emergency votes to be used if Christie holds a small lead on Election Night. The Secretary of State has not yet responded to the Democrats’ request.”

Read more:

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTg3YTE5Yjk1Y2Q2NDZiMjQ2ODc1MjY4YmRiYWUyMjQ

 

Thanks to commenter Nancy for the lead.

H1N1, Obama Declares National Emergency, October 24, 2009, Bill of Rights revoked?, Stafford Act, National Emergencies Act, Public Health Emergency Fund, Federal emergency authorities, Rights have been now officially suspended.

I first heard about Obama declaring a national emergency due to the H1N1 flu this morning as I was driving down the highway. I was warned many months ago that the flu was coming and that Obama would use it as an excuse to exercise more power over the American public. One of the people that warned me of this, in March of 2009, before the public awareness of a coming flu, a retired military officer, just sent me some information.

October 24, 2009,  approx 7:50 PM ET.

“Obama declares swine flu a national emergency”

“President Barack Obama declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency and empowered his health secretary to suspend federal guidelines at hospitals and speed up how infected people might receive treatment in a disaster.

The declaration that Obama signed late Friday means Health and Human Services chief Kathleen Sebelius to bypass federal rules when opening alternative care sites, such as offsite hospital centers at schools or community centers, if needed.

Hospitals could modify patient rules — for example, requiring them to give less information during a hectic time — to quicken access to treatment, with government approval. The declaration, which the White House announced Saturday, allows HHS in some cases to let hospitals relocate emergency rooms offsite to reduce flu-related burdens and to protect noninfected patients.

Administration officials said the declaration was a pre-emptive move designed to make decisions easier when they need to be made. Officials said this was not in response to any single development on an outbreak that has lasted months and has killed more than 1,000 people in the United States.

It was the second of two steps needed to give Sebelius extraordinary powers during a crisis. On April 26, the administration declared swine flu a public health emergency, allowing the shipment of roughly 12 million doses of flu-fighting medications from a federal stockpile to states in case they eventually needed them. At the time, there were 20 confirmed cases in the U.S. of people recovering easily. There was no vaccine against swine flu, but the CDC had taken the initial step necessary for producing one.”

Read more:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091024/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_swine_flu

 

“What does this mean for YOU?   It means the Federal Government has just declared its right to revoke the Bill of Rights:
 
A National Emergency, under the Stafford Act:
 
Quote:
With respect to the current outbreak, the Public Health Emergency Fund is available (but is
currently unfunded)17 and Emergency Use Authorizations have been granted by FDA.18 However,
the Secretary’s waiver and modification authority has not been activated because there is no
concurrent presidential declaration under either the Stafford Act or the National Emergencies Act.
(comment: report published in May 2009)
 
So declaring this emergency doesn’t really make more funds available.  They don’t EXIST!  So, that’s not the reason……
Quote:
A presidential declaration under the Stafford Act triggers federal emergency authorities that are
independent of the Secretary’s public health emergency authorities. Declarations under the
Stafford Act fall into two categories: emergency declarations and major disaster declarations. As
of this point in time, there have been no Stafford Act declarations pertaining to the current
influenza A(H1N1) virus outbreak. A presidential emergency declaration under the Stafford Act
authorizes the President to direct federal agencies to support state and local emergency assistance
activities; coordinate disaster relief provided by federal and non-federal organizations; provide
technical and advisory assistance to state and local governments; provide emergency assistance
through federal agencies; remove debris through grants to state and local governments; provide
assistance to individuals and households for temporary housing and uninsured personal needs;

and assist state and local governments in the distribution of medicine, food, and consumables.19
The total amount of assistance available is limited in an emergency declaration to $5 million,
“unless the President determines that there is a continuing need; Congress must be notified if the
$5 million ceiling is breached.
 
Source:  Document prepared for Congress in May, 2009:  http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40560_20090506.pdf
 
Now, we’re getting down to the real reasons…..
 
Further of interest from this document:
 
Quote:
A major disaster declaration authorizes the President to offer all the assistance authorized under
an emergency declaration, and further authorizes funds for the repair and restoration of federal
facilities, unemployment assistance, emergency grants to assist low-income migrant and seasonal
farm workers, food coupons and distribution, relocation assistance, crisis counseling assistance
and training, community disaster loans, emergency communications, and emergency public
transportation.23 Additionally, the total amount of assistance provided in a major disaster
declaration is not subject to a ceiling in the same way as under an emergency declaration.
 
And here is the money quote:
 
Quote:

The Public Health Service Act and the Stafford Act contain authorities that
allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the President, respectively, to take certain
actions during emergencies or disasters. While the primary authority for quarantine and isolation
in the United States resides at the state level, the federal government has jurisdiction over
interstate and border quarantine. Border entry and border closing issues may arise in the context
of measures designed to keep individuals who have, or may have, influenza A(H1N1) from
crossing U.S. borders. Aliens with the H1N1 virus can be denied entry, but American citizens
cannot be excluded from the United States solely because of a communicable disease, although
they may be quarantined or isolated at the border for health reasons. Airlines have considerable
discretion to implement travel restrictions relating to the safety and/or security of flights and other
passengers and crew. In addition, the federal government has broad legal authority to regulate and
control the navigable airspace of the United States in dealing with incidents involving
communicable diseases. States have authority to initiate other emergency measures such as
mandatory vaccination orders and certain nonpharmaceutical interventions such as school
closures, which may lessen the spread of an infectious disease. The International Health
Regulations adopted by the World Health Organization in 2005 provide a framework for
international cooperation against infectious disease threats.

The use of these emergency measures to contain the influenza A(H1N1) virus outbreak may raise
a classic civil rights issue: to what extent can an individual’s liberty be curtailed to advance the
common good? The U.S. Constitution and federal civil rights laws provide for individual due
process and equal protection rights as well as a right to privacy, but these rights are balanced
against the needs of the community.
 
And there you have it, in black and white.  I make no determination as to whether H1N1A is truly the public threat they are presenting, although there have been deaths of children at a concerning rate, even here in Michigan – the fact is, the Stafford Act allows the Federal Government to strip away all your rights.  While this National Emergency is in effect, this gives the Federal Government carte blanche to use this declaration for whatever it pleases.  Rights have been now officially suspended.”
 
Stephanie S. Jasky,   Founder, Director
Follow Us on Twitter

https://twitter.com/FedUpUSA

http://fedupusa.org

ACORN voter fraud, Minnesota, Petition, Minnesota Majority, Investigation of ACORN in Minnesota, Al Franken, Norm Coleman, MN Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, 43,000 new voters, 2008 election

The Minnesota senate race between Democrat Al Franken and Republican Norm Coleman was extremely close and the lead has changed several times. Even before the general election, there was concern about ACORN voter fraud in MN.

October 14, 2008

“As I expected, the investigations into ACORN and voter fraud has arrived to our fair state. From KSTP:

The Hennepin County attorney announced Tuesday they’ve launched an investigation into an allegation that an individual with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, did not fully comply with Minnesota voter registration rules.

According to the allegation, a batch of registration forms were turned into the office of elections outside the ten-day period, but were turned in early enough to be registered to vote in the September primary.”

Read more:

http://www.freedomdogs.com/news-archive-mainmenu-2/120-campaign-trail/3200-acorn-voter-fraud-investigation-comes-to-minnesota.html

The win that was ultimately given to Al Franken has been challenged in court and new challenges continue to surface in light of more voting irregularities that have been discovered. Now, with the ever increasing awareness of ACORN monetary and voter fraud, there is a heightened sense that the votes in Minnesota should be subject to more scrutiny.

From Minnesota Majority, October 1, 2009:

“The Destruction of ACORN, the Strategy of Breitbart & Why We Must All Remain Vigilant”

“Yesterday, Minnesota Majority, together with 8 Minnesota gubernatorial candidates, issued a letter to Attorney General Lori Swanson calling for a formal investigation into potential illegal activities on the part of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in Minnesota.

 
Recent news stories have revealed evidence of apparent systematic corruption within the ACORN organization.  At least 15 other states have launched investigations into potential election law and other violations on the part of ACORN.  A report issued earlier this year by the US House of Representatives Oversight Committee stated that “ACORN has repeatedly and deliberately engaged in systemic fraud. Both structurally and operationally, ACORN hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate.”

Yet here in Minnesota, where we have just had a US Senate race decided by fewer than 400 votes, incredibly there has been no official statewide investigation into the ACORN organization.  Senator Al Franken, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and Attorney General Lori Swanson were all endorsed by ACORN and elected to their offices with their help, but it is our hope that they will place the execution of the duties of their offices ahead of any political allegiances. These officials can prove their loyalty to the voters of Minnesota by responding to your call for an official statewide investigation into ACORN’s activities in Minnesota.”

Read more:

http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Home/tabid/112/EntryID/216/Default.aspx

 

“Petition Calling for an Investigation of ACORN in Minnesota 
 

Whereas recent news stories have revealed evidence of apparent systematic corruption within the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN), and
 
Whereas a report issued by the US House of Representatives Oversight Committee states that ACORN has repeatedly and deliberately engaged in systemic fraud, and
 
Whereas at least 15 other states have launched investigations into potential election law and other violations on the part of ACORN, and
 
Whereas Minnesota Majority’s review of voter registration records has revealed thousands of irregularities, and
 
Whereas ACORN has publically acknowledged it was responsible for registering over 43,000 new voters in Minnesota prior to the 2008 election;
 
Therefore I do hereby call for for an official statewide investigation by law enforcement officials into potential illegal activities on the part of ACORN in the state of Minnesota.”

 
Bill O’Reilly: Sen Al Franken Won By ‘Acorn’ Voter Fraud?