Category Archives: Voter fraud

Clinton immigration abuse, Blatant politicization of INS during 1996 presidential campaign, White House pressured INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program, Grant citizenship to thousands of aliens counted as likely Democratic voters, David Schippers Bill Clinton impeachment investigation

Clinton immigration abuse, Blatant politicization of INS during 1996 presidential campaign, White House pressured INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program, Grant citizenship to thousands of aliens counted as likely Democratic voters, David Schippers Bill Clinton impeachment investigation

“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigration.”…Hillary Clinton, WABC 2003

On Hillary Clinton: “evil incarnate.”…David Schippers

“The devil’s in that woman.”…Miss Emma, Clinton’s cook, governor’s mansion

 

 

Most Americans know little about The President Bill Clinton Impeachment.

Most Americans, if they know anything, believe that Clinton was impeached for fooling around with Monica Lewinsky in the White House.

Wrong!

Clinton was being investigated for a variety of indiscretions.

And this was no right wing conspiracy.

From Citizen Wells August 25, 2016.

“David Philip Schippers served as chief counsel to the United States House of Representatives managers for the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in the U.S. Senate from Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 1999.”

“From 1963 to 1967, Schippers served as a member and later the chief of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Department of Justice at Chicago.”

“Unlike his counterpart, Abbe Lowell, who is serving as the chief investigative counsel for the Democrats, Schippers is no Washington insider. He also isn’t a screaming partisan. Indeed, though a lifelong Democrat, he was hired in the spring by a Republican, Rep. Henry Hyde of Chicago, the panel’s chairman. The two men have been friends for 30 years. Hyde asked him to review Justice Department operations but to be ready to shift gears if Starr sent an impeachment report.”

https://citizenwells.com/2016/08/25/david-schippers-exposed-criminal-activity-of-bill-and-hillary-clinton-no-right-wing-conspiracy-schippers-life-long-democrat-chief-investigative-counsel-for-the-us-house-of-representatives/

From David Schippers book, “Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment”.

“My staff and I agreed that we needed to focus on the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which appeared to be running out of control. By the time we came to the subject, investigations by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and congressional committees had already indicated that the White House used the INS to further its political agenda. A blatant politicization of the agency took place during the 1996 presidential campaign when the White House pressured the INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program to grant citizenship to thousands of aliens that the White House counted as likely Democratic voters. To ensure maximum impact, the INS concentrated on aliens in key states — California, Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Texas — that hold a combined 181 electoral votes, just 89 short of the total needed to win the election.

The program was placed under the direction of Vice President Al Gore. We received from the GAO a few e-mails indicating Vice President Gore’s role in the plan (which are included in Appendix A at the back of the book). He was responsible for keeping the pressure on, to make sure the aliens were pushed through by September 1, the last day to register for the presidential election.

In our investigation we uncovered a case study evidencing what is pejoratively known in political science circles as “Chicago Politics.”

Back in the early years of the twentieth century, “Hinky Dink” Kenna and “Bathouse” John Coughlin were recognized as the very models of the unsavory Chicago politician. The two once fixed an aldermanic election in Chicago’s First Ward. To do so, they imported thousands of ward heelers, friends, associates, and city workers and had them registered to vote from every building in the ward — from homes (of which there were few) to taverns and cribs (of which there were many). On Election Day the recent arrivals stopped at Hinky Dink’s tavern, picked up fifty cents, ate a free lunch, and went out to vote their consciences. Guess who won that election?

Essentially, the same tactics were used during President Clinton’s reelection in 1996. Only this time the Democrats weren’t handing out sandwiches. Instead, through CUSA, they were circumventing normal procedures for naturalizing aliens — procedures that check backgrounds and weed out criminals — and consequently they were handing out citizenship papers to questionable characters.”

“The White House wanted any applicant for citizenship to be naturalized in time to register for the November election, so the pressure on the INS was constant. On March 21 Elaine Kamarck in the Vice President’s office sent an e-mail to Farbrother saying: “THE PRESIDENT IS SICK OF THIS AND WANTS ACTION. IF NOTHING MOVES TODAY WE’LL HAVE TO TAKE SOME PRETTY DRASTIC MEASURES.” Farbrother responded, “I favor drastic measures.” If he couldn’t get what he wanted from the INS, he wrote, he would “call for heavy artillery.””

“Federal regulations require that, for an alien to obtain citizenship, his application for naturalization (citizenship) must be accompanied by a complete set of the alien’s fingerprints. The fingerprint cards are then sent to the FBI to determine if the applicant has a criminal or arrest record. The law provides that an application may be denied if the alien has a serious criminal record or if he falsely denies ever having been arrested, even if he was never convicted.

In the INS district offices, the alien applicant for naturalization cannot be scheduled for a personal interview until at least 60 days after the application is submitted. This delay is specifically intended to allow sufficient time for an FBI fingerprint check. If the check reveals an arrest record identification, the arrest report is inserted in the alien’s file prior to the interview. An arrest record does not automatically result in a denial of citizenship, but it alerts an examiner to spend additional time questioning the applicant and to request that he furnish further information.

If there is no criminal arrest record in the file prior to the interview, the examiner will assume that none exists. For that reason, the INS has always considered the FBI fingerprint check to be the only practical way of preventing violent felons, dope peddlers, and the like from obtaining citizenship. Any breakdown in the collecting, checking, and reporting of the fingerprints can cause a breakdown of the entire process.

In our investigation we developed sources inside the INS with specific knowledge of the facts who revealed that FBI arrest records that were being sent to the Chicago INS office simply were not being inserted into the aliens’ files. As a result, aliens with criminal records were being granted citizenship.

Our sources also disclosed that, just prior to the 1996 voter registration deadline, a box was discovered in the Chicago INS office containing nearly five thousand FBI arrest reports — reports that had arrived in time but had been ignored.

Later, when the office discovered that those reports had never been processed, the INS initially tried to blame the FBI, claiming that the Bureau had not provided the arrest records within the 60-day window. But the FBI had done its job in a timely manner. Then the INS tried to convince the public that the foul-up really hadn’t harmed the process much. The agency cited statistics showing that the rejection rate of 17 percent was just about what it had always been, so no harm, no foul. But the INS neglected to take into account the thousands of aliens with criminal arrest records who were not rejected, even though they would have been under the normal procedures. If the traditional process had been followed, the rejection rate in the summer of 1996 would have easily exceeded 30 percent and perhaps have been even higher.

The White House, the INS, and the Justice Department publicly denied any political motive in the CUSA program to expedite the citizenship procedure. What the United States got is undeniable:
More than 75,000 new citizens who had arrest records when they applied;

An additional 115,000 citizens whose fingerprints were unclassifiable for various technical reasons and were never resubmitted; and

Another 61,000 people who were given citizenship with no fingerprints submitted at all.
Those numbers were developed by the accounting firm of KPMG Peat Marwick as a result of an audit of the 1996 CUSA program.

What we had here was a perfect example of the Clinton-Gore administration’s overarching political philosophy: “The ends justify the means,” coupled with “win at any cost.” It was a philosophy of governance that, as our investigations into other areas proceeded, we would find repeated again and again.

When the results of the KPMG Peat Marwick audit were made public, the INS and Justice vowed to remedy the situation, root out the felons, and revoke erroneously awarded citizenship. Everyone congratulated the administration for acting so quickly — and then promptly forgot about it.”

“We received no cooperation from either the Justice Department or the INS. Instead we received nothing but complaints about not going through the proper channels, investigating old news, being partisan — if not racist — and so on. But we reasoned that if criminals were given citizenship in 1996, at least some of them had probably continued their criminal activity in the two years since. We asked the GAO — an investigative agency that works for Congress and is therefore not subject to White House or Justice Department pressures — to give us FBI arrest records related to the CUSA program. We were given unquestioned cooperation and boxes of FBI reports.

We reviewed every document in those boxes, pulling out about a hundred of the most violent or serious crimes committed by aliens prior to naturalization and documented by arrest records. I specifically excluded minor immigration crimes, tax offenses, or white-collar crimes such as driving under the influence. I asked the staff to search for drug trafficking and violent crimes such as rape and child abuse. Those are the types of crimes that are most often repeated. A child abuser tends to abuse again, and a rapist tends to rape again.

After a few days — and going through only a few of the 20 or so boxes — we had our basic 100 heinous crimes, including one criminal who was actually in jail at the time he was naturalized.

We asked the FBI if it had arrest records for crimes committed by the same aliens in this country since 1996 and sent them our one hundred profiles.

Less than a week later, the FBI sent the updated arrest records to the Justice Department. (Per an agreement between the FBI and the Justice Department, all materials requested from the Bureau must go through Justice.) But when we inquired about them, the department claimed that it hadn’t yet received the records. An hour later, however, Justice called back to say that the “misplaced” reports had been located.

Of those 100 arrest records updated by the Bureau, some 20 percent showed arrests for serious crimes after the subject was given citizenship. Based on these random results, we asked for updates on every arrest record in our 20 boxes. Our plan was to update every report, using only FBI numbers and with the FBI redacting all identifying information to address the issue of privacy concerns. If, as we anticipated, anywhere near 20 percent came back with subsequent crimes, we would then confront the Justice Department, demand the identity and address of these known criminals, and point out that they had been given citizenship illegally and were still engaged in criminal activity. Unfortunately, before we could go further, the referral from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr arrived. Had we been given sufficient time to develop evidence and witnesses, the CUSA matter might have been included in the abuse of power impeachment article.

The 1996 arrest records are still available, and I am sure the FBI is still willing to update all of them. In the meantime, thousands of criminals are now citizens of the United States because it was assumed they would vote for Bill Clinton and Al Gore.”

Read more:

http://cis.org/BookReview-InsideStoryClintonImpeachment

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Advertisements

Rosemary Jenks testimony before the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee US House of Representatives April 30, 1997, Clinton Gore Citizenship USA CUSA program granted citizenship to likely Democrat voters, 71557 FBI criminal records, Why was this scrubbed on December 9, 2004?

Rosemary Jenks testimony before the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee US House of Representatives April 30, 1997, Clinton Gore Citizenship USA CUSA program granted citizenship to likely Democrat voters, 71557 FBI criminal records, Why was this scrubbed on December 9, 2004?

“In October 1996, in one of the first public accounts of this matter, former Center Senior Fellow Rosemary Jenks testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration about many of the abuses surrounding the Citizenship USA program. Ms. Jenks concluded that due to pressure from the White House, and in particular the Vice President’s office, the Immigration and Naturalization Service disregarded many of the requirements of the naturalization process that ensure that only qualified immigrants with no significant criminal history may become citizens. She subsequently testified before the House immigration subcommittee on the same matter, in April 1997. Her remarks before that committee may be found at http://www.house.gov/judiciary/666.htm.”…David Schippers October 2000

“Why did the US House of Representatives website scrub the April 30, 1997 testimony of Rosemary Jenks on December 9, 2004?”…Citizen Wells

“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigration.”…Hillary Clinton, WABC 2003

Statement of

Rosemary Jenks,

Senior Fellow,

Center for Immigration Studies,

Washington, DC

Before the

Immigration and Claims Subcommittee

of the

Committee on the Judiciary

of the

United States House of Representatives

April 30, 1997

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Rosemary Jenks, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit, non-advocacy research institution. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss an issue that is central to our national identity, the bond that holds us united as one people: United States citizenship. United States citizenship is the most valuable and the most cherished privilege our nation can bestow upon an individual. It is a privilege that is sought by millions around the world. It carries with it the right to travel freely, to hold certain public offices and to petition for the immigration of family members. Most importantly, however, it carries with it the right, and the responsibility, to take part in shaping and securing the future of this country by voting for elected officials at all levels of government.

The requirements for naturalization are set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Among other things, applicants are required to submit an application form, the N-400, a copy of their alien registration card, the “green card,” fingerprints, photographs and a fee of $95 to the INS. In general, they must prove that they are at least 18 years of age; that they have resided in the United States as lawful permanent residents for a minimum of five years (unless they marry a U.S. citizen, in which case it is three years); that they are able to read, write, speak and understand English; that they have at least a minimal knowledge of U.S. history and government; that they are of good moral character; and that they do not have a serious criminal record. Upon receiving the N-400 and the accompanying paper work, INS enters the information into an INS database and forwards the fingerprints to the FBI for a criminal record check. As of November 29, 1996, INS policy is to wait for a definitive response from the FBI regarding the criminal record check before scheduling an interview with the applicant. During the interview, INS examiners (or District Adjudications Officers, DAOs) review the information on the N-400 and test the applicant’s knowledge of English, history and civics, unless he or she presents a certificate from one of the non-government testing entities. If all the requirements are met, the application is approved and the applicant is scheduled for a swearing in ceremony. Otherwise, the application is either denied or continued, depending on the nature of the problem.

Citizenship USA

At the start of FY 1994, when Commissioner Meissner took office, some 270,000 N-400 applications were pending (not including any that had been received, but not been entered into the computer). The number of N-400 applications received in FY 1994 (543,353) surpassed FY 1993 receipts (521,866) by only 21,487. At the beginning of FY 1995, however, the backlog of applications had grown to more than 314,000 and INS expected a surge in new applications because of a combination of factors, including the 2.7 million beneficiaries of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) amnesty becoming eligible based on the five-years residence requirement, the passage of Proposition 187 in California in November 1994, and legislative proposals to bar noncitizens from certain means-tested welfare benefits.

To prepare for this expected surge, an INS working group conducted a survey in June 1994 of ways to streamline the naturalization process. Then, in April of 1995, Commissioner Meissner contracted a management consulting firm, PRC, to work with INS staff to overhaul the naturalization process. PRC and the INS staff conducted a four-week review of the process and produced a “radical redesign” of naturalization. The final report, issued in May 1995, is called Results in 30 Days: Re-Engineering the Naturalization Process. Among other things, it recommends that INS develop strong partnerships with “Service Providers”–community-based organizations (CBOs) and voluntary agencies (VOLAGS)–which would involve “total sharing of information, joint decision making, and aggressive coloration aimed at best meeting the needs of the applicant.” It recommends the introduction of high-tech, fully automated and integrated systems to facilitate data entry and criminal background checks, in addition to automatically triggering “pre-qualified ‘invitations’ to immigrants as they become legally eligible for citizenship.” It adds that “long-standing interpretations of eligibility laws and regulations will be reviewed to…[focus] upon meeting the demands of today’s eligible customers.” Finally, it concludes that processing time from submission “to approval will be reduced to ‘same day service’ for 80% of the applicants.”

In June, 1995, Commissioner Meissner submitted a request that the naturalization program be designated as a “Reinvention Lab” under the auspices of Vice President Gore’s National Performance Review (NPR). Her request letter and subsequent INS documentation make clear that the PRC report was to provide the basis for the “re-engineering” of the naturalization process.

In the meantime, N-400 applications were on the rise and examiners were being overwhelmed. District Offices lacked the equipment they needed to process N-400s efficiently. Many offices did not have access to the Naturalization Automated Case System (NACS) database, and those that did were experiencing problems with it.

Commissioner Meissner unveiled the “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) initiative on August 31, 1995. The stated objective of CUSA, at least initially, was “to become current” on N-400 applications, meaning that applications would be processed from start to citizenship within six months, by the end of FY 1996. INS designated five “CUSA cities,” including Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Miami and Chicago, which had the largest numbers of pending cases when the program started. Resources, including personnel, equipment and building space, were to be funneled into these five cities, which would serve as the “Reinvention Labs.”

The naturalization initiative was approved as an NPR Reinvention Lab on September 5, 1995. On September 11, Commissioner Meissner forwarded to all field offices the executive summary of the PRC report with a memo explaining its origin and asking for comments. She wrote that “wherever possible, we will use validated re-engineering techniques as outlined in the PRC report to attack the caseload.” She added that the report offers “a basic road map for change.”

In January 1996, INS implemented a “Direct Mail” initiative in all the CUSA cities except San Francisco. Under this system, N-400s are mailed directly to one of the four INS Service Centers (Vermont Service Center (VSC), Nebraska Service Center (NSC), Texas Service Center (TSC) and California Service Center (CSC)) instead of being submitted to District Offices. The Service Centers are supposed to enter the application data into NACS and pull the fingerprint cards and submit them daily to the FBI.

The implementation of the Direct Mail initiative resulted in almost immediate chaos. Neither Service Center staff nor District Offices fully understood the new procedures. INS offices around the country were being overwhelmed by the increase in N-400 applications–the largest group of aliens amnestied in 1986 had met the five-year residence requirement by December 1995. CUSA offices, in addition to being inundated with backlogged and new cases, were attempting to adopt the new “re-engineered” and streamlined adjudication process, thus compounding the confusion. Non-CUSA offices had been forced to detail some portion of their resources, mainly personnel, to the CUSA offices, so they, too, were falling behind. The number of N-400 applications pending on October 1, 1995 surpassed 800,000, and new applications were being received in record numbers.

On May 1, 1996, INS Associate Commissioner for Examinations Louis Crocetti announced in a memo to all field offices that the “new ideas and innovative procedures” that were tested at CUSA sites with “remarkable results,” were to be expanded Servicewide to all offices. As the nationwide expansion of these “Streamlining Initiatives” was predicated on the “remarkable results” of the pilots in the CUSA cities, a brief look at those results is warranted.

Adjudication Speed–The five CUSA cities managed to accelerate naturalization processing times from more than one year in many cases to six months. This allowed the INS to meet its goal of adjudicating more than one million naturalization applications in FY 1996, but only at great cost to the integrity of the system.

FBI Fingerprint Checks–A February 1994 report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Justice Department identified three major problems with the INS policy on fingerprint checks: 1) the INS had no way to verify that the fingerprints submitted by an applicant actually belonged to that applicant since the INS was no longer taking the fingerprints itself; 2) some applications were wrongly approved because the FBI had not completed the criminal history check before the interview was scheduled or because the FBI “hit” had not been properly filed; and 3) INS often did not resubmit new fingerprint cards when the FBI rejected the original set as illegible. OIG found that 5.4 percent of aliens submitting applications for benefits had an arrest record. The top reasons for arrest were immigration violations/deportation proceedings (32%), assault/battery/rape (19%), theft/robbery/burglary (18%) and drug possession/distribution (10%). A December 1994 General Accounting Office (GAO) report identified the same problems with the INS fingerprint policy.

The “streamlined” naturalization process did not address any of these problems, but instead, exacerbated them. The INS still had no way to verify that the fingerprints an applicant submitted actually belonged to the applicant. In May 1995, the INS published a proposed rule to require that all applicants have their fingerprints taken by an INS-certified “designated fingerprint service” (DFS). Personnel at these DFSs would be properly trained to take fingerprints and fill out the necessary paperwork, and they would be required to ask for identification showing that the person named on the fingerprint card was the same person being fingerprinted. The final rule, however, was not published until June 1996, and final implementation was delayed from November 1, 1996 to March 1, 1997 to insure that INS had certified an adequate number of DFSs.

Fingerprint cards were supposed to be mailed by the Service Centers to the FBI on a daily basis to insure that the FBI had adequate time to run the criminal history check. In March 1996, however, the FBI did a sampling of receipts from 20 INS offices. Over 60 percent of the fingerprint cards received from Los Angeles had been at the Los Angeles office for more than 30 days before they were submitted. For the New York City office, 90 percent had been at the office for more than 30 days. At the same time the INS was dramatically increasing the workload of the FBI, it was, in practice, cutting the FBI’s response time.

The preliminary results of the INS internal review of naturalization applications approved during CUSA, as presented to the Subcommittee by Assistant Attorney General for Administration Stephen Colgate clearly show that the problems were severe. Of the 1,049,872 immigrants granted U.S. citizenship under CUSA:

71, 557 were found to have FBI criminal records, including INS administrative actions (e.g., deportation proceedings or other immigration violations), and misdemeanor and felony arrests and convictions;

Of these 71,557, 10,800 had at least one felony arrest, 25,500 had at least one misdemeanor arrest, but no felonies, and 34,700 had only administrative actions initiated against them;

113,126 had only name checks because their fingerprint cards were returned to the INS by the FBI because they were illegible;

66,398 did not have FBI criminal record checks because their fingerprint cards were never submitted to the FBI by the INS; and

2,573 were still being processed by the FBI.

As of late February 1997, 168 of these new citizens had been found to be “presumptively, statutorily ineligible” for naturalization based on their criminal record, and in another 2,800 cases, it could not be determined based on available information whether they were eligible or not.

It is important to note that none of the numbers given above indicates the degree to which applicants for naturalization lied on their applications, thereby committing perjury, which should make them ineligible for naturalization. They also do not indicate the number of applicants who may have submitted someone else’s fingerprints to avoid having their criminal record revealed. Finally, for the 180,000 applicants whose fingerprints were illegible or never submitted, the INS has no way to go back and check because it is not legally allowed to require citizens to resubmit their fingerprints. Thus, unless these new citizens volunteer to have their fingerprints taken, we will never know if they were actually eligible or not.

Personnel–Temporary workers comprised most of the additional personnel for CUSA. Some 900 temporary adjudicators and clerical workers were hired by INS to accomplish the goal of naturalizing over a million people in FY 1996. As of June 1996, the Inspector General was investigating the training standards for these temporary workers, along with those workers who were detailed from other agencies or offices. In August 1996, the INS conducted an evaluation of the CUSA training program and found two major deficiencies in the program: 1) personnel were poorly trained in doing the computer checks that, among other things, tell whether an applicant is in deportation proceedings or has had other administration actions taken against him or her; and 2) training in the procedures to deny an application were inadequate at best.

These results point to a larger problem that has since been confirmed by INS employees and by the recent KPMG Peat Marwick review of the implementation of the November 29, 1996 naturalization policy changes. A training program that teaches personnel good customer relations, but not how to do computer checks or deny applications sends an implicit message that it is more important to keep the applicant happy and approve the application than it is to maintain the integrity of the process and demand compliance with the regulations. This is precisely the message that many INS adjudicators received, not only from their training, but also from their supervisors. A number of INS employees testified, under oath, last fall that adjudicators feel pressured by their supervisors to “approve, approve, approve;” that good moral character standards are being ignored; that representatives of Community Based Organizations (CBOs) complain to supervisors about adjudicators who continue or deny applications, and that sometimes those adjudicators are removed from their duties; that adjudicators who go on outreach interviews have to provide copies of their tally sheets (showing approvals, denials and continueds) to the CBO representatives; that adjudicators have been told by their supervisors that they are not IRS agents and so shouldn’t concern themselves with possible tax fraud, even though it is inconsistent with the good moral character requirement.

Volunteer workers were also utilized by many INS offices. These volunteers included members of CBOs, family members of INS employees, and, in at least one case, legal permanent residents. These volunteers performed clerical duties, including filing, mailed naturalization certificates, and collected Alien Registration Cards and distributed naturalization certificates at citizenship ceremonies, among other things. According to INS employees, this practice continued even after INS Headquarters Counsel notified Regional Directors that it is a violation of Federal law for a government agency to use volunteers to perform duties that are normally performed by agency personnel, as it constitutes an unauthorized augmentation of the agency appropriation.

Testing Fraud

In addition to internal INS problems with the naturalization process, there is well-documented evidence of widespread fraud in the testing of naturalization applicants by outside (i.e., non-government) testing entities (OTEs). In 1991, the INS established criteria under which OTEs, including for-profit businesses, could be authorized to administer standardized tests to determine a naturalization applicant’s ability to read and write in English, along with his or her knowledge of history and civics. The INS criteria do not require that administrators of the tests be U.S. citizens or have criminal history checks in order to be approved.

The tests are comprised mainly of multiple choice questions, but applicants also have to write two simple sentences that are dictated to them. Five OTEs currently are authorized to administer these tests: Educational Testing Service (ETS), Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS), Southeast College, Marich Associates and American College Testing (ACT). (There was a sixth OTE, Naturalization Assistance Services (NAS), until earlier this year when its authorization was terminated after repeated instances of fraud.) These OTEs in turn may license community based organizations (CBOs) and other affiliates to administer the tests on their behalf. However, neither INS, nor the individual OTEs, are able to monitor all the affiliates to ensure that requirements relating to the security of the tests or the integrity of the testing are met.

Reports of testing fraud at affiliates of the OTEs, which first surfaced in 1992, began to increase dramatically in late 1994. INS examiners came across increasing numbers of naturalization applicants who, despite having an OTE test certificate, were unable to communicate in or understand English. Some affiliates were charging as much as $850 to prepare and test immigrants. Examples of documented fraud during the administration of the tests include test proctors pointing to the correct answers on the answer sheet, tests being given in the applicants’ native language instead of English, and the sentences being written on a blackboard so applicants simply have to copy them. Some affiliates guaranteed that, as long as applicants could sign their names in English, they would pass the test. Affiliates were using print media–often ethnic newspapers–radio and television ads to advertise their services. Some ads included false promises and/or blatant lies, but there were no regulations governing the ads’ contents.

In April 1996, INS Headquarters sent instructions to the field offices on procedures to follow to report and initiate investigations of complaints of testing fraud. In May 1996, after it was notified of an investigation into testing fraud by the television show “20/20,” INS Headquarters sent a memo to field offices with guidelines on conducting unannounced on-site inspections of testing sites. The guidelines required each District Office to visit one site per quarter.

During the past couple of months, I have been contacted by the directors of two separate testing affiliates operating in separate regions of the country. Both told me that fraud in the outside testing entities continues, with unauthorized groups administering tests and issuing counterfeit certificates, applicants cheating on the tests, tests being given in the applicants’ native language, and in one case, the director of an authorized affiliate simply filling out the answer forms for the applicants. They also told me about designated fingerprint services (DFSs) selling clean fingerprints to applicants, accepting inadequate identification, such as letters from family members or friends attesting to the person’s identity, and accepting blatantly false identification.

Like the criteria for OTEs, those for DFSs do not require that the person taking the fingerprints be a U.S. citizen or have a criminal record check done. While many of the DFSs are police departments, others raise questions about the judgement of the INS in the selection process. Some of the more interesting DFSs are: Harbor Liquors in Baltimore; Biscayne Haircutters in Miami; and Express Courier Service in Passaic, NJ. Hermandad Mexicana Nacional in Ontario, CA and Pookies Post and Parcel in Pasadena, CA had applications pending at the end of February 1997.

INS Responds

The National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice Subcommittee of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee held the first hearing on the Citizenship USA program on September 24, 1996, after it had subpoenaed and sorted through thousands of pages of INS documents, memos and e-mails detailing most of the problems described herein. Despite the evidence, CUSA Project Director David Rosenberg testified at that hearing that, as a result of CUSA, the INS had “successfully reduced processing times for citizenship applications nationwide to traditional levels while maintaining the integrity of the citizenship process. We have initiated major improvements to naturalization procedures and operations.”

The Senate Immigration Subcommittee held a hearing on naturalization practices on October 9, 1996, in which the former Executive Associate Commissioner for Programs, Alexander Aleinikoff, testified that, as a result of CUSA, the INS had “reduced processing times for citizenship applications nationwide to traditional levels while maintaining the integrity of the citizenship process, and [had] initiated major improvements to naturalization procedures and operations.”

On October 18, 1996, in an official INS response to Senator Alan Simpson regarding testimony I presented at the October 9 Senate hearing, Commissioner Meissner wrote that, under CUSA, the INS had “made numerous improvements to the [naturalization] process, and [had] addressed this workload with efficiency and integrity.”

Sometime between late October and late November 1996, INS officials realized that the problems with the naturalization process could no longer be ignored. On November 29, 1996, Commissioner Meissner sent a memo to the field offices detailing new “Naturalization Quality Procedures.” The memo outlined seven “key enhancements” to the naturalization process, including: 1) standardization of work process; 2) fingerprint check integrity; 3) enhanced supervisory review; 4) instructions regarding the use of temporary files; 5) implementation of a quality assurance program; 6) guidance regarding revocation procedures; and 7) requirements for increased monitoring of OTEs. The new procedures were effective upon receipt.

In a joint hearing before this Subcommittee and the National Security Subcommittee on March 5, 1997, Commissioner Meissner testified that the new procedures “have eliminated the possibility of naturalization cases being completed without verification of an FBI fingerprint check.” She concluded by saying, “It is very important that Congress and the American people understand the validity of these corrections we have made to the naturalization process….We made mistakes in Citizenship USA…We have corrected those mistakes and have put into place a series of new measures to prevent them in the future.”

The recently-released KPMG Peat Marwick review of the implementation of these new measures brings into question the ability, and the willingness, of INS management to seriously address the problems with the naturalization procedures. The fact that three of the 23 offices surveyed did not even have the correct copy of the new procedures clearly points to a severe lack of communication between INS Headquarters and field offices. It is interesting to note here that, once a draft of the review was given to the INS, Commissioner Meissner called all the District Directors to Washington for a briefing and sent 200 naturalization personnel to a training course. Perhaps if those actions had been taken when the new policies were first implemented, the review would have found better results. Such actions also may have helped to communicate the sense of urgency the reviewers found lacking at the field level.

Despite the fact that field offices had been issued guidelines on monitoring outside testing entities in May 1996, as well as the “enhanced” monitoring procedures in the November 29 memo, the KPMG Peat Marwick review team was “frequently informed that INS Headquarters [not the field offices] was responsible for monitoring all outside testing agencies.”

That three of the service processing centers, along with three field offices, had the wrong FBI address is patently absurd. Most worrisome is the report’s conclusion that “the INS continues to have the most significant control problems with the fingerprint process and the identification of statutorily-barred applicants.”

Recommendations for Improvement

Congress and the American people were assured repeatedly by the INS over the last year that there were no major problems with the naturalization process under Citizenship USA. Then, we were assured that, if there were any problems, they had been fixed. Now, we know that these assurances were unfounded. The Justice Department is correct that the process needs a major overhaul from top to bottom. However, we must be somewhat cautious in our expectations of the re-engineering of the process by Coopers and Lybrand; after all, previous re-engineering efforts got us where we are today.

It is important to recognize that many of the problems with the naturalization process have existed for many years. It is equally important to recognize that any attempt to speed up the adjudication of applications without first addressing the underlying problems will only exacerbate them, as happened under the Citizenship USA program.

The INS was well aware at least as far back as 1993 that naturalization applications would rise dramatically in 1995 simply because the 2.7 million amnestied aliens would become eligible. And yet, all of a sudden in 1995, there was a frantic rush to hire new employees and accelerate an outdated system that had already reached its limits. Had the millions of dollars now being spent on re-engineering, reviewing and auditing the naturalization process been invested in computer equipment, electronic fingerprint scanners and personnel training, we likely would not be having this discussion.

The Coopers and Lybrand review of the process is expected to take 18 months to two years to complete. The naturalization process cannot wait that long. The INS expects 1.8 million new applications this year, and they must not be adjudicated under the conditions described in the KPMG Peat Marwick review. There are a number of areas that need immediate improvement:

In order to process these applications, the INS desperately needs an updated and integrated computer system, just as any business needs to process orders. Scanners, which now have accuracy rates of 90 percent or better, could be used to minimize the data entry workload. Eventually, the INS needs to integrate some of its numerous data bases to facilitate status checks and ensure that immigrants being deported by one branch of the INS are not naturalized by another. Paper files must become a thing of the past. One of the biggest problems throughout the INS is its inability to locate paper files on a timely basis.

The INS also needs to prioritize its electronic fingerprint pilot program. Police departments around the country use electronic fingerprint scanners to identify criminals in a matter of minutes, rather than waiting anywhere from two to six months as the INS does. Electronic scanners could reduce naturalization processing time to a matter of days.

Most importantly, the INS needs to train its personnel adequately. Each adjudicator must know how to use the computer system to check an applicant’s status, to ensure the applicant is not in deportation proceedings, and to update the applicant’s file. Adjudicators must be trained not only in customer relations, but also in the procedures used to deny an application. They should have a clear understanding of what they should be looking for during the interview. Standardized interview guidelines would be helpful. Finally, every adjudicator must understand that the integrity of the naturalization process is always more important than expediency. INS Headquarters should strongly discourage supervisors from rating employees based on the number of applications they process, instead of the way in which they process the applications. A short delay in the process is a much smaller problem for the INS than the granting of citizenship to a child molester.

Crimes that constitute a lack of good moral character, including perjury, should be standardized, rather than being left to the discretion of individual adjudicators.

Both Congress and the INS must recognize that the INS will always have less control over the integrity of those parts of the process that it farms out to other organizations, such as testing and fingerprinting.

– If the INS is going to continue to use OTEs for language, history and civics testing, it must require: 1) that all administrators of the tests be U.S. citizens and undergo criminal background checks; 2) that the OTEs register all testers and insist that they wear photo identification badges while administering tests; and 3) proof from the OTEs that every affiliate has passed at least one undercover inspection each year.

– If the INS is going to continue to use DFSs to take fingerprints, it should certify only law enforcement agencies. INS adjudicators can use the interview to check an applicants knowledge of English, but there is no secondary check if an applicant submits someone else’s fingerprints to avoid having a criminal record uncovered. This is too integral a part of the naturalization process to leave it to those who may have a vested interest, financial or otherwise, in allowing fraud.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.”

https://www.scribd.com/document/322152630/Rosemary-Jenks-testimony-before-the-Immigration-and-Claims-Subcommittee-of-the-Committee-on-the-Judiciary-of-the-U-S-House-of-Representatives-April-3

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/wp-admin/

 

 

NC voter fraud questions surface again, Alamance county sheriff Terry Johnson Robeson county and Board of Elections investigation, Erich Hackney “The candidates finish so close that these teens could have thrown the election,”

NC voter fraud questions surface again, Alamance county sheriff Terry Johnson Robeson county and Board of Elections investigation, Erich Hackney “The candidates finish so close that these teens could have thrown the election,”

 

“On Monday June 23rd, 2008 the SBI initiated an investigation into allegations that employees of the Alamance County Health Department specifically Dr.
Kathleen Shapley-Quinn and Nurse Karen Saxer were knowingly and willingly falsifying patient medical records.”
“At the request of some patients, Alamance County Health Department provided work notes and prescriptions in alias names. Providing these services would assist illegal aliens with maintaining assumed or stolen identities, which may be a violation of state, or federal law. (Identity Theft, Fraud, etc.)”
“Veronica Arias, of Texas, reported on May 2nd, 2008 to the ACSO that someone in Swepsonville, NC had stolen her identity and was using same to be employed.
Maria Sanchez was arrested on May 6, 2008 by investigators of the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office for stealing and using the identity of Veronica Arias.
Sanchez used the name, SSN, DOB, of Veronica Arias who is a living resident of Texas.”…Alamance County NC Sheriff 2008 report

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

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

 

I have heard repeatedly the foolish remarks from Democrat Party idealogues around me that there is very little voter fraud in NC, hence no need for the voter ID initiative.

Since most elections can be won by one vote, that is an idiotic and irresponsible statement.

Citizen Wells reported on voter fraud in NC starting with the 2008 election. Obama won by a slim margin in this state.

Alamance County and sheriff Terry Johnson voiced concerns in 2008 regarding actual and potential voter fraud.

From Citizen Wells November 2, 2010.

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

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

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

Providing these services would assist illegal
aliens with maintaining assumed or stolen
identities, which may be a violation of state, or
federal law. (Identity Theft, Fraud, etc.)””

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

https://web.archive.org/web/20101203174645/http://www.alamance-nc.com/fileadmin/alamance/Commissioners/Packets/2008/SheriffPresentation81808sm.pdf

Of course, if you examine voter fraud too closely the Obama Justice Dept. will threaten you and that is what they did with Sheriff Terry Johnson. Fortunately he was acquitted.

From Fox8 August 7, 2015.

“Court rules for Alamance County Sheriff Terry Johnson in DOJ discrimination case”

“The lawsuit claimed the department encouraged a number of discriminatory policing practices and that Latino drivers were racially profiled and often stopped without reason.

Judge Thomas D. Schroeder’s decision was received by Sheriff Johnson’s legal staff on Friday.

In part, the judgment reads that “it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the claims of the United States be denied, and that Judgment be entered for Defendant Sheriff Johnson, and that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice.””

Read more:

Court rules for Alamance County Sheriff Terry Johnson in DOJ discrimination case

 

When the Republicans took control of NC a few years ago they flushed out the corrupt State Board of Elections. This greatly improved the chances for detecting and prosecuting voter fraud.

From Citizen Wells June 29, 2015.

““When Chuck Stuber shows up, politicians are in trouble.

He’s the FBI agent who put handcuffs on former House Speaker Jim Black and former U.S. Rep. Frank Ballance Jr.

He’s the one who booked a top aide to former Gov. Mike Easley and then played a major role in Easley’s felony conviction.”
“Last week, Stuber started work as an investigator at the state Board of Elections, where he will focus on rooting out fraud and campaign violations. He is expected to take up several pending inquiries – into questions of voter fraud, about possible campaign violations by state lawmakers, and an ongoing probe of a major campaign donor in the last statewide election cycle.””

https://citizenwells.com/2014/06/29/former-fbi-agent-chuck-stuber-begins-nc-board-of-elections-voter-fraud-investigations-helped-to-convict-former-governor-mike-easley-accountant-lawyer-and-fbi-agent-deadly-combination/

Fast forward to today.

From the Greensboro News Record May 18, 2016.

“Possible voting fraud

Erich Hackney, an investigator with the Robeson County District Attorney’s Office,learned about Johnson’s planned news conference from media reports.

On Tuesday morning, he called the sheriff to add another charge to the list.

“Basically, the North Carolina Board of Elections requested a voter fraud investigation,” Hackney said. “From that, Mr. Hines came on our radar in respect to 18 students he had taken to the local board of elections in an effort to vote.”

In Pembroke, a small town in Robeson County, candidates win or lose by sometimes tiny margins.

“The candidates finish so close that these teens could have thrown the election,” Hackney said.

He said candidates were standing at an early-voting stop and noticed two vans with nine passengers in each pull up.

As the candidates watched, the first nine students got out of the van and went inside to vote. When they came back out, one candidate accused the students of not being residents and not eligible to vote. The second van of students took off.

Hackney would not identify the candidate who stopped the students.

“As a result … the nine students were sent subpoenas to question the legitimacy of their residence,” he said.

The students came to the hearings, but once Hines saw what was happening, they took off, Hackney said.

“They left Robeson County and went to Alamance,” he said

Hackney said the nine students who voted were identified, but the other nine are unknown.

He wouldn’t say whether the investigation into the student voters includes the involvement of a candidate. He said the focus is to identify who wasn’t permitted to vote during that election.”

Read more:

http://www.greensboro.com/news/crime/student-athlete-investigation-turns-focus-on-child-trafficking-and-voter/article_e40b3ab7-1ed6-5998-90b0-0ab0dffe82c9.html

From the Voter Integrity Project May 17, 2016.

“Oops! Voter Fraud Ring Confirmed in Robeson County

Go back to sleep . . . It’s only a story about high school athletics . . . Nothing to see . . . Move along.

The Greensboro News & Record ran with this blaring headline late last night:

Mebane couple jailed after allegedly presenting fraudulent documents for student athlete’s admission

WTVD’s headline also chased the petty crime while ignoring the big picture:

SHERIFF: PAIR USED FAKE DOCUMENTS TO GET ATHLETE INTO ALAMANCE SCHOOL

(We will update this site if WRAL decides they cannot suppress this story any better; but as of 3 PM, on May 17, 2016, there’s still nothing to see.) Both headlines redirected the public from the FAR bigger stories involved that affect all of us: human trafficking and possibly registering their slaves as voters.”

Read more:

http://voterintegrityproject.com/registration-fraud-confirmed/

I guess the News Record was compelled to add

“and voter fraud”

to their headline after the story was leaked.

This of course distracted them from their blitzkrieg about the pain, suffering and financial ruin imposed by HB2.

Read more:

https://citizenwells.com/

Sanders requests raw vote count release, I can only hope and expect that the count will be honest, Investigation desired, Washington Post reports Clinton wins at least six Iowa precincts by coin flip

Sanders requests raw vote count release, I can only hope and expect that the count will be honest, Investigation desired, Washington Post reports Clinton wins at least six Iowa precincts by coin flip

“In a handful of Democratic caucus precincts Monday, a delegate was awarded with a coin toss.
It happened in precinct 2-4 in Ames, where supporters of candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton disputed the results after 60 caucus participants apparently disappeared from the proceedings.
As a result of the coin toss, Clinton was awarded an additional delegate, meaning she took five of the precinct’s eight, while Sanders received three.”…DesMoines Register

“More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008”… Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES)

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

From The Guardian February 2, 2016.

“Bernie Sanders wants raw vote count released after tight finish in Iowa caucuses”

“Bernie Sanders has called on the Democratic party to release a raw vote count in Iowa after a nail-biting finish left lingering doubts over the first, much tighter-than-expected, clash with Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination.”

“He threw little light on an unfolding controversy over certain Iowa precincts that did not have enough Democratic party volunteers to report delegate totals for each candidate but did call on officials to take the unusual step of revealing underlying voter totals. Delegates are awarded in the Iowa Democratic contest on a precinct-by-precinct basis, irrespective of the state-wide vote for each candidate.

“I honestly don’t know what happened. I know there are some precincts that have still not reported. I can only hope and expect that the count will be honest,” he said. “I have no idea. Did we win the popular vote? I don’t know, but as much information as possible should be made available.”

Sanders’ campaign director, Jeff Weaver, told reporters he did not “anticipate we are going to contest” specific results but hoped there would be an investigation into what happened.”

Read more:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/02/bernie-sanders-requests-vote-count-tight-finish-iowa-caucus-clinton

From the Washington Post February 2, 2016.

“Clinton wins at least six Iowa precincts by coin flip”

“Letting chance decide, even in a small way, who becomes president sounds bizarre, but it didn’t just happen eight years ago. It happened Monday night in at least a handful of Iowa precincts where Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), now locked in what Sanders called a “virtual tie” in the state, fought to a deadlock. And, in at least six of those precincts, Clinton won spare delegates, based on reporting from the Des Moines Register and video posted to social media.

In another race, those heads-or-tails contests may not have mattered. But, early Tuesday, Clinton was ahead of Sanders in Iowa by just four “state delegate equivalents,” by that state’s particular jargon. Given that slim margin and the unknown intentions of Martin O’Malley’s eight SDEs now that the former Maryland governor has suspended his presidential campaign, those coin flips are looking mighty significant.

Or not.

It’s best to let the Iowa Democratic Party explain: “On caucus night, Iowans in each precinct elect delegates to their county conventions, but the winner of the caucuses will be the candidate who accrues the most state delegate equivalents. State delegate equivalents are calculated using a ratio of state to county convention delegates. In other words, the ratio determines how many delegates the candidate would receive for the state convention based on the number of county convention delegates a candidate receives.”

Whew.

Either way, people were flipping coins in Iowa, and it was weird.

One vocal Sanders supporter filmed a coin toss in Des Moines. At first, he seemed excited — perhaps in disbelief that a candidate many had written off months ago had given Clinton a run for her money.

“It’s an actual tie,” Benjamin O’Keefe said. “You can’t even write this.”

Then, the caucus got down to business. It had split, 61-61; Clinton was awarded two delegates, and Sanders was awarded two. What would become of the fifth delegate?

Enter the coin. Tails — Clinton won.

“What?” O’Keefe said. “… Can you explain this to us?” Someone did, adding insult to injury by saying “Touchdown Seahawks!” — a reference to a 2012 NFL controversy over what many consider to be a terribly random call.

“So by coin flip, Hillary Clinton has won this precinct,” O’Keefe said. He shrugged and smiled — the smile of a man consigned to his fate by powers beyond his understanding or control. “I don’t even know,” he said, gesturing confusedly at unfazed caucus-goers as the result was announced and Clinton supporters cheered.

“That’s the official rule,” a woman who announced the result added.”

Read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/02/clinton-wins-at-least-six-iowa-precincts-by-coin-flip/

 

 

NC voter fraud, 145 voters may be ineligible, 10k names tagged by DMV as legally present, 600 or more could be ineligible, Tip of voter fraud prosecuted

NC voter fraud, 145 voters may be ineligible, 10k names tagged by DMV as legally present, 600 or more could be ineligible, Tip of voter fraud prosecuted

“On Monday June 23rd, 2008 the SBI initiated an investigation into allegations that employees of the Alamance County Health Department specifically Dr.
Kathleen Shapley-Quinn and Nurse Karen Saxer were knowingly and willingly falsifying patient medical records.”
“At the request of some patients, Alamance County Health Department provided work notes and prescriptions in alias names. Providing these services would assist illegal aliens with maintaining assumed or stolen identities, which may be a violation of state, or federal law. (Identity Theft, Fraud, etc.)”
“Veronica Arias, of Texas, reported on May 2nd, 2008 to the ACSO that someone in Swepsonville, NC had stolen her identity and was using same to be employed.
Maria Sanchez was arrested on May 6, 2008 by investigators of the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office for stealing and using the identity of Veronica Arias.
Sanchez used the name, SSN, DOB, of Veronica Arias who is a living resident of Texas.”…Alamance County NC Sheriff 2008 report

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

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

 

 

Now that the longtime Democrat presence in NC government has been eradicated and a new NC voter ID law has been passed, perhaps we can come closer to insuring that our elections are fair.

From the Winston Salem Journal October 23, 2014.

“The State Board of Elections will not be able to verify before the early-voting period begins today whether all of the nearly 10,000 names that it has flagged as belonging to possible ineligible voters are in fact ineligible, according to interviews with elections and transportation officials.

Elections officials estimate that most are likely eligible to vote, but the uncertainty has led some state lawmakers to question why the verification process is happening now.

The Winston-Salem Journal reported Wednesday that, according to the SBOE, a specific search of those 10,000 names on the state’s voter rolls turned up 145 that belong to immigrants in the U.S. under the federal program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which provides qualified applicants with a two-year reprieve from deportation.

The number has been pared down to 119 after more research, said Josh Lawson, a spokesman for the SBOE.”

“The SBOE is in the process of sending letters to the 119 DACA license holders seeking proof of citizenship, said SBOE spokesman Josh Lawson. Separately, Lawson said that the SBOE is also working to verify all of the nearly 10,000 names. The Journal has asked to receive that information when it becomes available.

The DMV sends data to the SBOE on a regular basis, Charbonneau said.

That data includes license holders who are tagged as “legally present,” which includes anyone who was not a U.S. citizen when he or she got a license.

The DMV has been “assisting” the SBOE on verifying the names at this time — as the early-voting period begins — because the SBOE requested the assistance on Monday, according to Charbonneau.

Apart from the DACA license holders, the names on the list of nearly 10,000 belong to license holders who were not U.S. citizens when they got a license. They may have been green-card holders, foreign workers or foreign students, for example. Most have become U.S. citizens since getting a license, according to an estimate by elections officials based on a sample of the overall list.

Earlier this month, State Board of Elections officials sampled about 1,600 of the 10,000 names, Lawson said. They cross-checked the names against a U.S. Department of Homeland Security database, known as SAVE, and found that 94 percent of those 1,600 are in fact U.S. citizens, Lawson said.”

Read more:

http://www.journalnow.com/news/elections/local/early-voting-starts-today-eligibility-for-not-verified/article_ceeb3ca4-5a60-11e4-8cfa-001a4bcf6878.html

From the Raleigh News and Observer June 28, 2014.
“When Chuck Stuber shows up, politicians are in trouble.

He’s the FBI agent who put handcuffs on former House Speaker Jim Black and former U.S. Rep. Frank Ballance Jr.

He’s the one who booked a top aide to former Gov. Mike Easley and then played a major role in Easley’s felony conviction.”
“Last week, Stuber started work as an investigator at the state Board of Elections, where he will focus on rooting out fraud and campaign violations. He is expected to take up several pending inquiries – into questions of voter fraud, about possible campaign violations by state lawmakers, and an ongoing probe of a major campaign donor in the last statewide election cycle.”

Read more:

http://www.newsobserver.com/welcome_page/?shf=/2014/06/28/3969919_meet-former-fbi-agent-chuck-stuber.html%3fsp=/99/100/&ihp=1

From Citizen Wells April 3, 2014.

“Raleigh, N.C. – House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) and Senate Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) issued a joint statement Wednesday in response to more alarming evidence of voter error and fraud discovered by the North Carolina State Board of Elections.

Initial findings from the Board presented to the Joint Legislative Elections Oversight Committee today show:

  • 765 voters with an exact match of first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in N.C. and the other state in the 2012 general election.
  • 35,750 voters with the same first and last name and DOB were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in both states in the 2012 general election.
  • 155,692 voters with the same first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state – and the latest date of registration or voter activity did not take place within N.C.

These findings only take into account data from the 28 states who participated in the 2014 Interstate Crosscheck, leaving out potential voter error and fraud in the 22 states that do not participate in the consortium.

Additionally, during an audit of death records from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Board discovered:

  • 50,000 new death records that had not previously been provided to the State Board of Elections.
  • 13,416 deceased voters on the voter rolls in October 2013.
  • 81 deceased voters that had voter activity after they died.

The findings were made possible by a new election reform law passed by the General Assembly last year, which called on the Board to improve the accuracy of voter registration lists and combat potential fraud by cross checking information on voting records with those of other states.

“While we are alarmed to hear evidence of widespread voter error and fraud, we are encouraged to see the common-sense law passed to ensure voters are who they say they are is working,” said Tillis and Berger. “These findings should put to rest ill-informed claims that problems don’t exist and help restore the integrity of our elections process. We appreciate the State Board of Elections bringing this critical information to light.””

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/massive-nc-voter-fraud-discovered-over-35-thousand-voters-same-first-and-last-name-dob-registered-in-nc-and-another-state-voted-in-2012-senate-leader-phil-berger-and-rep-thom-tillis/

 

 

 

Florida courts corrupt biased incompetent?, Voeltz v Obama eligibility case, Obama not natural born citizen, AL VT Supreme Courts eligibility hearings, Election officials ignore laws duties

Florida courts corrupt biased incompetent?, Voeltz v Obama eligibility case, Obama not natural born citizen, AL VT Supreme Courts eligibility hearings, Election officials ignore laws duties

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

“Why do state election officials continue to ignore the US Constitution, federal election code and their own state election statutes?”…Citizen Wells

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

I have reported on the Obama eligibility hearings in the Alabama and Vermont Supreme Courts. The reason that I have not written about an eligibility hearing in the Florida Supreme Court is because one has not been scheduled there yet.

Why?

Good question.

The answer appears to be some combination of corruption bias and incompetence.

Here are some crucial points of law and fact. More details will be forthcoming.

Let’s start at the beginning.

The states are responsible for the primaries, general election and events through the Electoral College vote.

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.”

All state officials take an oath to uphold or defend the US Constitution.

In Florida they take the following oath.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of”

From page 2 of the Florida “2012 Federal Qualifying Handbook”

“PART II: PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

Qualifications

1. Must be a natural born citizen of the United States.
2. Must be at least 35 years of age.
3. Must be a resident of the United States for 14 years.”

“Must be” is not a suggestion.

Florida Election statutes

“Title IX

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

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

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

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

AMENDMENT X

“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.”

Many of the Secretaries of State or other election officials claim to have only a “ministerial” duty in the elections.

In the recent Vermont Supreme Court hearing with appellant H. Brooke Paige, state attorney Todd Doloz stated that the VT Secretary of State has only a ministerial duty in the elections.

Ministerial defined.

Merriam Webster.

a : being or having the characteristics of an act or duty prescribed by law as part of the duties of an administrative office
b : relating to or being an act done after ascertaining the existence of a specified state of facts in obedience to a legal order without exercise of personal judgment or discretion.

Legal dictionary.

“Ministerial describes an act or a function that conforms to an instruction or a prescribed procedure. It connotes obedience. A ministerial act or duty is a function performed without the use of judgment by the person performing the act or duty.”

Obedience is the common denominator. To a legal order or conforming “to an instruction or a prescribed procedure.”

The US Constitution makes this clear.

The Secretary of State swears an oath to the Constitution.

Florida law explicitly states the requirements for the eligibility of the president.

The attorney for Vermont, in his obfuscation efforts, raised the spectre of each Secretary of State or chief election official proactively verifying the eligibility of each candidate.

No reasonable person is requesting that.

However, there is a clear distinction between that and knowingly, after being alerted of a candidate’s eligibility deficiency, taking no action, ignoring a clear mandate from the US Constitution and allowing a candidate to remain on the ballot potentially disenfranchising thousands if not millions of voters.

This is what should have taken place in FL and all of the states:

Once alerted or challenged on a potential deficiency in eligibility of a candidate, the Secretary of State or other election official should investigate.

In the case of Obama and his natural born citizen status, if there is confusion about the definition, the state attorney general should be queried and if there is still confusion, a court ruling requested.

Passing the buck is dereliction of duty.

In Florida, the situation is much worse.

Not only did the FL Secretary of State fail in their constitutional duty, subsequent court hearings have been delayed and failed in their judicial duties.

Why has the judicial system failed the citizens in Florida?

More details to come.

NC voter identification bill requested by Republican Governor Pat McCrory, Obama puppet Beverly Perdue vetoed ID bill, Provisional ballot shuts down left lies

NC voter identification bill requested by Republican Governor Pat McCrory, Obama puppet Beverly Perdue vetoed ID bill, Provisional ballot shuts down left lies

“On Monday June 23rd, 2008 the SBI initiated an investigation into allegations that employees of the Alamance County Health Department specifically Dr.
Kathleen Shapley-Quinn and Nurse Karen Saxer were knowingly and willingly falsifying patient medical records.”
“At the request of some patients, Alamance County Health Department provided work notes and prescriptions in alias names. Providing these services would assist illegal aliens with maintaining assumed or stolen identities, which may be a violation of state, or federal law. (Identity Theft, Fraud, etc.)”
“Veronica Arias, of Texas, reported on May 2nd, 2008 to the ACSO that someone in Swepsonville, NC had stolen her identity and was using same to be employed.
Maria Sanchez was arrested on May 6, 2008 by investigators of the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office for stealing and using the identity of Veronica Arias.
Sanchez used the name, SSN, DOB, of Veronica Arias who is a living resident of Texas.”…Alamance County NC Sheriff 2008 report

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

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

More good news from North Carolina.

The fruits of corrupt Democrat Government in NC being replaced are already evident. Former Governor, Beverly Perdue, a Obama puppet, vetoed a voter ID Bill. New Governor, Pat McCrory, is already requesting that a North Carolina voter identification bill be placed on his desk.

From WRAL January 9, 2013.

“Gov. Pat McCrory said Wednesday he wants a North Carolina voter identification bill on his desk but now sounds willing to accept a bill that doesn’t demand photo ID to cast ballots in person.

McCrory said he’s open to other required identification such as voter registration cards but would let the General Assembly develop legislation. He’d be asked to sign any bill into law.

“I still would like (a) photo on it but I’d also be willing to accept other options,” McCrory told reporters while visiting the Legislative Building for the opening of the General Assembly session. The News & Record of Greensboro reported similar comments from McCrory when he visited Greensboro on Tuesday.

McCrory said Wednesday he still expects “a voter ID bill to be passed in the very near future and I will sign that bill.”

McCrory’s comments contrast with his past vocal backing of a photo ID requirement, particularly a 2011 Republican bill that was vetoed by Gov. Beverly Perdue. He criticized Perdue for the veto at the time and asked his supporters to create videos about places where they already must show photo ID.

House Speaker Thom Tillis, R-Mecklenburg, said later Wednesday a bill may be afoot this year requiring people without a form of ID to cast provisional ballots. The Legislature will return to work at the end of the month after Wednesday’s one-day session.

Supporters of photo identification in voting argue it would reduce the potential for voter fraud and will build public confidence in elections. But legislative Democrats and civil rights groups contend voter ID isn’t needed because fraud is very rare and ID requirements will discourage voting by older adults and the poor who lack photo identification.”

http://www.wral.com/mccrory-not-wedded-to-photo-id-requirement-to-vote/11960098/

Prosecutions for voter fraud are rare, however, actual fraud is undetermined because of lax procedures in the past.