Category Archives: voters

Voters

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/

Click to access 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/

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/

 

 

 

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.

Florida military absentee ballot not counted, Non matching signature most common reason, Marine recruit Wesley Layman Clemons disenfranchised, FL election controversies

Florida military absentee ballot not counted, Non matching signature most common reason, Marine recruit Wesley Layman Clemons disenfranchised, FL election controversies

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

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

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

The 2012 Florida presidential election was very close. So was Allen West’s congressional race.

The known issues in the Florida elections should be reason enough for a recount and investigation.

Documented voter fraud, sloppy precinct operations, violation of rules, hundreds of ballots found in a warehouse, over 800,000 undocumented aliens and realistic cause for concern about absentee military ballots.

From the Orlando Sentinel December 11, 2012.

“1,400 absentee ballots rejected for bad signatures in Central Florida”

“Marine recruit Wesley Layman Clemons thought he’d done everything possible to vote while he was in training at U.S. Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island in South Carolina this fall. He requested an Orange County absentee ballot, filled it out, signed it, sealed it, stamped it and mailed it.

Tuesday, he found out from a reporter that his ballot was thrown out — and his vote didn’t count in the Nov. 6 election. The reason: His signature on the ballot didn’t match an earlier one that was on file in the election office, a problem that caused more than 1,400 ballots to be rejected across Central Florida this fall.

“I did my so-called patriotic duty and voted, but apparently someone didn’t think it was a legitimate vote … ,” said Clemons, who is 23 and returned to Orlando last month after a medical discharge. “I’m just ready to toss this phone through the freakin’ window. …”

Clemons said his signature has never changed, and he’s stumped as to why the county’s canvassing board would think otherwise. But it’s too late to do anything about it.

He’s one of 603 Orange County voters whose absentee ballots were rejected by the three-member canvassing board in the Nov. 6 election because of non-matching signatures. Another 579 absentee signatures were rejected in Seminole County, 159 in Osceola County and 142 in Lake County.

A non-matching signature was by far the most common reason for absentee ballot rejection, say Central Florida election officials. The next most common: the failure to sign the ballot at all, which disqualified 672 more ballots in the four counties.

Though the numbers of rejected signatures are relatively small — the four counties received more than 246,000 absentee ballots for the November election, a record — the rejection rate here and elsewhere has climbed dramatically since new statewide rules regarding absentee-ballot signatures were approved by the Florida Legislature in 2011.

Those rules require elections officials to compare absentee-ballot signatures only to signatures on voter-registration applications, which could be decades old. Previously, elections officials could turn to other documents such as the precinct logs that voters sign each time they vote in person, which likely are far more current.

Elections officials insist close calls are not rejected. They must be “clearly, clearly, clearly different,” said Seminole County Supervisor of Elections Mike Ertel, who also sat on his county’s canvassing board.

“You could tell when people were just getting fancy” with their signature, said Orange County Canvassing Board member Tiffany Moore Russell, a county commissioner. “But the majority were just obvious.”

In 2008, the last time there was a presidential election, Orange’s canvassing board rejected 15 out of every 10,000 signatures. This year, the rate tripled — to 44 out of every 10,000. Seminole’s board rejected 65 out of every 10,000 in 2008 and 110 out of 10,000 this year.

Osceola and Lake counties’ 2008 rejection rates were not available. But Lake’s 2012 absentee-ballot signature rejection rate doubled its rate in the 2010 state election, and Osceola’s tripled.

Depending on where the voters lived, their rejected votes could have made a difference. In the Orange County Commission District 3 race, Pete Clarke beat Lui Damiani by 70 votes. In the Florida House of Representatives race in Seminole County, Mike Clelland defeated Chris Dorworth by 146 votes.

Moore Russell, a Democrat, said she didn’t see any problem that needed a fix by lawmakers.

“People didn’t update their signature,” Moore Russell said. “At the end of the day, there has to be some responsibility on that voter to update their signatures. You can’t legislate responsibility.”

Philip Kobrin, for one, doesn’t disagree. Kobrin, 76 and retired, of Winter Park, said he went down to the elections office to check after he was informed his absentee ballot was rejected. He realized then that he had signed his voter-registration application with his usual stylized script and his absentee ballot with careful lettering so that it would be legible.

“I must take half the blame for myself,” Kobrin said. “When they showed it to me, I wasn’t happy about it, but they had a legitimate beef.”

After the new law passed, elections officials in many counties tried hard to contact voters and ask them to renew their signatures. Orange County Supervisor of Elections Bill Cowles sent notices last spring to 214,000 absentee and longtime voters urging them to do so. Though some voters protested, thinking he was demanding new proof of their eligibility, 55,000 voters renewed their signatures, Cowles said.

But it was not enough.

Audrey McWhite said her elderly mother, Elizabeth, has suffered a trio of strokes, two this year. The last one disabled her right side. Elizabeth McWhite’s Nov. 6 ballot was rejected, according to Orange elections officials.

“That’s why her signature is off,” Audrey McWhite said. “They should call and find out and not just reject it like that.””

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-absentee-ballots-thrown-out-20121211,0,6699784.story

Alabama Obama eligibility challenge, AL election statutes Section 17-13-6, Only qualified candidates to be listed on ballots, Democrat party certified Obama, Judge Roy Moore

Alabama Obama eligibility challenge, AL election statutes Section 17-13-6, Only qualified candidates to be listed on ballots, Democrat party certified Obama,  Judge Roy Moore

“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

From Obama Ballot Challenge October 30, 2012.

“Two Motions were filed on October 18, 2012 with the first being Alabama’s Democratic Party Motion to Intervene (MTI). Make special note of Item 5 in the Motion—The Alabama Secretary of State does not object to this motion to intervene. (See link to Motion to Intervene below)

The Alabama Democratic Committee MTI argues their nominee, Mr. Obama, is “eligible, qualified and entitled” to gain access to the taxpayer supported Alabama ballot and that Alabama’s Secretary of State “does not have a duty to independently investigate the qualifications of candidates nominated by the political parties.” Their motion wouldn’t be complete without the usual “pontification on high” that their candidate’s questionable natural born citizenship status is based on “discredited conspiracy theories and outlandish claims of fraudulent and forged birth certificates.”

Attorney General Strange filed the second motion which was a Motion to Dismiss (MTD). Strange offers the following arguments:

The Secretary of State has no legal duty to investigate the qualifications of a candidate;
In regard to candidates for President, the authority to adjudge qualifications rests with Congress;
Plaintiffs have failed to join necessary parties; and
Plaintiffs’ claim is filed too late.
According to Strange the Secretary of State aka the Chief Election Officer for the state of Alabama holds no responsibility whatsoever to ensure any and/or all presidential candidates working to gain access to Alabama’s electorate meet the necessary constitutional qualifications to be on their state ballot. (See link to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss below)

Plaintiffs’ responded to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on October 24, 2012 by reiterating their Motion for Summary Judgment filed on or about October 15, 2012 “in which Plaintiffs submitted sworn affidavits that set forth evidence demonstrating that Barack H. Obama is not eligible to serve as President of the United States.” These sworn affidavits are from Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, Maricopa County, Arizona and Lead Investigator Mike Zullo, Maricopa County’s Cold Case Posse unit (see link Response to Motion to Dismiss below).

Plaintiff argues that it is clearly the legal duty of Alabama’s Chief Election Officer to “verify the eligibility of those seeking office” and when eligibility of a candidate comes into question it is their responsibility to verify and remove said party from the ballot if necessary. A recent Opinion by Alabama’s Attorney General cited by the plaintiff states –

“The Secretary of state does not have an obligation to evaluate all of the Qualifications of the nominees of political parties and independent candidates for state offices prior to certifying such nominees and candidates to the probate judges pursuant to sections1 7-7-l and l7-16-40 of the Code of Alabama. If the Secretary of State has knowledge gained from an official source arising from the performance of duties prescribed by law, that a candidate has not met a certifying qualification [such as a candidate’s failure to file a public statement of Economic Interest], the Secretary of State should not certify the candidate.”

Clearly the sworn affidavits from Arpaio and Zullo serve as an “official source” placing into doubt at least the certifying qualifications necessary for Mr. Obama to gain access to the Alabama general election ballot. As for the remaining presidential candidates, no such “official source” has presented itself challenging their certifying qualifications.

The Plaintiff’s conclude “It is time — finally — to ensure that the person we are entrusting the highest and most powerful office of our country is eligible to serve for that office. The issue of eligibility has become a political hot potato, in effect a sticky matter for judges and courts around the nation. But the rule of law must eventually govern, without regard to politics, and cannot and should not be sidestepped through legally convenient and politically correct court rulings which ignore the plain language of the U.S. Constitution.””

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/alabamas-goode-mcinnish-v-chapman-ballot-challenge-case-update

From Judge Roy Moore.

“Judge Roy Moore will be having his Investiture (swearing in ceremony) at the Judicial Building in Montgomery on January 11 at 1:30 PM. If you would like to come I need you to give me your name and address so I can send you the ticket and info. Feel free to message me….Thanks!”

https://www.facebook.com/JudgeRoyMoore

Will newly elected AL Chief Justice Roy Moore review this case?

Let’s review Alabama election statutes.

From above:

“According to Strange the Secretary of State aka the Chief Election Officer for the state of Alabama holds no responsibility whatsoever to ensure any and/or all presidential candidates working to gain access to Alabama’s electorate meet the necessary constitutional qualifications to be on their state ballot.”

“Section 17-13-6

Only qualified candidates to be listed on ballots.
The name of no candidate shall be printed upon any official ballot used at any primary election unless such person is legally qualified to hold the office for which he or she is a candidate and unless he or she is eligible to vote in the primary election in which he or she seeks to be a candidate and possesses the political qualifications prescribed by the governing body of his or her political party.”

Legally qualified means as defined by the US Constitution, US election code and Alabama election statutes.

The Alabama Democrat Party made this certification on January 18, 2012.

“CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 17-13-5, Code of Alabama, 1975, I hereby certify that the persons whose names appear below and on the following schedules filed qualifications with me for the March 13, 2012 Democratic Primary Election as candidates for the offices indicated.
President of the United States
Barack Obama

This certification is subject to such disqualifications or corrective action as hereafter may appropriately be made.
Given under my hand and the seal ofthe State Democratic Executive Committee of Alabam

a, this the 18th day of January, 2012.

H. Mark Kennedy Chairman”

http://www.sos.state.al.us/downloads/election/2012/primary/Primary_Candidate_Certification-Democratic_Party-2012-01-18.pdf

ALprimaryCert2012

What part of “qualified” from the statutes or “This certification is subject to such disqualifications or corrective action” do they not understand.

Judge Roy Moore swearing in ceremony Judicial Building Montgomery Alabama January 11, 2013, AL Supreme Court Chief Justice Moore to hear Obama eligibility challenge?, Secretary of State Beth Chapman

Judge Roy Moore swearing in ceremony Judicial Building Montgomery Alabama January 11, 2013, AL Supreme Court Chief Justice Moore to hear Obama eligibility challenge?, Secretary of State Beth Chapman

“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

“Barack Obama, show me the college loans.”…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

Will the newly elected Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore review the recently dismissed Obama eligibility challenge filed against AL Secretary of State Beth Chapman?

From Judge Roy Moore.

“Judge Roy Moore will be having his Investiture (swearing in ceremony) at the Judicial Building in Montgomery on January 11 at 1:30 PM. If you would like to come I need you to give me your name and address so I can send you the ticket and info. Feel free to message me….Thanks!”

“Just found out that in the race for Chief Justice the largest vote spread ever to win was Judge Moore in 2000 with 152,000 votes and the second largest was Tuesday when Judge Moore won by 80,000 votes! “Moore’s victory was part of a Republican sweep of statewide offices in Alabama on Tueday. It was the 1st time since the post-Civil War Reconstruction even in the late 19th century that Democrats were shut out of office on the state level”. (Reuters)”

http://www.facebook.com/JudgeRoyMoore

From WND December 9, 2012.

“A longstanding eligibility case challenging Barack Obama’s presence in the White House soon could be headed to the state Supreme Court in Alabama, where one justice already in a court filing has questioned the authenticity of Obama’s documentation, and the incoming chief justice is a dyed-in-the-wool Constitution supporter with little tolerance for those who want to bypass the document.

The move is pending in an eligibility challenge brought by Hugh McInnish and others against the Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman.

The case most recently was turned down by a state district judge, Eugene Reese, who got his opinion into the mix by determining that the case was “ordered, adjudged and decreed” to be dismissed.

The case calls for a determination that Chapman “has a duty to verify the eligibility of those seeking office.”

In a recent brief in the case, attorney Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and now of the Klayman Law Firm in Washington, noted that while the state is arguing it should not be tasked with making sure candidates are eligible, the submission by the state itself suggests otherwise.

“[An attorney general’s opinion] is not case precedent binding on this court … Nevertheless, it constitutes an admission by Alabama’s chief law enforcement officer on behalf of the state that if the Secretary of State has knowledge gained from an official source about a candidate’s eligibility then she ‘should not’ certify the candidate.”

The issue is the conflict over the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, which demands, “No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president…”

While Obama’s campaign first released a representation of a short-form birth document from Hawaii, and the White House later officially posted online a representation of a long-form certificate, the authenticity of both of those documents has been questioned.

A special Cold Case Posse assembled by Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio concluded that the long-form document was a fabricated image built on a computer.

At last word, it was investigating the possibility of forgery and fraud charges.

“Plaintiffs have shown, backed by sworn affidavits from an ‘official source,’ Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio and his investigator, Mike Zullo, that Barack H. Obama is not a natural born citizen eligible to be president. … There is credible evidence that Mr. Obama was not born within the United States and that his birth certificate or other identifying documents are fraudulent,” Klayman argued.

For one thing, a publisher promoting Obama as an author for years promoted in a biography of Obama that he was a native Kenyan.

“The secretary of state, having the power to certify candidates, can surely de-certify – in effect disqualify – them if they are found to be ineligible. Mr. Obama proceeded at his own risk. He defrauded the people of the state of Alabama as well as the other voters in this country, and incredibly has served an entire presidential term without once having to prove that he was indeed a natural born citizen, despite all the evidence to the contrary,” the plaintiffs argued.

The brief said even though the dispute is a “hot potato,” “the rule of law must eventually govern, without regard to politics, and cannot and should not be sidestepped through legally convenience and politically correct court rulings which ignore the plain language of the U.S. Constitution.”

But many court cases have made such arguments, and have prompted dismissals by “hot potato”-wary judges.

This one, should it appear before the state Supreme Court as Klayman plans, would be before a panel where one judge at an earlier step in the case already has raised doubts about Obama’s authenticity.

It was when the majority of the high court denied a petition filed by McInnish seeking to require an original copy of Obama’s birth certificate before the sitting president would be allowed on the state’s ballot this year, Justice Tom Parker filed a special, unpublished concurrence in the case arguing that McInnish’s charges of “forgery” were legitimate cause for concern.”

Read more:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/2nd-bite-to-challenge-obamas-eligibility/#RO5MOEVeWM15k3XV.99

 

Thanks to commenter observer

Did Obama steal 2012 election?, Voter fraud, Santa Claus effect, Absentee military ballots, Voting Machine “malfunctions”, Illegal aliens voting, Illegal contributions

Did Obama steal 2012 election?, Voter fraud, Santa Claus effect, Absentee military ballots, Voting Machine “malfunctions”, Illegal aliens voting, Illegal contributions

“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

How Obama stole the 2012 election was not a either or scenario. It wasn’t just voter fraud or absentee military ballots not counted or the Santa Claus appeal or the organizing strategy of the Obama Campaign or the massive record breaking contributions. It was a combination of those efforts.

I do not yet have a number for absentee military who were disenfranchised. I know for a fact, however, that they were not given a fair chance. I recently spoke to a family member who was in Iraq in 2008. He did not receive a ballot then.

Are you aware that there are over 800,000 undocumented aliens in Florida alone? In the period leading up to the 2008 election there was so much confusion on the part of social workers about illegal aliens and providing them with voter registration forms in Alamance County NC (just east of Greensboro), that the Sheriff’s Dept. documented the controversies in a paper. The Alamance Sheriff’s Dept. has subsequently been harassed by the US Justice Dept. for their efforts to uphold the law.

Obama and the Democrat party have done their best to permit illegal immigration and are now in the process of making them legal to broaden their voter base even more.

From The Examiner December 10, 2012.

“President Obama carried 70 percent of the Latino vote”

“Obama will introduce his own immigration reform proposal in January or February, and people familiar with the president’s plan say it will probably mirror a 2007 Democratic bill that would provide a path to citizenship for nearly all of the immigrants now in the country illegally, which some estimates put as high as 20 million people. That goes much further in dealing with illegal immigrants than Republicans have ever been willing to go, but Obama is betting that a newly chastened GOP will be more willing to negotiate.”

Read more:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-embraces-immigration-reform-in-appeal-to-hispanic-voters/article/2515586#.UMcnSoP7LhI

Forget the popular vote spread between Obama and Romney. There were literally just a handful of counties in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Virginia that decided the election based on the electoral college. The useless states of California and New York accounted for the popular vote spread.

WND has presented an excellent article on how Obama stole the 2012 election.

From WND December 10, 2012.

“DID OBAMA STEAL THE 2012 ELECTION?”

“Following Barack Obama’s re-election, accusations from some quarters have held that his campaign stole the election through vote fraud. Others claim no vote fraud occurred, and that the election victory resulted from the Obama campaign’s vastly superior get-out-the-vote effort. One RedState diarist has even gone so far as to announce that commenters complaining that the election was stolen will be banned from the site.

With all of the swirling allegations, where does the truth lie? While there have been many proven cases of vote fraud in previous elections, and many credible allegations of fraud in this election cycle, was the cumulative total of all fraud sufficient to throw the election for Obama? After all, Obama’s team ran an intensely focused, highly organized get-out-the-vote effort. Republican efforts were, by comparison, disorganized and nowhere near as comprehensive or sophisticated.

Still, members of the president’s team did everything possible to rig the game in their favor. They took liberties with the law Republicans would never dare attempt and obstructed voter-integrity efforts at every turn, while the vast political-media-entertainment-education-union-nonprofit complex went all in to promote Obama’s narrative.

Democrats and their media allies also engaged in what has fairly been described as a dishonest and “vicious” campaign to discredit the Republican nominee while steadfastly  shielding the administration from its many scandals. Any of these could have sunk Obama’s reelection prospects had the media reported them with the enthusiasm they showed in attacking and spreading disinformation about Romney.

When it comes to outright vote fraud, however, let’s examine first those allegations with the greatest potential for skewing election results.

100 percent vote for Obama

In some inner city precincts, Obama garnered between 98 and 100 percent of the vote. This was most frequently noted about Philadelphia, Pa., and Cleveland, Ohio. Incredulous observers stated, “Third world dictators don’t even get 99 percent of the vote.” Rush Limbaugh quipped, “I mean, the last guy that got this percentage of the vote was Saddam Hussein, and the people that didn’t vote for him got shot.”

But these statements confuse turnout with votes. In communist countries like Saddam’s Iraq, every voter is indeed required to vote for the one choice on the ballot, and participation is close to 100 percent all the time. However, in U.S. elections, turnout has run at about 60 percent for the past three presidential races.”

“Does this mean that vote fraud didn’t occur in these locations? No, but if it did, it was likely not enough to throw the election. One issue that warrants a closer look, however, is absentee ballots. In Ohio, 29.5 percent of the vote came through absentee ballots in 2008 (2012 results are not finalized yet). In Cuyahoga County in 2012, absentee ballots made up 40.5 percent of the total.

According to the New York Times, use of absentee ballots nationwide has tripled since 1980 and now stands at about 20 percent of total ballots cast. The Times notes, “While fraud in voting by mail is far less common than innocent errors, it is vastly more prevalent than the in-person voting fraud that has attracted far more attention, election administrators say.”

Absentee ballots are particularly vulnerable to vote fraud. In one notorious recent case in upstate Troy, N.Y., eight local Democrat politicians were indicted and four have pleaded guilty to falsifying absentee ballots. This was a local election and these politicians won their seats before getting caught. Anthony DeFiglio, a Democratic committeeman who pleaded guilty, said that absentee ballot fraud was a “normal political tactic”:

[It is] an ongoing scheme and it occurs on both sides of the aisle. The people who are targeted live in low-income housing and there is a sense that they are a lot less likely to ask any questions… What appears as a huge conspiracy to nonpolitical persons is really a normal political tactic.

Bob Mirch, the former Republican legislator who first discovered this fraud, said, “It’s an insider game. It takes insiders to do it, and I think it takes insiders to catch those who try to steal the election. … It’s easy to do it and yes, it’s easy to not get caught …” Frank LaPosta, a former Troy, N.Y., city council president said he got run out of the Democratic Party for speaking out against the vote fraud.”

“Just the same, it is clear that Democrats are up to something at inner city polls. Their eye-popping – and illegal – stonewalling of poll watchers strongly suggests nefarious activity. The left’s nationwide campaign to discredit voter integrity efforts as “voter suppression” and their obstinate battle against voter ID laws only serve to reinforce this impression. Following are a few examples of realvoter suppression and threats to voter integrity that occurred in 2012:

  • 75 GOP vote inspectors were ordered to leave Philadelphia poll locations by Democrat poll judges. One judge was caught on audio. A court order sent them back but who knows what went on while they were gone? These poll locations were all within the 59 precincts where Romney received no votes.
  • In Philadelphia, the Community Voters Project, an ACORN clone that employs some former ACORN workers, shredded Republican voter registrations. This is not the first time they have been in trouble.
  • The Florida AFL-CIO threatened True the Vote and Tampa Fair Vote with legal action for submitting voter registration challenges.
  • Maryland Representative Elijah Cummings issued a highly publicized threat against True the Vote and Election Integrity Maryland just for checking voter rolls. EIM found 11,000 questionable registrations, including 1,566 dead voters. The Maryland Board of Elections took no action.
  • Cummings also attacked the Ohio Voter Integrity Project with the same baseless claims.
  • Think Progress falsely claimed True the Vote was “under investigation” by Rep. Cummings, when in fact he has no legal authority to do so.
  • Despite overwhelming nonpartisan public support for voter ID laws, Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department and liberal jurists have delayed, emasculated or defeated ID laws in Texas, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Arizona and Pennsylvania.
  • Holder has vowed to fight voter ID laws as restricting voters’ rights.
  • The Obama administration “spiked investigations” of eight states that had major voter roll problems.
  • The Holder Justice Department conspired with Project Vote on National Voter Registration Act (aka Motor Voter) enforcement lawsuits, which force state and local agencies to become, essentially, low income voter registration drives.
  • In 2009 DOJ announced to its attorneys that it would not enforce voter roll maintenance laws because it wouldn’t increase voter turnout.

“Finally, whatever the actual level of voter fraud that occurred in the 2012 election, the potential for future fraud is truly staggering. Pew Research Center published a report revealing election rolls in a shambles nationwide. They found:

  • 24 million invalid or inaccurate voter registrations
  • 1.8 million deceased voters
  • 2.75 million registered in multiple states.

As noted earlier, Cloward and Piven’s Motor Voter law is responsible for much of this mess.

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas found 30,000 dead voters still on the rolls in North Carolina, a state Obama won by only 14,000 votes in 2008.”

“llegal alien voting

Glenn Cook of the Las Vegas Review Journal reported in early November that illegal aliens were being pressured, even threatened, by Culinary Union Local 226, to register and vote. Cook related the story of two illegals who told him about it. In Florida, an NBC investigative report found that illegals were registered to vote and indeed have been voting.

This year, immigration officials uncovered a massive document fraud ring operating in Baltimore that has provided thousands of fraudulent driver’s licenses, green cards and Social Security cards to illegals for years. Such documents are apparently easy and inexpensive to obtain.

DHS believes about one-third of illegals in the U.S. are people who have simply overstayed their visas. Many of these people could have obtained driver’s licenses while still legal. Since licenses typically expire after a much longer period, it is reasonable to assume many of these people could be registered to vote.

Because of the National Voter Registration Act (Motor Voter), anyone who obtains a new driver’s license is automatically registered to vote. Furthermore, the NVRA does not require voting officials to verify proof of citizenship when people register. In states where illegals can obtain driver’s licenses, including California, Washington, New Mexico and Utah, they are likely already registered to vote. How many illegals actually vote on a systematic basis is not known, but many do.

In fact, Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler found that about 5,000 Colorado illegals voted in the 2010 midterm elections and 12,000 were registered to vote. In 2012, he sent letters to 3,900 people identified as potentially illegal voters. Gessler’s office intends to conduct a thorough statewide analysis once all results are official.

These illegal voters should obviously not be ignored. They could spell the difference between victory and defeat in many cases.

One aspect of Colorado’s voting history merits especially close scrutiny. Colorado has an approximately equal number of registered Republicans (1,157,373) and Democrats (1,151,198). Historically, unaffiliated voters in Colorado have numbered roughly the same. Between 2008 and 2012, however, their numbers grew by a whopping 23 percent, some 248,000 people. Unaffiliated voters, now numbering 1.3 million, are the largest single voting bloc in Colorado. Who are these people?

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, between 2000 and 2010 Colorado’s population grew by 728,000. Fully 42 percent of these were Hispanic and almost all, 303,000, were of Mexican descent. A Gallup poll shows that Hispanics in general (52 percent), but immigrants especially (60 percent), tend to identify as independent. Yet most affiliate with Democrats (52 percent) versus Republicans (23 percent).

How many of these were illegal, and how many of them voted? A study on illegal immigrant demographics by the Center for Immigration Studies estimates Colorado’s illegal population at 167,000, so to pin Obama’s Colorado win on illegals alone would require almost all of these to have registered and voted.

According to the Colorado Secretary of State’s office, Coloradan voters must show a state-issued ID if they have one; if not, a utility bill or Social Security number will suffice. It is likely that some illegals voted and could have contributed to Obama’s victory, but it is unreasonable to assume a large scale illegal vote would have gone unnoticed. Gessler’s observation of a few thousand illegal voters is much more realistic.

Obama’s Colorado win was, however, secured with the unaffiliated vote, and many of these were Hispanic. According to Latino Decisions, an election eve poll claimed that 87 percent of Latinos in Colorado supported Obama over Romney. Nationwide, they found that the GOP was supported by only 25 percent of Hispanics. An October 2012 Pew Hispanic Center poll showed only 21 percent of Hispanics supporting Romney to 69 percent for Obama.

Despite Republican post-election hand-wringing, this is not likely to change much with any kind of concessions to the Hispanic community.

The reasons are straightforward and not dependent upon immigration reform. According to the CIS study, 57 percent of illegals in the U.S. live at or near poverty. Granted amnesty, would this group suddenly embrace the entitlement-reform-minded Republican Party en masse? Who would get credit for amnesty in their minds, Democrats, or the Republicans they dragged to the table? The very act of Republicans “conceding” to Democrats on amnesty and immigration “reform” declares Democrats the victors.

More relevant are the sentiments among legal immigrants and Hispanic U.S. citizens. According to CIS, well over 60 percent of legal immigrants from Mexico and Central American countries – i.e. the vast majority of Hispanic immigrants – live near or in poverty. Among U.S. born Hispanics, 50 percent of households with children are led by single mothers, 55 percent of households with children utilize welfare, and 45 percent of all Hispanic households pay no income tax.

They will probably not be voting Republican anytime soon.”

I urge you to read the entire article here:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/did-obama-steal-the-2012-election/#AfTC1PRBg1PHSkrD.99

Ohio stimulus fraud discovered by inspector general audit, Ohio election fraud revealed by audit?, Ohio 2012 election certification includes absentee and provisional ballots

Ohio stimulus fraud discovered by inspector general audit, Ohio election fraud revealed by audit?, Ohio 2012 election certification includes absentee and provisional ballots

“What do you think a stimulus is? It’s spending – that’s the whole point! Seriously.”…Barack Obama

“An additional 2,735 were cast by people who elections officials believe were not registered in Ohio”…The Columbus Dispatch Nov. 21, 2012

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

From The Columbus Dispatch November 27, 2012.

“$255K in stimulus spending questioned by Ohio inspector general”

“than a quarter million dollars in federal stimulus money administered by a state agency may have been improperly spent, the Ohio inspector general found in a report released today.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services Office of Workforce Development “failed to adequately oversee” a $1 million federal grant for a jobs training initiative for southwest Ohio and $255,000 in spending was questioned by the inspector general.

The grant was used to pay cell phone bills, buy gift cards and rent an office from the company – shut down after it didn’t pay taxes – of a man on the board of the agency overseeing the grant, the probe found. The president of the group managing the grant got a salary that would have had her working 15.5 hours a day, seven days a week, investigators discovered. And more than $75,000 in wages were improperly documented.”

http://dispatchpolitics.dispatch.com/content/blogs/the-daily-briefing/2012/11/27-november-2012—odjfs-ig-report.html

After processing over 300,000 absentee and provisional ballots the Ohio 2012 election results were supposed to be certified yesterday, November 27, 2012. Some of the counties checked appear to have completed their counts.

From Citizen Wells November 27, 2012.

“Over 300,000 ballots were being processed recently in Ohio. 204,927 provisional ballots and 119,535 absentee ballots.

http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/enrpublic/f?p=212:52:653548358565003::NO:::

How many provisional ballots were discarded?

The Ohio canvass for vote certification is supposed to end today.

Excessive confusion has abounded in Ohio due to most registered voters being sent absentee ballots and voter registration mismatches. Documented voter fraud and mistakes have been documented in many counties. Will the Ohio audit remedy this?

Here is another example of voter fraud or malfeasance.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/ohio-canvass-vote-certification-november-27-2012-provisional-ballots-counted-and-counted-correctly-hamilton-county-voter-fraud-double-votes-ohio-audit-trustworthy/

Hopefully the 2012 election audits in Ohio will be as vigilant as the Inspector General.

From Citizen Wells November 22, 2012.

“Ohio Secretary of State Directive 2012-56, 2012 post election audits.

DIRECTIVE 2012-56
November 20, 2012
To: All County Boards of Elections
Directors, Deputy Directors, and Board Members
Re: Post-Election Audits
SUMMARY
In 2009, the previous administration entered into a settlement agreement in the case of League of Women Voters, et al. v. Brunner [formerly Blackwell], N.D. Ohio No. 3:05-cv-7309. As explained in Advisory 2009-09, the League of Women Voters settlement agreement requires that county boards of elections conduct post-election audits of all ballots cast following general elections in even-numbered years and following presidential primary elections.
POST-ELECTION AUDIT PROCEDURES

A. Timeline

Each board of elections must conduct a post-election audit beginning no sooner than six days after the official certification of election results by the board of elections, unless there is an automatic recount (declared by the Board or, in the case of a multi-county district election, declared by the Secretary of State) or the board of elections has received a valid application for a recount. If a recount is conducted, the post-election audit shall begin immediately after the Board certifies the results of the recount. A board of elections must not conduct the audit before the Board’s certification of its official canvass of the election.
The Board must complete the post-election audit between the seventh day after the Board declares its official certification and the 28th day after the Secretary of State declares the official certification in a statewide election.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/ohio-2012-election-audit-november-20-2012-post-election-audit-procedures-secretary-of-state-directive-2012-56-absentee-military-ballots/

 

Ohio canvass vote certification November 27, 2012, Provisional ballots counted and counted correctly?, Hamilton County voter fraud double votes, Ohio audit trustworthy?

Ohio canvass vote certification November 27, 2012, Provisional ballots counted and counted correctly?, Hamilton County voter fraud double votes, Ohio audit trustworthy?

“An additional 2,735 were cast by people who elections officials believe were not registered in Ohio”…The Columbus Dispatch Nov. 21, 2012

“Eighty-one voters in Hamilton County, Ohio, cast more than one ballot in the Nov. 6 election, officials said, bringing calls for investigation and prosecution.”...UPI Nov. 21, 2012

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

Over 300,000 ballots were being processed recently in Ohio. 204,927 provisional ballots and 119,535 absentee ballots.

http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/enrpublic/f?p=212:52:653548358565003::NO:::

How many provisional ballots were discarded?

The Ohio canvass for vote certification is supposed to end today.

Excessive confusion has abounded in Ohio due to most registered voters being sent absentee ballots and voter registration mismatches. Documented voter fraud and mistakes have been documented in many counties. Will the Ohio audit remedy this?

Here is another example of voter fraud or malfeasance.

From UPI November  21, 2012.

“Eighty-one voters in Hamilton County, Ohio, cast more than one ballot in the Nov. 6 election, officials said, bringing calls for investigation and prosecution.

The disclosure came as the Hamilton County Board of Elections agreed to count nearly 15,000 provisional and absentee ballots which could potentially change the outcome of several local ballot measures, The Columbus Dispatch reported Wednesday.

Election board staffers reported 63 voters cast both an early absentee ballot and a provisional ballot on Election Day, and 18 others voted twice on Nov. 6, typically by casting a regular vote in one precinct and a provisional ballot in another.

The double votes would not have changed the outcome of any election in Hamilton County, which includes the city of Cincinnati and where 420,000 votes were cast, the newspaper said.

“This is a dangerous situation,” elections board member and county Republican Chairman Alex Triantafilou said, noting 81 people “thought it appropriate to go and vote twice,” a situation meriting a possible referral to the county prosecutor’s office.”

Read more:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/11/21/81-Ohioans-voted-twice-board-discloses/UPI-80351353531538/#ixzz2DRBgqME7