Especially since it’s a citizen who just pointed out the fact that the officials in Washington are bound by federal laws on fraud and forgery, making it clear that all these unsavory characters in government are committing misprision of those crimes for failing to do anything about it when presented with probable cause by law enforcement. Jordan didn’t address it, but #5 in the statute (below) talks about neglect on the part of elections officials. To totally blow off law enforcement telling you that a crime has been committed and the holder of the nuclear football is claiming a birth certificate that cannot be his real one is gross neglect. They can no longer claim ignorance, and they can’t claim that the law only requires a sworn statement, Certification, etc, because statute itself says that a filer to be on the ballot SHALL be qualified for the office. It is MANDATORY. It’s not that the filer has to CLAIM to be qualified, it’s that the filer has to BE qualified. To totally ignore that law enforcement has said the candidate has staked his claims on a fraudulent “proof” of eligibility is gross neglect, and misprision of federal and state laws - in effect, participating in election fraud. The judge and justices are doing the exact same thing. They cannot claim ignorance.
The statute Jordan cited requires the judge to order Obama to desist from claiming his forged birth certificate as genuine, which is the fraud that Jordan is reporting and which is being used by the SOS to “presume” that Obama is eligible. The judge is violating the law. It is not the job of Jordan to bring in Obama; that is the judge’s job, according to the statute. Here it is:
RCW 29A.68.011
Prevention and correction of election frauds and errors.
Any justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of appeals, or judge of the superior court in the proper county shall, by order, require any person charged with error, wrongful act, or neglect to forthwith correct the error, desist from the wrongful act, or perform the duty and to do as the court orders or to show cause forthwith why the error should not be corrected, the wrongful act desisted from, or the duty or order not performed, whenever it is made to appear to such justice or judge by affidavit of an elector that:
(1) An error or omission has occurred or is about to occur in printing the name of any candidate on official ballots; or
(2) An error other than as provided in subsections (1) and (3) of this section has been committed or is about to be committed in printing the ballots; or
(3) The name of any person has been or is about to be wrongfully placed upon the ballots; or
(4) A wrongful act other than as provided for in subsections (1) and (3) of this section has been performed or is about to be performed by any election officer; or
(5) Any neglect of duty on the part of an election officer other than as provided for in subsections (1) and (3) of this section has occurred or is about to occur; or
(6) An error or omission has occurred or is about to occur in the official certification of the election.
An affidavit of an elector under subsections (1) and (3) of this section when relating to a primary election must be filed with the appropriate court no later than two days following the closing of the filing period for such office and shall be heard and finally disposed of by the court not later than five days after the filing thereof. An affidavit of an elector under subsections (1) and (3) of this section when relating to a general election must be filed with the appropriate court no later than three days following the official certification of the primary election returns and shall be heard and finally disposed of by the court not later than five days after the filing thereof. An affidavit of an elector under subsection (6) of this section shall be filed with the appropriate court no later than ten days following the official certification of the election as provided in RCW 29A.60.190, 29A.60.240, or 29A.60.250 or, in the case of a recount, ten days after the official certification of the amended abstract as provided in RCW 29A.64.061.
[2011 c 349 § 25; 2007 c 374 § 3; 2005 c 243 § 22; 2004 c 271 § 182.]
Notes:
Effective date — 2011 c 349: See note following RCW 29A.04.255.
In order to create a court case where the evidence itself can be examined, the judge was REQUIRED to presume that the charge in the affidavit was true. On appeal, Obama could try to refute the charge.
Here’s a court case cited by the Congressional Research SErvice’s 2011 version of a memo on Presidential eligibility. This regards a man born in 1909 (before hospital births were routine and before birth certificate registration was nearly automatic). Sometimes this guy claimed he was born in the US and sometimes he claimed he was born in Greece. There was no legally valid BC either place. So the court had to filter through all the evidence to see what was credible and what wasn’t. He did have a delayed birth certificate from the US, which in the absence of any other BC anywhere else and the spottiness of birth certificate registration in that area at the time was considered a legal starting point. Because the OTHER evidence, including official records in Greece, supported what was on that delayed birth certificate it was ruled that he was born in the US and his claims otherwise were to get out of registering for the draft and his friend making misinformed claims about him on his behalf (on his 2nd marriage certificate) because he was drunk at the time.
This is the case: LIACAKOS v. KENNEDY
195 F.Supp. 630 (1961)
United States District Court District of Columbia.
June 29, 1961.
This is where it is found: http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=4&xmldoc=1961825195FSupp630_1716.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985&SizeDisp=7
And this is a money quote that fits what the SOS and/or judge needed to do according to Washington statute: PROVIDE A CASE FOR APPEAL:
“A ruling of an administrative official denying citizenship has no prima facie effect or any other effect except to serve as a basis for establishing a justiciable controversy. What is being tried now is the cause of action for a declaratory judgment to establish citizenship. In such an action the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This burden of proof, however, need not be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt, but merely by a fair preponderance of the evidence, for naturally, the proceeding is of a civil nature.”
In this case, all Jordan is asking - and the law is requiring - is that a ruling be made that establishes a justiciable controversy so that the burden of proof regarding Obama’s birth facts would fall on Obama - the only one who can authorize release of the GENUINE record and not the forgeries he’s been using - and the true facts could be legally determined so that Washington statute requiring the filer to be qualified could be obeyed.
And THAT is precisely what they all failed to do. Deliberately. That failure, in light of law enforcement’s declaration of probable cause for forgery and fraud regarding the documents the candidate has set forth so far, is gross negligence on the part of EVERY ONE of these people: SOS, AG, judge, and justices. All they had to do was create a case for Obama to use as a platform to legally prove he is qualified to be on the WA ballot. There is no legal threat or problem whatsoever, if Obama has a valid HI BC.
IOW, all these people are OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, albeit in a civil proceeding rather than a criminal one (at this juncture). They should all be either impeached or censured by the bar.