Posted on 01/01/2012 10:47:07 AM PST by GregNH
(Jan. 1, 2012) — On January 3, 2012, several members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives will hold a press conference with the primary purpose of informing New Hampshire citizens and registered voters that Barack Hussein Obama may not be eligible to serve as president and therefore should not have his name appear on the 2012 presidential ballot.
The time and place are tentatively set for 10:00 a.m. outside of the Legislative Office Building in Concord.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Only without the bananas, and increasingly without the Republic.
Thank you for the articles. They are very, very interesting partcularly the New York (AP) one.
Romney evidently dropped out without letting the issue of his natural born citizen status be resolved.
From reading about him at Wikipedia, he was a liberal Republican, and Richard Nixon had to rein in some of Romney’s intended actions.
: would this be perceived as protection for Obama over the natural born citizen question?
YES! Just like McCain’s Panama birth insulated Obama from same. This has all been arranged and many are complicit, including the GOP. In my mind, the media is the biggest culprit because it is their job to expose the perfidy not to participate in it and without their cover none of this would have been possible.
The Constitution specifically provided for those you mentioned. check it out.
NH Ballot Law Commission holding unlawful hearings to decide Obama's eligibility for Presidency
While the decision of the commission is final, the process itself is subject to scrutiny and there is no prohibition on courts hearing suits regarding whether the process was done lawfully.
One of the points about the process itself is this:
>>>
RSA 665:11 Evidence. In any hearing, the commission shall not be bound by the technical rules of evidence; but its findings MUST (emphasis mine) be supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. >>>
The finding of the commission was that they have to put on the ballot anybody who paid the money and filed the paperwork. But this lawsuit has reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that this is not the case - the SOS’s own determination that 2 different people who properly filed and paid were still not allowed on the ballot.
So the PROCEDURE itself did not meet the requirements of the law and is appealable in court. The commission’s claim was NOT supported by evidence as required and in fact, there is irrefutable evidence that their claim is absolutely false.
The procedure itself was violated; the law REQUIRES their findings to be supported by evidence, and their finding is absolutely refuted by evidence. The finding is not lawful. If there was a lawful finding it would be final and could not be appealed. But there is no finding from that commission that is lawful.
Very, very interesting. And as I just commented, the legality of the process is appealable to the courts.
The decision of the commission is final, but the findings of the commission MUST be supported by sound evidence. The finding that all candidates who fill out the paperwork properly and submit the money have to be put on the ballot is directly contradicted by the evidence given in the lawsuit.
So not only were there illegal votes at the hearing, the process itself violated the requirements of the law. The decision would be final if the findings and process met the requirements of the law. But they don’t. They really, really don’t. And the courts have no justification to deny hearing a case on the legality of the PROCESS.
Not only that but i can tell you that the fix was in from the get go. I could tell by the body language and lack of patience this commission had shown, or should I say the Chairman had shown. He made inappropriate facial expressions during Orly’s testimony clearly showing his disdain for her and the fact that he had to sit through this process. Then they left the room for “private deliberations” and came back and simply voted. No questions from any on the members, no cross examination. There were 88 pages of material submitted and no one had a question. Just writing this is pissing me off again!
I may have found one person who can video tape this. Won’t really know until tomorrow.
I hope the two Representatives will record this and post it.
LF, I sent you a Freepmail that’s really important. Please let me know if you don’t receive it right away.
butterdezillion wrote: “Evidence. In any hearing, the commission shall not be bound by the technical rules of evidence; but its findings MUST (emphasis mine) be supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.”
So why did Taitz show up with all that crank nonsense?
butterdezillion wrote: “So the PROCEDURE itself did not meet the requirements of the law and is appealable in court.”
They tried appealing, and already have the answer from the court.
butterdezillion wrote: “The commission’s claim was NOT supported by evidence as required and in fact, there is irrefutable evidence that their claim is absolutely false.”
Can you point to the part of the law that makes you the judge of the facts? What I see is: “The decision of the ballot law commission in such cases shall be final as to questions both of law and fact, and no court shall have jurisdiction to review such decision.”
Are you one of NH ballot law commissioners?
I think a better question would be, “Does the SOS have im munity?” I think they can be sued personnally and in their SOS position.Wouldn’t take much to do this. Also, Legislators should have some juice with the Gov of NH. Skip the AG. Put the GOV on the spot and maybe you will get some action.
Just an opinion.
Show me what reliable, probative, and substantial evidence the commission gave for their claim that they have to put anybody on the ballot if they filled out the paperwork correctly and paid the fee - specifically the evidence to rebut the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence to the contrary, which is the SOS’s prior decision that 2 different people who filed the paperwork and paid were still left off the ballot because they were not natural born citizens.
If they don’t have evidence to rebut the reality of their own SOS’s prior decisions, then their finding does not meet the requirement of the law and the hearing can be contested on procedural grounds - that NO evidence was presented for the finding, much less “reliable, probative, and substantial evidence” as required by the statute.
IOW, unsupported findings are illegal, and that’s exactly what this commission had. Legal decisions can’t be appealed. If illegal decisions can’t be appealed, then the law means nothing.
Furthermore, Greg has pointed out that the hearing itself was illegal because votes were allowed from at least 2 people who didn’t qualify to be on the commission because they had made political contributions.
So the whole thing was illegal. And what grounds would a court have for refusing to provide remedy for an illegal hearing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.