Posted on 11/19/2011 5:15:22 AM PST by Docs Galore
Atty. Orly Taitz reported the following from the Ballot Law Commission hearing in Concord, NH regarding her election complaint against Barack Hussein Obama for social security fraud and forgery:
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Asshats like you who signed on the summer of ‘08 think you’re smart because you haven’t been zotted yet. But we longtime freepers have you on a list. And now this little piece of fecal floater from you gets added. You see, punk/punkette, if a person retells a story enough times over a thirty year period, they have a running memory of the story. Yes, as this honorable man has stated, it turns out the story was based upon a lie to to him. Now, when do you want your lightening ride?
Larry Craig being a sickening exception.
Larry was the right sex unlike the other guys.
so, which event was more impressing on my mind of the two do you think?
Someone making a fool out of himself and attacking people who defend the constitution?
Or meeting someone who I was led to believe was the son of a famous historical figure and believed for 30 years that he told the truth?
Dont think too hard on that one...
I worry that the GOP will give us another Bob Dole type candidate. Someone who gets to run because it’s his turn.
Someone that cannot be readily supported without severe reservations and at best a “hold your nose while you cast the vote” experience.
Though it is interesting to me that you edited your story to remove the Liddy name in December of 2009 after having this stuff brought to your attention back then, but do not recall this two years later.
It doesn't fare well for claims to the veracity of your memories from 1980, given the emotionally charged subject matter.
The only relevant question for me: Is Pharnsworth correct?
It is clear Pharnsworth is NOT correct, that is obvious.
How is it that Pharnsworth is CLEARLY not correct? Pharnsworth is attempting to impugn the honesty of an esteemed fellow Freeper of long-standing, a Freeper who has over the many years demonstrated his commitment to high ideals, integrity and brotherhood. Even on this very thread that Freeper shows a basic honesty, a pure honesty of purpose and motive absolutely missing from Parnsworth’s posts.
Answering that very relevant question: No, Pharnsworth is not correct.
The apple handed you by a bad mouther is pretty poison.
Even Race now admits that he could not have met G Gordon Liddy’s son on a ship bound for Iran in 1980.
But in pursuit of clarity, what’s Pharnsworth wrong about on this thread?
What does NH statute say about challenges to placement on a ballot? Does it say that the only kind of challenge the Commission is authorized to consider (and decide) is whether the check says $1,000 and whether a statement of candidacy exists?
There are 2 questions Orly (or any of the others there) should have asked, or should be asking now that the Commission has heard her testimony:
1. WHEN will each one of you demonstrate your unwillingness to commit misprision of felony by demanding that your Attorney General do a criminal investigation of Obama’s crimes of forgery, election fraud, social security fraud, and treason?
2. If Obama is found guilty and sits in jail, convicted of forgery, election fraud, social security fraud, and treason... will $1,000 and his perjurious statements STILL allow him to be on NH’s ballot, since the only question is whether the statements exist, and not whether they are perjurious, forged, or treasonous?
I was clear. In pursuit of honesty perhaps you should re-read this discussion after a few night’s sleep. Sleep clarifies what the will can obscure.
655:17-b Declaration of Intent; Presidential Candidates Who File Nomination Papers. I. Declarations of intent for each candidate for president who seeks nomination by nomination papers shall be in the form provided in paragraph II. Declarations of intent required by this section shall be filed with the secretary of state, signed by the candidate, and notarized by a notary public. II. I, _________, swear under penalties of perjury that I am qualified to be a candidate for president of the United States pursuant to article II, section 1, clause 4 of the United States Constitution, which states, “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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” I further declare that I am domiciled in the city (or town or unincorporated place) of _____, county of ____, state of ____, and am a qualified voter therein; that I intend to be a candidate for the office of president to be chosen at the general election to be held on the ____ day of ____; and I intend to file nomination papers by the deadline established under RSA 655:43. I further declare that, if qualified as a candidate for said office, I shall not withdraw; and that, if elected, I shall be qualified for and shall assume the duties of said office.Notice that the law requires Constitutional elgibility. The lawyer skipped over this requirement. The commission is by law supposed to uphold the law. Notice it says there is penalty of perjury in the declaration. Under the SCOTUS definition of NBC, Obama has committed perjury, although it’s not clear what legal body in NH determines that perjury has been committed. Someone should have smacked the election commission upside their collective heads with this law that their counsel incompetently omitted: “
Somebody should try to get Osama bin Laden on NH’s ballot. $1,000 cash and a signature that claims to be Osama, and by this Commission’s admission they have no choice but to put the name on the ballot. Maybe Mickey Mouse...
This could get REALLY, REALLY fun. They can’t investigate whether the documents submitted to them are fraudulent, and besides the name being claimed there is no way of knowing who actually submitted any of the documents anyway so there would be no way to prosecute anybody for the perjury of claiming to be Bin Laden/Mickey Mouse and eligible to be POTUS. In fact, we’ve got people like that voting in every election.
Who wants to be Mickey Mouse? Osama Bin Laden? The NH ballot could be REALLY interesting in 2012! Maybe a dose of their own medicine is just what the doctor calls for. Wouldn’t you LOVE to hear the people on this Commission adamantly explain to the public - in response to a 5-page ballot for POTUS - that they HAVE to put Beetle Bailey and The-Dog-Who Ate-My-Homework on the ballot because they got a paper signed by him/her plus $1,000?
lolol.
Thank you! Wow. Here’s the clickable link:
http://www.sos.nh.gov/655-web2011.pdf
Read this:
“655:14 Filing: General Provisions. The name of any person shall not be printed upon the ballot of any party for
a primary unless he or she is a registered member of that party, he or she shall have met the age and domicile
qualifications for the office he or she seeks at the time of the general election, he or she meets all the other qualifications
at the time of filing, and he or she shall file with the appropriate official between the first Wednesday in June and the
Friday of the following week a declaration of candidacy as provided in RSA 655:17.”
The default setting is that the name shall NOT be printed unless.... and only ONE of the requirements is that the filing be proper. The person MUST also “meet all other qualifications at the time of filing”. IOW, the law says that nobody can be listed on the ballot unless they meet all legal qualifications for the position they seek.
Whoever that legal counsel was at that meeting totally butchered the law. Totally butchered it. The filing statement and fee is ONE OF FIVE requirements that ALL have to be met BEFORE a name can be placed on the ballot.
That’s the problem with someone like Orly Taitz who comes in totally unprepared. If they had this law already in front of them like they should have, they could have immediately contested the advice of the counsel.
Surely the counsel is a lawyer, and it was stated right at the meeting that lawyers don’t have to be sworn because they are basically always under oath.
This guy should be getting into some really, really hot water for blatantly misrepresenting the statute while under oath in a government hearing.
Orly is spread too thin. We all are. We’re all working multiple jobs while doing this on the side - while the people we pay good wages and benefits to in order to have them do this on our behalf.... take our money and flip us the bird. I hear what you’re saying, and it’s true. But I also know how impossible it is to get all the i’s dotted and t’s crossed when you’ve got so much going on. I wish there was a way we could all pitch in and coordinate so we have a way to get everything necessary researched.
If they had this law already in front of them like they should have .....
Rocky English aside, edge is correct
“Rocky”??? Are you not following the pronouns??
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.