SAVE ORLY
ALERT ALERT: Breaking technicality found.
The website http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1703 has a document, with Barack Obama’s signature on it, that purports to be a “Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper” required in Arizona by A.R.S. § 16-242. The significant thing about this is that it is completely invalid. The notarization of Obama’s signature was made by a Virginia notary and as such is subject to Va. Code 47.1-16 (effective July 1, 2007). The Virginia law requires that: “Every notarization shall include the date upon which the notarial act was performed, and the COUNTY or CITY IN WHICH it was performed.” Violation number two occurred when Ray Anderson, Notary failed to note when his own authority to notarize documents expired. The Virginia law requires that requires it with the word “shall” is stated here, “Upon every writing which is the subject of a notarial act, the notary shall, after his certificate, state the date of the expiration of his commission.” Obama may try to seek safe harbor from any criminal fraud allegation on account of “swearing that he is qualified to hold the office he sought” that such document was invalid and thus could not be used as evidence against him. This is just one piece of evidence applicable to the state of Arizona. Obama inc. may well have bungled the other 57 states requirements on candidate eligibility. In the worst case scenario for Obama, the invalid candidate attestation invalidates the amount of Arizona electoral college votes which in turn invalidates the 2008 Joint Session of Congress certifying electoral votes.
This is a very technical application of the rules but we should not apologize for applying the law when Obama never apologized for his own hardball tactics where he used the rule book to win his first race for Illinois state Senate against Alice Palmer. See http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html . I also suggest that any discovery questions relating to this “notary issue” is fair game when standing is based upon 3 U.S.C. § 15. As has been said, possibly multiple provisions were not properly followed on January 8, 2009 when the votes for Obama were counted. And the district court therefore does have jurisdiction to review a failure of the Government to follow the laws enacted to protect the integrity of the electoral process.
Therefore, upon the Leo Donofrio, basis: since the DOJ raised the statute and relied upon it for the motion to dismiss, and since Judge Carter has allowed immediate discovery necessary for purposes of opposing the motion to dismiss, Orly should also demand discovery for any issue related to the invalidity of each individual state presidential eligibility documents. Apparently, the Arizona documents are invalid because they require a valid Notary endorsement, which Obama failed to provide.
(Note this argument fails if the Arizona document was merely cropped and the original actually contains the location of the notarial act and identifies the commission expiration date.)