Pressure rises in challenge to ballot listing for Obama

yes, there was an article here the other day

that said that now that they had recalled ron peace the state senator

that they would now go after both arpaio and brewer.

how soon they start, i do not know.

yes. i think so.

he probably has more staying power than ron peace the state senator.

Somebody needs to get Sal Mohamad to sue NH for failure to provide equal protection under the law. If Mohamad paid $1,000 and filed a declaration of candidacy, then he should have been put on the ballot just like Obama - if those are the only things that legally matter, as the Commission’s counsel said.

But they aren’t. NH Statute gives the general requirements for placement on the primary ballot thusly (found at http://www.sos.nh.gov/655-web2011.pdf ):

“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.”

There are FIVE requirements:
1. Registered member of the party.
2. Meets age requirement for the position at the time of filing.
3. Meets residency requirement for the position at the time of filing.
4. Meets all other requirements at time of filing.
5. Files to the proper person at the proper time.

The person’s name is NOT TO BE PRINTED ON THE BALLOT unless and until the person meets those 5 requirements. The counsel “conveniently” forgot to mention that the default is for EXCLUSION of the name from the ballot unless and until ALL FIVE requirements are met.

The SOS acted properly in regards to Sal Mohamed. The statute is clear. They are NOT acting properly with regards to Obama, and the counsel at that hearing should be scrutinized as to whether he deliberately deceived the Commission regarding what the SOS and/or commission are legally authorized (and even REQUIRED) to evaluate before placing a name on the ballot. He said they can only consider #5. That’s a flat-out lie, according to the actual statute.

Orly needs to be made aware of that fact. If somebody could please let her know that I would be eternally grateful. My computer is apparently being monitored again so I have no guarantees that anything I send actually makes it to the person I email.

Orly also needs to make sure that the people who support her file a report of forgery, election fraud, and social security fraud with the NH Attorney General. She then needs to let the Commission know that she will file a report of MISPRISION of felony for each commission member who fails to report the felonies they have been made aware of to the State AG.

Actually, we all need to file a report as well, or we are guilty of misprision as well. It’s sort of the Penn State thing. The witnesses reported to Paterno. Paterno reported to the AD and college president (IIRC). And that’s as far as it went. I have tried to report this to the FBI, and actually filed an official complaint via an internet form. I’ve also alerted committee members of the NE Senate, as well as members of the US Congress. NE’s US Attorney wouldn’t let me file a report; had to come from the FBI, they said. I filed a report to the HI Dept of Corrections - not only for Obama’s crimes but for the crimes of Okubo and Fukino. Never heard squat from them and had no way of even proving that I filed the complaint.

I’ve learned a lot more information since then. And an even more blatant forgery has been presented since then. Maybe we need to get the evidence presented concisely and clearly, and then everybody needs to present it to law enforcement at every level. My county sheriff said he would pass it on to the county attorney but they probably don’t have the money to investigate (I noted that he did NOT say they don’t have the jurisdiction to investigate, only the money). I think I asked if the county attorney would report it to the NE AG and never received an answer.

The difficulty is that there is SO MUCH evidence, and getting to the bottom of any issue is a convoluated mess because of the obfuscation by government officials. If the details are fleshed out in separate links it can be done in an orderly way though.

Oops. #2 and #3 need to be met at the time of the general election, not at the time of filing.

http://www.politics1.com/p2008-dems.htm

“Unfortunately for Mohamed, he was born in Egypt and became a naturalized US citizen in 1983 — meaning he is constitutionally barred from being President. He filed for the NH primary ballot, but was disqualified as ineligible for the office.”

http://www.sos.nh.gov/presprim2008/candidatesfiled.htm

“Friday, October 19, 2007

[below is shown as strike out]
“Sal” Mohamed, d (by mail) Disqualified..
mail: 2300 Indian Hills Drive, #3-323, Sioux City, IA 51104 www.salmohamedforpresident.org “

http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/secretary-of-state-responses-in-regards-to-request-for-obama-records/

“Every single response I got back from 30 out of the 50+ states I contacted ALL SAID THE SAME THING: “THE STATE IS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE NOR AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO VERIFY CANDIDATES, OR INVESTIGATE WHETHER A PRESIDENTIAL OR VICE PRESIDENTIAL OR ANY OTHER CANDIDATE IS QUALIFIED AND THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE POLITICAL PARTY.”

Hawaii is one of the 30. But the issue is - Hawaii Democratic Party did NOT declare the candidate qualified. To this day - HDP has not and has never confirmed Obama’s eligibility.

Even though Tennessee would not vote for their state son - Al Gore - at least they did not deny he was born there. Basically HDP has said - we do not back his claim and will not sign documents to that effect. Brian Schatz - time to speak up.

It is time for board of elections and SOS’s to review their actions in 2008, their legal exposures at a personal level and what they need to do to avoid the same personal exposures in 2012.

“Even though Tennessee would not vote for their state son - Al Gore - at least they did not deny he was born there.”

Hawaii not only did not deny Barack H. Obama II was born there, they confirmed it.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyZqawsEE90

You are correct that Tennessee did not vote for 2000 Democratic nominee for president Al Gore, but I bet you cannot find even one official state of Tennessee source confirming he was born there. GIYF.

Get Schatz to go on the record that Obama was born there.

Lets see that.

Schatz would not commit fraud in 2008. Yet he let SOS’s do it all across the nation. Nice guy.

“Get Schatz to go on the record that Obama was born there.”

Before turning our attention to Schatz, what about what you said on record above? Looked it up yet?

circumbendibus
Go directly to Orly’s website and post. It will make no difference if someone is monitoring you or not.

Amen Amen Amen and again I say Amen. Orly may have some good initial ideas but I am wonder if she is deliberately trying to undermine her arguments. I have said for over a year now and written her 3 different pleas to let some other attorney or spokesperson handle the presentations. She is absolutely worst than terrible in that aspect.

The HDOH told Orly Taitz after Obama’s so-called long-form was posted that they could not disclose a copy of his long-form because it would violate Obama’s privacy interests. If Obama had published a genuine long-form there would no longer be any privacy interests. Therefore, the HDOH has indirectly confirmed through their response to Taitz that they know what Obama posted is not genuinely what is in their office. That means that anything they say that even APPEARS to confirm what Obama has disclosed as if it was genuine is a violation of the Federal General False Statement Act - akin to perjury. And any refusal on their part to report Obama’s forgery is misprision.

So if you point me (or anybody else) to perjurious statements by the HDOH it does your argument no good. It only confirms that nothing THEY say can necessarily be trusted and gives further credibility and urgency to the question of why Brian Schatz would only sign an OCON that had a whole line of text taken out - including the only thing legally required for Schatz to certify (that Obama was the HDP candidate as well as the DNC candidate) and the statement of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. The HDP’s refusal to answer why that line was deleted is very telling as well.

Furthermore, in regards to the HDOH, the HI AG’s office tried to get the HDOH out of having to disclose the “birth record” (on which Fukino relied when she claimed that they have a birth record claiming a Hawaii birth for Obama) by saying that they know Obama was born in HI because his name is in their birth index.

Unfortunately for them, I’ve documented on my blog that their birth index includes names from birth certificates that are legally non-valid, so the birth index means absolutely NOTHING. But for the AG to claim that the birth index was the source for Fukino’s statement is a total walk-back. Why did they try to walk back on that statement?

Maybe because Fukino never said that Obama actually WAS born in Hawaii, but only that Obama CLAIMED on some kind of record to have been born in Hawaii, which would have gotten him a listing in the index even if the State of HI considers the claim suspect - as they do with amended records (and the HDOH has indirectly confirmed that Obama’s BC was amended in 2006). If their index includes ALL legally non-valid records, it could include a hankie with the words: “OFFISHUL BIRTH CERTIFICATE. I, BARACK OBAMA, WAS BORN HERE. SIGNED, ME”.

Which is about like HI Governor Neil Abercrombie’s description of his investigation finding something being “actually written down”, but not likely to convince skeptics that he was actually born there. It also jives with his statement to Mike Evans that there is no birth certificate for Obama anywhere in HI.

butterdezillion wrote: “The HDOH told Orly Taitz after Obama’s so-called long-form was posted that they could not disclose a copy of his long-form because it would violate Obama’s privacy interests. If Obama had published a genuine long-form there would no longer be any privacy interests. Therefore, the HDOH has indirectly confirmed through their response to Taitz that they know what Obama posted is not genuinely what is in their office.”

You tell not the truth. The HDOH cited the law under which the state discloses vital records. That law contains no exception for vital records that someone else has already made public. The HDOH does not have discretion to rule privacy interests waived.

You come up with these ludicrous theories, butterdezillion, and then you try to put them on others who want nothing to do with your crank nonsense. Even if you believe Obama waived all privacy interests so his birth certificate should now be public, that doesn’t mean the HDOH has to buy your line and thus only withhold the record if the public version is fake.

Your legal theory — that’s wrong. Your claim that the HDOH indirectly confirmed what you say — that’s a lie.

Here’s what the HDOH actually confirms: “On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

The HDOH certifiably lied when they said Obama posted a certified copy of anything. What Obama posted has neither the State of Hawaii seal on the page nor the official 2 1/4”-diameter official seal of the DOH. Why isn’t the alleged long-form that Obama posted LAWFULLY certified according to the requirements of “Public Health Regulations”, Chapter 8b?

The law they cited also says that nothing from a birth certificate can be disclosed. So what authorized Fukino to say that they have a birth certificate claiming a Hawaii birth, when HI also issues BC’s that show a birthplace other than Hawaii and their birth index also includes names from legally-invalid birth certificates? Lots of people have asked to see the document that authorizes that disclosure, and what legal counsel Fukino received before she disclosed that, as well as an explanation of why she has the discretion to disclose what she wants to disclose but can still claim that she CAN’T disclose anything.

So which is it? Can she disclose information from a birth certificate when she wants to, as she did with her July 2009 statement? Or did she break the law when she made her statement?

In any event, the disclosure rules in HI say that some disclosures MUST be made, even if it includes information that is otherwise protected from disclosure. One specific instance is when an agency has made a public disclosure based on confidential records. IOW, when Fukino decided to disclose confidential information from Obama’s “birth record”, she decided that the record itself was subject to UIPA disclosure requirements rather than to the law governing issuance of birth certificates. If she wanted to follow the law forbidding disclosures, then she had to first OBEY that law. Once she disclosed that which the law forbade her to disclose, everything she based that disclosure on became a REQUIRED public disclosure.

So the HDOH was wrong about Obama’s “long-form” being certified, and the HDOH was wrong about which law applies to Obama’s birth records now.