Source: https://jbjd.org/2009/04/02/help-me-help-you-redux-see-comments-updated-050809/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:26:45+00:00

Document:
I am bumping this up because I want people to read the comments from activist citizens, and my responses. For example, here is my response to the copy of a letter I received from rlqretired, which he had sent to his elected officials in FL.
Maybe rlqretired’s letter will give other people ideas. And if you want me to review any document before you send this to your elected officials, please, send it here. All comments are in moderation and so, if you do not want these letters posted, just let me know. Note, I delete identifying information before posting.
Finally, let me repeat what I have been saying now for months: stop trying to prove BO is not a NBC. Verifying the Constitutional eligibility of the nominee for POTUS from the major political party before allowing our state elections officials to enter his name on our general elections ballots was never our job; we sub-contracted that job to the major political party. And, in the case of the Democratic Party, they refuse to establish, they did their jobs.
Most states have enacted laws requiring the candidate for POTUS from the major political Party must be eligible for the job. (For example, the Official Code of GA Annotated (O.C.G.A.), §21-2-5, “Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications.” reads: “Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party … shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” Yet the Democratic Party managed to get the name of its candidate onto the general election ballots notwithstanding overwhelming circumstantial evidence shows he is not a natural born citizen (“NBC”).
In order to complete drafting complaints to Attorneys General (“A’sG”) in each state, charging that the executive committee of the state Democratic Party committed fraud by forwarding to the chief elections official in the state – usually the Secretary of State (“S of S”) – their statement that Barack Obama is the official nominee of the Democratic Party for the office of POTUS, so that the state could print his name and or the names of his Electors on the general election ballot, notwithstanding it looks like he is ineligible for the job; I need to see the documents these state party chairs submitted to their state officials. I have already obtained this information for HI; there, the state party merely forwarded under the state party cover letter, a copy of Nancy Pelosi’s “DNC Official Certification of Nomination,” saying Barack Obama was their candidate (and that he was Constitutionally eligible for the job). Presumably, this was the procedure followed in other states, too. But I need to see the documents. That’s where you come in.
I need you to forward a request to your S of S for a copy of the documents, if any, that were provided to that office by the executive committee of the state Democratic Party and were the basis of the state’s decision the Party had satisfied all state requirements to print the name of Barack Obama and/or the names of his Electors on the general election ballot. Most states have public records laws mirroring the federal Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), entitling you to such information, on a timely basis. You could check with your S of S. Requests for records should be made in writing, referencing the public records law in your state.
Let me know what you come up with, ASAP. Thank you.
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 2nd, 2009 at 12:44 and is filed under Uncategorized.	You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
This is very interesting. I will contact in Wisconsin, also promote in Investigating Obama, probably tonight. Please send me an email, to (email deleted).
I had sent the DNC Notification to Fla. to the address you gave me because i cannot provide the link here. Did you receive it.
The Certification NP sumbitted to AZ is the one supposedly submitted to and received by the SOS of AZ. I received the copy of this document from an employee of the AZ SOS’s office in response to my public information request to that office; however, it does not contain on it any received stamp by that office. In my other public information request to the same SOS’s office for Barack Obama’signed PPEC Nomination form, the copy I received does have AZ SOS office’s received stamp on it. It seems curious to me that the SOS office did not stamp the NP Certification document even though a copy of this document was clearly provided to me by the AZ SOS’s office.
Can you explain to me why the copy of the Democratic National Committee Official Certification of Nomination for Barack Obama and Joe Biden you provided to me does not have the AZ Secretary of State’s received stamp on it with the date and time the document was received by the AZ Secretary of State’s office? Aren’t all official documents received by the AZ Secretary of State’s office duly stamped?
D. All persons desiring to become a candidate shall file with the nomination paper provided for in subsection A an affidavit which shall be printed in a form prescribed by the secretary of state. The affidavit shall include facts sufficient to show that, other than the residency requirement provided in subsection A, the candidate will be qualified at the time of election to hold the office the person seeks.
This text leads me to believe that Barack Obama’s signed PPEC Nomination form was the proof used for eligibility in accordance with clause in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.
I am in possession of an electronic copy of the “Certification of Nomination” signed by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond submitted to the State of AZ. I am also in possession of an electronic copy Barack Obama’s signed Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper submitted to the State of AZ in which he states he is a natural born citizen. How to I get a copy of these two PDF documents to you?
I didn’t say any of this would work. I was simply providing you with the laws and information pertinent to my State. I’m more hopeful about AZ SB 1158 proposed in this year’s legislature although the bill needs further specific wording to accomplish its objective. I am watching the legislature closely to make sure they include additional language so that the bill accomplishes their objective in the next Presidential election so that BO doesn’t appear on our ballot again.
New to this site, but not new to the BO/NBC suits. I am from WI also and as per the instructions from Arlen, the first comment, will get this out tomorrow! Thank you for what you are doing.
FYI, I received a copy of the cover letter sent with Nancy Pelosi’s certification of nomination form sent to AZ. The cover letter has an SOS received stamp. No mention in the cover letter of Obama’s eligibility either. Anyway, from what I can tell, all AZ election laws were followed in 2008. Nancy Pelosi did not commit fraud in the State of AZ based on the way our laws are written and the verbiage used in the documents submitted by Nancy Pelosi. Barack Obama signed a form attesting to his Natural Born Citizen status which is the only potential legal problem they have with AZ 2008 election law. I believe the case is closed for the 2008 election in AZ, and we have to look to 2012 to ensure he does not get on the ballot in AZ again.
I have been reading about Ankeny v. Daniels (Indiana), which has a very different angle of attack. The angle focuses on Article 2 section 1 clause 4 about the choosing (chusing) of electors. The conclusion, in using the Bush v. Gore finding, that each individual vote in the election is to choose the electors that the candidate represents, ultimately leads to the Governors of each state being responsible for validating the qualifications of the candidates. Can you explain more about this? I am not seeing how they come to that conclusion.
Mick: Okay, have read bits and pieces; still cannot find Plaintiffs’ pleadings. But it seems that, like in many other states, IN law is drafted to read that the names of the candidates from the major political parties can be listed on the general elections ballots, next to their party affiliation. And, in most states, the law makes clear, voting for the candidate is tantamount to voting for the electors of that candidate. However, IN state law does not clearly spell out that, voting for the name of the candidate is a shorthand for voting for the electors of that candidate. In other words, Plaintiffs here allege, voting for BO meant, voting for him qua (in the role of) elector. But the Constitution requires that no sitting Senator can be an elector. So, the Governor had no lawful authority to certify the slate of electors, because it included BO, a sitting Senator, in violation of the Constitution.
But Indiana Code makes clear, registering a preference for the candidate counts as a vote for electors.
Sec. 4. Each vote cast or registered for the nominees for President and Vice President of the United States of a political party, group of petitioners, or a write-in candidate for President or Vice President of the United States is a vote cast or registered for all of the candidates for presidential electors of the party, group, or candidate and shall be so counted. These votes shall be counted, canvassed, and certified in the same manner as the votes for candidates for other offices.
As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.6. Amended by P.L.10-1992, SEC.17.
So, I need to see the pleadings to make sure this is not Plaintiffs’ whole case.
For the first time in the history of this country we have an individual who has succeeded in becoming Commander in Chief of our military forces who has something so serious in his past records he has totally sealed his original vault copy birth, passport, foreign citizenship and educational records from everyone, especially the military personnel who have good reason to question his loyalty and allegiance to this country. Much evidence exists, due to this secrecy, that very likely he may not have factually been born in the USA and very likely carries citizenship and a passport from a foreign country.
The position we find ourselves in today, although much more critical, is almost identical to the position we found ourselves in back in the 80’s when the courts began issuing summary judgments that The Marketable Record Title Act did apply to our public sovereignty lands because no one represented the public during the two year saving period to record and preserve the publics claim. The facts were that the title to the publics sovereignty lands were in the hands of the state legislature when the act was set into law but they recorded nothing to save and preserve the public interest. This was a clear denial of due process for the public and the Florida Supreme Court eventually decided all three questions submitted to them in our favor.
Prior to the voters of Florida being given the right to vote for the various Presidential candidates the electors had standing, during the electoral college meeting, in which all candidates, Democrat, Republican and Independent alike were in attendance, could even make cross party demands for verifiable proof of constitutional eligibility, prior to the election and those found to be ineligible could be exposed and discarded before the vote took place.
Our system today is completely backward in that the elections are held, the votes counted, the electors are committed as to who they must vote, the state certifications are made and sent to the electoral college and only then, after the vote, does an elector have the authority to even raise an objection and that must be in writing.
“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.” Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000).
Our current election process is unconstitutional because it is denying the voters due process in that we have no standing to verify anything prior to the election as did the electors under the original system. According to the letter I received from our Secretary of State, in spite of his oath of office to uphold the US Constitution, he states this US Constitutional vetting responsibility has been totally and completely turned over to the political party’s (Chapter 103) and he now has no responsibility or authority to ask anyone anything on behalf of the public. He further states that if I chose to challenge the qualifications of a candidate it is my responsibility to bring forth a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction while he knows full well that we have no standing to do so. This process promotes fraud upon the voters in that, unlike the original electoral process, we are forced to vote for candidates that no one has verified eligible. It is grossly unconstitutional and a clear denial of due process by the states failure to factually verify, on behalf of the public, before the first primary election, that the political party appointed candidates are eligible according to the US Constitution. This unconstitutional process has permitted a likely Usurper to become President and Commander in Chief of our military forces.
Regardless of what Fla. Statute Chapter 103 states, somebody in my Florida Government has the responsibility carry out his oath of office to defend the US Constitution and factually verify the candidates are eligible before any name is placed upon the next presidential ballot. This loophole must be plugged. I’ll report the AG’s response when I receive it.
Although my efforts are forward looking, could this argument possibly look backwards and help force Obama to produce the records?
Presidential Primary Selection Committee. A candidate in this process can only be left off the ballot by one of his OWN PARTY MEMBERS on the Committee. In Obama’s case that was Sen. Geller, Rep. Gelber, and Fla. Dem. Party Chairman Thurman.
This process however completely bypasses a duty by the candidates for FEDERAL OFFICE to swear a CANDIDATES OATH as prescribed by Fl. ss 99.21(1)(b). There is no exclusionary language in the statutes that says POTUS candidates are excused from this oath, and why should there be? In my opinion the Secretary of state has NOT done the misisterial duty that is required by the Fl. State statutes. What is the remedy? Don’t know. But the power of political parties to put anyone on the ballot that may or may not qualify reeks of the Fox/Henhouse scenario.
I’m in California, and willing to make a request. Are you in need of that?
I think you ought to let Leo’s words speak for themselves. Your paraphrasing of Leo’s very detailed response to you is not intellectually honest.
He answered you directly ans with respect for the arguments you made. Your treatment of this exchange is ridiculous.
This is the request for information I sent off to Ms.
Debra Bowen, CA. S of S.
Kindly provide electronic/email copies of all the records & certification provided to you by DNC Party Head Nancy Pelosi regarding Barak Obama’s [BO] eligibility to run for POTUS under the terms set forth in the U.S. Constitution.
Especially any records that he signed stating he was a Natural Born Citizen [NBC].
I believe all these documents should be available under the freedom of information act.
Your help is greatly appreciated and your reply is requested which the documents will satisfy.
What I would like to know from you is your law background and how will all these efforts come to bear in a meaningfull way such as Federal Court?
jbjd – Just recieved a copy of the filing paper recieved by our Florida Secretary of State. Cover letter says this is all they have. The certification is signed by Pelosi on the 28th of Aug. and received by the Sec.s office on the 29th. The primary election was held on the 26th. The document says nothing about eligibility and states only that Obama and Biden have been duly nominated. I will have someone scan this into my computer but how do I get it to you. I assume you are still going to provide the leadership on filing that fraud complaint. Please advise.
jbjd – The cover letter that accompanied the certificate states,”Per your request enclosed (my letter) please find a copy of the 2008 official certification of nomination from the Democratic National Committee. This is the only information we have regarding your request”. I’ll work on the other stuff. By the way, Bill Posey, one of our Fla.US House Reps. has just submitted HR1503 dealing with this issue. I suspect this is in part due to the request I make to the Fla. AG back on 3/1 and a followup on 3/8. If you got time look at it and comment.
jbjd – I wrote the SOS for the cover. The following is what I think you wanted but I have written my state rep. specifically as you stated.
b) By October 31 of the year preceding the presidential preference primary, each political party shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of its presidential candidates to be placed on the presidential preference primary ballot or candidates entitled to have delegates appear on the presidential preference primary ballot. The Secretary of State shall prepare and publish a list of the names of the presidential candidates submitted. The Secretary of State shall submit such list of names of presidential candidates to the selection committee on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of the year preceding the presidential preference primary. Each person designated as a presidential candidate shall have his or her name appear, or have his or her delegates’ names appear, on the presidential preference primary ballot unless all committee members of the same political party as the candidate agree to delete such candidate’s name from the ballot.
jbjd- It must be somewhere in here.
jbjd – Finally got back. All I can find is entitled and nothing about eligible. I have recieved the nominating paper submitted by the DNC and likewise it only states that these are the candidates we have nominated. I have written the SOS and asking for the DNC rules that require the DNC to verify eligiblity as he states in his letter of 2/24. Expect to hear back by next week.
jbjd, I am very interested in knowing more about the official fraud complaint you reference earlier. If my Florida Government fails to move and fix this problem what else can be done? Legal action? The left/socialists have Soros types to fund such. Do we have any on the conservative side? Pro bono?
Thank you for your letter of 3/25/09 but I must tell you that I am totally flabbergasted at the cavalier attitude your office has demonstrated in my effort to understand precisely who, in My Florida Government, is responsible to assure every candidate that your office authorizes to be placed upon the very first primary presidential ballot is eligible to be President of the USA according to Article 2, Sec. 1 of the US Constitution.
I am shocked to the extent I question misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance. Certainly not competence.
2 – Your office states that you have no authority to look beyond the face of the filing documents to determine if a candidate is eligible. Your letter further implies that the responsibility to vet the presidential candidates has been totally turned over to private political parties and is of no concern to your office. Ref. SOS letter of 2/24/09.
3 – Yet, the only document your office has received from the DNC only states that Obama and Biden are their nominated candidates. It says absolutely nothing about these candidates having been determined to be eligible for the office. Ref SOS letter of 3/16/09.
4 – Further, the only document you have in your office is a nominating document that was not even created until the 28th of Aug. and received by your office on Aug. 29, while the primary election was held back on Aug. 26. Ref. SOS letter of 3/16/09.
5 – At this point, in utter disbelief, I wrote your office again to obtain a copy of the DNC rules that has assured your office it was and is their responsibility to constitutionally vet the presidential candidates. Ref. My letter of 3/19/09.
6 – And now, today, I receive your letter that states you don’t even have a copy of the DNC eligibility qualifying rules in you office. Ref. Your letter of 3/25/09.
7 – And finally, the 2/24/09 letter I received from your office also stated that if a voter questioned the eligibility of a presidential candidate it was their responsibility to bring forth a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction, while you know damn well we have no standing to do so.
Mr. Palmer, I want reconfirmation from you that your office did not have a copy of the DNC qualifying rules in the office of SOS while preparing for the 08 primary elections and that you still do not have a copy of them even today. If, in this reconfirmation, you discover that you do have a copy, I want a copy of the portion dealing with the 08 DNC requirement to constitutionally verify candidate eligibility. Also, if you have any Clarifications to my understanding in points 1-7, I ask to receive your them now, at this time.
Copy – AG McCollum, Sen. Dockery, Rep. Wood, Gov. Crist, Paul Senft RNC National Committeeman.
jbjd – My email to RNC National Committman Paul Senft who resides in my home town.
Paul – For your information I have received from the SoS a copy of the official document submitted by the DNC indicating that Obama and Biden are their candidates. This document says absolutely nothing about having been determined to be eligible according to the US Constitution. The SoS stated to me in his letter of 2/24 that this was the DNC exclusive responsibility to do this. I have written back to the SoS requesting a copy of the DNC rules and/or regulations that requires the DNC to verify eligibility before they are approved as a candidate.
I have not inquired as to what the equivalent document says about the RNC submitted candidates nor inquired about the RNC rules requiring verification of eligibility. Since you are an executive of the RNC I am requesting that you assist me in obtaining this same information.
Paul, I want to reemphasize the mistake the Republican Party is making by failing to see the simplicity and the tremendous opportunity this constitutional denial of due process flaw in the presidential electoral process has given us, here in Florida.
1-	US-Bush v Gore was a Florida case and clarifies the state legislatures power to determine how the electors are chosen is plenary. It further clarifies when this power is granted to the voters it is fundamental. Fundamental is with due process, dignity. This is from the US Supreme Court about Florida. Florida is the logical place to fix this problem. Plenary, means they can require of the candidate what ever they want. They don’t have to wait for approval from anyone else.
2-	Our State Legislature is under the control of the Republicans, unlike the US Congress, which will never do anything that will jeopardize their man in 2012. Its Florida or it ain’t gona happen!
3-	The beauty of this approach is that it is a clear denial of due process to the voters, who are forced to vote for candidates no state official has verified to be eligible and we, the voters, have no standing to do this ourselves. This system flaw encourages fraud. This can be presented strictly as an election process correction needed for national security.
4-	Obama’s name never needs to be brought up by we Republicans.
6-	If they want to debate Obama’s eligibility to be president that will be a magnificent opportunity to discuss this issue, at their invitation. I have covered just a few of these hidden secrets in my post, The Obama Secrecy Loophole, which I have sent to every Republican in our Florida Legislature, among many others in Tallahassee.
7-	The Press will no longer be able to ignore this issue and it should be lots of fun.
8-	Chapter 103 must be corrected whereby the parties are required to present to the SoS a copy of the original vault copy of their birth certificate, all passport records and any other records deemed necessary by the SoS. There must be no exceptions for the 2012 elections.
9-	It will only be necessary for Florida to make this mandatory. It will then be effectively over for all states, whether they pass legislation or not. Florida is a big state. Lets act like that and lead.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, the Republican Leadership could do to more quickly energize the base of the Republican Party and get into position to stop this madness in DC and regain majority status in 2010.
I intend to meet with Dockery and Wood but before I do I want to meet with you so that I clearly understand your thoughts and the possibility of party support. I’d like to see some enthusiasm.
On more thing. I want to know if there is an oath required to become a member of the candidate selection committee of the parties, RNC and DNC alike. I want a copy of both. Can you help on the RNC part?
Please let me know when it will be convenient for us to meet.
ljbj – This will be my last letter for a while. Gonna wait for a few responses and talk to a few politicians. Hope you approve.
Subject-The Obama Secrecy Loophole, who allowed it happen??
Prior to the voters of Florida being given the right to vote for the various presidential candidates the electors had standing and during the electoral college meeting, in which all candidates and electors, Democrat, Republican and Independent alike, were all in attendance, they could make cross party demands for verifiable proof of constitutional eligibility, prior to the electoral college vote, not after and those found to be ineligible could be exposed and discarded before the vote took place.
Our current election process is unconstitutional because it is denying the voters due process in that we have no standing to verify eligibility prior to voting as did the electors under the original system. According to the response I received from my letter of 2/3/09 our Secretary of State, in spite of his oath of office to defend the US Constitution, states this US Constitutional vetting responsibility has been totally and completely turned over to the political parties (Chapter 103) and he now has no responsibility or authority to ask anyone anything on behalf of the public. He further states that if a citizen chooses to challenge the qualifications of a candidate it is the citizen’s responsibility to bring forth a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction while he knows full well that we have no standing to do so. When the media is already in the tank for its favorite candidate, the public is simply screwed.
This process promotes fraud upon the voters in that, unlike the original electoral process, we voters, Democrat and Republican alike, are forced to vote for candidates that no Government Official has verified eligible. It is grossly unconstitutional and a clear denial of due process by our states refusal to factually verify, on behalf of the public and before the first primary election, that the political party appointed candidates are eligible according to the US Constitution.
For the first time in the history of this country we have an individual who has succeeded in becoming Commander in Chief of our military forces who has something so serious in his past records he has totally sealed his original vault copy birth, passport, foreign citizenship and educational records from everyone, including his own party officials and especially the military personnel who have good reason to question his loyalty and allegiance to this country. Much evidence exists, due to this secrecy, that very likely he may not have factually been born in the USA and very likely carries citizenship and a passport from a foreign country since he traveled to Pakistan and Indonesia before ever obtaining a US passport and at a time when US citizens were not allowed into their countries.
I have no interest in trying to overturn the results of the 2008 elections. The Quo Warranto process was established by congress many years ago to provide for the investigation and removal of a sitting president if he is determined to be a usurper and it is my understanding the petition for this process to begin has already been made.
My efforts here are strictly limited to understanding precisely how the current process of electing a president is carried out and precisely who is responsible to see to it that every presidential candidate that is placed upon the ballot is eligible to hold the office.
1-	A copy of that portion of the official 2008 DNC rules and regulations that states it is the DNC’s responsibility to verify constitutional eligibility of your party’s presidential candidates for the general election as well as for the primaries.
2-	A copy of the document that officially states who your candidates were for the 2008 general election and that they were found to be eligible. A copy for the primary election candidates also.
3-	A copy of the document you used to verify US Constitutional eligibility as each being a natural born citizen.
Obama publicly announced his candidacy for the US Presidency back in early 2007. Since that time there have been many serious questions publicly raised about Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of president and these questions have been publicly addressed by popular Democrat supported web sites such as Snopes.com, Factcheck.org and Obama’s very own site Fightthesmears.com.
1-	Did the DNC ask to see proof of citizenship? If so what did he produce?
2-	Did the DNC ask to see the passport he used to travel to Pakistan and Indonesia back in the early 80’s when US citizens were not allowed in? If so what did he produce?
3-	Did the DNC ask Obama if he was ever an Indonesia Citizen known as Barry Soetoro, his adopted name while living and attending school there? If he answered yes, did you ask how he regained his US citizenship?
Indonesian Citizenship name Barry Soetoro? Government aid to foreign students you know.
These were well-publicized and serious questions of eligibility long before the DNC vetted Obama to be eligible to hold the office of president.
If we were still operating under the system that existed before the right to vote for president was turned over to the people and the exclusive right to vet the candidates was turned over to the individual private nominating party only, all of these eligibility questions would have been cross party debated, between all of the electors who each had individual standing to ask and demand answers (without suing in a court of competent jurisdiction) and the answers would have been found and exposed within the electoral college before the electoral vote was ever taken. Thus, the Obama Secrecy Loophole was born.
The Democratic National Committee owes the voters of this country an explanation and answer to each and every request laid out above. The words Natural Born were not placed into the US Constitution to have no effect; and to claim otherwise is inadmissible. Willful ignorance does not amend the US Constitution.
One further request, does the DNC nominating committee require an oath of office? If so please include a copy with your response.
We will all be looking forward to your response at your earliest possible convenience.
Copy – Florida State Attorney General Bill McCollum.
RNC National Committeeman Paul Senft.
Do not know if you have seen this. A little info for vetting.
JBJD, I have been thinking and thinking and thinking. I have no legal training but it appears those who do haven’t had that great of luck!
What about negligent misrepresentation? Seems that a class action suit could be filed against the DNC, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi for negligent misrepresentation of a Candidate for POTUS.
c. damage resulting from that breach.
Jbjd- As I have stated before I am but a layman and it is ironic that the 2 men that I have come to believe in and look to for guidance is at odds with each other on certain but totally different aspects of the various legal issues and potential solutions.
a.	In this regard, perhaps you can provide further and much needed assistance, I want to seek out other patriots in the other Republican controlled states to grasp onto this concept and do the same as I am doing here in Florida. Surely, there are others perhaps more capable and aggressive that will get this job done before we do here in Florida. My goal is success, anywhere, not glory. Your expertise and your blog could lead up part of the expanded venture although I reserve contact with certain individuals.
2-	Which of the 2 potential ways to remove a president is legalese so far beyond my comprehension I must totally depend upon others. I have absolutely no idea who is right on this issue. But, I do know there ain’t a ghost chance in hell that a Nancy Pelosi House of Representatives will ever impeach Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., I don’t give a damn what he is found to have done or does in the future, so if impeachment is the only way, we are just screwed, its over. I am a realist. So – if this is true, Leo’s idea can be no less unsuccessful in accomplishing our goal and his finding in Marbury v Madison is a tremendous asset for me/us in our pursuits. As old Rodney King once said, “can’t we all just get along?” I need you both of you. Our goal is the same.
Jb- The flawed electoral process must be corrected because there will be future con artists just like Obama. It will only take one state to expose this type of fraud in the future. That is my immediate goal. It can be done.
What the DNC has done, in my opinion, borders on treason and the Secretaries of State that have knowingly looked the other way are just as guilty.
Give some thought to 1-a above and I look forward to hearing your ideas.
jbjd- My letter of 4/3 to DC AG Taylor can be released now if you wish. The following is my letter of today to Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and you are welcome to print it if you wish.
Subject – The extension of the FOI Act into the DNC due to its exclusive constitutional vetting responsibility, according to Kurt Browning’s Office.
This is in reference to the legal opinion I requested of you back on 3/1 along with my supplement of 3/8/2009 as to precisely, “Who In My Florida Government,” is responsible to assure every name placed upon the primary and general presidential ballots meet the eligibility requirements mandated by the US Constitution.
According to Mr. Donald L. Palmer, Esq., the Director of the Division of Elections, informs me for the 2nd time the Secretary of State is not concerned with eligibility period and the Secretary of State doesn’t even have a copy of the DNC rules and regulations in their position that mandates the DNC perform this alleged verification procedure. This to me explains why the only document they have in their files only indicates that the 2008 DNC candidates are their nominees and says absolutely nothing about having been found eligible for the office of president. Mr. Palmer further advises that if I wish to obtain such rules and regulations I must contact the DNC myself. A copy of this letter is enclosed for your review.
Now I am no way accepting this position as the final answer but I want to pursue his direction to see where it leads. A copy of my follow up letter to DNC Chairman Kaine asking for the production of these certain documents is also enclosed.
My immediate question to you is, since this vetting responsibility is a US Constitutional requirement and the most critically important national security vetting decision made in the entire country, are the chairmen of the major political parties subject to the Freedom of Information Act as the elected officials are in My Florida Government. I ask this question now and request a rapid response because if DNC Chairman Kaine refuse’s to produce the documents I have requested I intend to take further action. I originally thought this failure at the SOS’s office was incompetence but I am now beginning to believe misfeasance and collusion, bordering on treason is likely a more appropriate description.
PS-I have made similar document requests of the RNC via Paul Senft, National Committeeman.
Copy- RNC National Committeeman, Paul Senft.
so I greatly appreciate your input.
So in my FOIA letter, who do I address it to and what specifically do I ask for? Sorry to sound so helpless, I just want to be as accurate and thorough the first time around as possible.
Basically, what we are after here are 1) a state law that requires the candidate for POTUS proposed by the major political Party to be eligible for the job; 2) the identity of the person sending the Certification of eligibility to the state (DNC or state Party Chair); and 3) the documents.
Ok, I’m on it – thanks for the very specific instructions; government offices are closed here now, I will call in the morning and report back.
Presidential candidates are certified by the national chairperson of the party and he believes the only form attached to this certification (which sounds like a letter format), is a “Declaration of Candidacy” completed by the candidate themselves. This is from the GAB website.
To receive copies of these forms, I need to submit an “Open Records Request” to the Public Information Officer of the GAB whose name and contact information I have. He said emails or mailed letters were fine.
I will await further direction from you.
Do you need the paperwork filed with the SOS of Texas?
Would you start a list of states for which you think the paperwork would be significant and put a note next to the states when you have the paperwork you need?
Such a list would let your readers know where you still need help.
Thank you for heading this up.
What is this all about? Is he trying to gradually get the American people accustomed to his real name?????
In the excitement over the freeing of the American ship captain, I haven’t heard it discussed much about whether the SEALs that killed the pirates could be charged with murder in an international court, or for that matter in an American court, if it is eventually found that the Usurper was not eligible or had the authority to issue an order to kill.
How can these good folks that have committed themselves to our defense protect themselves in this horrible situation?
jbjd – I can not get the link to the DNC rules and regulations you povided back on 4/2 to work and I don’t expect a response from the DNC chairman for some time yet. If you could fix that link I would be most greatful or just post or send me the applicable page. Thanks in advance for your help and once I get the DNC response I should be ready to proceed to the formal charge.
President 35 Country 14 yrs. Citizen of U.S.
3. I have written to Nancy Pelosi to request copies of the document(s) she used as basis to determine BO’s constitutional eliibility. She failed to respond within the time limit I specified.
So now I have valid reasons to file complaint against Nancy Pelosi for fraudulently representing to the state of NJ that BO is constitutionally eligible to be POTUS and that his name can go on the state ballots.
1. the “ceritfication of nomination’ was sent directly from DNC to NJ.
2. DNC did not send any supporting documents to NJ SOS to get Obama’s name on the NJ ballot.
Any more info I need to get in order to file complaints against Nancy Pelosi to NJ AG?
njresident: I am so sorry for the delay in responding to your questions. Without going into details, I was ‘stuck’ on a legal issue in HI, which was preventing me from perfecting the memo that would serve as the template for the fraud complaint not only to the HI AG but to other A’sG as well. So, as you suspected, I set aside this ‘project’ for a while. Anyway, you have everything else you need to present a great fraud complaint to the NJ AG, including the evidence you need to support your complaint. I know you mentioned filing a formal complaint against NP but, let’s talk about this AG complaint, first.
The AG is the state’s chief law enforcement officer. This means, while the S of S is directed by law to oversee elections, the AG is directed to oversee the law. NJ law requires the candidate for POTUS must be a NBC. You provide no law that says who must determine this but, given the fact the DNC Certified he is Constitutionally eligible for the job, the state of NJ has every reasonable basis for assuming he is and that, therefore, the law has been obeyed. Now, I know that, technically, in NJ, as they did in every state other than HI, they only certified he was the nominee. But, since their rules specify all nominees must at least be Constitutionally eligible – http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf (p. 14) – saying BO is the DNC nominee is the same as saying, he is an NBC. (Besides, NP swore in the HI Certification, as required by HI law, he was Constitutionally eligible for the job. It would be absurd for the NJ AG to ignore this DNC Certification to elections officials in HI.) The fraud occurred because while DNC certified BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, they broke NJ law by failing to vet whether he is a NBC. How do we know they failed to vet? Well, we know that the strongest evidence BO has provided to both the public – “Fight the Smears” – and the court – the Hollister case – is that HI COLB. But we know that, in HI, by law, foreign born babies could obtain a HI registration of birth. So, this is no proof he is a citizen, let alone, he is a NBC. Then, what did NP use to certify BO is a NBC? Well, you (and several others) asked NP to tell you the basis on which she determined BO is a NBC. And she ignored you. NJ state officials cannot only “assume” NJ law has been complied with, especially when the legislature ostensibly enacted those laws to maintain the sanctity of elections in that state.
So, I want you to file a fraud complaint based on these considerations. And insist on an investigation of your charges.
jbjd – Thanks for the corrected link to the DNC rules.
Please review the first draft of my thoughts on the DNC fraud charges here in Florida.
jbjd-Please review my ideas for my fraud complaint against the DNC. Also would like to place a charge of misfeasance or malfeasance against the Sec. of State based upon his oath of office and position as chief election officer. He knows fraud is being committed and does nothing to see that it is corrected.
Is a person in a public or private position who is aware that Obama may be illegitimately holding office, complicit to the crime? For example an employee of a college attended by Obama, or a State Dept. employee, or high level DNC,(potentially a long list) of people who may be suppressing a desire to come clean.
If this is the case do you have any suggestions on how to utilize this?

References: §21
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v.