additional commentary by Timothy Horrigan; December 8 & 23, 2011
Rep. Harry Accornero versus President Barack Obama (including videos of the November 18, 2011 Ballot Law Commission hearing, which devolved into a near-riot.)
The Birthers Implicate Me in Something I Had Nothing to Do With (November 29 version of a "birther video")
I unwittingly got caught up in the whole nonsense over Obama's eligibility to run for President when I foolishly made a reasonable response to a birther named "Tracy." I told her (or him, or them, as the case may be) that the Ballot Law Commission was not going to take him off the ballot. As a result, I became a villain in one of their videos.
On November 30, 2011, the Ballot Law Commission issued the following written ruling, putting down on paper the results of the November 18 hearing :
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 18, 2011, the Ballot Law Commission ("the Commission") held a public hearing, pursuant to RSA 665:7 to hear and determine disputes arising over whether nomination papers or declarations of candidacy filed with the Secretary of State conform with the law. Specifically, the above-captioned complaint alleged that President Barack Obama's name should not appear on the Presidential Primary Ballot as a candidate for the nomination of the Democratic Party and that the Secretary of State had inappropriately ruled that the President's name should be included. The complainant appeared and testified at the hearing, as did a number of other witnesses, including elected members of the New Hampshire legislature.
The complainant testified that she has been engaged full-time over the last three years in an investigation into the Presdent's birth certificate and social security number. She requestedthat the Commission overturn the decision of the Secretary of State and remove the Presdent's name from the ballot, or, in the alternative, require the President to provide to the Commission a copy of his original birth certificate and application for his social security number. She testified on a number of issues, including those cited above and the question of how long the President attended Columbia University. The Commission notes that there is no provision of the Constitution that involves Social Security numbers or attendance at Columbia University or graduation from that institution as a requirement for becoming President of the United States.
RSA 655:47 requires the filing of a declaration of candidacy with the Secretary of State in a form prescribed by that statute, and signed under penalties of perjury. RSA 655:48 requires the payment to the Secretary of State at the time of filing the declaration of candidacy a fee of $1,000. Assistant Secretary of State Karen Ladd provided the Commission with a signed copy of the President's declaration of candidacy, as well as a copy of the check in payment of the fee. She testified that Vice President Joseph Biden filed the President's declaration of candidacy.
In making its decision, the Commission notes, as a preliminary matter, that the candidate in question is the incumbent President of the United States. The matters asserted before the Commission are not new, and have been raised in a number of forums, both before and after the election of the President in 2008 and his inauguration in 2009. The Commission well could have declared the entire question moot or stale, given the fact that no federal determination about the eligibility of candidate and President-elect Obama questioned his eligibility under the Constitution when he was elected. The Commission did not do so, giving the complainant the opportunity to provide evidence. In answer to a direct question, the complainant admitted that no adjudicatory body has ever sustained any of the theories advanced which question President Obama's eligibility to be elected to that office.
As counsel advised the Commission at its hearing, the jurisdiction of the New HampshireBallot Law Commission is limited to that afforded it by the legislature in its enabling legislation. That does not include investigation of asserted criminal activity, conspiracy or other matters. The Commission has no staff, no budget and receives no compensation for the service members provide the state. Even if there were facts asserted which deserve investigation, those allegations should be investigated by federal law enforcement or election officials. Absent an obvious defect in a filing for office (such as residency in a district different from that in which a candidate has filed, etc.), the Commission is limited to a review of the sufficiency of the filing of a candidate. After such review, and absent such a showing, there is absolutely no basis to reject President Obama's declaration of candidacy or to deny him a place on the 2012 Presidential Primary Ballot.
The Commission voted, unanimously, to uphold the decision of the Secretary of State to include the name of Barack Obama on the ballot.
Even before the written decision was issued, Taitz asked for reconsideration. Her request was denied, so she is now attempting to appeal it even though the law says there is no appeal past the Ballot Law Commission. She filed her petition with the state Supreme Court (not with the House Petitions & Redress of Grievances Committee, thankfully):
I didn't bother to upload the Exhibits to my web server. I found all of them, aside from the Ballot Law Commission transcript, on Dr. Taitz Esq.'s own website These are large and badly scanned PDF files:
She names several ostensibly opposing candidates in her complaint. Not one of them is on the New Hampshire ballot. There are two or three semi-serious candidates on the Democratic side of that ballot, all of whom have been in contact with me. None of them have expressed any interest in having Obama taken off the ballot.
I am reluctantly counting Vermin Supreme as a semi-serious candidate, since he has been working hard at his satirical candidacy: he visits New Hampshire frequently and even has at least one staffer. The other two real candidates are John Wolfe and Darcy Richardson, both of whom are serious people who are more qualified to be President— much more qualified, in Wolfe's case— than most of the leading Republican candidates.
DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ;
Rule 10 PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN UNLAWFUL AND UNREASONABLE RULING
BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
TAITZ ET AL V GARDNER, BALLOT LAW COMMISSION PETITION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Petitioners herein are seeking a review by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire of the decision reached by the Ballot Law commission. Petitioners are seeking such review under Rule 7 (Discretionary Review) and under Rule 10 (Review by Petition of the Decision by the Agency), which was unlawful and unreasonable as well as under Rule 11. Every issue specifically raised herein has been presented to the administrative agency and has been properly preserved for appellate review by a contemporaneous objection or, where appropriate, by a properly filed pleading.
NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ORDER
Petitioners Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., -civil rights attorney, licensed in the state of California, admitted to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of the United States and a member of the International Criminal Bar panel in Hague.
Larry Rappaport -duly elected state representative state of New Hampshire, in propria persona
Harry Accornero -duly elected state representative state of New Hampshire in propria persona
Lucien Vita -duly elected state representative state of New Hampshire in propria persona
Carol Vita -duly elected state representative state of New Hampshire in propria persona
Moe Villenueva-duly elected state representative state of New Hampshire in propria persona
Leah Lax -Presidential Candidate, running in the Democrat primary, registered with the Federal Elections Committee , in propria persona
Cody Judy, Presidential Candidate, registered with the Federal Elections Committee, running in the Democrat primary against Barack Obama, in propria persona
Thomas MacLeran, Presidential candidate, registered with the federal Elections Committee, U.S. military veteran, in propria persona
Bill Gardner, Secretary of State, State of New Hampshire (Hereinafter Gardner)
Brad Cook, Martha Van Oot, Jane Clemons, Jamison French, Margaret-Ann Moran- 5 permanent and alternate members of the 6 member ballot law commission, who presided over the ballot challenge by the Petitioners (Hereinafter Commission)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. Can the Secretary of State and the Ballot Law Commission render a ruling with total disregard to the pertinent provisions of the U.S. Constitution?
2. Can the Secretary of State and Ballot Law Commission render a ruling in total disregard to the pertinent election law statutes?
3. Can Respondents render a ruling in total disregard of all existing precedents?
4. Is the ruling rendered by Respondents in violation of the constitution, law and precedents, a lawful ruling?
5. Are the rulings by the Ballot law commission lawful, when the commission is not lawfully comprised?
6. Does a conflict of interest invalidate the decision by the commission members?
SUMMARY OF THE PETITION
Petitioners herein are
seeking a review by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire of the
decision reached by the Ballot Law commission. Petitioners are
seeking such review under rule 7- discretionary review and under
rule 10- review by petition of the decision by the agency, which
was unlawful and unreasonable as well as under rule 11. Regarding
Petitions for original jurisdiction, Rule 11 states:
Petitioners assert that the ballot law commission showed such a complete disregard of law and fact, such an unprecedented level of malice and corruption, that it justifies the Supreme Court of the state of New Hampshire to take original jurisdiction and appoint a special prosecutor to see if criminal charges are warranted against the Respondents.
The decision is related to the Presidential Primary election, which was recently moved to January 10, 2012. Petitioners are asserting that the actions of the Ballot Law Commission and the Secretary of State of New Hampshire
were an egregious violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, a violation of the constitutional rights of the citizens of New Hampshire and the citizens of the United States to have a lawful presidential election, to vote for legitimate, eligible and vetted candidates.
Petitioners assert that the above constitutional, civil, human right were egregiously and maliciously violated under the color of authority, by the office of the Secretary of State and by the members of the commission. To wit:
(a) Members of the commission disregarded an 85 page complaint and disregarded all aspects of law and all facts presented.
(b) The composition of the commission by different party members was manipulated to improperly pick 5 out of 10 members who disagreed with petitioners based upon political inclinations.
(c) Some of the members of the commission, who were giving donations to the candidate, who was the subject of the hearing, and subject of the challenge, and to his campaign, were sitting on the commission and deciding eligibility of the candidate, whom they financially supported.
(d) Three of the members of the commission are attorneys and members of the New Hampshire bar. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire is an administrative body, reviewing professional misconduct of members of the New Hampshire bar and deciding upon the discipline of attorneys who violate the rules of ethics.
Petitioners are seeking review of actions of these three attorneys, for violation of professional rules of ethics and professional code of conduct. The most egregious violation is one by attorney Martha Van Oot, who is a donor for the candidate that is the subject of the hearing. Ms. Van Oot had an ethical obligation to recuse herself from the hearing on the eligibility of the candidate and failed to disclose the conflict of interest and to recuse herself.
Petitioners are seeking professional discipline of the attorneys, members of the commission due to their flagrant and malicious violation of their oath of office and of the constitution and acting with malice in placing an ineligible candidate on the ballot.
Petitioner attorney Orly Taitz (herinafter "Taitz") submitted to the Secretary of State of New Hampshire a ballot challenge to the candidacy of
Barack Obama (hereinafter "Obama"). She was joined in this challenge by nine New Hampshire State Representatives: Larry Rappaport, Carol Vita, Harry Accornero, Lucien Vita, Moe Villenueva, William Tobin, Susan DeLEmus, Laurie Pettengill and Al Baltasaro.
Taitz was also joined by Presidential candidate Cody Judi, running in the Democrat primary against Barack Obama, as well as a number of veterans and other citizens.
Taitz submitted an 85 page complaint (See Exhibit 1, attached hereto, entitled Challenge to ballot designation of Barack Obama) and additionally testified during the Ballot Law Commission hearing (See Exhibit 2, attached hereto, entitled Transcript of the Ballot Law Commission hearing). The gravamen of this complaint was and is that Presidential candidates by law have to fulfill a requirement of being a natural born U.S. Citizen, and President Obama cannot meet that requirement and is thus ineligible for the Ballot.
According to New Hampshire RSA 655:17-b regarding 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."
In summary the challenge shows, that newly discovered evidence reveals Barack Obama not to be a natural born U.S. citizen and not eligible to be on the ballot. Evidence shows that he is not only not qualified as a natural born citizen, but also does not possess valid identification papers as a naturalized citizen and is using a Connecticut Social Security number, which according to E-Verify and SSNVS, was never assigned to Barack Obama.
1. Taitz presented the committee with evidence that newly released passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, mother of Barack Obama, show, that in her passport Obama was listed as a dependent child under the name Barack Obama Soebarkah. (Exhibit 3 Passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, form FS-299 from 7-64,Affidavit of Chris Strunk). Obama resided in Indonesia from age 5. Blending of names is a custom in South East Asia. Apparently, Obama's mother and step father, Lolo Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia, blended Soetoro and Barack and came up with the name Soebarkah. There is no evidence of Obama ever legally changing his name from Barack Obama Soebarkah to Barack Obama, therefore his declaration of a candidate is not legal, as in his declaration Mr. Obama listed a name that is not legally his and therefore cannot be placed on the ballot. (Exhibit 3).
2. Barack Obama's school registration from Indonesia, made public by the Associated Press, shows Obama registered as a student in Indonesia under the last name Soetoro, which is the last name of his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro. Again, there is no evidence of Obama ever legally changing his
name from Soetoro or Soebarkah to Obama. Therefore he cannot be on the ballot, as he is using a name, that is not legally his. (Exhibit 4)
3. In the same school registration Obama's citizenship is listed as Indonesian. As an Indonesian citizen, Obama is not eligible to be on the ballot as a candidate for U.S. President.
4. Taitz presented Secretary of State Gardner and the Ballot Law Commission with an affidavit of Adobe Illustrator Programmer, Mr. Felichito Papa. (Exhibit 1 Ballot Challenge). In his affidavit Mr. Papa states, that when Mr. Obama posted his tax returns on line on WhiteHouse.gov, he originally forgot to flatten the computer file, which means that millions of people with Adobe Illustrator program could see layers and layers of changes and alterations made to the file. They could see a full Social Security number 042-68-4425, which is being used in those tax returns by Mr. Obama. Taitz is providing this full unredacted number, as according to E-Verify and SSNVS, this number was never issued to Barack Obama. Additionally, Obama was never a resident of the state of Connecticut and has no ties to the state of Connecticut. The first three digits of the Social Security number signify the state. 042 is-assigned to applicants, who submitted their applications in the state of Connecticut. Social Security number 042-68-4425 was issued in and around of March of 1977 to a resident of Connecticut, when Obama resided in Hawaii and attended Punahoa school in Honolulu, HI.
5. Taitz provided the commission her sworn declaration, stating that she went on the official web site of the Selective Service at sss.gov. She entered Obama's name, date of birth and Social Security number 042-684425 and got a match, showing that Obama used this number in his Selective Service application.
6. Taitz provided Gardner and the Commission with a sworn affidavit from a witness Linda Jordan, who provided E-Verify records, personally obtained by her, showing that CT SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama in his tax returns and his Selective Service, does not match the Social Security records for Obama. Additionally, Taitz provided the respondents with similar records provided to her by Colonel Gregory Hollister, that show that according to SSNVS (Social Security Number verification Systems), 04268-4425 which is used by Obama, was never issued to him. We have an individual, occupying the position of US president and Commander in Chief, who is using a Social Security number, which was never legally assigned to him. This in itself shows an enormous breach of national security.
Additionally, it raises another important question: "who needs to resort to fraudulently using Social Security numbers of other individuals?" Typically, it is done by illegal aliens, who were born abroad and do not have a valid U.S. birth certificate. 7.
For nearly three years Obama refused to make public his long form birth certificate. On April 27, 2011 Obama released, what he claimed to be, a true and correct copy of his long form birth certificate, which he posted on line, on WhiteHouse.gov.
8. Taitz received an affidavit from Adobe Illustrator expert Felichito Papa. It stated, that similarly, as Obama did not flatten the PDF file of his tax returns, originally he also did not flatten the file for his birth certificate. One could clearly see the layers of the alterations in the file. It clearly showed the alleged copy to be a forgery, where bits and pieces were cut and pasted from different documents and blanks were filled in by computer graphics. It shows, how forgers used the signature of Obama's mother, apparently from a later time, when she signed as Stanley Ann D. Soetoro, cut and pasted her signature and used computer graphics to add "unham Obama" and came up with the signature of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama).
9. Taitz provided Gardner and the Commission with the affidavit of an expert in typesetting, Paul Irey, which showed different size and font letters used in the alleged document.
10. Taitz provided an affidavit of the scanning machine expert, Doug Vogt, which shows different type of ink used, different scanning.
11. Taitz provided the commission with the long form Hawaiian birth certificate of one Susan Nordyke, who was born in the same hospital only hours later. One can see that the birth certificate is completely different, in that it is on white paper with yellow aging signs, it has a defined border, raised seal and no kerning. Obama's alleged copy of his birth certificate is on green safety paper, which did not exist in 1961, does not have defined borders, but looks like something drawn by computer graphics on the background of this safety paper. Obama's alleged copy does not have a raised seal, the serial number is out of order and contains kerning, meaning that letters infringing in the space of other letters. This can happen only with computer graphics. This is impossible with type writers, which were used in 1961. Additionally, many believe, that "Natural Born Citizen," as it is applied to the U.S. Presidency, means one born in the country regardless of citizenship of the parents. Taitz submits evidence, that from the time of the adoption of the constitution until today, the standard was: One born in the country to parents who are citizens, who do not owe allegiance to other nations. The US Constitution was largely based upon the book "the Law of Nations" by Emer De Vattel, by Emer De Vattel, stating that Natural born citizens are ones born in the Nations to citizens (Emer De Vattel "The Law of Nations" p. 499, §212). A similar definition was used by John A. Bingham, creator on the 14th amendment, who stated during congressional hearings of the 14th amendment, that a "natural born citizen is born in the U.S. territories to parents, who didn't owe allegiance to other sovereignties". A similar definition was used in a case of Minor v. Happerset 88 U.S. 162 (1875) heard by the Supreme Court. Lastly, in 2008 citizenship of John McCain was questioned as well due to his birth in the zone of the Panama canal. In a joint Senate Resolution 511, the Senate unanimously found Senator McCain to be Natural Born U.S. citizen. The Senate used the same Vattel two prong test and found McCain to be eligible for presidency due to the fact that he was born in the Panama Canal zone to two parents, who were U.S. citizens. Obama's father was never a U.S. Citizen. He never even had a "Green Card". He was in U.S. for a few years, on a student visa, and as such, Obama did not satisfy either one of the two prongs of the test for natural born status.
12. All the evidence showed that Obama is using a name, that is not legally his, and is using forged and fraudulently obtained identification papers. He does not possess any valid identification papers, which would show him to be a natural born US citizen, wherefore he cannot be legally on the ballot.
13. New Hampshire RSA 665:7 states "Filing Disputes. The ballot law commission shall hear and determine disputes arising over whether nomination papers or declarations of candidacy filed with the secretary of state conform with the law".(emphasis added). Supreme law of the land is the US Constitution. Article 1, section 2, §4 states that the US President has to be a natural bon citizen. This is a requirement of NH RSA 655-17b, as quoted previously. Commission had an obligation to verify, that the application conforms with the law, with the US Constitution and specific constitutional requirement of the candidate being a natural born citizen. 665-9 Name on Ballot Disputes The ballot law commission shall hear and determine all disputes arising over the form of his or her name which a candidate designates to be printed on the state primary and state general election ballot, as provided in RSA 655:14-b. As stated, Obama used different last names before, and there is no evidence to show, that the name, that he used on the application, is his legal name. Previously Gardner and the Commission removed multiple candidates from the ballot due to lack of eligibility according to law. (Exhibit 5, 6). As a matter of fact, during the previous Presidential election a candidate Sal Mohamed was removed from the ballot for this very reason, as not a natural born citizen, Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan gave interviews to media, bragging about the fact, that a candidate was removed from the ballot as not being a natural born U.S. citizen.
14. In regards to the current challenge to Obama, both Gardner and the Commission were totally derelict in performing their duties, acted with unprecedented malice and refused to address any of the evidence contained in the 85 page complaint, which showed that Obama is not a natural born citizen and cannot be on the ballot.
15. The Commission claimed, that the only thing they do, is making sure that the candidate filed out the form correctly and paid the $1000 fee and that they do not do any other verification. Clearly members of the commission were defrauding the public, as the precedents show, that they repeatedly investigated the facts and made sure that the candidates can be on the ballot according to law, which includes the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the supreme law of the land. According to the US Constitution Article 2, Section 1 the President has to be a natural born citizen. 16. Members of the Committee are precluded from giving donations to the candidates. Evidence shows at least 2 of the members: Jamison French and Martha Van Oot gave donations to the candidates. While donations given by Van Oot, could've been given prior to her becoming a committee member, as an attorney and an officer of the court, she had an ethical obligation to withdraw from the commission, as she repeatedly donated to Obama, to his presidential campaign, and his eligibility was considered. Van Oot not only did not withdraw, but she was the one who proposed to confirm the decision by Gardner to put Obama on the ballot without any evidence of the natural born citizen status with a name not legally his.
Members of the commission were supposed to be selected in a
balanced fashion. Governor, President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House propose members of the committee evenly
according to parties: 5 members and 5 alternates. Governor,
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House are required
to propose the same numbers of Republicans and Democrats, so there
have to be 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats on the committee. If a
member is unavailable, one of the same qualifications has to be
brought from the pool of alternates, meaning, when a Republican
permanent member is unavailable, a Republican alternate was
supposed to be brought. This was not done. Source:
http://www.sos.nh.gov/redbook/second_section.htm (search page for
the word "ballot") Source:
http://www.sos.nh.gov/redbook/second_section.htm (search page for
the word "ballot") (Exhibit 7) The panel of 5
So, first of all, there are ONLY (3) Core members and (3) alternates for the whole commission. This shows, that there is no lawful 10 member commission to begin with and the decisions made by a commission, which was not lawfully comprised of 10 members is not lawful. For the Core commission, you have the (R) appointed by the Speaker, you have the (D) appointed by the Speaker and you have the (D) appointed by the Senate President. The (R) Senate President appointment resigned and you have the Vacancy for the Governor appointment. Alternate Jameson French moves into the Governor appointed vacancy spot because he, too, was appointed by the Governor to be the alternate, to fill in if the original isn't available or has resigned. However his presence on the commission appear to be achieved by virtue of fraud. French claims to be a Republican, however a history of his donations shows him to be a Democrat, donating predominantly to Democrats all over the nation, which disqualifies his vote as a vote of a candidate sitted on the commission by fraud. You then need to fill the spot of Sheila Roberge who is a Republican and the law clearly states: Section 665:2 Alternate Member "There shall be 5 members present in person at all meetings. In case any member of the commission is absent from any meeting or unable to perform his or her duties or disqualifies himself or herself as commissioner, an alternate member who shall have the same qualifications as those of the commissioner whose place he or she is temporarily filling shall perform the duties of the commissioner."
As Roberge is a Republican, her seat at the hearing was supposed to be filled by a fellow Republican. This was not done, Roberge was replaced by yet another Democrat Moran. Considering that the legislature of the state of New Hampshire is 3/4 Republican, one would expect 3-2 division on the committee, with 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats, which would reflect the contingency of the predominantly Republican body of the House and Senate. This did not happen. The Committee had at least 4 Democrats: Van Oot, Clemons and Moran, declared Democrats and a de facto Democrat French, claiming to be a Republican. The list of 5 members and 5 alternates was stacked and manipulated in order to have at least 4 Democrats, who would vote favorably to Obama.
One can see a clear pattern of manipulation and fraud. The respondents defrauded the citizens of the state of New Hampshire and the United States of America, by claiming, that they had jurisdiction of reviewing only that the form had to be simply filled out and a check paid, while in fact they knew that they had a duty to verify, that the candidate is eligible according to law, that he is a natural born citizen. Members of the committee were chosen in a manner that would benefit the candidate and disfavor the concerns of the citizens and state representatives, who brought the challenge. Members of the committee were giving donations to campaigns in violation of the standing rule, prohibiting such donations. Member of the commission, attorney Van Oot egregiously violated rules of professional ethics and did not recuse herself from the hearing, when she knew that she repeatedly donated to the campaign of the candidate, whose eligibility for the office was determined.
Just as during Watergate high ranking officials and attorneys were complicit, now, during ObamaFraudGate and ObamaForgeryGate, high ranking officials and attorneys of the state of New Hampshire are complicit in aiding and abetting elections fraud, that is the most egregious one in human history, as well as engaging in misprision of forgery and Social Security fraud. Petitioners are hopeful, that the Supreme Court of New Hampshire will not be complicit in the above enumerated felonies.
18. The fact that Respondents refused to consider any law and any facts and claimed that they check only whether the Candidate declaration was filled out and check paid, shows that there was no substantial committee hearing at all, as no facts or law were considered and the decision is not lawful.
REQUEST FOR CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION
Multiple individuals from all over the nation sent letters and faxes to the Ballot Law commission and the Secretary of State of New Hampshire, seeking to join in ballot challenge/complaint, filed by attorney Orly Taitz, lead plaintiff in this action. Many of those individuals are members of the U.S. military and veterans, who feel that their unalienable civil and constitutional right to lawful election was violated by the corruption of the Respondents and Respondents' actions in knowingly and maliciously placing on the ballot for the position of the U.S. President, an individual who is not a natural born citizen, as required by the constitution, and who does not even possess valid identification papers to prove his citizenship. Named plaintiffs, many of whom, are duly elected state representatives, can adequately represent the class of citizens, affected by the decision of the Respondents.
Plaintiffs' claims are typical for the class. Plaintiffs can adequately represent the class, as their interests do not conflict with interests of the class they seek to represent and the interests of the members of the class will be adequately represented.
Prosecution of multiple individual complaints will not be economically feasible and in the interest of judicial economy class action would be preferable and it will prevent inconsistent rulings. The plaintiffs are asking this court to use its inherent power to certify this case as a class action and grant the lead plaintiff, a licensed out of state attorney, pro hac vice certification to conduct this case as a class action.
1. Petitioners are seeking a finding that the Respondents were derelict in their duties and did not consider any facts or law in ascertaining the status of Obama. Due to Respondent's failure to fulfill their duties, and verify that candidate Obama is eligible according to law, the November 18 decision by the committee needs to be set aside and/or overturned.
2. The Committee was not lawful, total number of permanent members was only 6 instead of required 10 members, as some of the members donated to the candidates' campaigns in violation of committee guidelines and combination of committee members and alternates was unlawfully manipulated in order to benefit the candidate, who was the subject of the petition. As committee was not lawfully assembled, it's decision is not lawful.
3. Candidate Obama cannot be placed on the ballot in the state of New Hampshire, as he signed his declaration of candidacy under a name, which is not legally his.
4. Candidate Obama cannot be placed as a candidate on the ballot, as he does not possess any valid US identification papers to show that he is a natural born citizen.
5. Attorneys Van Oot, Moran and Cook need to be disciplined by the Supreme Court disciplinary division for violating their oath of office and being derelict in not following their duties of vetting the candidate Obama according to law and established precedents.
6. Attorney Van Oot needs to be disciplined for violating the rules of professional ethics and sitting on a committee, which is supposed to verify eligibility of a candidate according to law, when she repeatedly donated to this very candidate and his campaign.
7. Petitioners are asking this honorable court to use its' inherent powers to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate, if criminal charges should be brought against the respondents.
Congressman Gregg Harper (R-MS)
Gregg Harper, Mississippi,
Congressman Darrell Issa
Congressman Mike Rogers
Congressman Sam Johnson
Congressman Dana Rohrbacher
Commission on Civil Rights
Integrity Section Department of Justice
Commission on Human Rights
of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders
Criminal Bar Hague
Laura Vericat Figarola BPI-ICB-CAPI Secretaria Barcelona email@example.com Address: Avenida Diagonal 529 1º2ª 08029 Barcelona, España tel/fax 0034 93 405 14 24
Nations Commission for Civil Rights Defenders
On December 16, 2011, Dr. Taitz Esq. posted the following certified mail receipt on her blog:
On December 27, 2011, the New Hampshire Supreme Court met and issued the following order, which Dr. Taitz Esq. plans to appeal to federal court:
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In Case No. 2011-0880, Petition of Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire & a., the court on December 27, 2011, issued the following order:
On December 16, 2011, the court received an appeal document. To the extent that the appealing parties rely on Rule 7 or Rule 10, the appeal is declined. To thc extent that thc appealing parties rely on Rule 11, the petition for original jurisdiction is denied.
Apt; declined; petition denied.
Dalianis, C.J., and Duggan, Hicks, Conboy and Lynn, JJ., concurred.
The "Rules" referred to in the order are the rules of the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
The state presidential primary merely allocates national convention delegates between the various candidate's campaigns. Regardless of what finally happens to Obama, an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters want him to be re-elected. The fairest thing to do, even if the so-called " overwhelming proof" of his constitutional ineligibility weren't a tissue of lies and wishful thinking, would be to allow the primary to proceed with his name on the ballot, so his delegates can be chosen from amongst the ranks of his supporters. If for whatever reason Obama is unable to continue his re-election bid, those delegates can simply convene in Charlotte, NC in September alongside Democrats from across America to choose someone else.
I might also add that write-in votes are allowed in NH and have to be counted like any other votes. Taking Obama's name off the ballot would not prevent anyone from voting for him, and it wouldn't even prevent him from campaigning.
I may be making a mistake by bringing up write-in votes. 3 of the cosigners of Orly Taitz's petition to the Supreme Court are fringe candidates who didn't bother to file in NH and are not campaigning here. The possibility of write-in votes might give them standing— although it is worth noting that NONE of the 13 Democrats who actually filed in NH are calling to have Obama taken off the ballot. This includes at least two who are actually actively campaigning. So maybe those 3 cosigners have some standing. However, the others have no standing to ask for any candidate to be taken off the ballot. There were several Republican state reps who can't even vote in the Democratic primary: they really have no standing here to ask for a Democrat to be taken off the primary ballot. Orly Taitz, the prime petitioner, has even less standing: aside from the fact that she is a Republican, she is from out of state.
Paris Hilton's 2008 Presidential announcement (her ostensible running mate, Rihanna, was not a natural-born citizen)
None of the candidates who showed up at the forum were upset that Obama was on the ballot. The three ostensible candidates who countersigned Dr. Taitz Esq.'s petition would not have been invited to the forum anyway— because none of them were amongst the 44 citizens from across our great country who actually bothered to file. I don't know why those three morons think they have any standing to demand that Obama should be tossed off a ballot which they are not even on.