BALLOT LAW COMMISSION

Consists of 5 members as follows:  two members appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives, one from each of the 2 major political parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the most recent state election and two members appointed by the president of the senate, one from each of the 2 major political parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the most recent state election.  One member appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the council who shall be a person particularly qualified by experience in election procedure.  No person shall be appointed who holds an elected office or who is an election official.  Term of all commissions shall be for four years, except that the first appointments shall be as follows:  terms of two years for the members appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives; terms of three-years for the members appointed by the senate president; and a term of four-years for the member appointed by the governor and council.  Members may be re-appointed.  Members elect annually a chairperson from among the members.  Members shall be appointed and terms of office shall expire on July 1.  Vacancies shall be filled in the same manner for the unexpired term.

There shall be 5 alternate members as follows:  two members appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives, one from each of the 2 major political parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the most recent state election and two members appointed by the president of the senate, one from each of the 2 major political parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the most recent state election.  One member appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the council who shall be a person particularly qualified by experience in election procedure.   The alternate members appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the senate shall not be members of the general court.  Term of all alternate members shall be for four years, except that the first appointments shall be as follows:  terms of two-years for the members appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives; terms of three years for the members appointed by the senate president; and a term of four years for the member appointed by the governor and council.  The term of each alternate new member shall begin on July 1.  RSA 665.

It is unfortunate that Sylvio Dupuis' term is shown as "December 7, 2005 to July 1, 2007."  He is in fact still on the commission's list of alternate members, as is Frank Torr (whose term is shown as "January 27, 2004 to July 1, 2010".) 

The start dates are all correct, so anything partisan which these people did before their start dates is not a violation of the ballot commission's regulations.  Jane Clemons, for example, did not break the law by having served as a state representative as recently as the 2010 session: she did not file for re-election in June 2010, she resigned on September 13, 2010 and she did not take her seat on the commission until September 14, 2010.

The Governor and Executive Council appoint one regular member and one alternate, with no party restrictions: it would have been legal to appoint Democrats to both seats.  Jameson French, notwithstanding his contributions to certain Democratic federal campaigns, is nevertheless a Republican.  The other seat was held by a Democrat, Gregory Martin from Keene, who resigned during the summer of 2011.

Thu Nov 17 23:14:51 2011
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:14:49 -0500
From: Timothy Horrigan <timothyhorrigan@mac.com>
Reply-To: Timothy.Horrigan@alumni.usc.edu
To: Tracy <tracysplace2002@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Make sure you KNOW the facts, THIS IS GOING NATIONWIDE, starting with NH!!

I know most of the people on the ballot law commission who are making the decision.  The commission is NOT going to invalidate Obama's candidacy based on your argument--- especially not after he was elected President and is running for re-election.  And even if they do what you want them to do (which is extremely unlikely),  Obama will doubtless challenge the decision in court.  By the time the court battle plays out, January 8, 2012 will have come and gone.


--Rep. Timothy Horrigan

Thu Nov 17 23:08:32 2011
From: Tracy <tracysplace2002@verizon.net>
Subject: Make sure you KNOW the facts, THIS IS GOING NATIONWIDE, starting with NH!!

Extremely important! Obama's fate as a candidate in NH will be decided tomorrow!        http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=27874

THE TRUTH according to the Constitution!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Representative John Bingham 1862 (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., pg 1639 (1862):
 
"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians."

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif
 In 1866 while introducing the bill H.R. 127 (14th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states: 

"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States." 

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 
MEANING that they changed NOTHING with the 14th Amendment, only that they were declaring what was already the law.
The LAW they were talking about was the Civil RIghts Act of 1866 which states:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;"

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html 
Everyone seems to forget the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", which is why the Law/Amendment went astray. If you look at the congressional records of when they were debating the 14th Amendment, you will find the truth and you will see that the 14th Amendment has been 100% perverted!

What exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase: 

"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means."

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14
 
Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction: 

"I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16
 

Supreme Court Case Minor V. Happerset: 

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

And last but not least: 
Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866: 

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"

 
MIDDLE COLUMN 3RD PARAGRAPH:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

Interestingly, the Miner vs. Happersett case was only tangentially about natural-born citizenship, and defining the adjective "natural-born" was not the point of the decision at all.  The complainant Virgina Minor was one of a few hundred women nationwide who tried to vote in the 1872 election. Happersett was her local County clerk, who reused to let her vote. The decision was a somewhat convoluted attempt to show why the 13^th and 14^th Amendments couldn't be construed to support the outlandish notion that female citizens (natural-born or otherwise) have the right to vote.

From: Debbie Warren <dwarren@smdavid.com>
To: 'Arnie Rosner' <arnie@arnierosner.com>, Timothy.Horrigan@alumni.usc.edu
Subject: RE: Thread of communication
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:31:15 -0600

Bingo! Arnie.  Funny that these 'fiduciaries' fail to mention their opinion and intent on these sensitive subjects when stumpring for votes from American 'citizens'.

 
Boo hoo...snarky and rude, he says.  Golly, these lowly citizens are mean.  Their lives have been turned upside down and ruined by criminals in government; but they should not be upset or angry.

 
He might want to revisit the original letter sent to Fredette and his rude and snarky response which set off the citizens whom he was insulting.  They forget we are the employers and they are there to follow the Constitution and do what we direct them to do.  We appear to have encountered another one who thinks they are royalty and should be able to get away with anything regardless of what the law states or who they harm in the process.

 
I guarantee that if the simple question were asked of bona fide law abiding citizens including those who learned our language and followed the law to the letter in order to become citizens; the majority would disagree with Mr. Horrigan's assertion and the majority do not agree it was ok to lie and cheat to become President.  No one I have spoken with is comfortable with someone who has allegiances elsewhere being elevated to the office of President...and certainly not a liar, cheat, thief or otherwise a criminal.

NOW, Mr. Horrigan:

First of all, thank God for the internet and the information we are able to garner and the ability to educate more citizens.  In the past, as evidenced by what our fiduciaries have been getting away with for so long, we were subjected to propaganda, speeches full of lies with little means by which to expose those lies and crimes which were difficult to expose through a media that is no longer capable of honest journalism.

You folks also enjoy the internet and take advantage with your newsletters which are full of empty rhetoric and constant solicitations for donations from the very people who have little left due to the theft we have been subjected to individually and as naive taxpayers.  You just hate having to answer more questions and correspondence.  The problem is this: we don't get our questions answered.  Instead we get insults, attacks and more empty rhetoric.

As you pointed out, Santorum and others who were not fortunate to have been born under the NATURAL BORN clause are not legal candidates.  Whether you like it or not; the requirement is valid and it has been violated.  Your 'opinion' does not trump the law and by ignoring the law as it is written; you violate your oath and should step down.  It's very simple.  We have directed the same scrutiny towards those who are not eligible regardless of their race, color or family background.  Rest assured, culture is a very important issue as is loyalty.  Rubio is definitely NOT a Natural Born citizen and I have pointed it out many times to the idiots who want him as a V.P.  The rule applies, in my opinion, regardless of the party affiliation or whom I happen to like.

If you have irrefutable and solid, legal evidence of where, when and to whom the Muslim in Chief was born; please produce it post haste.  As of this date, that information and much more has been hidden, obfuscated and danced around...or blatantly forged and faked.  Millions of our money has been spent to protect the crimes which installed this fraud and the perpetrators who aided and abetted the crimes.

As of today...your wishes appear to be granted: there exists a Usurper in our White House and the violation of the Constitutional requirement is transparent.  The thing is; the law was never changed...so he appears to be a criminal whom none of you are willing to prosecute.  Interestingly enough; I don't see your disdain for the illegal use of Social Security numbers or any of the other lies and crimes we have evidence to support.  I don't even see an interest on your part to thoroughly investigate the crimes for which we have much evidence and probable cause to arrest and detain the guilty parties.  The insult added to injury is the family of the current Usurper who have successfully subverted our laws and remained in our country, breaking our laws, collecting social services intended for tax paying citizens and ignoring orders to get the hell out.  One of his brothers actually collects social security while he lives in Oblamao's home country of Kenya...and he also has two SS numbers.  It is all public record and yet like the many SS numbers the de facto President has used along with his long list of aka's none of you seem to be bothered by any of that either.

Your only disdain is for the citizens who rightfully and legally and PEACEFULLY have done nothing but question the legality of this White House squatter and the other illegal activities committed by our fiduciaries which have recently come to light.  You resent our concern over the massive damage to us and our country?  You resent being held to the fire and accountable?  How about that pay check you receive from taxpayers?  How about those benefits you enjoy?

You don't think we have a right to get up on our hind legs when a public servant attacks one of us for asking them to assist in the protection of our laws and our people?

With all due DISrespect,

Deborah Warren

NATURAL BORN U.S. Citizen

Home

The Forgotten Liars

Other Works

Contact Info

Email