Dear New Hampshire Resident:
This is a grassroots effort to inform all New Hampshire voters that you have been misinformed, lied to, and betrayed by many in your state government.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FAIR ELECTION IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.
Read on as this may be one of the most important and compelling emails you have ever received.
If you choose to read every word, review every link and watch every video, it will be more than obvious that we are experiencing the greatest constitutional crisis in our history and New Hampshire is intended to be a part of the upcoming plan to subvert the election process in 2012. The incontrovertible fact is that political elite are trampling the Constitution at every turn and the media is heavily invested in hiding the truth.
Did you know that the New Hampshire Ballot Commission failed to vet every presidential candidate on the New Hampshire Primary Ballot for both the 2008 and 2012 elections? What’s more, they lied about their obligation to do so and the facts will show that they are guilty of egregious malfeasance.
On November 18, 2011, the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission heard a challenge on behalf of all American citizens as to whether Barack Obama’s name should remain on the New Hampshire Democratic Party presidential primary ballot.
The evidence presented to the Commission was comprehensive, substantive and detailed. It was based upon the presidential eligibility clause of the U.S. Constitution and included Supreme Court decisions and precedent which served to affirm the intent and the legal interpretation of the Founding Father’s use of the term Natural Born Citizen in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. Additionally, documents and reports by official agencies of theUnited Statesgovernment such as the Social Security Administration and the Selective Service Board were produced and evidence from former federal government and Scotland Yard investigators, private investigators, computer software experts, scanner experts, typographer experts and forensic document examiners were made available to the Commission.
Despite a compelling presentation of evidence, the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission refused to consider the merits of the complaint. Instead, the Commission claimed that under New Hampshire law their only responsibility was to determine if the prospective candidate had filed a sworn affidavit stating that he or she was legally qualified to run for office and to ensure that the appropriate filing fee of $1000 had been paid!
See the hearing here [MUST WATCH]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BUcyb5pmUKI
This claim by the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission that its role is merely clerical flies in the face of common sense, is an abrogation of their sworn duty and the trust placed in them, and clearly contravenes New Hampshire state law.
NH Laws Broken by Ballot Law Commission
Here is a recap of laws broken related to this sordid affair. Note: These all fall into the category of allegations, since formal charges have not been filed and convictions not obtained.
Presidential Eligibility Law
NH RSA 655- 655:17-b 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.
U.S. Constitution- Article II Section 1 Clause 5
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.
Perjury- Lying About Previous Candidate Disqualifications for Eligibility, for Presidential and Assembly Candidates
Plaintiffs were told that the Commission doesn’t do things such as THIS (disqualification of Presidential candidates Sal Mohamed and Abdul K. Hassan. In 2006, this same BLC struck the names of eight (8) candidates for state representative from the ballot for ineligibility for that office: Fran Defeo,Robert Ordonez, Maureen Baxley, James W. Danforth, Matthew B. Preston, Greta M. Cocco, Ron Peddle, and Matthew Covey.
N.H. Asst. Attorney General Boffetti told the five Ballot Law Commissioners deciding the N.H. State Representatives’ complaint that they could only consider whether Mr. Obama had properly filed his declaration of candidacy form according to N.H. law and paid the $1,000 filing fee. In other words, they were not allowed to rule on Mr. Obama’s purported Constitutional ineligibility for office.
The New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission and their consulting attorney claimed that “the law” refers only to the Ballot Law Commission Revised Statutes Title LXIII Chapter 665.47 and 665.48, and that they only have jurisdiction to rule on whether the candidate application is filled out appropriately and the check for filing is valid. This is patently false, belied by the fact that the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission rejected eight candidates from the ballot in 2006. But in this case, five years later, the BLC denied having jurisdiction.
REGARDING BALLOT LAW COMMISSION’S JURISDICTION
RSA 665:7 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.”
The law is, that to be eligible for the Presidency, you MUST be a natural born citizen and Obama is NOT a natural born citizen.
“Obama” is NOT even anAmericacitizen, according to the Constitutional Framers. You will see that all my quoted sources are from the Library of Congress, so to CHANGE the framer’s intent, there would have had to have been amendments to the Constitution, changing the Presidential requirements and that has never happened!
The commission says that they do not deal with criminal matters and do not have the authority to remove “Obama” for not being Natural Born, but that is FALSE because in 2008, the commission removed Sal Mohamed, who was removed from the ballot because he was not a Natural Born Citizen, being born inEgypt.
SO THEY DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY!
REGARDING JAMESON FRENCH AND POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Section 665:3 Political Contributions Prohibited.
“No ballot law commission member shall make a contribution, as defined in RSA 664:2, to any candidate for office or political committee.”
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml
(Type in French Jameson and search the page for 2010, then search page for 2011 for all donations)
REGARDING ALTERNATE MEMBERS FILLING IN
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.
REGARDING JANE CLEMONS’ APPOINTMENT
Section 665:1
“No person shall be appointed to the commission who holds an elected office or who is an election official.”
The day that Jane was appointed to the Ballot Law Commission she WAS STILL a House Representative, so technically, she was not eligible for the position at that time. She did resign, the day before her effective date to the commission, but she was appointed while holding an elected office and the law clearly states no one should be “appointed”, it doesn’t say no one should be “elected” or “approved”, it says appointed and technically, she was still a House Representative. The appointment date is different (earlier) than the approved/effective date and her effective date is September 14, 2010, so even giving her the benefit of doubt by saying she was approved in one days turn around time (which is highly unlikely) it would have been impossible for her to be appointed, without still being a House Member. She’s even still got a House website:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=374959
There were probably Federal election laws broken as well, since people were effectively disenfranchised, documents were forged, etc. Campaign contributions were therefore later fraudulently solicited/collected; millions of people were harmed by actions of a usurper in the White House, lacking allegiance to theUSA, etc. We’ll get to that later
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Only a natural born citizen can legally be President of the USA. ”Obama” is not one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If the Commission’s failure to do the right thing is not outrageous enough, there is clear and irrefutable evidence that the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission was not legally constituted and that members of the Commission were in violation ofNew Hampshirestate law that regulates their lawful conduct in the Commission.We the people believe that the actions of the Commission are in clear violation of state law and an indisputable breach of the public’s trust. The Commission has a duty to the citizens ofNew Hampshireand Americans at large to ensure fair and honest elections and it starts with vetting a candidate’s qualifications under the law. The full legal burden of proof is on the candidate to prove eligibility, not on the public to prove ineligibility. The New Hampshire Ballot Commission has failed to do its job.
We the citizens ofNew Hampshireand the citizens of theUnited States of Americaat large believe that the New Hampshire Supreme Court should have held a public hearing forthwith to properly address the issues outlined in this Petition. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has a moral and legal obligation to get this right and ensure that the state’s laws are upheld so that the election process can proceed honestly and fairly.
These are the issues that the New Hampshire Supreme Court has failed to resolve:
QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED:
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?
Unfortunately on Wednesday, December 28, 2011, the New Hampshire Supreme Court wiped its hands clean of the controversy. Despite overwhelming evidence of misconduct and misfeasance by the New Hampshire Ballot Commission, the Court declined to review their actions.. In so doing, they abrogated their responsibility to ensure that the laws of New Hampshire were upheld. Instead they chose to deny the voters ofNew Hampshirea clean and fair election pursuant to the United States Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.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?
Learn more about the meaning of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN as intended by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution (it may not be what you think):
ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
FOR ALL THE LATEST RE: NEW HAMPSHIRE BALLOT CHALLENGE AND BALLOT CHALLENGES ACROSS THE COUNTRY PLEASE VISIT:
IT’S TIME TO FIGHT BACK AND LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!
PLEASE JOIN US FOR A
**CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE RALLY**
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Outside the State House in Concord, NH
at 10:00 AM. (time subject to change- watch this space!)
SEPARATE PRESS CONFERENCE BY NH STATE REPS TO FOLLOW
CALL TO ACTION!
Help spread the word about ongoing election fraud in New Hampshire. We must uphold the Constitution of the United States and protect those principles upon which America was founded. Please do your part, for your children, for your children’s children and for future generations.
PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO YOUR FAMILY, FRIENDS AND EMAIL CONTACTS LIST.
PLEASE WRITE TO YOUR LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS. PLEASE WRITE LETTERS TO THE EDITORS AND YOUR LOCAL MEDIA. CALL IN TO LOCAL RADIO. YOU CAN GET ALL THE RELEVANT CONTACT INFORMATION AT:
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/category/ballot-news-blog/nh-ballot-challenge-resources
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
Shareing thx...
ReplyDelete