er_giveaway_banner.jpg (39000 bytes)

Second Update: Exclusive: Orly Taitz Reports on New Hampshire Ballot Commission Hearing

“PEOPLE WERE SCREAMING, ‘TRAITORS!’”

by Sharon Rondeau

William Gardner has been Secretary of State of New Hampshire since 1976

(Nov. 18, 2011) — Atty. Orly Taitz reported the following from the Ballot Law Commission hearing in Concord, NH regarding her election complaint against Barack Hussein Obama for social security fraud and forgery:

There is good news and bad news.  the good news is that a lot of people showed up.  There were probably 100 people there.  So many people came that they had to open a partition with a conference room, and they used two conference rooms for the hearing.  There was media; there were multiple cameras.

I gave them the case.  I provided all the evidence that he is using a stolen social security number and forged birth certificate and provided all of the information in regard to Minor v. Happersett, Vattel, etc.  I probably spoke for half an hour.  Afterward, the assistant attorney general presented his case, which was a joke.  A five-year-old could have made a better case.  He brought the assistant secretary of state and asked, “Well, did Obama fill out the paper?” “Yes.”  “Did he pay the $1,000 fee?  “Yes.”  “OK, here’s my case.”

So I did cross-examination, and I told her, “Ma’am, I was born in the Soviet Union.  If I were to lie, if I were to commit fraud and fill out a paper saying I am eligible for the presidency and paid you $1,000, would you put my name on the ballot?” And she looked at me and said, “Well, ah…ummm…well, ah, if there were a challenge, then I wouldn’t.”  So I said, “OK.  So everything that you just said with the attorney general is pointless.  If there is a challenge, then you cannot put the person on the ballot.  So what do you do if there is a challenge?”  And I asked her, “If you show the attorney general that Obama is using a stolen social security number and a forged birth certificate, what does he do?”  And she was looking at me with big eyes and said, “IIIIIIIII don’t know.”  And I said, “What do you mean ‘you don’t know?’ What did he do?  Did he say he will not put him on the ballot?  Did he start an investigation?  Or did he hide it, sweeping it all under the rug?” and she had nothing to say.  So he was saying, “Well, he filled out the paper, and Biden came over and gave us a $1,000 check…”

So I stood up and told them, “Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, you have all the evidence that the paperwork was filled out fraudulently.  If you allow him on the ballot in the state of New Hampshire, you are aiding and abetting forgery, fraud and treason.  You will be criminally complicit.”

As they stepped out, everybody mobbed the secretary of state and attorney general.  They were screaming at them.  I’ve never seen anything like this.  Particularly women…women were screaming, “How could you do this to us?!  How could you allow him on the ballot?  Where is your decency?”  They were screaming.  So the committee said, “Here’s our attorney.  He has something to say.”  So the attorney said, “Well, according to the law, the candidate is supposed to fill out a form and pay $1,000.  Obama filled out the form and paid $1,000, so he’s on the ballot.”

Everybody jumped to their feet.  They were screaming and yelling and saying, “Traitors!  You’re traitors! You have no decency!  You have no honesty!  You’re committing treason!”  It was huge.  Cameras were rolling, and they had to call security.  (Rep.) Harry Accornero started yelling at to the chair of the committee and the corrupt attorney, and the attorney, Brad E. Cook, said, “Representative Accornero, you are out of order.”  And Accornero said, “No, you are out of order; you are committing treason.  You have to face the people of the state of New Hampshire, and you better not get out of the house without a mask!”

I’ve never seen anything like it.  People were so mad that I thought, “In another minute, they’re going to bring a rope and start hanging them all.”  Representative Carol Vita kept getting right in the face of the assistant attorney general; she was yelling and screaming at him.

Taitz reported that no one was hurt as a result of the hearing, which lasted about two hours in total.  She reported that Rep. Accornero said that members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives went to the Speaker of the House, and a meeting is set for Tuesday when they will decide what to do.  “I’m going to write an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.  Members of the House are going to join my other cases in Hawaii, the Ninth Circuit, and in the DC Circuit.”

“The level of corruption was unbelievable.  We found out that all five members of the committee are Democrats,” Taitz said.  “As I was presenting all of the evidence, people were listening and getting more and more angry.”

Her report of the events was confirmed by a local newspaper, The Concord Monitor, which also provided photos.  Another writer for the Monitor used Taitz’s name rather than the pejorative “birther,” but described the hearing as a “primary circus” and the outcome as “predictable.”

Video of the events of November 18, 2011 can be viewed here.  Of the Commission’s decision, Taitz said, “They were under marching orders.”

Update, November 19, 2011:  Taitz stated that she was flying home to California last night and had used all of the frequent flyer miles she had accumulated thus far from various trips to fly to New Hampshire.  The ticket would have cost $1,100 because it was booked at the last minute.  She said she will need more such miles donated from supporters in order to fly to Hawaii for a hearing on November 30 in her case against the Hawaii Department of Health.

Citizens can file election complaints in other states with links provided to the various Secretaries of State.

The names of the Ballot Law Commission members are Chairman Bradford E. Cook; Jane Clemons; Ms. Margaret Ann Moran; Jamison French, and one other member; David Scanlon, Deputy Secretary of State; Karen Ladd, Assistant Secretary of State, and James Bufetti (sp?), Counsel for the Ballot Law Commission were also in attendance.  The video was made by Mr. Tim Carter, a citizen reporter who attended the hearing.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUcyb5pmUKI[/youtube]

Second Update, November 20, 2011:  Atty. Taitz has requested an emergency hearing with the New Hampshire Speaker of the House, Rep. William O’Brien to discuss the removal of New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner.

——————

Editor’s Notes:  If Taitz’s contention that all five members of the Ballot Law Commission are from one party is correct, it is an apparent violation of law.

Rep. Harry Accornero will be a guest on Ranters Radio at 6:00 p.m. PST on Wednesday, November 23, 2011, hosted by Steven Ranting.

New Hampshire’s state senators are listed here.

 

Print Friendly

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: National

32 Responses to Second Update: Exclusive: Orly Taitz Reports on New Hampshire Ballot Commission Hearing

  1. birdy

    Monday, November 21, 2011 at 2:15 PM

    ” the birth certificate likely originated at Kapiolani and was included in the group of birth certificates that contained the Nordyke twins” – From The Ladyforest website.

    “Dunken Sunahara demanded to see her long form birth certificate, but the department of Health denied the request, ” – From this response.

    Why doesn’t Dunken Sunahara go to Kapiolani Hospital and ask for the medical records of his deceased sister, including their copy of the birth certificate? It may not have the DOH certificate number on it yet, but it’s a start in the right direction.

  2. unbontir

    Monday, November 21, 2011 at 10:58 AM

    Well done sir, May I suggest you send a copy of your statement to Sheriff Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse and to Dr. Jerome Corsi at World Net Daily, to Atty. Phil Berg, the Liberty Legal Foundation, your Congressman and State Senators, etcetera….

  3. unbontir

    Monday, November 21, 2011 at 10:54 AM

    You are correct, for everything that the fraud has accomplished – everything that his illegitimate administration has accomplished – has been accomplished while in the commission of a crime. ABROGATION is the only answer.

  4. Donna

    Monday, November 21, 2011 at 6:13 AM

    One day the interviews that were done with Ann Dunham in 1959,1960 and 1961 will resurface,proving obama wasn’t and isn’t a NBC.The last interview was 1961 as she was leaving the US,the interviewer said to her” You do know you will lose your citizenship? she replied,”i don’t care,this isn’t My country anyway”. ———— I can’t wait for that day!!!

  5. MinutemanCDC_SC

    Monday, November 21, 2011 at 3:40 AM

    The problem with this scenario is the green birth registration card, signed by “Madlyn Dunham” on Aug. 5, 1961. We have treated this card as a “known good” document attesting to his maternal grandmother registering a birth on Aug. 4, 1961,
    1) at home or outside a hospital,
    2) out of state, and/or
    3) outside the U.S. (specifically, in Mombasa, Kenya).

    Such a registration on Aug. 5th would result in a registration number of xxx-xx-10641 , or very close to it.

    BUT, if the green birth registration card is a FAKE, as indicated by only the flaw in the signature (I can’t find a copy of the card to inspect right now), “Madlyn” instead of “Madelyn” or “Madeline”, the identity theft of Virginia Sunahara’s place in the sequence of Certificate numbers makes perfect sense.

  6. MinutemanCDC_SC

    Monday, November 21, 2011 at 2:07 AM

    John, I agree that all five members of the Ballot Law Commission present on Friday were probably of the progressive political persuasion. However, Bradford E. Cook and Jameson S. French are registered Republicans. Being RINOs may make them “other-than-Republicans” in our opinion, but the election laws only deal with the “R” in the “Political Party” field..

  7. MinutemanCDC_SC

    Monday, November 21, 2011 at 1:34 AM

    Vacant from Jan. 20, 2009, yes.

    Vacant through Jan. 20, 2013? I don’t think so.

  8. Mike Travis

    Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 8:36 PM

    100% dead on right! That is the only language criminals understand, and there are no bigger criminals than those who are supposed to serve the people, but who instead choose to serve solely for their own personal gain. They are traitors of the worst type and must be tried and punished according to the REAL law, not just the ones they choose to enforce.

  9. Mike Travis

    Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 8:33 PM

    Can you say TREASON? It will take a lot of rope but I believe we can manage. I would bet that after hanging hundreds or thousands of corrupt elected serpents, the ones who survives will be much more will to do their SWORN DUTY to defend the Constitution. If not, I am sure we can find more rope.

  10. Mike Travis

    Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 7:49 PM

    Remember the “shot heard round the world”? This incident may not be ours but it will happen. What will you do then? Ask another corrupt court to intervene? Petition a corrupt congress? I say the time to prepare is now Patriots! Revive the proud tradition of the citizen’s Militias that were part of our original fight for Freedom!

    Like Benjamin Franklin said, “Unite or die!” What say you? I am a proud member of the Constitutional Militia in my state. Where else will you turn when the government comes for you?

  11. BobSR

    Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 6:57 PM

    Quote:

    “And where was Fox News, does anyone know?”

    In case there is anyone left who hasn’t noticed, Fox News is now as much of a protector of everything Obama as MSNBC, CNN, CBS or any of the rest of the Obamamedia. If you believe Obama is a usurper and there has been a Marxist/Communist takeover of America’s federal government, including Congress and the Department of Injustice, Fox News is NOT your friend.

    They are worse than the others because some people still expect “fair and balanced” from Fox. Fox is working double overtime to prevent the truth about Obama from being widely known.

    TURN OFF FOX NEWS…….please, it feels good to break from them.

  12. MichaelN

    Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM

    Good one Steve T!

    That’s the way to do it.

    Did you notice also that the NH Election Laws provide for filing of a complaint “within 3 days of the publication of the primary results’?

    (the part I have enclosed in ((((( )))))

    Jurisdiction
    665:6 General Duties.
    The ballot law commission shall have jurisdiction in the following cases:

    I. When the nominations at the primary, as declared pursuant to RSA 659:86-89, are in apparent conformity with law, they shall be valid

    unless changed upon recount as provided by law or

    (((((unless written objection to their conformity with the law shall be filed with the secretary of state within 3 days of the date of publication of the results of the primary by the secretary of state under RSA 659:89; or, )))))

    if there is a recount for the office in question, within 3 days after the declaration of the
    secretary of state upon such recount. If written objections are filed, the secretary of state shall forthwith notify the ballot law commission of such filing. The ballot law commission shall then meet as provided in RSA 665:5 in order to hear and decide all the objections.

    The decision of the ballot law commission in such cases shall be final as to questions both of law and fact, and no court shall have jurisdiction to review such decision.

  13. Quetzalcoatl

    Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM

    Good luck to you.

    Do you think this incident, which could be called “The New Hampshire Incident” will fan the small little fire among The People, that could grow into a conflagration “they” can’t stop? After all, New Hampshire’s motto is “Live Free or Die”.

    And where was Fox News, does anyone know?

    I never saw it mentioned that Los Angeles ABC local affiliate KABC TV, covered Taitz’ May 2nd hearing at the Pasadena Appellate Court. The reporter even did on camera bit afterwards. It wasn’t aired, however.

  14. thinkwell

    Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 3:15 PM

    Here is a more complete and cogent statement of my above line of thought:

    Obama was not born in any hospital in Hawaii and does not possess a valid Hawaiian birth certificate with a normal number for a person of his age.

    Even if within his first year of life, his mother or grandparents attempted to register his non-Hawaiian birth as native Hawaiian they somehow failed to supply all the required information to “properly” register him (that is, if they actually bothered to register him at all at that time).

    Either for the above reason or, as is much more likely, because Obama first tried to register his birth as “Hawaiian” much later in life, all legitimate birth documents issued by the HDoH for Obama, including the short form COLB would indicate on their face that an open problem with his birth records exists and would therefore directly cast serious doubt upon his natural born Citizenship status. Obama never would have expected his long form birth certificate to pass muster, but he would never have expected to produce it either, However, he probably was very surprised that even his short form COLB clearly indicated that he was a fraud (his probably had a different type of certificate number). It is for this reason that he had to steal a real Hawaiian baby’s birth record.

    Virginia Sunahara was born at exactly the right place and time that Obama was looking for (even though his actual birth date was probably many months earlier, Virginia’s birth date was close enough). Because she died on the day after her birth, her family would have no reason to notice that her record had been stolen years later (this is the Bill Ayers identity theft preferred modus operandi).

    Obama stole baby Virginia’s BC number and chose his new, fraudulent birth date to coincide with hers. However, this inadvertently caused a minor glitch to appear in the time sequence of his record (he claimed to have been born on Aug 4th, yet his BC number was slightly higher than those of the Nordyke twins who were born a day later in the “same” hospital). This small glitch probably occurred because baby Virginia sad and unusual circumstances required special handling so that she wasn’t issued a BC number until the day after she died.

    On ladysforest’s blog she documents how one of her fellow researchers originally went to visit the Sunahara family. But back when her field agent made that first cold call to the Sunahara household, the family was probably caught completely by surprise with little or no awareness of the way they had been played and used by Obama and his flying monkeys. I’ll bet they are much more up-to-speed by now.

    They have seen the effect of Obama’s policies on the Hawaiian economy, probably on a personal level among friends and family. They probably have heard much of Obama’s fraud and deceit from fellow Hawaiians and likely no longer even regard Obama as being authentically Hawaiian. But most of all, after reflecting on what has really transpired at the HDoH, they are probably vengefully mad about the callous disrespect and exploitation of the life and memory of the innocent, helpless baby Virginia. When Orly’s agents went to visit them again, they probably had a completely new attitude and interest in exposing the theft of Virginia’s identity.

    In fact, I’ll bet they were more than willing to make a little trip down to the HDoH to fetch an official copy or two of Virginia’s birth records (and I’ll bet Obama was never expecting that).

    Now you can see the predicament of Obama’s minions at the Department of Health. They couldn’t very well produce a copy of Virginia’s birth record with her original number still intact because that would be the same 151-61-10641 number that Obama stole and is still using. Even the regime-stream media would have a hard time ignoring that two people were issued the same birth certificate number. All they could do was give Virginia the closest available number and hope the family still didn’t have an original copy of her birth certificate somewhere (unfortunately it appears that they don’t). But it still is a BIG RED FLAG that Virginia’s reissued number is hundreds of counts out of sequence. That is why I say that In a sane world this clearly damning evidence would most certainly trigger an FBI investigation of criminal fraud and identity theft on the part of Obama and his minions in the HDoH, but perhaps we no longer live in a sane world.

  15. John Sutherland

    Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 2:23 PM

    “Taitz’s contention that all five members of the Ballot Law Commission are from one party appears to be incorrect. As indicated on the N.H. State government website, the Ballot Law Commission appears to be fully bipartisan as required by state law.”

    Well, the one united party that was present in the room was the ‘progressive party’ or the ‘communist party,’ available under the auspices of both major political parties.

    The communists and progressives do not believe in the rule of law, and if we expect that from them, then we are acting dumber than a post. Their history tells the sad story of how they will do everything in their power to destroy the rule of law, in any country, so that they can rule as totalitarian tyrants. It’s just their way.

  16. Surly Curmudgen

    Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 2:17 PM

    One further requirement “we the people” should demand when Obama is shown to be a legal fraud. That all future histories of this nation reflect that the office of president was vacant from noon 20 January 2009 through noon 20 January 2013.

  17. A pen

    Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 11:17 AM

    Of decisions made by the board, “…its findings must be supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.”

    Very well, what “Reliable”, “Probative” and “Substantial Evidence” have they documented?

    I will guarantee there is no evidence Barry Soetoro ever ran for president, provided name change documentation or ever proved he was a citizen. That is the last legal name this man is known to the United States as, Barry Soetoro. Check the Stanley Ann Dunham / Soetoro divorce decree. http://www.scribd.com/doc/9193269/Soetoro-Divorce

  18. SteveT

    Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 11:04 AM

    I’d encourage readers to not give up on New Hampshire just yet. I just filed my own hastily-written complaint challenging Obama’s ballot placement, using an approach slightly different from Orly’s. I did NOT ask New Hampshire to decide Obama’s eligibility. Only the courts can do that. Instead, I merely ask NH to enforce its own laws, in light of undisputed facts.

    In my complaint, I argued as follows (paraphrased):

    1) According to NH laws, a presidential contender must swear that he is a “natural born citizen”. Without making this sworn statement, a presidential candidate cannot appear on the presidential ballot (NH election code section 655-17b).

    2) You can swear ONLY to that which you know to be fact. You cannot swear to something that is “probably” true but subject to fact-based uncertainty or doubt.

    3) It is a well-established fact (it is written in black and white for everyone to see) that, in Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court said that persons born on US soil, to US citizen parents, are definitely, without doubt, natural born citizens. In that same ruling, the Court also said that there are doubts concerning the citizenship status of US-born children of non-citizen parents. The Court was unsure whether such children were even citizens, let alone “natural born citizen”.

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/multiple-instances-of-historical-scholarship-conclusively-establish-the-supreme-courts-holding-in-minor-v-happersett-as-standing-precedent-on-citizenship-obama-not-eligible/

    4) Listed here are some other important fact-based reasons to doubt the “natural born citizen” status of someone (like Obama) who is US-born of a non-US-citizen parent:

    http://people.mags.net/tonchen/Birther_Fact_Sheet.htm

    5) Given the above-mentioned facts which cast doubt on his “natural born citizen” status, Obama cannot legally or legitimately swear that he is a natural born citizen. Consequently, the ballot law commission must reject Obama’s sworn statement concerning his “natural born citizen” status, as an instance of “false swearing”:

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/obama-is-guilty-on-at-least-two-counts-of-false-swearing/

    In the presence of contravening facts, a candidate’s sworn statement becomes merely a statement of the candidate’s own opinion or belief. It can no longer be regarded as a “sworn” statement, because a candidate cannot legally or legitimately swear to something that is directly opposed by contravening facts.

    To repeat, I wouldn’t write off New Hampshire just yet. I’d suggest others file similar complaints, using their own words, perhaps explaining the issue more clearly and thoroughly, and/or with a better set of citations and references.

  19. unbontir

    Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 9:56 AM

    ABROGATION NOW! Never forget that, “After his election,” “…Obama held a secret meeting with eight of the nine justices of he U.S. Supreme Court – from which no public information was released. The meeting was held even though there were legal challenges in which Obama was a defendant pending before the Supreme Court at the time. The attorneys for the plaintiffs never were told of the meeting or invited to participate in what critics have described as extrajudicial contact between the court and a defendant.” (What Did Congress Know About Natural-Born Citizen? By Bob Unruh WORLDNETDAILY.com.) Information derived from congressional records reveals a treasonous conspiracy to contravene the constitution. In the same article, Bob Unruh reported that “There were eight attempts by members of Congress during the years Barack Obama was developing a power base and running for president to remove the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen,” suggesting an organized strategy,…” AN ORGANIZED STRATEGY MIGHT OTHERWISE BE DESCRIBED AS A CONSPIRACY! On 10/25/11 The Liberty Legal Foundation reported on 10/26/2011 that they, along with John Dummett “…filed two simultaneous class action lawsuits against the Democratic Party. Both lawsuits request injunctions prohibiting the Party from certifying that Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President in the 2012 election.” “Neither lawsuit discuss Obama’s place of birth or his certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizen” as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant.” “LLF also learned that Presidential candidates that are registered with the Federal Election Commission have standing to ask a court to keep another candidate off the ballot.” “Because Liberty Legal Foundation has standing to sue, anyone that believes the Constitution should be followed can join this class action lawsuit as a class member! If you agree that the Constitution should be followed, please join (their) class action lawsuit to protect the legitimacy of the ballot.” “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.” (Samuel Adams.) The pre-eminent questions that need to be asked of all presidential candidates in the New Hampshire Primary are, 1.) If elected president, will you issue an executive order for a forensic analysis of the obviously forged birth certificate and investigation into the obviously fraudulent social security number that Mr. Barry Soteoro, a.k.a. Barrack ‘King Hussein’ Obama, has presented as evidence for his constitutional eligibility to have campaigned for the office of the president of the United States of America and honour the demand of ‘We the People’ for the satisfaction of our constitutional right of redress of grievance; said grievance being the illegal election of an ineligible candidate to the office of POTUSA whose fraud and forgery have dishonoured that office and made a mockery of our constitution? And 2.) When Mr. Soteoro / Obama’s crimes are legally recognized, would you then proceed as president – compliant to the oath you would necessarily take to defend the constitution – with the RETRO-ACTIVE ABROGATION THROUGH EXECUTIVE ORDER of the unconstitutional election of the criminal illegally occupying the Oval Office and all that his illegitimate administration has accomplished in the commission of the crimes? “Every right that anyone has today is based on the doctrine that government is a creature of limited powers, and that men constituting it become criminals if they venture to exceed those powers.” “In Brief, a constitution is a standing limitation upon the government. So far as you may go, but no farther. No matter what the excuse or provocation, you may not invade certain rights, or pass certain kinds of laws. The lives and property of the people are at your disposition, but only up to a plainly indicated point. If you go beyond it, you become a public criminal, and may be proceeded against, at least in theory, like any other criminal.” (The Constitution. By H. L. Mencken, The Baltimore Sun – Aug. 19, 1935.) No IMPEACHMENT OR RESIGNATION would suffice, for to impeach the imposter or permit him to resign one would first need to recognize his legitimate, legal occupation of the White House, which is not now and has never been the case. From the inception of his campaign for the office of the president Mr. Soteoro / Obama has been in the commission of a crime against the highest law of this land – the Constitution of the United States of America.

  20. thinkwell

    Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 9:53 AM

    Orly Taitz apparently shot herself in the foot somewhat by making an errant claim about the N.H. Ballot Law Commission being all democrats (the bipartisan party affiliation of the commission is freely available public knowledge). But at least she is actually actively “firing away” in a valiant effort to knock the criminal usurper out of our White House.

    On the whole, her legal salvos about Obama’s criminal ineligibility have been deadly accurate and he has only survived the assault due to the ongoing protection of the criminally complicit courts, Congress and regime-stream media.

    In her recently filed Election Challenge to Obama Candidacy in N.H. there is some very interesting new information that confirms that Obama and his minions in the Hawaiian Department of Health are guilty of identity theft:

    “It appears, that Obama used [...] a birth certificate number of a deceased infant. Research pointed to the fact, that one, Virginia Sunahara was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961 and passed away the next day. Recently her surviving brother Dunken Sunahara demanded to see her long form birth certificate, but the department of Health denied the request, even though it came from a close relative. Department of Health provided Mr. Sunahara only with a computer generated short form birth certificate with a serial number, which was suspiciously out of sequence from all the other numbers issued to infants born August 4, 1961.”

    Apparently, the number on the short form he received was many hundreds of numbers higher than would be expected for an August birth!

    Hmmm… the criminals in the HDOH certainly could no longer allow it to be the original one that Obama stole, but if it weren’t a number that is still very close in sequence, that would be equally incriminating as well. Whoops, like most liars end up, they may well be between a proverbial rock and hard place of their very own making.

    I guess would have to use the next higher “open” number they could find. In a sane world this clearly damning evidence would most certainly trigger an FBI investigation of criminal fraud and identity theft on the part of Obama and his minions in the HDoH, but perhaps we no longer live in a sane world.

  21. thinkwell

    Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 8:45 AM

    Taitz’s contention that all five members of the Ballot Law Commission are from one party appears to be incorrect. As indicated on the N.H. State government website, the Ballot Law Commission appears to be fully bipartisan as required by state law.

    Here are the names:

    BRADFORD E. COOK, r, Manchester
    December 1, 2005 to July 1, 2013
    (Appointed by Speaker of the House)

    ELIZABETH HAGER, r, Concord
    September 15, 2010 to July 1, 2013
    (Alternate appointed by Speaker of the House)

    JANE CLEMONS, d, Nashua
    September 14, 2010 to July 1, 2013
    (Appointed by Speaker of the House)

    MARGARET-ANN MORAN, d, Hillsborough
    September 15, 2010 to July 1, 2013
    (Alternate appointed by Speaker of the House)

    SHEILA ROBERGE, r, Bedford
    September 16, 2010 to July 1, 2014
    (Appointed by Senate President)

    FRANKLIN TORR, r, Dover
    January 27, 2004 to July 1, 2010
    (Alternate appointed by Senate President)

    MARTHA VAN OOT, d, Concord
    September 16, 2010 to July 1, 2014
    (Appointed by Senate President)

    SYLVIO DUPUIS, d, Manchester
    December 7, 2005 to July 1, 2007
    (Alternate appointed by Senate President)

    JAMESON S. FRENCH, r, Portsmouth
    October 6, 2010 to July 1, 2013
    (Alternate appointed by Governor and Council)

    Vacancy (no current appointment)
    Term to January 21, 2012
    (Appointed by Governor and Council)

  22. MichaelN

    Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 11:14 PM

    New Hampshire Election Laws.

    http://www.sos.nh.gov/655-web2011.pdf

    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.
    655:17-c Declaration of Intent; Political Organization. Declarations of intent for political organizations shall be in the following form and signed by the chairman of the political organization: I, ____________, chairman of the ____________ organization hereby declare that the _______________ organization intends to file nomination papers by the deadline established under RSA 655:43, I. I further declare that the ___________ organization intends to file the names of candidates for the following offices with the nomination papers.
    Conduct of Primary

    655:35 Same as General Election. The procedures for conducting the primary shall be the same as those for the general election as provided in RSA 656, 657, 658 and 659 unless otherwise provided therein.

    Presidential Nominations
    655:47 Declaration of Candidacy. I. The names of any persons to be voted upon as candidates for president at the presidential primary shall be printed on the ballots upon the filing of declarations of candidacy with the secretary of state in the following form and signed by the candidate: “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 _____, in the city (or town or unincorporated place) of _____, county of ____, state of ____, that I am a registered member of the _____ party; that I am a candidate for the nomination for the office of president to be made at the primary election to be held on the ____ day of _____; and I hereby request that my name be printed on the official primary ballot of said _____ party as a candidate for such nomination.
    II. Declarations of candidacy shall be filed between the first Monday in November and the third Friday in November, or during such other time period as the secretary of state shall announce.
    III. The decision of the secretary of state as to the regularity of declarations of candidacy filed under this section shall be final.
    ——————————————————-

    The complaint must be filed “within 3 days” of the publication of the primary results
    (it doesn’t say before or after the publication, which technically gives a 6 day window of time around the publication date)

    Read on ………………..the part high-lighted between *****

    Ballot Law Commission.

    Jurisdiction
    665:6 General Duties.

    *******The ballot law commission shall have jurisdiction in the following cases:*******

    I. When the nominations at the primary, as declared pursuant to RSA 659:86-89, are in apparent conformity with law, they shall be valid unless changed upon recount as provided by law

    ********or unless written objection to their conformity with the law shall be filed with the secretary of state within 3 days of the date of publication of the results of the primary by the secretary of state under RSA 659:89; ***********

    or, if there is a recount for the office in question, within 3 days after the declaration of the secretary of state upon such recount.

    If written objections are filed, the secretary of state shall forthwith notify the ballot law commission of such filing.

    The ballot law commission shall then meet as provided in RSA 665:5 in order to hear and decide all the objections.

    The decision of the ballot law commission in such cases shall be final as to questions both of law and fact, and no court shall have jurisdiction to review such decision.
    —————————————————————-

    665:9-a Administrative Complaint Resolution.
    The ballot law commission shall hear and resolve complaints of federal voting law violations, pursuant to the Help America Vote Act of 2002, Public Law 107-252, as provided in RSA 666:14.

    665:11 Evidence.
    In any hearing, the commission shall not be bound by the technical rules of evidence; but its findings must be supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. A stenographic transcript shall be made of all oral testimony submitted to the commission; and such transcript together with the exhibits, ballots, and papers filed in the proceedings shall be the exclusive record of its decision. Decisions of the commission shall be made in writing and filed with the secretary of state. Reasonable notice of all hearings before the commission shall be given by the secretary of state by registered mail. In cases of recount appeals under RSA 665:8, notice shall be given to all candidates for the particular nomination or office in question. In cases arising under RSA 665:6, notice shall be given to the person or persons filing objections and to the candidate or candidates to whose nomination objections have been filed. At all hearings, interested parties may appear, present relevant evidence, be represented by counsel, and cross-examine opposing witnesses. The records of the commission in any proceeding before it shall be preserved for at least 6 months after the election in question.

    665:12 Subpoenas; Oaths. The commission shall have power to subpoena witnesses and administer oaths in any proceeding before it and to compel by subpoena duces tecum the production of any checklist, tally sheet, or other document or thing of any kind whatever.

    665:13 Witness Fees. Witnesses summoned before the commission shall be paid the same fees as witnesses summoned to appear before the superior court, and such summons issued by any justice of the peace shall have the same effect as though issued for appearance before such court.

    665:14 Testimonial Privilege. No witness in any proceeding before the commission shall be excused from giving testimony or producing documentary evidence upon the ground that such testimony or documentary evidence could tend to incriminate the witness; but, if the witness claims immunity hereunder, no such testimony or documentary evidence shall be used against him or her in any criminal prosecution; nor shall the witness be liable to criminal prosecution for any matter disclosed thereby.

    665:15 Perjury. No person testifying before the commission shall be exempt from prosecution or punishment for any perjury committed by him or her in his or her testimony

  23. Surly Curmudgen

    Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 5:50 PM

    When in the course of events it becomes known to the people of a state that those individuals hired by the people to conduct the business of the state have failed of their duties and now refuse to perform their duties, it becomes necessary for the people of the state to retrieve the reins of power from said miscreants and correct the actions or lack of action by same.

    Those failing their duties should be banned for life from public service.

  24. RacerJim

    Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 5:45 PM

    Thank you for your service Tom. I didn’t fight for this either, and still have lots of fight left within me. Civil War II anyone?

  25. Tom the Veteran

    Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 11:13 AM

    Ya know what? If the only thing the Ballot Commission is going to do is accept applications and entrance fees, then why do they even exist? A clerk can handle that job at the court house!!!!

    I can not believe the level of corruption that exists in each and every branch and level of government. And this is what I fought for? I still have fight within me but the next time there’ll be no need to leave the country!

  26. Kevin J Lankford

    Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 9:17 AM

    It is proven time and again, quoting the law is of no effect. We are left with one action,
    which is the hostile display which apparently took place at this hearing. Their disregard
    for justice will have to be met with the same disregard for their arrogance.

  27. Donna

    Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 8:28 AM

    I just loked up sos william gardner he’s also a demoncrat!

  28. Donna

    Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 8:16 AM

    Orly Taitz is more of an AMERICAN than any of these people that allowed the usurper on the 2012 ballot!

  29. urstrange

    Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 6:49 AM

    Since every Sec. of State, like Gardner, signed and notarized the Certification of Nomination for the Obama-Biden ticket in 2008 that excluded the phrase for constitutional eligibility, he was already guilty of election fraud before O.nonNBC signed up and sent in his $1000.00. Nancy P-U-losi confirmed the invalid Certifications by signing two acceptances of the States’ Certifications, one with the constitutional eligibility clause and one without it, she is also guilty of election fraud along with the DNC. Since the Electoral College was notified to confirm B.O.’s eligibility as their duty before certifying the vote and did not bother to, they are guilty of election fraud. Since the Congressional Research Center sent every Congressional member a memo about the fact that O.whodat was not vetted properly, they are all guilty of post-election fraud because they know an ineligible man is occupying the office of POTUS. The depth of corruption keeping the Charlatan in Chief in office and out of jail is not even comprehensible, and I am just citing the pre-election crimes and not the crimes of forgery, identity theft through SSN and use of aliases of the BOGUS POTUS. The New Hampshire debacle only proves that the corruption is from the bottom up, locally all the way to the White House, halls of Congress and SCOTUS and appears to be on the path to be repeated in election 2012. New Hampshire electing a new SOS is long overdue, since Gardner has been in control since 1976 and now has blatantly exposed himself as a member of a very large cabal of corrupt D-Rat bureaucrats with Don Barry as their capo di tutti capi.

  30. Chris

    Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 6:43 AM

    Please file objection to your state’s SOS or Election officials in charge to demand verification of obama’s constitutional eligibility prior to placement of obama’s name on the ballot.

    Reasons/argument –

    It is the SOS’s duty to ensure that only names of candidates who meet the requirement (both the US constitution’s and the state’s) be placed on the ballot.

    In 2008, all 50 states’ SOSs relied solely on the nomination paper from the political parties (DNC or RNC). It is a fact that in 2008 DNC submitted to all states except Hawaii a ‘nomination paper’ that did not swear under oath that obama meets the constitutional requirement. Therefore the states’ SOSs, erroneously relying on the (mis)representation by DNC, placed obama’s name on the 2008 ballot. In 2012, the SOSs must not rely solely on DNC’s ‘nomination paper’ that either does not swear under oath that obama meets the constitutional requirement, or swears to it without documentary proofs that obama meets the constitutional requirement .

    “Disqualification fact” -
    it is the SOS’s duty to examine the disqualification fact(s) that is based on the demand of our Constitution’s requirements for President. These facts afford a removal from the Primary Ballot with the burden of further deliberation or review upon the candidate, in this case, Barack Hussein Obama.

    Obama has admitted by the release of his ‘Long Form Birth Certificate’, naturally a dual loyalty of inherited citizenship (his father was an ‘African’ citizen at time of BHO jr’s birth), which is forbidden by our Constitution’s expressed demands for president as a Natural Born Citizen. This is a national security concern of voting citizens.

    Please go to the following for further info or support
    http://unlawfulpresident.com/obama-ballot-challenge-2012

    Note:
    DNC is the one to vett the pres candidate;
    We private citizens cannot make any demands on private entities such as DNC, except in lawsuits;
    so the best way is to challenge our government officials, in this case, the SOSs to fulfill their duties to verify candidate eligibility prior to placement on the ballot.

  31. Chris

    Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 6:08 AM

    To NH state legislators, especially the ones who joined Orly’s complaint,

    Please get a copy of the DNC’s ‘nomination paper’ from your SOS to see if the paper specifies obama meets the constitutional requirement , or omits that verbage entirely (just like in the 2008 nomination paper) and go from there!
    –Ask the SOS on what basis they decide to place obama’s name on the ballot.
    – If they say it is solely based on the DNC’s nomination paper, then -

    1. if the paper swears that obama meets the constitutional requirement, insist the SOS secure from DNC their own conclusive, genuine documentary proofs of o’s meeting the requirement;

    2. if the paper only swears that obama is the noiminee, then insist that the SOS must demand from the DNC a properly worded/sworn nom. paper that states obama meets the constitutional requirement. along with genuine, conclusive documentary proofs that obama meets the requirement ( i.e. he is a natural born citizen – born in USA to 2 USA citizen parentS)

    No proof, no placement of obama name on the ballot!
    Reason –
    It is the SOS’s duty to ensure only eligible candidates be placed on the ballot!

    Challenge the SOS to fulfill his/her duties!

  32. MichaelN

    Saturday, November 19, 2011 at 3:49 AM

    The complaint has to be lodged with the NH Sec of State within three days of publication of the primary results.
    http://www.sos.nh.gov/statutes.htm
    “Jurisdiction
    665:6 General Duties. The ballot law commission shall have jurisdiction in the following cases: I. When the nominations at the primary, as declared pursuant to RSA 659:86-89, are in apparent conformity with law, they shall be valid unless changed upon recount as provided by law *********or unless written objection to their conformity with the law shall be filed with the secretary of state within 3 days of the date of publication of the results of the primary*********** by the secretary of state under RSA 659:89; or, if there is a recount for the office in question, within 3 days after the declaration of the secretary of state upon such recount. If written objections are filed, the secretary of state shall forthwith notify the ballot law commission of such filing. The ballot law commission shall then meet as provided in RSA 665:5 in order to hear and decide all the objections. The decision of the ballot law commission in such cases shall be final as to questions both of law and fact, and no court shall have jurisdiction to review such decision.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>