REQUIREMENTS OF NH LAWS ALLOW MULTIPLE AVENUES OF INVESTIGATION
By John Charlton
Is there basis for investigating Election Fraud in New Hampshire in 2008, as regards ineligible candidates for the U.S. Presidency, being on the ballot?
One blogger, who goes by initials jbjd, has been studying state laws regarding this issue for many months, but concludes that New Hampshire has no such law which would be used to determine fraud in the case of Barack Hussein Obama in the 2008 general election. (see jbjd’s blog, for her definition of “fraud” and how she applies it to her research and advocacy of filing complaints).
The common law definition of fraud requires several conditions to be met, for a crime to be committed, which conditions are helpful to keep in mind to understand what fraud is in law:
To establish a claim of fraud, plaintiffs must show by clear and convincing evidence (1) a representation (has been made); (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard for its truth or falsity; (5) intent that the plaintiff act upon the representation; (6) the hearer’s ignorance of its falsity; (7) the hearer’s reliance on its truth; (8) the hearer’s right to rely thereon; and (9) the hearer’s consequent and proximate injury. (SC Appeals Court: Schnellmann v. Roettger, 2006 — italics and bold face added)
Election Fraud is defined as “misrepresentation or alteration of the true election results”, and is distinguished from voter fraud, which is “intentional corruption of the electoral process by the voter.” For the purposes of this article, “election fraud” is meant in the broadest sense of “intentional corruption of the electoral process” by means of false swearing or fraud.
Accordingly, The Post & Email, from a quick reading has found several statutes in New Hampshire law which indirectly or directly could be the basis of an investigation in the 2008 general and primary elections in the state.
First, what New Hampshire does not have: notably the New Hampshire State laws lack a specific regulation regarding Presidential Eligibility. All other offices are mentioned, but Presidential eligibility is omitted. (NH 655.3 ff.) The mere fact that Presidential eligibility is not mentioned, does not seem significant, since it is not the State’s duty to define what the Constitution already determines.
Moreover, regarding the statement to be sworn by candidates for the Presidency, NH Laws read weakly (NH 655:17b):
II. I, __________, 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 __________ 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.
It does not seem clear from this statement, whether a Candidate could be charged with fraud, if on account of not being a U.S. Citizen, he claimed to be a “qualified voter”; since the statement might be judicially determined to mean only a “registered voter”, even if such registration is invalidly granted. Yes, the final phrase “qualified” seems ambiguously to refer, either to qualification as being on the ballot, or qualification as meeting the requirements of the office. However, objectively speaking, if he was not qualified to be a voter, or to hold the office for which he ran, he could not truthfully swear to this oath, and the consequence of this would be election fraud.
However, New Hampshire law does require the one nominating any candidate for any office to swear to the following (NH 655:21):
I do hereby join in a petition for the printing on the primary ballot of the name of __________ whose domicile is in the city (town) of __________ (ward, street, and number, if in a city), in the county of __________, for the office of __________ to be voted for on Tuesday, the __________ day of September, _____ (year), and certify that I am qualified to vote for a candidate for said office, that I am a registered member of the __________ party, and am not at this time a signer of any other similar petition for any other candidate for the above office; that my domicile is in the city (town) of __________ (ward, street, and number, if in a city), in the county of __________. I certify that to my knowledge the above-named candidate is not a candidate for incompatible offices as defined in RSA 655:10, and that he or she is not a federal employee which makes him or her ineligible to file as a candidate for this office. I further certify that I believe the above-named person is especially qualified to fill said office.
I hereby swear, under the penalties for voting fraud set forth below, that the information above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Clearly then, if the one nominating an ineligible candidate knew he was not eligible, such a swearing would be the crime of fraud in the matter of swearing; and if he could not truthfully swear to his being eligible, whether he knew it or not, it would be the crime of false swearing in the same. But objectively, if the candidate is not eligible, such a sworn oath needs to be investigated, for the consequence of such erroneous swearing is election fraud.
However Presidential Candidates must swear to the following to be admitted to the Ballot in the primaries (NH 655:47):
I, __________, declare that I am domiciled in __________, in the city (or town or unincorporated place) of __________, county of __________, state of __________, and meet the qualifications for the office for which I am a candidate; that I am a registered member of the __________ party; that I am a candidate for nomination for the office of __________ 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.
It is in this oath that an ineligible candidate could be charged with fraud, esp. if as a lawyer or constitutional law expert, he could not professionally excuse his ignorance of not being a natural born citizen. But even if he did not know he was lying; if he could not truthfully swear to such an oath, because no Supreme Court or historically approved definition of natural born citizen fit him, it would be at least false swearing.
Once again, objectively, if the candidate is not eligible, such a sworn oath needs to be investigated for election fraud, because the consequence of such false swearing or fraudulent swearing, is election fraud.
Mr. John Charlton welcomes criticisms on his reading of NH laws. Not all comments will be posted, but corrections will be made, when errors are found and identified.
This article was updated on Sept. 18th, 2009, at 9:48 AM WordPress Time, following comments by jbjd.
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.