Spread the love


January 3, 2012


Representative Larry Rappaport rapp@lmr.com

603 359 4150 or 603 237 4429

Representative Harry Accornerorepa379@gmail.com

603 387 9708


New Hampshire State Representatives Challenge

State Attorney General on Election Fraud Investigation

Today concerned New Hampshire State Representatives delivered a signed affidavit to the State Attorney General Michael Delaney, stating that in 2009 Representative Larry Rappaport, Mr. Lucien Vita (now a State Representative), and Representative Carol Vita met with New Hampshire State Attorney General Michael Delaney and argued that they believed Barack Obama was not eligible to be President of the United States and requested that Attorney Delaney launch an investigation of Mr. Obama’s credentials.  The three believed that the people of New Hampshire had been defrauded by Mr. Obama’s candidacy.  The Attorney General stated it was a federal matter and refused to investigate.

We believe that according to the United States Constitution (Article ll section 1 paragraph 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.”

A natural born Citizen, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in “Minor vs. Happersett”, Vattel’s “Law of Nations”, and the 2008 (S.Res. 511) Senatorial resolution, is one wherein both parents of whom were Citizens of the United States of America. According to the record, Mr. Obama’s father was born in Kenya. He never was a Citizen of the United States of America, making Mr. Obama ineligible to be a Presidential Candidate on the New Hampshire ballot.

Our attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. had previously delivered a written request to the Secretary Of State requesting him to review the challenge to Mr. Obama’s eligibility to be on the New Hampshire Ballot. The Ballot Law Commission met on November 18th to review our complaint.  We were represented at that hearing by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.  Our complaint was denied, but there appears to be an inconsistency in the process of the challenge. According to the Assistant Secretary Of State, Karen Ladd, and the Ballot Law Commission, they testified that they can only rule on the Ballot Petition making sure it is filled out properly and is accompanied by a check for $ 1000.00. They claimed that it is not in their purview to determine if a person is a Natural Born Citizen.   However, the inconsistency becomes obvious when the record shows that on November 15th. 2007 the Secretary of State’s office ruled that a Mr. Sal Mohamed was disqualified, and on July 19th. 2011 a Mr. Abdul K. Hassan Esq. was denied a place on the Presidential Ballot because they were not natural born citizens. Both letters were signed by Karen Ladd Assistant Secretary of State.

Despite what we consider overwhelming evidence, our attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. was denied by the Ballot Law Commission, then was denied a rehearing, and filed an action before the New Hampshire Supreme Court where she was subsequently denied.   We can provide copies of her challenges.

The oath we took when we were sworn in as legislators was to uphold and defend the Constitutions of both the United States and that of New Hampshire. We believe it is our duty as your Representatives to support the Constitution and to insure that anyone seeking the highest office in the land is qualified to be on the New Hampshire “First in the Nation” ballot.


Editor’s Note:  The order from the New Hampshire Supreme Court declining Taitz’s appeal and denying her petition was received this morning from the Communications Director at the New Hampshire Supreme Court:

Document denying the appeal of Atty. Taitz and petitioners for a rehearing on the Ballot Law Commission's decision to include Obama's name on the state ballot. No reason is given for the declination and denial.

Join the Conversation


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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Dr. Taitz framed her case in such a way that, in order to enforce its laws, NH had to decide matters — such as Obama birth place, birth certificate, social security number, etc. — which no court has yet ruled upon and which are outside of NH’s jurisdiction to decide.

    Dr. Taitz could have based her case solely on NH state law and two undisputed facts: (a) the fact Obama was born of a non-citizen father; and (b) the fact that the Supreme Court, in Minor v. Happersett, expressed doubts as to whether the US-born children of non-citizen parents were even citizens, let alone natural born citizens.

    Based on these two facts alone, Obama cannot legally swear that he is natural born citizen, because he cannot legally swear to something which is doubt, especially when the doubt comes directly from the Supreme Court. Since he cannot legally swear to his eligibility, he cannot meet the requirement of HB1245 for ballot placement.

    It may be too late to present this argument in New Hampshire, but perhaps Obama eligibility challengers might keep it in mind in other states, such as Arizona, which require presidential candidates to swear to their eligibility.

  2. The problem is as Al Gore told us ” There no controlling legal authority ” so the eligibility issue is not a Federal issue it is a state issue and in my opinion the New Hampshire representatives should have challenged the secretary of state because he was wrong. This is a state matter and if we keep trying to prove his eligibility on a federal level we lose automatically. Go to your states election laws and approach it from that angle just as they now have in Ga and we can finally put this matter to rest once and for all by forcing BHO to prove his eligibility which he can’t do because he has already admitted on numerous occasions that has father was a British subject at BHOs’ birth thus making him a dual citizen at best which is a disqualifier as the constitution states in very clear terms. He could have been born on Mars and it wouldn’t matter.

  3. As I understand it, Dr. Taitz is asking the State of New Hampshire to rule that Obama is not a natural born citizen and, on that basis, remove his name from the NH ballot. In response, NH claims it can decide “natural born citizen” status in blatantly obvious cases. For example, if a candidate became US citizen through naturalization, he is obviously not natural born. But, in fuzzy cases like Obama’s, NH lacks jurisdiction to decide a matter of Federal or Constitutional law. In such cases, NH has little choice but to give questionable candidates, like Obama, the benefit of a doubt and allow their names to appear on the NH ballot.

    My question is this: Rather than ask NH to decide a matter of federal law, why not ask NH to make a ruling based solely of its own state law? New Hampshire law HB1245, enacted in 2010, imposed a new requirement on all presidential candidates. They must swear that they are constitutionally eligible to be president:


    You can legally swear only to that which you know to be fact. You cannot swear to something that is subject to controversy or doubt. It doesn’t matter how strongly you might believe something to be true. If the “something” is not fact, you cannot legally swear to it.

    When Obama swore that he is a natural born citizen, he declared as fact something which is uncertain. That is an act of “false swearing”:


    It is a well-established fact that Obama’s “natural born citizen” status is subject to controversy. It is not necessary for NH to decide and resolve this controversy. It is only necessary for NH to acknowledge the fact that the controversy exists. Obama cannot legally swear that he is a natural born citizen when his “natural born citizen” status is subject to controversy. Thus Obama cannot legally meet the HB1245 requirement for placement on the NH ballot.

    It seems to me Dr. Taitz is going about this the hard way. Rather than trying to turn this into a federal case, why not simply ask NH to abide by its own state laws?
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: My understanding from speaking with Atty. Taitz is that she is asking the New Hampshire Supreme Court to reconsider its denial to hear her case against the Ballot Law Commission for claiming that it is not authorized to vet presidential candidates when either the BLC or the Secretary of State has done so routinely in the past. She stated in a recent interview that she plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if the NHSC should deny her again. Her claim is that the BLC did not follow its own guidelines when evidence was presented of both constitutional eligibility and possible criminal activity on the part of Obama. So I believe that she is asking the NHSC to enforce its own state laws.

  4. It should make people wonder just why it is you’ll get thrown in jail for putting fake out of state tags on your car but if you put up fake credentials to run for president you’re good to go.

    1. If I ever get caught with fake tags on my car I’m gonna tell the cop/DA/Judge they don’t have standing…i.e., the fake tags on my don’t hurt them specifically and/or only.

  5. How much will American patriots put up with before taking things into their own hands? Again and again our constitutional right to redress of grievance is denied and those complicit in the crime divert our efforts and prevent legal, civil actions aimed at addressing the contravention of the Constitution of the United States of America.

  6. To suggest there is a HUGE conspiracy against the American people by corrupt government employees is an understatement. I keep waiting for the white hats in government to expose the fraud, but we see only a few sheriffs and a few elected officials.

    The majority of our state and federal governments are either scared to death of physical harm to them and their families, or, alternatively, they’re as corrupt as the usurper in charge.