Category Archives: FEC

Obama campaign calls Romney Donors Less Than Reputable, Obama had criminal donors and associations, Tony Rezko, Lawyers and Law firms Obama biggest 2008 donors

Obama campaign calls Romney Donors Less Than Reputable, Obama had criminal donors and associations, Tony Rezko, Lawyers and Law firms Obama biggest 2008 donors

“Why did the Illinois Senate Health & Human Services Committee, with Obama as chairman, create and push Bill 1332, “Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act,” early in 2003, which reduced the number of members on the Board from 15 to 9, just prior to rigging by Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has David Wilhelm supported and protected Obama?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

The Obama campaign has accused Mitt Romney donors as being less than reputable. Are they on drugs! Wait a minute, they are.

From ABC News April 20, 2012.

“Obama Campaign Flags ‘Less-Than-Reputable’ Romney Donors”

“President Obama’s re-election campaign is circulating a list of eight “wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records” who have donated to presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

“Quite a few have been on the wrong side of the law, others have made profits at the expense of so many Americans, and still others are donating to help ensure Romney puts beneficial policies in place for them,” the campaign said in a statement from its “Truth Team.”

Team Obama alleges four men, who have each given more than $100,000 to support Romney and an affiliated super PAC, have benefited from “betting against America” – specifically through outsourcing.

The list includes Paul Schorr, a partner at Blackstone Group, the nation’s largest private equity firm; investors Sam and Jeffrey Fox of the Harbour Group; and T. Martin Fiorentino, who has lobbied for Lender Processing Services, a firm that has been penalized by the government for its mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices.

The Obama campaign also suggests that contributions from a group of deep-pocket “special-interest donors” are aimed at pushing a specific agenda, specifically on behalf of the U.S. oil industry.

The campaign’s blog post names oil investor Louis Moore Bacon, oil refining company CEO Thomas O’Malley, registered oil industry lobbyist Kent Burton and businessman Frank Vandersloot as figures “donating to help ensure Romney puts beneficial policies in place for them.”

President Obama, unlike Romney, voluntarily discloses the names and contribution amounts of all his top volunteer fundraisers — “bundlers” — not just those who are registered lobbyists, as required by law. Obama also refuses donations from registered lobbyists or PACs.

But Obama has received support from hundreds of wealthy Americans – including some with less-than-reputable records of their own.

Former New Jersey Gov. and Obama bundler Jon Corzine has been under investigation for his role in the collapse of investment firm MF Global, where he was chairman and CEO and from which more than $1 billion disappeared.

The Obama campaign and Democratic National Committee later announced they would refund more than $70,000 in contributions from Corzine and his wife. Officials said they would examine on a case by case basis whether to refund some of the more than $430,000 in additional funds Corzine delivered to the campaign from other supporters.

In February, the Obama campaign refunded more than $200,000 from Carlos and Alberto Cardona after the New York Times reported the brothers’ ties to a Mexican casino magnate and fugitive from the U.S. who had sought a presidential pardon.

Earlier this month, another major Obama donor, Abake Assongba, made headlines for a civil lawsuit alleging that she stole $650,000 in an email scam to help build a multimillion-dollar home. Assongba has bundled more than $50,000 for the campaign.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/obama-campaign-flags-less-than-reputable-romney-donors/

What about Tony Rezko?

Obama not only had numerous contributions from crime and corruption figures,    he had long time associations with them and was complicit in some of the corruption.

“President Obama, unlike Romney, voluntarily discloses the names and contribution amounts of all his top volunteer fundraisers — “bundlers” — not just those who are registered lobbyists, as required by law.”

Excuse me!

FEC audit reveals Obama for America failed to file notice of nearly 2 million dollars in contributions in 2008.

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/fec-audit-reveals-obama-for-america-failed-to-file-notice-of-nearly-2-million-dollars-in-contributions-in-2008-1312-contributions-prohibited-sources/

Check out the number 1 contribution industry to Obama in 2008.

This is another reason you will never see tort reform as part of health care reform from a Obama regime.

FEC audit reveals Obama for America failed to file notice of nearly 2 million dollars in contributions in 2008, 1312 contributions, Prohibited sources?

FEC audit reveals Obama for America failed to file notice of nearly 2 million dollars in contributions in 2008, 1312 contributions, Prohibited sources?

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”…Abraham Lincoln

From the FEC April 19, 2012.

Weekly Digest

Week of April 16 – 20
AUDITS

“Final Audit Report on Obama for America. On April 19, the Commission made public the Final Audit Report of the Commission on Obama for America (OFA) covering campaign finance activity between January 16, 2007 and December 31, 2008. The Commission approved a finding that OFA failed to file required 48-hour notices totaling $1,972,266 received in 2008.”

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2012/20120420digest.shtml

From the audit.

“Final Audit Report of the
Commission on
Obama for America
(January 16, 2007 – December 31, 2008)”

“Part I
Background
Authority for Audit

This report is based on an audit of Obama for America (OFA), undertaken by the Audit Division ofthe Federal Election Commission (the Commission) in accordance with the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the Act). The Audit Division conducted the audit pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §438(b), which permits the Commission to conduct audits and field investigations of any political committee that is required to file a report imder 2 U.S.C. §434. Prior to conducting any audit under this subsection, the Commission must perform an intemal review of reports filed by selected committees to determine if the reports filed by a particular committee meet the threshold requirements
for substantial compliance with the Act. 2 U.S.C. §438(b).

Scope of Audit

Following Commission-approved procedures, the Audit staff evaluated various risk factors and as a result, this audit examined:
1. the receipt of excessive contributions;
2. the receipt of contributions from prohibited sources;
3. the disclosure of contributions received;
4. the disclosure of individual contributors’ occupation and name of employer;
5. the consistency between reported figures and bank records;
6. the completeness of records; and
7. other committee operations necessary to the review.

Audit Hearing

Obama for America declined the opportunity for an audit hearing before the Commission on the matter presented in this report.”

“• Treasurer During Period Covered by Audit Robert R. Bauer January 16,2007 – May 9,2007, Martin H. Nesbit May 10,2007 – Present”

“Part III

Summary

Commission Finding

Failure to File 48-Hour Notices
Based on audit fieldwork, OFA did not file required 48-hour notices for 1,312
contributions, totaling $1,972,266, that were received prior to the general election. OFA provided no further information regarding this matter in response to the Interim Audit.

Report recommendation.

The Commission approved a finding that OFA failed to file required 48-hour notices in 2008. (For more detail, see page 4)”

“Facts and Analysis

A. Facts

During fieldwork. Audit staff compared OFA’s 48-hour notices with contributions of $1,000 or more that had been reported as received during the 48-hour notice filing period.’ This review identified 1,312 contributions, totaling $1,972,266, for which OFA failed to file the required notices. A majority of the missing 48-hour notices arose from a transfer reported on October 24,2008 from the Obama Victory Fund (OVF), a joint fundraising committee composed of OFA and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). In order to verify whether the contributions in question had been received between October 16 and October 23, Audit staff traced contributions attributed to the October 24 transfer to the disclosure reports filed by OVF.”

“Commission Conclusion

On March 8,2012, the Commission considered the Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum, in which the Audit Division recommended that the Commission adopt a finding that OFA failed to file required 48-hour notices in 2008.
The Commission approved the Audit staffs recommendation.”

http://www.fec.gov/audits/2008/Obama_for_America/FinalAuditReportoftheCommission1206263.pdf

FEC 2012 Presidential matching funds for Charles E. Buddy Roemer, Roemer declared eligible, Buddy Roemer for President

FEC 2012 Presidential matching funds for Charles E. Buddy Roemer, Roemer declared eligible, Buddy Roemer for President

From the FEC February 3, 2012.

“Roemer First Presidential Candidate Declared Eligible for Primary Matching Funds in 2012 Race “

“Charles E. “Buddy” Roemer III on Thursday became the first 2012 presidential candidate to be declared eligible by the Federal Election Commission to receive federal matching funds. Roemer is seeking the Republican nomination for president in 2012.

To become eligible for matching funds, candidates must raise a threshold amount of $100,000 by collecting $5,000 in 20 different states in amounts no greater than $250 from any individual. Other requirements to be declared eligible include agreeing to an overall spending limit, abiding by spending limits in each state, using public funds only for legitimate campaign-related expenses, keeping financial records and permitting an extensive campaign audit.

Based on documents filed by Buddy Roemer for President, Inc. on January 25, 2012, contributions from the following states were verified for threshold purposes: Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Washington. All of the materials included with this submission may be viewed here. Based on Roemer’s initial threshold submission, the Commission will request that the United States Treasury make an initial payment of $100,000 to Roemer’s campaign.

Once declared eligible, campaigns may submit additional contributions for matching funds on the first business day of every month.The U.S. Treasury Department may pay the Commission-certified amounts beginning this month.The maximum amount a primary candidate could receive is currently estimated to be about $22.8 million.

The presidential public funding program is financed through the $3 check-off that appears on individual income tax returns. The program has three elements: grants to parties to help fund their nominating conventions, grants available to nominees to pay for the general election campaign, and matching payments to participating candidates during the primary campaign.

In July and September of 2011, the Commission certified $17,689,800 each to the Republican and Democratic parties for their conventions.The Commission estimates that each general election nominee will be eligible for a grant of approximately $91.2 million.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency that administers and enforces federal campaign finance laws. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Established in 1975, the FEC is composed of six Commissioners who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.”

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2012/20120202Roemer_MatchingFunds.shtml

 

Obama NC ballot challenge, GA ruling Judge Michael Malihi, North Carolina Secretary of State and Election Board warned in 2008, Governor Easley conviction

Obama NC ballot challenge, GA ruling Judge Michael Malihi, North Carolina Secretary of State and Election Board warned in 2008, Governor Easley conviction

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

It is timely and appropriate to reprint an article from 2008 on NC election law. In 2008 I contacted the NC Secretary of State’s office as well as the Board of elections multiple times. I provided information about the Philip J. Berg lawsuit as well as Obama eligibility concerns. The gentleman from the Board of Elections office was aware of the lawsuit. One of the state officers listed in the article, former Governor Mike Easley, has since been indicted and convicted of other crimes. His successor, Beverly Perdue, an Obama Democrat, was recently cited for receiving government employment reports prematurely. She has just indicated she will not run for office again.

I just perused the NC Election statutes looking for any significant changes and found none. NC still has a reference to replacing an ineligible candidate but no clear protocol for challenges. The state of Georgia is to be commended for provisions allowing ballot challenges in accordance with the US Constitution. We await a ruling from Judge Michael Malihi in GA on such challenges to Obama’s eligibility.

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/judge-michael-malihi-ruling-obama-ga-ballot-challenges-january-26-2012-summary-judgement-entered-brian-p-kemp-georgia-secretary-of-state/

Of course, the Democrat National Convention will be held in Charlotte, NC this year. You can bet that the State of NC will prioritize that event over upholding the US Constitution.

Politics as usual.

There are some challenges underway in NC and I will keep you apprised of their progress. More information can be found here:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/complaint-in-nc-underway

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/election-complaint-filed-in-north-carolina-nc-page-updated-with-law

The State of NC was warned in 2008, ignorance is no excuse.

From Citizen Wells November 17, 2008.

NC State Officers and Election Officials are in Violation of the Law
2008 Presidential Election

Eligibility for presidency

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

“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.”

How President is elected

UNITED STATES ELECTION LAW

“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):

§ 8.   The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”

The states are responsible for the primaries, general election and events leading up to the Electoral College vote

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.”

NC Officials responsible for upholding the US Constitution and Federal and State Election Laws

Governor Mike Easley has overall responsibilities as well as Electoral College certification.

Attorney General Roy Cooper is charged with compliance with all Federal and State laws.

Secretary Elaine Marshall is responsible for the NC Election process.

NC Board of Elections is responsible for the NC Election process.

NC Electoral College Electors are responsible for complying with Federal and State laws.

NC Judges ruling on election matters are bound to uphold the US Constitution and Federal and State laws.

Laws that apply to NC State Officials

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1. Presidential eligibility.

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1. States are responsible for Presidential Elections up to Electoral College vote.

Federal Election Law dictates that Electors must vote in a “manner directed by the Constitution.”

Article VI of the US Constitution states:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislators, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by
Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;”

NC Statute § 163-114.  Filling vacancies among party nominees occurring after nomination and before election.

“If any person nominated as a candidate of a political party for one of the offices listed below (either in a primary or convention or by virtue of having no opposition in a primary) dies, resigns, or for any reason becomes ineligible or disqualified before the date of the ensuing general election, the vacancy shall be filled by appointment according to the following instructions:
Position

President 

Vacancy is to be filled by appointment of national executive
committee of political party in which vacancy occurs”

NC Statute § 163‑19.  State Board of Elections; appointment; term of office; vacancies; oath of office.

“At the first meeting held after new appointments are made, the members of the State Board of Elections shall take the following oath:

I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States; that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina, and to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be established for the government thereof; that I will endeavor to support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said State, and that I will well and truly execute the duties of the office of member of the State Board of Elections according to the best of my knowledge and ability, according to law, so help me, God.”
NC Statute § 163‑23.  Powers of chairman in execution of Board duties.

“In the performance of the duties enumerated in this Chapter, the chairman of the State Board of Elections shall have power to administer oaths, issue subpoenas, summon witnesses, and compel the production of papers, books, records and other evidence. Upon the written request or requests of two or more members of the State Board of Elections, he shall issue subpoenas for designated witnesses or identified papers, books, records and other evidence. In the absence of the chairman or upon his refusal to act, any two members of the State Board of Elections may issue subpoenas, summon witnesses, and compel the production of papers, books, records and other evidence. In the absence of the chairman or upon his refusal to act, any member of the Board may administer oaths. (1901, c. 89, s. 7; Rev., s. 4302; C.S., s. 5923; 1933, c. 165, s. 1; 1945, c. 982; 1967, c. 775, s. 1; 1973, c. 793, s. 4.)”

The following facts and conclusions are self evident:

  • The State of NC, State Officials and Election Officials are responsible for the Presidential Election in NC up to and including the vote by the Electoral College Electors of NC.
  • The Electoral College Electors of NC are bound by the US Constitution and Federal and State Election law to vote for an eligible presidential candidate.
  • The Governor’s office, the Secretary of State’s office, the NC State Board of Elections and the Electoral College of NC has been notified in public and private of major issues surrounding the eligibility of
    Barack Obama.
  • The office of the Secretary of State and Board of Elections was notified multiple times, prior to the general election, of the Philip J Berg lawsuit and facts regarding Barack Obama’s ineligibility. The
    notification was via telephone conversation and emails as well as notification on the internet. The Board of Elections stated they had been aware of these issues for several months.
  • There are pending lawsuits in NC courts, other state courts, as well as US Supreme Court, challenging the eligibilty of Barack Obama.
  • Barack Obama has refused to supply legal proof of eligibility.
  • Pending or dismissed lawsuits have no bearing on the obligation of NC officials to uphold the rule of law.
  • Failure of NC officials to uphold the law and their election duties may result in the disenfranchisement of millions of voters.
  • The state of NC has complete control of the presidential election process in NC up to and including the Electoral College vote.
  • Placing a candidate on the ballot at the direction of a major political party does not relieve NC election officials of their duty to ensure eligibility of candidates.
  • The state of NC in NC Statute § 163-114 provides for replacing a candidate that “for any reason becomes ineligible or disqualified”.
  • The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives power to the people not reserved for the federal government or the states.
  • The laws on the books not only allow, but require that NC officers and Elections Officials demand proof from any presidential candidate of eligibility.

If the officers and Election Officials do not perform their legal obligation to demand proof of eligibility from Barack Obama or any other presidential candidate, they will be subject to one or more of the following:

  • Prosecution
  • Lawsuit
  • Impeachment
  • Recall
  • Expulsion
  • Dismissal

Citizen Wells will be providing this information to the officers and Election officials of NC. If a satisfactory answer is not received soon, petitions will be initiated to remove non compliant officials from office. Judges are not immune.

What is the alternative?

The answer is in the Declaration of Independence.
 
 
 

Obama FL ballot challenge, Florida advisory opinion, Abdul Hassan and Obama not natural born citizens, Litigation or contested election

Obama FL ballot challenge, Florida advisory opinion, Abdul Hassan and Obama not natural born citizens, Litigation or contested election

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

This article began as a reminder, a plea, for someone in Florida, after the primary, as we were all led to believe, to contest Obama winning the FL primary due to his lack of eligibility as a non natural born citizen. I vaguely remembered someone getting a response from the FL Secretary of State’s office and an internet search returned little. I found an advisory opinion from the FL Election Department in response to an inquiry from Abdul Hassan, the same person who queried the FEC and got an advisory opinion stating that he was not eligible foe presidential matching funds because he is not a natural born citizen. After a request for assistance on this blog, I was redirected back to the Obama Ballot Challenge where I discovered they had reported the Hassan opinion. So, this article will remain a reminder for someone to challenge Obama in FL and as to how this played out from 2008 to the present.

In November of 2008, after reading the Florida Election Statutes, I contacted the FL Secretary of State’s office for clarification and was told that the only way to remove a candidate was to contest an election after the fact.

From Citizen Wells November 24, 2008.

“The state of Florida has a statute provision for challenging the “certification of election or nomination of any person to office…”.

Florida Election statutes

Title IX

102.168 Contest of election.–
“(1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by
referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in
the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

(2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after
midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

(3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the
election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:”

“(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”

Citizen Wells verified this statute with the office of the Secretary of State of Florida.”

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/florida-2008-election-obama-not-eligible-us-constitution-florida-election-statutes-fl-secretary-of-state-kurt-browning-contest-of-election-unsuccessful-candidate-qualified-elector-taxpayer-p/

From Obama Ballot Challenge January 1, 2012.

“Florida SOS’s unsatisfactory answer to Obama Ballot Challenge”

“This (non)response from Florida Assistant General Counsel Gary Holland suggests that since there is no specific procedure to remove an ineligible candidate from the ballot, that it simply cannot be done and that officials cannot even try to figure out a way to do it. So, they would have him wait until the election is over, with the nation waiting with bated breath, while a court action is initiated and litigated. Simply asinine. Florida: what are you paying your overpriced civil servants for?”

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/florida-soss-unsatisfactory-answer-to-obama-ballot-challenge

This is consistent with what I read and was told in 2008.

Florida has a procedure for advisory opinions.

“Division of Election Advisory Opinions

Who May Request an Opinion?

By law, the Division of Elections may provide advisory opinions only to a supervisor of elections, candidate, local officer having election related duties, political party, political committee, committee of continuous existence or other person or organization engaged in political activity, relating to any provisions or possible violations of Florida election laws.
Legal Effect of an Opinion:

The Division of Elections provides a historical database of advisory opinions for reference purposes only. An advisory opinion represents the Division’s interpretation of the law applicable at the time the opinion is issued, as applied to a particular set of facts or chcircumstances, and is binding solely on the person or organization who requested the opinion. A previously issued advisory opinion may or may not apply to your situation depending upon your particular facts and circumstances and the current state of applicable law. Therefore, before drawing any legal conclusions based upon the information in this database, you or an attorney engaged on your behalf should refer to the current Florida Statutes, rules adopted by the Division of Elections, and applicable case law.”

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/opinions/TOC_Opinions.shtml

Abdul Hassan requested an advisory opinion from the FEC in July 2011.

“No, as a naturalized American citizen, Mr. Hassan is not eligible to receive
presidential matching funds under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act (“Matching Payment Act”).

The United States Constitution provides that “[n]o 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 . . . .” U.S. Const. art. II, sec. 1, cl. 5.”

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/obama-ga-ballot-challenge-fec-hassan-opinion-quotes-natural-born-citizen-requirement-judge-michael-malihi-why-did-obama-refuse-matching-funds-in-2008-part-5-fec-us-constitution-presidential-eli/

Mr. Hassan received the following advisory opinion response from Florida.

“Section 103.021, Florida Statutes, as amended by Ch. 2011-40, § 45, Laws of Florida (2011), governs ballot access in Florida for presidential candidates who have no party affiliation and those who_are the nominees of political parties. Assuming you satisfy all requirements of section 103.021, the Secretary of State of Florida performs only a ministerial function as a filing officer for such candidates. The Secretary of State has no authority to look beyond the filing documents to determine i f a candidate is eligible. The Florida Supreme Court long ago stated: “The law does not give the secretary of state any power or authority to inquire into or pass upon the eligibility of a candidate to hold office for the nomination for which he is running.” Davis ex rel. Taylor v. Crawford, 116 So. 41, 42 (Fla. 1928). I f a presidential candidate (or the party in the
case of a political party nominee) files the required papers under Chapter 1 03, Florida Statutes, which papers are complete on their face, the Secretary must grant ballot access to the candidate. However, the Secretary’s ministerial granting of ballot access would not preclude litigation from proper plaintiffs to remove a candidate’s name from the ballot i f the candidate does not satisfy
the qualifications for the office of President of the United States.”

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/opinions/new/2011/de1103.pdf

Perhaps the following

“However, the Secretary’s ministerial granting of ballot access would not preclude litigation from proper plaintiffs to remove a candidate’s name from the ballot if the candidate does not satisfy the qualifications for the office of President of the United States.”

is stating the obvious. However, in my estimation, it proclaims that the Secretary of State is not the final arbiter and specifically mentions the eligibility aspect. Of course what is left open to interpretation is “proper plaintiffs.”

The Florida Primary takes place next Tuesday, January 31, 2012. Judge Michael Malihi has indicated he will provide a ruling in the GA Obama ballot hearing by February 5 and Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp has stated that he will abide by the ruling. A ruling in favor of Obama could result in appeals that, even with expedited handling, could drag on for weeks.

We need to have a strong challenge to contest Obama after the primary. In 2008 I contacted and spoke with Bob Barr’s assistant on several occasions to no avail. Let’s get the ball rolling on this initiative.

For more info on a FL challenge:

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-to-challenge-obama-being-on-ballot.html

 

Obama GA ballot challenge, Circumstantial Evidence convicts Obama, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 6, Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen

Obama GA ballot challenge, Circumstantial Evidence convicts Obama, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 6, Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?

PART 6

Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen


The devil himself could not have come up with a more devious plan.
Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be on the Georgia ballot, to run for president or to occupy the White House. The Georgia
ballot challenge to Obama continues tomorrow, January 26, 2012, with Judge Michael Malihi presiding.

Obama is not a natural born citizen regardless of his birthplace because he did not have 2 US Citizen parents. We know this from the context of the times and
language of the US Constitution and court cases. We have affirmation of this in Senate Resolution 511, that Obama signed, which declared that John McCain was
a natural born citizen and that he had 2 US Citizen parents.

Not only do we have direct evidence that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. We also have strong Circumstantial Evidence that he is ineligible and
hiding more than just his eligibility deficiencies.

Circumstantial Evidence defined:

“Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence
of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove.

Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a
particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to
be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to
be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.

The following examples illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: If John testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann
and that Ann then fell to the ground, John’s testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John’s testimony, then it must conclude
that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going
to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John’s testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred
that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John’s testimony is credible.

Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused’s guilt in a criminal matter,
including the accused’s resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused’s presence at the time and place of
the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused. In addition, much Scientific Evidence
is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue. For example, with fingerprint evidence, a
jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself.

Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is
incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the
jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme
Court has stated that “circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence”(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75
S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or
admissibility of evidence in trials.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

From Parts 1 – 5 of this series we know:

Robert Bauer, of Perkins Coie, requested an advisory opinion from the FEC in February of 2007 to determine if Obama could keep his option to receive
presidential matching funds. Bauer and Obama both knew that Obama was not a natural born citizen.

The FEC, in March 2007, responded in the affirmative. Ellen Weintraub, a former Perkins Coie staff member was a committee member.

Obama, in late 2007, in conjuction with other Senators, blocked FEC appointee approval.

For the first half of 2008, the commission has only had two members. Republican Chairman David Mason and Democrat Ellen Weintraub.

On June 19, 2008, Obama announced that he was not accepting presidential matching funds despite being an advocate for and pledging earlier to accept them.

Ellen Weintraub is still on the commission 4 years past the end of her tenure.

Per a Citizen Wells FOIA request to the FEC in August 2008 we learn that an inquiry was made to the FEC on August 18, 2008. The inquiry has information about Obama not being a natural born citizen and requests an opinion. The request is denied. An email from David Kolker, FEC Counsel to Rebekah Harvey, assistant to Ellen Weintraub states “Victory in Berg v. Obama.” The email is dated August 22, 2008, one day after the Philip J. Berg lawsuit was filed and before the FEC was served on August 27, 2008.

On September 2, 2011 the FEC provided an advisory opinion in response to a request from presidential candidate Abdul Hassan. The FEC stated that Hassan was not eligible for presidential matching funds because he is a naturalized and not a natural born citizen. THe FEC acknowledges that although they do not have the power to keep a candidate off of ballots, they have a duty to make certain that only eligible candidates receive matching funds.

“Although the Matching Payment Act does not specifically address the citizenship requirement for serving as President, it sets forth the eligibility
requirements to receive matching funds. See 26 U.S.C. 9033; 11 CFR 9033.2. See also, e.g., Advisory Opinion 1996-07 (Browne for President) (describing the
steps a candidate must take to become eligible for matching funds). These provisions collectively reflect Congressional intent to ensure that U.S. Treasury
funds in the form of matching funds are only paid to eligible candidates. 5″”

Further reading of court cases confirms that the FEC was empowered to do so.

It is clear that Obama did not receive presidential matching funds because if he had done so, a challenge to his natural born citizen status from the FEC or
an election official would have ensued.

Furthermore:

No court has ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen nor has any case against Obama been dismissed on merits.

Robert Bauer defended Obama in lawsuits challenging Obama’s natural born citizen status in 2008 and was made general counsel by Obama in 2009.

Since occupying the White House in 2009, Obama has used a large number of US Justice Department attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to keep his birth certificate and college records hidden and to avoid proving that he is a natural born citizen.

Obama has employed numerous private attorneys in a number of states, including Georgia, to keep his name on the ballot despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen.

Guilty!

Obama GA ballot challenge, FEC Hassan opinion quotes Natural born citizen requirement, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 5, Fec US Constitution presidential eligibility

Obama GA ballot challenge, FEC Hassan opinion quotes Natural born citizen requirement, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 5, Fec US Constitution presidential eligibility

“I am certain that the devil is watching Barack Obama and taking notes.”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?

PART 5

FEC Hassan opinion quotes Natural born citizen requirement

On July 5, 2011, Abdul Hassan, an attorney from NY, submitted a request for an advisory opinion from the FEC. Hassan acknowledged that he was a naturalized citizen and not a natural born citizen. Abdul Hassan posed the following questions:

“1. Whether, as a naturalized American citizen, I am included in the meaning of
“candidate” or “person” or “individual” running for President as used in the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”)?

2. Whether, as a naturalized American citizen, I am prohibited from receiving matching funds under the FECA?

3. Whether, as a naturalized American citizen, I would be in violation of 2 USC §
441h(b) ifi solicit and/or receive presidential campaign contributions?

4. Whether, in light of the steps I have taken in my presidential run as outlined above, I am subject to the expenditure, contribution and record-keeping requirements of FECA and the regulations thereunder? (Note: I have not yet crossed the $5,000 threshold that triggers the registration and reporting requirements – it is therefore important that I receive an answer before
these requirements are triggered.).”

http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/63383043?extension=pdf

The FEC responded with an Advisory Opinion on September 2, 2011.

Here are some interesting exerpts:
“We are responding to your advisory opinion request concerning the application of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”), the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, as amended, and Commission regulations to your campaign for President of the United States, given your status as a naturalized citizen.

The Commission concludes that the Act does not prohibit Mr. Hassan, a
naturalized citizen, from becoming a “candidate” as that term is defined under the Act. However, Mr. Hassan will not be eligible to receive Federal matching funds under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act.”
“Mr. Hassan indicates that he satisfies all of the constitutional requirements for
serving as President, except the natural born citizen requirement in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. 1″
“2. As a naturalized American citizen, is Mr. Hassan eligible to receive
presidential matching funds under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act?”
“No, as a naturalized American citizen, Mr. Hassan is not eligible to receive
presidential matching funds under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act (“Matching Payment Act”).

The United States Constitution provides that “[n]o 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 . . . .” U.S. Const. art. II, sec. 1, cl. 5.”
“2 The Act does not contain separate definitions for candidates for different Federal offices. The Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” provision only pertains to “the Office of President.” U.S. Const., art. II, sec. 1, cl. 5.
3 Mr. Hassan’s status as a “candidate” under the Act does not in any way affect whether Mr. Hassan will be eligible to appear on State ballots or to be a candidate under various State laws. In fact, it is the Commission’s understanding that some State ballot access laws provide that a person cannot appear on the
ballot or be considered a candidate unless the person will be qualified for the office he or she purports to seek.”
“Although the Matching Payment Act does not specifically address the citizenship requirement for serving as President, it sets forth the eligibility requirements to receive matching funds. See 26 U.S.C. 9033; 11 CFR 9033.2. See also, e.g., Advisory Opinion 1996-07 (Browne for President) (describing the steps a candidate must take to become eligible for matching funds). These provisions collectively reflect Congressional intent to ensure that U.S. Treasury funds in the form of matching funds are only paid to eligible candidates. 5″
“The Commission is charged under the Matching Payment Act with administering the Federal matching funds program and has some discretion when certifying eligibility for matching funds. While the Commission may not “appraise candidates’ good faith, honesty, probity or general reliability when reviewing the agreements and other forwardlooking commitments required” by the Matching Payment Act, see LaRouche v. FEC, 996 F.2d 1263, 1269 (D.C. Cir. 1993), situations may exist in which, “without assessment of subjective candidate intent, the Commission might conceivably withhold funds despite
formal compliance with the statutorily expressed criteria.” Id. Clear and self-avowed constitutional ineligibility for office is one of the few instances where the Commission’s exercise of its discretion to withhold funds is appropriate.”

http://saos.nictusa.com/aodocs/AO%202011-15.pdf

Observations

The FEC refers to the US Constitition requirement for the presidency, natural born citizen.

The FEC notes the distinction between a natural born citizen and naturalized citizen.

The Fec states that a naturalized citizen is not eligible for the presidency.

The FEC states that only a natural born citizen may receive presidential matching funds.

The FEC acknowledges that although they do not have the authority to keep ineligible candidates off of ballots, some of the states do.

“3 Mr. Hassan’s status as a “candidate” under the Act does not in any way affect whether Mr. Hassan will be  eligible to appear on State ballots or to be a candidate under various State laws. In fact, it is the Commission’s understanding that some State ballot access laws provide that a person cannot appear on the
ballot or be considered a candidate unless the person will be qualified for the office he or she purports to seek.”

Hence the GA and other state ballot challenges to Obama.

Conclusions

The FEC still acknowledges the US Constitution.

However, in 2007 when Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie submitted an advisory opinion request on behalf of Barack Obama to keep open the option for presidential matching funds, Bauer knew that Obama was not a natural born citizen. Ellen Weintraub, on the FEC committee that responded with an advisory opinion in the affirmative for Obama, was a former Perkins Coie staff member. Fraud was committed by Obama and Bauer and one has to question the ethics of Weintraub’s involvement.

The FEC acknowledges with these statements:

“Although the Matching Payment Act does not specifically address the citizenship requirement for serving as President, it sets forth the eligibility requirements to receive matching funds. See 26 U.S.C. 9033; 11 CFR 9033.2. See also, e.g., Advisory Opinion 1996-07 (Browne for President) (describing the steps a candidate must take to become eligible for matching funds). These provisions collectively reflect Congressional intent to ensure that U.S. Treasury funds in the form of matching funds are only paid to eligible candidates. 5″

“The Commission is charged under the Matching Payment Act with administering the Federal matching funds program and has some discretion when certifying eligibility for matching funds. While the Commission may not “appraise candidates’ good faith, honesty, probity or general reliability when reviewing the agreements and other forwardlooking commitments required” by the Matching Payment Act, see LaRouche v. FEC, 996 F.2d 1263, 1269 (D.C. Cir. 1993), situations may exist in which, “without assessment of subjective candidate intent, the Commission might conceivably withhold funds despite
formal compliance with the statutorily expressed criteria.” Id. Clear and self-avowed constitutional ineligibility for office is one of the few instances where the Commission’s exercise of its discretion to withhold funds is appropriate.”

that there are eligibility requirements for receiving presidential matching funds and that the FEC is charged with administering these funds. It is clear
that the FEC should always require proof of eligibility. It should have done so in 2007. We know there was inherent bias in 2007 (see part 4 of this series).

Court cases also clarify the powers given to the FEC. The FEC has more power than they have alluded to.

See Doug Teper, et al V. Zell Miller, et al, April 24, 1996.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/82/82.F3d.989.96-8147.html