4 Responses to “NM ballot challenge”

1. Terry
   March 1st, 2012 @ 12:41 am

   Love It!
   We need excellent thinkers/writers like this gentleman to step up and be counted!

2. Patty
   March 1st, 2012 @ 7:16 am

   This ballot challenge would be taken seriously but for the fact that it cites to WND and blogs as “evidence.” Sorry, but commentary is not evidence.

   This will have to be litigated in NM. The Chief Justice effectively made an administrative ruling, so bitching to the governor (and rambling on and on for five pages) is not going to get anyone off the primary ballot.

3. orly taitz
   March 1st, 2012 @ 7:54 am

   this is not my challenge, it is done by a citizen

4. William Reade
   March 1st, 2012 @ 9:18 am

   It’s time to stop looking back except to take a lesson from it. If we are to defend ourselves against this Unlawful Administration we have to go on a strong Offense. Here is what I suggest. SUE, SUE, SUE. And attack their position as vulnerable Possibly Tenuous. Below is a plan that I believe will work.
   To all who are trying to find out the truth about Obama and are being thwarted by the establishment I have a suggestion.

   “NONFEASENCE” if a dozen people in each state goes after the SOS and the AG it will draw attention. If 4 or 500 go after the SCOTUS based on Justice Thomas’s admission, and every one that has been involved in an act of “Nonfeasance” in past decisions we might put a stop to it.

   If they have to answer to a “Small Claims Action” in every County in their state during election Whoa Nellie!

   File in any COURT! Denial of “Due Process”
   I am going to small claims court because I don’t have money.

   The Secretary of State in each state has taken an oath to perform the duties of their Office. One of which is to ascertain that all Candidates who want to have their name on the Ballot for elected office meet “The Constitutional and Statuary Requirements” of the office for which they are applying. Oversee the Elections, process and print the Ballots, Also to provide for hearing and investigating any objections to filings.
   To deny a hearing is to deny your Constitutional Right to Due Process.

   Request a copy of all of Certificates of Nomination and the proof that the Candidate meets the “Statutory and Constitutional “requirements.

   To the best of my knowledge the DNC is filing a Nomination paper that does not say Obama meets the “Statutory and Constitutional “requirements for the Office (obfuscation).

   If they cannot provide proof that he/she verified themselves, or thru their employees that all Candidates have been thoroughly investigated, and someone has sworn under penalty of Perjury that “The Candidate meets the Constitutional requirements for the office” and they have provided you proof of the same.

   Now comes the good part:

   If they cannot prove that all of the above has been complied with they are guilty of “Nonfeasance”. (Nonfeasance is a term used in Tort Law to describe inaction that allows or results in harm to a person or to property).

   In this instance it can be construed to be a “Breach of Contract” for a duty for which you have been paying and they have “Deliberately or Negligently Obviated” and you want the monies paid as retainer fee, should you need them, to be returned to you and any others who believe they have been “Harmed”.
   The court cannot refuse to here you out, and must act on the evidence provided by both sides. Go for the Maximum allowed, take a default and put it in the Papers.
   I am certain that if these types of “CLAIMS” are filed in every county in every state against every SOS, and against every JUDGE who has not acted in accordance with applicable laws are sued as an individual, it will get some press.
   I intend to include Justice Thomas (for avoiding it, Cohens v. Virginia), add to that he may be Racially Prejudiced; he could be a Black for Obama. (they are calling us racists).
   In a polite exchange between Justice Thomas and subcommittee chairman Serrano, the eligibility issue comes up with an apparent admission that the court is avoiding it. Things may not be as they seem though. Much could be read into this.
   Mr Serrano asked: Why is the Supreme Court avoiding the fact that they have never defined what is a “Natural Born Citizen”?

   Justice Thomas Answered; Quote:
   Thomas,” we’re evading that one.”

   Nonfeasance is a term used in Tort Law to describe inaction that allows or results in harm to a person or to property. An act of nonfeasance can result in liability if :
   (1) the actor owed a duty of care toward the injured person,
   (2) the actor failed to act on that duty, and
   (3) the failure to act resulted in injury.

   Chief Justice Marshall wrote in: Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264 264 (1821)
   “It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”

   (PS: Judges don’t like to be accused of “treason” but it isn’t us, but rather SCOTUS who levels the charge.)

Leave a Reply