September 11, 2009
9-18 Citizen Riggs emailed and said a fellow blogger jbjd (jbjd.wordpress.com) “worked extensively with me on the Nancy Pelosi letter”. Sorry jbjd for not mentioning you as well. Hope you’re still at it.
It took a while but I found it. And then it took a long while longer to get this post together.
Justin Riggs of YourFellowCitizen.com appears to have been on a letter-writing campaign. His was the letter I saw. [See the Scrib documents below] He was intent on finding out:
1) Who was responsible for ensuring that our presidential candidate’s were eligible?
2) When was the final determination regarding the presidential candidates eligibility made?
3) What evidence did the candidates provide that allowed a determination of eligibility to be made?
I went to his site and read every post. I have dyslexia so it took a while and it seems so straightforward I must be missing something. Most of the letters had no response. He did a remarkable job of getting paperwork. He got the form [pdf] from the DNC that stipulated what they require – yes, must meet Constitutional requirements.
And then he came across the Commission on Presidential Debates paperwork, which also stipulated that in order for a candidate to participate they had to meet the constitutional requirements to be president. He sent a letter to them inquiring about the procedure and there was no response.
He also communicated with the FEC – not their problem. And the Secretaries of State – not their problem. it’s basically up to the head of the parties – with the buck stopping at Nancy Pelosi and her signature.
From his letter written to Nanci Pelosi dated Jan 2, 2009 concerning two different Certifications of Nomination signed by her. [Full letter below]
On the 22nd of December last year, I received a document from the Hawaii Office of Elections that included an Official Certification of Nomination from the Democratic Party that bears your signature on it. On that document, it states in part that: “the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States (referring to Barack Obama and Joe Biden, respectively) are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”
I was interested in this document because it was different from all the other Certifications of Nomination which I have received, which simply state that the candidates had been nominated at the convention. I am assuming that this difference is a result of Section 11-113 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, which stipulates that the political party of a candidate must provide a statement that the candidate is legally qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the United States Constitution.
So there were two different Official Certification of Nomination forms sent out by the DNC.
And the great irony is Hawaii seems to be the only state that requires that extra sentence be on the form.
Nanci Pelosi – and the secretary and notary – signed two different forms. One for Hawaii – one for the other states – on the very same day.
They knew exactly what they were doing as did the person typing up the forms.
This seems so obvious a fraud I think I must be missing something.
Here are the two:
Constitutionally eligible – Hawaii (full form – Scribd below)
All that matters is that 2 different forms were sent – one trying to bypass the language referring to the Constitution and natural born citizenship. If there were no problems with Constitutional eligibility there wouldn’t have been two forms. Just the fact two forms exist is a problem.
It makes what Dave Weigel said to Rachel Maddow stand out even more. He knows exactly what is going on and is using his tabloid for direct barrypropaganda. He sold his soul…for what? I’ll have to find that second video.
What do the forms look like from 2004? Have they been the same for several presidential elections? If it looks the same as the one Hawaii got then it’s game set and match.
So why isn’t it?
Citizen Riggs stopped posting February 16th. I tried to send him an email from his blogger site – wouldn’t work. Found another blog of his and it’s about something completely different – last post in July.
He had a source in/around Sen Lamar Alexander’s office who got a hold of Alexander’s letter in which he stated barry was investigated and was proven to be legit (paraphrasing). He then followed up wanting to know who investigated barry and what was used to prove barry was constitutionally eligible. There was a mention of the FBI that somehow got misconstrued on Taitz’s site – so he wrote an open letter.
So if Taitz people knew about that post they had to have known about the others and had to be aware of the two different wordings of the nomination certifications.
So why hasn’t that been used in the court filings?
It’s straightforward and obvious and legally binding — why was it glossed over?
I don’t get it, Kyle. There must be something I’m missing but I don’t know what it would be unless the SC or Hawaii forms were forged as a joke. Riggs doesn’t seem like a hoaxer. But why did he just stop working on it once he had the proof?
I don’t know. That Kapiolani letter sat there for 6 months.
Here are his scrib documents plus the previous SC nomination form. Go to his website to read for yourself. I think I must be missing something.
Thanks for the inquiry. It was well worth the find but the answer is why haven’t Berg or Taitz used it in their cases?
I’m going to try and find Citizen Riggs. He probably knows.
SC – no eligibility statement
Riggs letter to Hawaii election official, RNC (yes, constitutionally eligible phrase) & DNC Certifications of Nomination and the Hawaii Democratic Paty’s own Certification of Nomination.