Comparison: Official Certification of Nomination for Gore, Kerry, barry

December 30, 2009

*updated

Updated birth certificate posts

Hey Kyle.

I realize now why I never posted this. The Scribd copies were sideways and I was going to see if I could fix it so they could be more easily read. Obviously I never did.

Glad you brought it back up though because the difference is highly significant and proves Hawaii knew what was going on too.

Here is a comparison of the Hawaii Dem Party’s own Official Certification of Nomination form (OCON), the DNC OCON for Hawaii and the DNC OCON for non-Hawaii states for Gore, Kerry, barry.

1-The Non-Hawaii DNC OCON forms [Gore, Kerry, barry] were the same for all three candidates = NO CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSE.

NON-HAWAII DNC OCON:

This is to certify that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in [city, state] on [date] though [sic] [date], the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively.

2-The DNC OCON given to Hawaii were different for all three years. Kerry’s remained the same as the non-Hawaii states (as above). Gore’s read “meet the constitutional requirements” (which was clearly added on to the form) and barry’s read “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the US Constitution,” which is the exact wording removed from the Hawaii Dem Party’s own OCON form.

(GORE) 2000 Hawaii DNC OCON [scrib copy below]:

This is to certify that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Los Angeles, California on August 14 though (sic) 17, 2000, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively [typed in] and meet the constitutional requirements for the Office of the President and Vice President of the United States.

(BARRY) 2008 Hawaii DNC OCON:

This is to certify that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2000, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.

3- The Hawaii Dem Party Nomination forms are identical for Gore & Kerry. They included the constitutional clause and the fact that the candidates were duly elected in the State of Hawaii. barry’s was missing both stipulations.

(KERRY/GORE) Hawaii Democratic Party Form [below]:

This is to certify that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are LEGALLY QUALIFIED TO SERVE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and national Democratic Parties by balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held on — in the State of Hawaii and by the acclamation of the national Democratic Convention held — in —.

(BARRY) 2008 Hawaii Democratic Party Form:

This is to certify that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are LEGALLY QUALIFIED TO SERVE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and national Democratic Parties (sic) by balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held on February 19th, 2008 in the State of Hawaii and by the acclamation of the national Democratic Convention held August 27, 2008 in Denver, Colorado.

The State of Hawaii Dem Party was covering themselves with their nomination form by removing the Constitutional clause and the statement that barry was the duly chosen candidate of the State of Hawaii. They knew barry wasn’t qualified. So they made Nanci Pelosi state he was Constitutional eligible on the DNC form she gave to them. And she used the exact wording of the Constitutional clause Hawaii omitted from their form.

How much clearer does it need to get?

Thanks to Citizen Riggs [YourFellowCitizen.com] for the copies.

*Don’t know what happened to his website or if he’s still around. I took a vacation from the birth certificate issue for awhile.

Note the font change of the Constitution clause added on to Gore’s Hawaii DNC OCON. barry’s had no font change.

Click for full screen.

jriggs5544

View this document on Scribd

————–

2 Responses to “Comparison: Official Certification of Nomination for Gore, Kerry, barry”

  1. mattie14 Says:

    Hi Thomas.

    Wow you’ve been busy.

    Ok let me if I have this right. I have dyslexia so I have to write it out as I think.

    You sent:

    1-DNC SC – no clause
    2-DNC SD – no clause
    3-DNC HI – with clause

    Jackley: said they were vetted correctly but made no mention of how or by whom.

    Secy of State is the one responsible for certifying the pres/VP.

    The state constitution didn’t say anything about the words “constitutionally eligible” just laid out the procedure.

    Ok. The next question is – what did the Secy of State use?

    Did he use just the DNC-Pelosi OCON without the clause?

    Also, what did he use for the primary ballots?

    Questions for the SoS.

    1-How are the candidates placed on the ballot?

    2-Do they have to provide in writing a statement attesting they are constitutionally eligible? Like did barry sign something himself that has his signature.

    3-Does the state democratic party certify the candidate for the primaries before they are placed on the ballot?

    4-Request a copy of the paperwork that was used to certify the Democrats for the primary and general election. There should be something from the state dem party.

    In the cases in CA and NJ, the judges ruled that the SoS had no legal obligation to look for proof themselves and that the state/national party officials were the ones responsible.

    What is key is what the SD state democratic party says in their rules. Are they responsible for certifying the candidates in the Primary and does that rule actually spell out the words “constitutionally eligible”.

    Up above in the post, the scrbd copies contain the Hawaii Dem Party’s certification that barry was the dem party’s primary winner as well as Pelosi’s. SD has to have their own.

    There also has to be a SD state board of elections that outlines the requirements. And they have to supply the information.

    My guess what you’ll find:

    Primary: SoS took for granted barry was eligible – the state party did nothing to qualify him and barry himself did not have to provide a signed statement he was eligible. So he ended up on the ballot with no one certifying him.

    And for the general election, the SoS used the Pelosi DNC OCON (SD-no clause). Meaning that no where along the line was he actually stipulated to as constitutionally eligible…unless the SD Dem Party vouched for him, in which case they can be asked what THEY used to make that determination.

    I guarantee you that eligibility clause is written in the SD Dem Party election rules and the person responsible for doing certifying barry to the DNC as SD’s general election candidate knows full well they screwed up because they had no proof barry was constitutionally eligible but said so anyway.

    Even though you are a republican (right?), you can communicate with the state Dem Party chair and ask those questions and they have to provide the paperwork. Just make sure it is phrased as a Freedom of Information request. All your requests should contain those words. Your legislator friend has to know the SD statute for FOIA.

    I’ll bet you can find most of the information online or with a phone call. If you’ve got good skills on the phone, you may get all the info you need. After a year of barry, the person answering the phone may be ready to talk!

    SD Secy of State
    SD Dem Party
    SD Board of Elections

    Once you have those forms/information, then you can go at Jakely again with the proof via certified mail. He probably won’t do anything but your concerns will be on file.

  2. mattie14 Says:

    Hi Thomas from SD.

    Good for you for getting out there and doing something. I had to look up the players to see what side of the fence they’re on. I don’t know what you are referring to as a “typo”.

    1-What exactly did you take copies of? One with the Constitutional clause and one without?

    2-Does SD OCON have the Constitutional clause on it or just the generic?

    3-I get why Sen Thune’s office would say that, and as the GOP, they don’t have to say anything.

    4-What exactly did Jackley say? Did he specify how the candidates were “vetted correctly”? As in who vetted him and what specific proof they used?

    5-The key: Does SD require someone to vouch that the candidate is “constitutionally eligible” and if so, who is the person responsible? Do the candidates have to sign or submit proof themselves?

    The SD Secretary of State is the person responsible for making sure the people put on the ballot meet the requirements of the state. If there is nothing written in SD’s election paperwork that a candidate be certified “constitutionally eligible” then it’s a dead end.

    You could ask the Secy of State for the paperwork used to vouch he was eligible. Most likely they will say they never checked…it’s up to the DNC…

    As for why Nanci Pelosi signed two copies?

    Hawaii requires that Constitutional clause be stipulated to [in writing] by the DNC in order for the democratic candidate for president to be put on the Hawaii ballot.

    She had no way around it in Hawaii. And it seems that none of the other 49 states required that clause to be included on what Pelosi signed, which is why they got the generic form without the clause.

    That’s why two forms were used.

    A rational being then asks: if the more complete form was necessary for one state, why didn’t they use that form for all states? Why mess with two forms?

    Because if he is not Constitutionally eligible, she can get away with sending forms without stipulating to it to 49 states and hope Hawaii keeps their mouth shut since he is their native son.

    The mere existence of 2 forms proves he is not constitutionally eligible and proves without a doubt Pelosi knew that when she signed the two separate forms.

    Make sense now?

    If not, let me know.

    Your instincts were right, Thomas. Which is why the AG said the matter was closed – to hope you just go away.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s