This might seem like a crazy question, but when you asked the TX Elections Office for these documents did they send you a letter of transmittal from Richie or anything that had a date stamp showing when the elections office received the document or from where it was sent?
Also, do you know if the notary signature is identical to the version where it has the DNC logo and words? If Shalifa Williams did not actually see Boyd Richie sign this, then he is guilty of forgery by submitting this.
The reason I ask these questions is because Hawaii officials have confirmed that both the Hawaii Democratic Party’s “certification of nomination” and the DNC’s were sent in one envelope together with a letter of transmittal from Sandler’s office (DNC lawyer). I’m wondering if this was their procedure – to handle the state certifications as well as the national.
The interesting thing is that Hawaii requires a SWORN statement saying that the candidate is Constitutionally eligible and is the candidate for both the state party and the national party. There is no oath or notary signature for the Hawaii Democratic Party’s statement that he was their candidate. The only sworn statement in that envelope that went to HI Office of Elections was the one by Pelosi, witnessed by Shalifa Williams. The HDP signatures were a day before Pelosi’s. Williams did not certify an oath for the HDP.
IOW, there is not a sworn statement which claims that Obama is the candidate for the HDP – as required by law. Obama’s name should not have been placed on the Hawaii ballot – because the HDP refused to notarize their statement OR even make a self-subscribing oath in writing. They also did a bad chop job to take out the Constitutionally-eligible language from their non-sworn statement.
Big-time rear-end covering at the Hawaii Democratic Party for some reason.
When I called them to ask what lawyer approved their certification form before it was submitted, or who deleted the two lines from the form, I got nothing but hissing and spitting from the HDP guy. They know they’re in trouble.
When I called Joe Sandler’s office and said I had questions about the certification of nomination for the 2008 presidential election the secretary quickly put me on hold so that another secretary could tell me the other one had a meeting she had to go to immediately but she’d call back… but she was ready to hang up without getting a call-back number. They also know they’re in trouble.
Hi Nellie…I am travelling now, so I cannot answer your question definitively at the moment….but recall that I also asked for the transmission docs…I will be back on Wed and will check and update you…thanks…RedHank
Hi Nellie…There is no “Received by” on the TX Boyd Richie transmittal…But there are “Received by” hand written and signed notes on the Republican Party transmittals. That may be because the Democratic Party Certs were sent via fax from the Hyatt Regency at the Convention Center in Denver. They were sent with a fax cover letter from Liz Howard, an Associate, at Sandler, Reiff & Young, PC…A DC law firm on August 27, 2008…Joseph Sandler is one of the lawyers who has acted on behalf of Obama in some of the “Birther” litigations.
Have you seen the transmittal letter from Sandler that was faxed together with the DNC and Texas Democratic Party certifications? If so, could you double-check the dates on the fax? Both versions of the DNC certification say they were signed on Aug 28th so they could not have been sent on the 27th – unless something screwy is going on. They were both sent together; am I understanding that right?
Did the Texas democrats have to certify Obama in any way in order to get him on the primary ballot? (Or did you have caucuses? Sorry to be so disjointed; I’m juggling a lot of details and a heavy work schedule.)
The reason this is so significant is because apologists for the dems have claimed that the DNC sent the certs on a state-by-state basis. But it sounds like Texas had basically the same requirements as Hawaii – now that I know that Hawaii doesn’t consider “sworn” to mean anything more than just somebody saying something and signing it. But though the DNC sent their cert with the TX dem cert, they did NOT include the Constitutionally-eligible language like they did for Hawaii. The Hawaii Dem Party refused to say anything about Obama being duly chosen by the national party or about his eligibility to be president. The TX dems lied about Obama’s eligibility but the Hawaii dems wouldn’t even do that – probably because they knew it could eventually be proven that they had perjured themselves because they have seen the documents proving he is not eligible.
If you have the faxed documents, would it be possible for you to post the letter of transmittal as well, especially anything that includes the date that it was faxed?
Also, when I get the e-mail saying you’ve posted, can I e-mail you from there, or could you e-mail me directly? There’s more information I’d like to give you that I’ve found out.
Hi Nellie…If you take a closer look you will see that both Richie Certs were notarized on the 27th of August. And in accordance with Texas Statutes 192.031, which states:
§ 192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT. A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:
(1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;
(2) before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party’s state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of:
(A) the names of the party’s nominees for
president and vice-president; and
(B) the names and residence addresses of
presidential elector candidates nominated by the party, in a number equal to the number of presidential electors that federal law allocates to this state; and
(3) the party is:
(A) required or authorized by Subchapter A of Chapter 172 to make its nominations by primary election; or
(B) entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot under Chapter 181.
Only the State Party is required to send in a certification…A cert is not required from the National Party. Now, having said that, the Republicans were more thorough and included both a national certification and a Texas Party cert.
I have recently switched from a PC to a Mac…so I will endeavor to put up the transmittal fax cover sheet later today, but don’t think you will find any useful clues there.
So did the DNC send their certification to Texas at all? If so, when was it sent?
At http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hawaii-response.pdf all 3 documents that were sent to the Hawaii Electons Office in one envelope are shown. How does that compare with what Liz Howard faxed to Texas election officials? Does the fax time for the TX certs say it was sent on Aug 27th?
Thanks. If it’s a hassle to post the cover sheet don’t worry about it, and if the DNC didn’t send a cert there’s no problem. But if they sent a fax on the 27th that included the DNC cert – which was signed on the 28th – that would be problematic.
Do you know if it was customary for the DNC to fax the certs to TX at the convention? In Hawaii, the typical procedure was for the HDP to hand-deliver their cert about a month after the convention – a cert containing everything legally required by HI. So the DNC and HDP certs were handled totally independently and the DNC cert was actually unnecessary.
In 2008, however, the DNC mailed it all together, with the HDP cert signed the day before the DNC one. The HDP cert was specifically (and badly) edited to exclude 2 out of the 3 items required by HI law – which then required the DNC to alter their cert (for Hawaii alone) in order to fulfill HI requirements. IOW, the HDP had always independently certified everything necessary, but for Obama they didn’t. For Obama the DNC handled almost everything.
It sounds like the TX Secretary of State is the one who has to verify that #1 requirement is met. The law doesn’t say that the party has to certify that, but that the party is entitled to have the names on the ballot only if that requirement isn’t met. If the party itself didn’t certify that the nominees met #1, then I would gather that the SOS was responsible to check it out.
Is that how you read it?
In Nebraska the state party doesn’t have to do anything. The national party has to certify their candidate and since it says in the DNC by-laws that a candidate has to be legally qualified, the Nebraska SOS takes the DNC certification of the candidate as proof of eligibility. If Pelosi certified somebody she didn’t know was eligible I think it would constitute perjury in Nebraska.
But our SOS is a total dunce. 100% clueless. He said an ineligible candidate would never be nominated because neither the media nor the politician himself would ever lie to us. What an idiot.
I sent an email in August 2009 to the Secretary of State asking who was responsible for verifying a candidates eligibility and I received no answer, but I believe it is the SoS. and to answer your other question, the DNC did not send a certification at all to Texas.
I believe in the case of Texas, the reason that they are faxed is that Texas requires the certs to be filed 70 days before the election. As you can see the RNC pre-certified McCain as the Repub convention would not be held in time to meet that requirement…so technically, McCain should not have been placed on the ballot as he could not have been officially certified until after the deadline.
The whole process stinks…as the SoS’ office is clearly not complying with our States laws.
Aagh. Only if that requirement IS met.
Pingback: BACK UP, BIRTHERS! « jbjd
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.