This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Susan Daniels, Plaintiff 9754 Thwing Road Chardon, OH 44024 v Jon Husted, Defendant Ohio Secretary of State 180 E. Broad Street, 16th Floor Columbus, OH 43215
) ) ) ) ) ) )
COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND MANDAMUS
NATURE OF THE CASE 1. Ohio election codes and procedures currently leave Ohio election officials dependent upon accurate and truthful representations from political parties regarding the
qualifications of candidates to hold office. Since the Ohio Secretary of State is required, by oath, to uphold the U. S. Constitution and Ohio Constitution and is required to place on the ballot any filing he receives, as long as he has reason to believe the document is not materially false or fraudulent, he depends upon truthful representations by the
Democratic or Republican Party of Ohio that the individual selected by the Party as its candidate for the office of President of the United States has been properly vetted. When
the Ohio Secretary of State receives a document from the Democratic or Republican Party identifying the Party's candidate for President, the Secretary of State is required, unless the candidate's eligibility is challenged, to place the candidate's name on all
ballots in all Ohio counties under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 3501.39. (See attached highlighted Exhibit 1). Section (A)(3) requires the Secretary of State to accept
declarations of candidates' filings, unless they violate "other requirements established by law." 2. The function of the Secretary of State in this capacity, as it currently stands, is ministerial, which means that the Secretary of State has no authority to scrutinize the candidates' qualifications to hold office. This procedure leaves the Secretary of State, any
opposing candidates, and all the citizens of Ohio completely dependent upon a truthful and accurate representation from a political party that their candidate is qualified to hold the office of President of the United States. ORC 3501.01(H) states: "Candidate" means any qualified person [Emphasis added] certified in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Code for placement on the official ballot of a primary, general, or special election to be held in this state, or any qualified person who claims to be a write-in candidate, or who knowingly assents to being represented as a write-in candidate by another at either a primary, general, or special election to be held in this state." 3. Defendant Husted is the Ohio Secretary of State. A letter from the Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted dated April 18, 2012 says, in part: " .. .1 do not have the authority to review either the political party's selection process or the qualifications of the joint
candidates. [Emphasis added.]" (See attached highlighted Exhibit 2.)
Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 111.24:
Refusal of documents for filing or recording. (A) Notwithstanding any other provision ofthe Revised Code, if a person presents a document to the secretary of state for filing or recording, the secretary of state may refuse to accept the document for filing or recording if the document is not required or authorized to be filed or recorded with the secretary of state or the secretary of state has reasonable cause to believe the document is materially false or fraudulent. This division does not create a duty upon the secretary of state to inspect. evaluate, or investigate a document that is presented for filing or recording. [Emphasis added.] (See attached Exhibit 3.) 5. This section of the ORClll.24 and the letter from Defendant Husted are in opposition to Husted took, prior to assuming the office as Ohio
the sworn oath that Defendant
Secretary of State. In his letter Defendant Husted said he does not have the authority to review information by a political party. ORC 111.24 is consistent with that statement of fact there is no duty to evaluate documents provided to him unless the documents presented proffering are fraudulent. There would be no reason to anticipate a political party a document containing fraudulent information to the Secrtary of State.
However, that is what has occurred. To become the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama engaged in fraud. He has been using a fraudulent social security number since the mid-80s. 6. Before a person is allowed to assume the position of the Ohio Secretary of State he or she is required to pledge to uphold the U.S. and Ohio Constitution. Defendant Husted, took an oath on January 9, 2011, in which he stated: "I, Jon Husted, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Ohio, and will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all of the duties incumbent upon me as the Secretary of State of Ohio according to the best of my ability, and my understanding. And this do as I shall answer unto God." 3
http://www.youtube.comlwatch?v=2VTKx79rECc 7. But because the Secretary of State does not "inspect, evaluate or investigate a document," there is opportunity for an ineligible candidate to appear on the ballot. 8. This Complaint does not request or require this Court to find that President Obama is not qualified or ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States. Instead, this Complaint alleges that sufficient evidence exists to make any reasonable person believe, in light of attached exhibits and the evidence to be adduced at trial, that Barack Obama has repeatedly, consistently, and with intent misrepresented Attached himself are by using supporting a
fraudulently obtained social security number.
documents which evidence the accuracy of that allegation. 9. Defendant Husted has a duty to inspect these supporting documents, smce they
establish that Barack Obama is not properly eligible to be the Democratic nominee for president in the November 2012 general election and to determine whether his name should be entered as a candidate. 10. This Complaint asserts that the Ohio Secretary of State, Defendant Husted, has the power to set into motion, by allowing Barack Obama's name to appear on the ballot for the general election in November, 2012, a process that will cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiff, to the State of Ohio, and to the citizens of Ohio. Defendant Husted also has the power and is obligated to prevent this irreparable harm. 11. Plaintiff, through the course of an investigation she has been conducting since 2009, has discovered evidence that Barack Obama has and continues, with intent, to use a social security number not properly assigned to him and that, based on information and belief,
Barack Obama has arrogated a social security number that was previously assigned to another and different person living in the State of Connecticut at the time it was issued. Allegations, supported by attached exhibits, are set forth below. Plaintiff alleges that the proffered documentation is sufficiently compelling as to require the conclusion that any representation by the Democratic Party to any Ohio official which asserts, implies, or states Barack Obama is qualified to hold the office of President, negligence or intentional misrepresentation. constitutes gross
Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and has been a resident of the State of Ohio since 1941. The information contained in the Complaint is based upon her own personal knowledge and investigative work.
Plaintiff is currently a registered voter in Geauga County, OH, and has voted in numerous elections for more than forty years, and is free from any mental disease or psychological impairment.
Plaintiff has been a State of Ohio licensed private investigator since March 1995 and is in Good Standing as a licensed private investigator with the Ohio Department of Public Safety.
Plaintiff holds a B.A. (1978) and an M.A. (1985) from Cleveland State University, was certified (1977) as a paralegal from the Ohio Paralegal Institute, and has been a Notary Public for more than thirty years.
Plaintiff, in pursuance of her occupation, is able to access proprietary databases and acquire information from additional sources, including licensed investigation companies across the country.
Plaintiff is a valid write-in candidate in Ohio for President of the United States for the November, 2012, election. (See attached Exhibit 4.)
Defendant Husted, in the normal course of his duties as the elected Ohio Secretary of State, oversees the elections process and enforces the election laws, which include ORC 3501.06: "There shall be in each county of the state a board of elections be appointed by the secretary of state. as the secretary's representatives added.]" ORC 3501.13(B) states that " ...the director who shall [Emphasis shall
[of the election board)]
subscribe to an oath that the director will support the Constitution of the United States and the Ohio Constitution" ... and ..."enforce the election laws ...." 19. Under ORC 3501.06 and ORC 3501.13(B), Defendant Husted, through his appointed representative, oversees the election in every Ohio county. (See attached Exhibits 5a and 5b.) .llJRISDICTION AND VENUE 20. Plaintiff has been a property owner in Geauga County since May 1998, and lives within the jurisdiction of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, and in a voting district included within the jurisdiction of the defendant, as determined by OCR 3501.04 and 3501.18(A). (See attached Exhibits 6a and 6b.) Defendant Husted, avers through his website: "As the chief elections officer, the Secretary of State oversees the
elections process ...in each of Ohio's eighty- eight counties. 21.
one of the
Plaintiff, as a resident of Geauga County, is in the proper venue as defined in the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 3 (B): "Venue: where proper. Any action decided in any court in any county. When 'county' as used in this rule shall be territorial limits of those courts. Proper following counties: ... may be venued, commenced and applied to county and municipal courts, construed, where appropriate, as the venue lies in anyone or more of the
(3) A county in which the defendant conducted activity that gave the claim for relief [Emphasis added]." (See attached Exhibit 7.)
FACTS SUPPORTING MISREPRESENTATION 22. In August, 2009, Plaintiff, in the course of her private investigation practice, was engaged to begin an investigation into the background of Barack Obama. 23. In the initial stage of the investigation, Plaintiff searched for a social security number for Barack Obama. Plaintiff entered the name Barack Obama, IL, into one of the databases to which she has access. The social security number 042-68-4425 appeared with the name Barack Obama and multiple addresses in Chicago and Massachusetts, along with the
information that the social security number had been issued in Connecticut between 1977-1979. The year 1890 appears as Barack Obama's date of birth, along with August 4, 1961. Only one page of addresses has been included to avoid unnecessary duplicating. (See attached highlighted Exhibit 8.) 24. Plaintiff, who has verified thousands of social security numbers as a private
investigator, understood, on information and belief, that Barack Obama was born in
1961. Plaintiff knew, based on then existing
social security protocol, that during
1977-1979, a social security number was assigned by the Social Security Administration on the basis of the state where the person lived when he/she applied. 25. Numbers beginning with "042" were reserved for the exclusive use of Connecticut residents. (See attached highlighted Exhibit 9.) 26. Further, to support the contention "042" was assigned only to residents of Connecticut, Plaintiff ran the social security numbers of 042-68-4415 thru 042-68-4435. Barack
Obama's number is in the middle of them: 042-68-4425. All of those numbers returned: "Issued 1977-1979 in CT." (See Exhibit 10.) 27. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff asserts Barack Obama was never in the State of Connecticut in 1977. 28. Based on his autobiography, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama was living in Hawaii from 1971 to 1979. 29. Plaintiff next entered only the social security number, 042-68-4425. The information provided by the database indicated that 042-68-4425 belonged to Barack Hussein Obama and the dates 1B2.U (Emphasis added), 08/0411961 and 04/0811961. (See attached Exhibit 11.) 31. 32. The appearance of the year 1890 was a marked anomaly. Plaintiff has never encountered, during thousands of previous investigations, anomaly: a social security number linked to such an erroneous birth year. 33. When Plaintiff accessed other databases, entering the social security number, such an
042-68-4425, approximately eight pages of addresses appeared for Barack Obama, one of
which is included as an attachment. The addresses were in Illinois, Massachusetts and
in Washington, D.C. (See Exhibit 12.) None referenced the State of Connecticut.
The addresses also included Barack Obama's alleged date of birth, August 4, 1961, and a telephone number, 773-684-4809. Randomly, however, the telephone report for Barack and Michelle Obama would again show the year of Barack Obama's birth as 1890. (See attached highlighted Exhibit 13.)
THE MISPREPRESENTATIONS 35. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff asserts that Barack Obama began using the Connecticut social security number as his own in the mid-'80s. That number had
previously been issued to another person, herein referred to as Mr.!Ms.!Mrs. X, in March 1977, who lived in Connecticut at the time of application for a social security number, and who had been born in the year 1890. 36. It is possible to determine when a social security number was issued through the examination of the records of Social Security Administration regarding Form SS-5 and the subsequent Numident -- the term is that of the Social Security Administration. It
means computer printout. The Form SS-5 was and remains the official application form for a social security number issued in 1977. It is still in use today. The current Social Security Administration website reads, in material part: Applying for an SSN Today: "Just as it was in 1936, today a person must complete an application to obtain an original or replacement SSN or to change the information in SSA's Numident records. There are a number of ways to initiate the application process.
"The paper form a person completes to apply for an original SSN or a replacement card or to make changes to SSA's Numident record is still the SS-5. The SS-5 application is available online or in any SSA field office. The application and required evidence can be taken or mailed to any Social Security office for processing. An in-person interview is required if the applicant is age 12 or older and is applying for an original SSN. [Emphasis added.] ...The signed SS-5 application is retained for a short period in the field office, and then is sent to a records center in Pennsylvania for microfilming. Once microfilmed, the original SS-5 is destroyed." http:// www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n2/v69n2p55.htrnl Therefore, though unobtainable to the Plaintiff, a copy of the original SS-5 for social security number 042-68-4425 still exists.
Plaintiff alleges that March 1977 was the exact month of issuance for 042-68-4425. That information was derived from the identification of records of other persons with numbers which bracket that of Barack Obarna. Plaintiff has attached three affidavits from Paula Hoehn, (see attached Exhibits 14a, 14b, and 14c), who filed FOIA requests with the Social Security Administration. Included are copies of records number 042-68-4424, for social security
which belonged to Thomas Louis Wood, born July 15, 1962;
042-68-4429, which belonged to Paul Michael Graziano (originally misidentified by Ms. Hoehn as Paul Grazia) and born September 25, 1967; and for 042-68-4437, belonged to Margaret Bossing, who was born January 71896. (Emphasis added.) which
Thomas Wood, Paul Graziano, and Margaret Bossing are deceased. Hence their records are available.
All three persons were issued their social security numbers in Connecticut, where they lived when they applied for them, and all were assigned numbers on March 28, 1977.
Since Barack Obama's number falls between Thomas Wood and Paul Graziano, his number would have also been assigned on that day. Since information from the Social Security Administration is available for Thomas Wood, Paul Graziano, and Margaret
Bossing, the SS-5 completed for social security number 042-68-4425, that was allegedly assigned to Barack Obama, will also be available. 40. On information and belief, Plaintiff asserts that it is not credible that, in 1977, Barack Obama traveled from Hawaii to Connecticut for a mandatory in-person interview after he applied for a Connecticut social security number. Barack Obama was then fifteen years old, living in Hawaii and enrolled in the tenth grade at Punahou Academy. Though the location of his birth is disputed, Barack Obama is alleged to have been born on August 4, 1961. (See attached Exhibit 15.) 41. Social Security Program Operations section: RM 10201.030 now states: Manual System https://secure.ssa.gov/appsl0/
"Prior to June 25, 2011, the first three digits of the SSN represented the area number. The area number reflected the State as derived from the ZIP Code in the mailing address the number holder provided on the application for an original SSN card." (See attached highlighted Exhibit 16.)
In contrast to Barack Obama's social security number, Barack Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, was issued a social security number in Hawaii in 1985-1986 while living at the same addresses as Barack Obama. (See attached Exhibit 17a.) The year 1986 was the first time Barack Obama's name appeared with the Connecticut social security number. (See attached highlighted Exhibit 17b.)
Plaintiff has obtained a copy of an Hawaiian newspaper photograph of Barack Obama which places him in Hawaii in February, 1977 (see attached Exhibit 18) with the Punahou
Academy basketball team. February, 1977 was one month before the social security number Barack Obama uses was assigned. 44. Based on information and belief, Plaintiff asserts that in his book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama states that he was living in Hawaii from 1971 to 1979. 45. Plaintiff has obtained a photo of Barack Obama's "Choom Gang." Barack Obama with
described the "choom gang" in his book, Dreams from My Father, as the
whom he used drugs. They are holding a "Class of 1979" cake, which appears to be a graduation cake. (See attached Exhibit 19.) httpJlwww.theblaze.com/stories/rare-photo-of-barack-obama-the-choom-gang-unearthedl 46. On information and belief, Plaintiff asserts that it is not credible that Barack Obama is using a properly issued, re-assigned social security number, because the Social Security Administration website states that numbers are never reissued. (See attached Exhibit 20.) answers! detail/a id/861~!re-assignment -of-social-security -numbers 47. As an additional element of Plaintiff's investigation, Plaintiff went to the government public site which verifies Selective Service registration. Upon entering Barack Obama's name, date of birth and social security number, the following information was revealed: Barack Hussein Obama and social security ***-**-4425. (See attached Exhibit 21.)
Those are the last four numbers of the Connecticut social security number. 48. Further, to verify that Barack Obama was repeatedly using the Connecticut issued social security number 042-68-4425, Plaintiff obtained an affidavit regarding Obama's 2009 income tax return. (See attached Exhibit 22.) Barack Obama used the Connecticut social security number, 042-68-4425, on his 2009 income tax return.
Based on information and belief, Barack Obama entered Harvard University Law School in 1988. Plaintiff has obtained a copy of microfilm from the Massachusetts Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) from that period. (See attached Exhibit 23a.) An alphabetical list of drivers on the microfilm includes Barack Obama using the Connecticut social security number, 042-68-4425. To verify the authenticity of the BMV microfilm, Plaintiff at the
researched the other names on the list to ensure they were living in Massachusetts
same time and had Massachusetts driver's licenses. (See attached Exhibit 23b.) Some information on other drivers has been obscured to maintain their privacy; however, Ignacio Obana is deceased and his information is included. 50. An unprecedented Service, hereafter event occurred on April 3, 2009 when the Congressional Research "CRS," presented to members of Congress a fourteen-page
Memorandum. It was unlike any previously distributed. (See attached [page one only] highlighted: Exhibit 24.) The subject: "Qualifications United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility for Office of President of the of the Candidate [Emphasis
added]." It specifically addressed the issue of Barack Obama as president and how Congress members were to respond to questions from any of the media about his eligibility under the Constitution. On page one, paragraph two, the last sentence reads: "Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that 'vets' candidates for or eligibility prior to election." (Emphasis added.)
federal office as to qualifications
Therefore, as stated previously in this Complaint, neither any State, nor the Federal government, vets a presidential candidate.
On information and belief, as told to Plaintiff by a member of FL Congressman Bill Posey's office, CRS never before found it necessary to prepare such a document to justify a president's eligibility. The document was in response to serious questions being raised by some political figures, including Congressman Posey, about whether Barack Obama was properly holding the office of president.
Barack Obama has provided incorrect information in the past while alleging it was true. When he applied for his Attorney's Registration on December 17, 1991 he provided inaccurate information. In the section that asked for former names used, he entered: "None." (See attached Exhibit 25.) However, when Barack Obama's mother was married to Lolo Soetoro, Barack Obama was known as Barry Soetoro while he was registered in school in Indonesia and living there.
There were also questions raised about the documentation to include Barack Obama on the ballot in Hawaii. Hawaii Revised Statute 11-113( c)(1 )(B) requires: "A statement that
each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution." (See attached highlighted Exhibit 26.) Candidate Barack Obama's ballot filing with the Hawaii Board of Election did not include that he was eligible under the U.S. Constitution or the Hawaii Constitution. 54. If a candidate did not meet the Constitutional requirement, an alternative option was available. A petition could be filed "containing the signatures of currently registered voters which constitute not less than one per cent of the votes cast in the State at the last presidential election." (See HRS 11-113 at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov )
On information and belief, that petition was not provided to the Board of Elections, according to an employee representing Hawaii State Senator Sam Slom's office.
When the Democratic Party submitted its Official Certification of Nomination in 2008 to the State of Hawaii, Office of Elections, for Barack Obama, it removed the section that he was "legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution" to read "legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the national Democratic
Parties ...." (See attached highlighted Exhibit 27a.) 56. On information and belief, Plaintiff asserts that the Office of Elections, with concerns regarding Barack Obama's eligibility as a candidate, Certifications changed the wording on the for the presidential
document. The Hawaii Democratic
elections for the years 2000 and 2004 contain the phrase: " ...legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution ...." (See attached highlighted Democratic Certification of
Exhibits 27b and 27c.) That statement in the Hawaii Nomination
in 2008 was replaced with: " ... are legally qualified to serve under the
provisions of the national Democratic Party ...." 57. The 2008 Republican Party of Hawaii Certificate of Nomination reflects the candidates " ...meeting the constitutional requirements ...." (See attached highlighted Exhibit 28.) The Democratic Party filing does not include that wording. 58. The State of Ohio received similar documents. The Republican Certificate of
Nominations notes that the candidates are " ...meeting the constitutional requirements ..." and the Democratic Official Certification of Nomination has candidates who " ...were duly nominated ...." (See attached highlighted Exhibits 29a and 29b.) 15
Candidates for the office of President of the United States are required under both U.S. and Ohio Constitutions to qualify before they can be placed on the ballot. Barack Obama has blatantly, and continuously used a fraudulent social security number and would be excluded as "qualified" for that reason. Defendant Husted, through this filing, has been made aware that the Democratic candidate Barack Obama has been using a fraudulent social security number, which would render Barack Obama ineligible under both the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions. Defendant Husted is duty bound by his oath to investigate these allegations.
Based on information and belief, Plaintiff asserts that Barack Obama is in violation of Ohio Revised Code 2913.49, which pertains to Identity Fraud: (A) As used in this section, "personal identifying information" includes, but is not limited to, the following: the name, address, telephone number, driver's license, driver's license number, commercial driver's license, commercial driver's license number, state identification card, state identification card number, social security card, social security number, [Emphasis added] birth certificate, place of employment, employee identification number, mother's maiden name, demand deposit account number, savings account number, money market account number, mutual fund account number, other financial account number, personal identification number, password, or credit card number of a living or dead individuaL (B) No person, without the express or implied consent of the other person, shall use, obtain, or possess any personal identifying information of another person with intent to do either of the following: (1) Hold the person out to be the other person; (2) Represent the other person's personal identifying information as the person's own personal identifying information." (See attached Exhibit 30.)
In Barack Obama's position as President of the United States, a position Plaintiff alleges he obtained using, inter alia, a fraudulently obtained social security number, Barack
Obama is capable of signing laws that directly affect the future of the Plaintiff and all elderly Americans, including issues of healthcare and social security. 62. Plaintiff is a member of the class of American citizens seventy years of age and older and is at a decided disadvantage in the form of the adverse consequences to people in that age group under many of the proposed and already implemented dictates of Barack Obama. Those issues include, but are not limited to, threats of increased taxes, the ramifications of his Affordable Care Act, cuts to Medicare, and concerns regarding Social Security benefits. 63. Plaintiff apprehends that the acts taken by Barack Obama as President jeopardize the future of all elderly Americans because, as President of the United States, Barack Obama has the power not only to sign laws, but also to enforce those laws, in part, through, and as the result of, his use of an improperly and fraudulently number. 64. Further, since Plaintiff is properly a candidate for President of the United States, which candidacy has been certified by Defendant John Husted, Plaintiff apprehends that she will be directly, concretely, personally, and continuously harmed as a direct and obtained social security
proximate result if Barack Obama's name appears on the Ohio ballot in November 2012, because the appearance of Barack Obama's name will result in votes for Mr. Obama that would otherwise go to the Plaintiff or other legally qualified candidates.
THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court,
Issue an order granting temporary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting any action by Defendant Husted allowing the name of Barack Obama to appear as a candidate on any ballot in the State of Ohio for President of the United States in the November 2012 general election until it is determined that he is using a properly issued social security number; and
Issue a Writ of Mandamus to Defendant Husted to investigate Barack Obama's fraudulent use of a Connecticut social security number before he allows Barack Obama's name to appear on the Ohio ballot in the general election in November 2012; and
of this action to ensure compliance with the Court's decrees: This
Complaint is filed in the proper Jurisdiction and Venue since Geauga County is one of the eight-eight counties in which Defendant Husted has control over elections and where the Plaintiff resides; and 4. All such further relief as the Court may deem equitable, just and proper. Respectfully submitted,
Susan Daniels, Pro se 9754 Thwing Road Chardon, OR 44024 440.286.4072
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?