THE END GAME

© 2009 jbjd

Just because none of us knows whether Barack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen does not mean, he is not a Natural Born Citizen; but if a state Attorney General supports charges of election fraud against the Democratic Party for swearing he is a Natural Born Citizen without ascertaining whether this is true, this does mean, he should be facing Articles of Impeachment.

Question: In states that require the candidate for POTUS whose name is printed on the general election ballot to be Constitutionally eligible for the job, if a state Attorney General finds that a member of the Democratic Party committed election fraud by signing and submitting to state election officials a Certification of Nomination for Barack Obama as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States without first ascertaining whether he was Constitutionally eligible for the job; does this mean, he is not Constitutionally eligible for the job?

Answer: No. It means the U.S. House of Representatives must send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for prosecution.

Let me explain.

As spelled out with particularity in the complaints of election fraud filed with state A’sG in applicable states, between June 2008, when Mr. Obama admitted in Fight the Smears (“FTS”) that questions existed as to his citizenship status; and August 2008, when NP or the state D party Chairs signed the Certification delivered to state elections officials to put his name on the general election ballot, the only basis in the public record for authenticating he was even born in the U.S.A. was provided by Annenberg Political Fact Check (“APFC”). Therefore, a finding of election fraud means, if NP et al. relied on these representations provided by APFC to base their sworn Certifications BO is Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS, such evidence is insufficient to prove he is a NBC.

Let me say that another way. Since only APFC appears in the public record to support BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS at the time party officials Certified such qualification to the states; and since state A’sG found no basis for such Certification then, APFC authentication fails to establish BO is a NBC.

It is this implicit finding that APFC fails to establish BO is a NBC, which triggers Articles of Impeachment.

Question: Why does eliminating APFC as a credible source to authenticate BO’s Constitutional eligibility to be POTUS trigger Articles of Impeachment?

Answer: Because when petitioned by Constituents to forestall ratification of the Electoral College vote for Barack Obama for President based on questions as to his Constitutional eligibility for the job, members of the U.S. House of Representatives (as well as the U.S. Senate) admitted they believed such concerns for authenticity were unfounded based solely on the reassurances they had obtained from APFC. http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/if-drowning-out-opposing-facts-is-un-american-then-ignoring-unpleasant-facts-must-be-un-american-too/

Thus, at least for these several members of Congress who corresponded to their Constituents, eliminating this dubious source for such authentication means, no basis exists in fact to determine they ratified a vote for a POTUS who is a NBC. But since they did ratify the EC vote and, BO swore the Constitutionally required Oath of Office then, the Constitution provides he can now be removed from office by means of the Articles of Impeachment.
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?63+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+201+%28WinterSpring+2000%29

About these ads

52 Responses to THE END GAME

  1. Magna Carta says:

    Man…I love it when you say “(word deleted)”……

    Magna Carta: So as not to undermine the legitimacy of our work here, I edited out your use of the word from the text, taken out of context. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Susan says:

    jbjd well done, you are so smart, and thanks for explaing it to us so we can understand.
    My memorandums of complaint of election fraud will be going out tomorrow 9/28/09. Thank you so much for all the hard work you do and for getting us motivated. I’m excited, and hope to hear from Georgia’s Attorney General, I will mail his UPS with a sign for it, to make sure he gets it. Sec of States copies will go out as well as Speaker of the house. Stay tuned.

    Susan: Thank you very much. I cannot wait to see what happens in GA; as you know, I love ‘my Georgians.’ ADMINISTRATOR

  3. prowlland says:

    prowlland: I want to post this response to your comment, notwithstanding I erased the comment. Let me explain.

    You referred readers to another web site that has posted extensively on what is a NBC. I have stated repeatedly, no one knows what is a NBC until the federal appellate court says what is a NBC. Now, this does not mean, rational arguments cannot be made to speculate such definition pending a court review. It just means, your speculation is as good as mine, until we hear from the court. You also reveal the credentials of one of the authors of some of this speculative pontification. But as I have pointed out previously on this blog, Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe, preeminent Constitutional scholar and ultra liberal supporter of BO, offered in a written opinion to Senate 511, the non-binding resolution Senator McCain is a NBC; that Mr. McCain is a NBC because his parents were affiliated with a U.S. military base when he was born. (He never said JMc was born ON the military base, even though he finessed his words in such a way a quick reading would yield this wrong interpretation. It wouldn’t matter if he had said JMc was born on the base, anyway, since as his detractors were quick to respond, unless JMc was born on U.S. soil, he is not a NBC.) ADMINISTRATOR

  4. papoose says:

    Jbjd; You are wonderful. Your thoughtful contributions are second to none.

    Thank You!

    papoose: Whoa! How kind of you to say so. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. truefreedom says:

    HI jbjd, Thanks for your work.
    I have only followed this story on and off thru the internet from Summer 2008, so I don’t profess to know the intricacies of law, constitution or legal things. I recently started looking at comments on CW’s posts and come to realize a few of the sources I was going to for developing info on the many stories about the current resident in our white house and his pals, were really taking your work and reporting it as their own. I think that is awefull of them. I now will be checking here, and be more selective in where I check for new developments.

    My question…I remember back around the election, there was information being stated in comments on sites- that if he is not qualified to hold office, he would also not be impeachable, maybe it also hinged on his being a citizen or not?. That it may take police or certain military-I remember it seemed specific- to go and take him into custody, with force if needed. I don’t remember if I saw this in regard to Viera’s take on the law and constitutional wording or where I saw it, but I remember thinking- without him producing authentic bc information -and him knowing the law as he does, he knows it’s gonna be tough to get him out of their and he is banking on no one standing up to him to the point of using force- willing to step up and place their life on the line to defend our constitution in this unusual but very important matter.

    Was what I read back then wrong? is he truly impeachable? Is it that we would just need to get our “representatives” to actually represent the interests of the people and the constitutional requirements and impeach an usurper? They have that power within the laws?

    I remember it had something to do with the different branches and how they all are able to act and not act toward each other.

    I am amazed by that many folks who have put so much effort into all angles of investigation of this octopus of issues – and getting truth out.

    Thanks for any clarification you can give.

    truefreedom: Welcome! And you are welcome. These issues present a case of first impression. This means, one well-reasoned opinion as to how to proceed is as good as another. Here is what I think.

    While the Constitution requires the POTUS to be a NBC, it fails to define this term. So, absent a ruling by a federal appeals court, in a case on point, that is, one in which a material issue is, what is a NBC; we can only guess what this means. However, even if we could define its meaning, this leave us with another problem. Who is responsible for enforcing this mandate? The only 2 (two) bodies required under the Constitution to elect the POTUS are the Electoral College and the Congress, by way of ratifying the EC vote. Neither body is required to vet the candidate for POTUS as to Constitutional eligibility. (See a further explanation of the process in “NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON (1 & 2) on this blog.)

    I would argue that since the EC cast their votes for BO and the Congress ratified the EC vote; and BO subsequently swore the Constitutionally mandated Oath of Office, he is now the legal POTUS. Thus, in order to remove him from office, we must follow the procedures for Impeachment spelled out in the Constitution. (See the link at the end of this article.)

    Democracy is not a spectator sport. And in order to preserve our Constitutional Republic, we must know at least as much about how to accomplish this as those of us who have demonstrated they are willing to compromise its existence by taking advantage of our complacency. ADMINISTRATOR

    • truefreedom says:

      Hi jbjd,
      Thanks for the clarification.

      I have made my way thru much of the 2 parts of “never less then a treason” and their links- I feel I will need to read it at least twice : ) lots of information and eye opening as to how devious some folks will be finding loop holes and 1/2 truths.

      I have a question about why you feel there is not definition of nbc? I remember reading comments on sites last fall with links to legislation about since his father was not a citizen, he was not a nbcitizen at birth or at best a dual citizen which would still make him ineligible? I spent some time looking for that legislation I had seen ( sorry- i have switched computers since last summer and lost things I had saved in the switch ) I think it was something done by congress after the original constitution- it stated born of 2 US citizens or one citizen and one non citizen if the mother was a certain age….and people were trying to figure out if Stanley Ann was that age required….

      does that legislation not hold up for his issue?

      truefreedom: Legislation exists that attempts to define “citizen”; dozens of court cases have clarified what this legislation means. But no legislation defines NBC; accordingly, no court rulings clarify a definition. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. just peeved says:

    I’d like him gone today if at all possible, thanks in advance. But the speaker of the house should be tossed in jail for her part.

    just peeved: I hear you; I have been dancing as fast as I can. As for Ms. Pelosi, well, what happens to her is up to at least 2 (two) Attorneys General, in VA and GA, where citizens have filed formal complaints alleging election fraud. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Dawn says:

    I have been urging everyone know to send their state complaints in asap. I am rather a newcomer to this site & your incredible research – but not to this issue. Also I must say this is a new angle & I think it has a MUCH better chance of accomplishing what we want!
    Sometimes I post and use things you advise, always using quotes and giving credit and a link – is that ok? Please let me know asap – you have been so generous with your info -I don’t want to violate any privacy or copyright:)

    Dawn: Welcome; what state are you from? I wish everyone else was as enthusiastic about this ‘project’ as those of us who have already sent in complaints. Yes, this is a fast direct solution to the problem. By all means, spread the word; just make sure to credit the work. (And give people the link; who knows? Maybe people will just download the complaint for their state. Or, seeing their state missing, might write to the blog to see whether I could draft a complaint tailored to their state, too!) ADMINISTRATOR

  8. g. amos says:

    jbjd,

    (Sorry if this is not the appropriate thread. Sometimes navigating through the posts and comments of a blog is awkward for me – must have something to do with my age.)

    Enjoy reading your perspective on the issues. Would I be correct in this brief summary of your stated opinions, as I understand them?:

    1) BO eligibility for POTUS questionable to
    date.

    2) NBC is yet an unresolved matter of 1st impression, ill-defined and subjective.

    3) No law according to the letter of the Constitution has actually been violated.

    4) No procedural statute regarding the election process has been violated in any clear, singular way.

    5) However, there is an infraction here: in the candidate-to-ballot state laws that expressly require one to be certified eligible, whatever states have such laws on the books. (VA, GA, TX, expressly HI, AZ?, etc.)

    5a) Though no recognized definition for NBC stands, to not certify in any way a candidate’s eligibility AND to swear that THAT verification has indeed been done to a state that requires an affirmation of some such verification, is false swearing. Fraud has occurred in those states.

    5b) The DNC and NP would be the accused parties – they would be the defendants in such law suits brought before those states. DNC as the house of fraud, NP as the pen who signed for it.

    6) This is the only legal footing known that has solid rock underneath it.

    Please correct me if I am wrong on some point, or am missing aspects.

    g. amos: Wow; you are right on all points! (Is #6 your opinion, or the opinion implied in the work?) The only tweaking I would make is this. At a minimum, a NBC has to be born on U.S. soil; and must be a citizen at the time of birth. If the only means NP or D state party Chairs used to verify BO is a NBC, consists of viewing a copy of a redacted COLB posted on line on a web site paid for by the candidate and authenticated by APFC then, this is tantamount to not vetting at all. It is this non-vetting that makes the oath of eligibility in order to get the nominee’s name printed on the general election ballot, that comprises the elements of fraud. Nice work. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. g. amos: I am so very sorry; I just looked back at your previous posts and, my reply to your 2nd comment to the blog did not appear. (I must have accidentally erased this in transit. Please check back; I am responding now.) ADMINISTRATOR

    P.P.S.: g. amos: When I received this comment, I was so happy that you ‘got it,’ I responded too casually to a few points. Let me correct this.

    You wrote,

    5) However, there is an infraction here: in the candidate-to-ballot state laws that expressly require one to be certified eligible, whatever states have such laws on the books. (VA, GA, TX, expressly HI, AZ?, etc.)

    Technically, most states with these eligibility laws only require the candidate to be eligible. Thus, submitting the Certification of Nomination means, the nominee is eligible. One state I looked at – maybe this is VA? – explicitly says, the party must vet the candidate. Of course, the state cannot order the party to do anything; it is a private club. So, this actually means, ‘just so that no one is confused about who is supposed to do what, we are not responsible for assuring your nominee is eligible, you are.’

    You wrote,

    5b) The DNC and NP would be the accused parties – they would be the defendants in such law suits brought before those states. DNC as the house of fraud, NP as the pen who signed for it.

    However, in some states, like TX, the D state party Chair, Boyd Richie, signed 2 (two) Certifications, one more like a letter and, the other, just like NP’s Certification except that, the DNC letterhead had been replaced with a TX state D party letterhead; and, of course, his signature appeared instead of hers. (These documents can be accessed through a link provided in the comments from one of our Texans.) So, I charged fraud depending on who submitted the documents to the state election officials. In both GA and VA, the documents – the Official DNC Certifications of Nomination signed by NP – were submitted to the state by NP. So, in VA and GA, I alleged she had perpetrated election fraud. In HI, the state party Chair submitted NP’s Certification; I charged him. (By law, if the state D party is required to Certify the name of the candidate then, usually, the documentation comes from the state party. These ‘local’ party operatives need to be more careful what information they pass on to the state.)

  9. Sally HIll says:

    I appreciate the work you have done and think it is definitely another route to undertake in addition to what all is being done by others. A concerted effort if you will.

    However, it bothers me a great deal that you are so concerned with credit. We are all in this together – we are all Americans at risk of loosing our hard fought freedoms – I would think the last thing you would be concerned with would be credit for ideas or contributions to the cause.

    I’m most interested in what works – not credit.

    Sally Hill: Thank you. I absolutely hear your criticism; please, try to envision this scenario. I maintain that election fraud occurred because people swore to a fact they had not verified, in order to get BO’s name printed on the general election ballot just in those states with laws that required him to be eligible to use state ballots. People who stole my work – in this instance – misstated the fraud consisted of BO swearing he was eligible to get on the primary ballot, even though he is not a NBC. The SoS has the ministerial function of allowing onto the primary ballot, any candidate with the requisite signatures and money, who submits required application. BO did all that. Now, the thieves take ‘their fraud complaint’ to the SoS. She finds, BO did everything he was supposed to do to get onto the primary ballot. Ruling: no ballot fraud. My election fraud complaints based on a completely different legal theory, reach the A’sG in applicable states. They know the complaint is sound on its face; but they don’t want to get caught up in ‘outing’ the POTUS. They ‘hear’ about the ruling from the SoS in this other state that, there was no fraud. So, the AG in the applicable state now has a choice. He can respond to valid complaints by a few voters from the state who, evidenced by their filing this well-crafted complaint, KNOW election fraud likely occurred; or he can avoid the issue by referencing the decision of the SoS in the other state, that fraud did not occur.

    And because low information voters have no idea that the fraud that we allege occurred has nothing to do with which version of Certification was submitted*; or whether any state official was required to vet the nominee from the major political party as to Constitutional eligibility; people will become angrier and more cynical, and worse, neutralized to redress the real fraud that occurred, and which my work directly could have addressed, but for the fact, it was stolen and misused. ADMINISTRATOR

    * I needed to see the Certifications in those applicable states so that I would know whom to charge with fraud.

  10. Dawn says:

    jbjd:
    I am from SC. I know I am in a state involved here.
    But I am unclear about #5 under Amos’ post.
    “5) However, there is an infraction here: in the candidate-to-ballot state laws that expressly require one to be certified eligible, whatever states have such laws on the books. (VA, GA, TX, expressly HI, AZ?, etc.)”
    Would it be in vain to request those from any state to file a complaint, or only those from the above states? Any other not listed here? How does one find out if their state has those laws requiring one to be certifiably eligible to have their name on the ballot?
    This is the part that is making me certifiably crazy:)
    Thank you!
    Dawn Duffing
    Bluffton, SC

    Dawn: Wow, am I glad to find you! The only states in which I can claim election fraud are those states that require only eligible candidates may appear on state election ballots. Because in those states, the DNC or D state party Chairs submitted the Certification of Nomination to state election officials, thus warrantying he is eligible for the job. The complaint alleges, these D’s failed to ascertain whether he was eligible before swearing he was, just to get the state to print his name on the general election ballot. That’s fraud. There are other states with these laws that make filing complaints of election fraud possible; but the only complaints I have posted are those for states in which I have access to the Certifications of Nomination, so that I know whom to allege committed the fraud. For example, MD would be a state ripe for such a complaint but, I do not have their Certification. (One of my readers requested this but, I have not heard back yet.) Now, please, tell me that you will file the complaint in SC. ADMINISTRATOR

    • d2i says:

      Dawn, here is a link to the Code of South Carolina. Scroll down to Elections, click on it, and read about your state’s election laws. You will find code specific to the complaint that you are trying to find. Hope this helps and great to know you live in SC! Love the beaches from Pawley’s Island to Charleston. Gorgeous area!
      http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/titl7.htm

      d2i: Whoa, a cheerleader who also does research. I am in heaven. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. g. amos says:

    jbjd,

    (Is #6 your opinion, or the opinion implied in the work?)

    Right, sorry, stated a bit too emphatically. #6 would be better stated,

    6)[revised] the most unencumbered legal remedy for the POTUS eligibility issue is likely to be ballot fraud at the state level.

    “…the opinion implied by your work” is certainly what I meant to say. Hopefully more clear.

    To reader Dawn,

    That list of states was off the top of my head and quite incomplete, I’m sure. Hopefully jbjd can compile a true state list, if there already isn’t one. (Being from SC, I guess you already gathered that. I just got nervous all of a sudden when you referenced the list….definitely not an accurate list)

    [jbjd says "The only tweaking I would make is this. At a minimum, a NBC has to be born on U.S. soil; and must be a citizen at the time of birth...]

    Excellent tweak, thanks. I’m trying to get up to speed on your line of thinking… legally trained, are you? Seems so. Therefore, following your argument as per the minimal NBC verification, this is what follows as consequence:

    ["...If the only means NP or D state party Chairs used to verify BO is a NBC, consists of viewing a copy of a redacted COLB posted on line on a web site paid for by the candidate and authenticated by APFC then, this is tantamount to not vetting at all.

    It is this non-vetting that makes the oath of eligibility in order to get the nominee’s name printed on the general election ballot, that comprises the elements of fraud.]

    Do I understand you correctly? Please feel free to tweak. Question: Does everyone agree to the definition of ‘minimal nbc’? That term sounds like it might be a legal quagmire. You’d think that their would be no confusion to simple terms like ‘citizen,’ or ‘born’, but HI demonstrates that even a ‘birth’ certificat(e/ion) might include an adoption. Ahhhh, the almighty power of putting a simple word in quotes… But before I incite the continental U.S. to point it’s finger off the Cali. coast in Hawaii’s general direction, it ought to be pointed out that those islands were themselves put into quotes, so to speak, as far as I understand the history of their pre-annexation to the U.S. Intriguing facts I’m just finding out. I digress.

    I do see your synthesis of the germane Constitutional provisos, etc. in regards to POTUS eligibility and electoral process. I intend to read more as my time allows, and refrain from too many questions that you might have already answered elsewhere. However, this question I have had for some time about the whole vetting process regarding individual states guidelines for verification:

    If constitutional eligibility for POTUS is
    a) age
    b) time in residence
    c) nbc

    and, (permit me to say it this way) the
    definition of ‘nbc’ has been lost through the
    course of time, then how can any state enforce
    their own definition of ‘nbc’ ?

    Can a state define a fuzzy constitutional term or concept until otherwise informed by ….? SCOTUS, I’d have to guess…. even though at one time it was so
    well understood (maybe?) that it was absurd to even think of defining it? At least Jay and Wash. probably understood each other, we might presume.

    I wondered ever since I heard of state ballot laws on the books that contain explicit eligibility requirements that no one knows the answer to sounds like trouble. It sure seems like the most conscientious states of the Union are those that want sworn proof of eligibility, yet at one in the same moment, they make themselves interpreters of “the real meaning of ‘nbc’ is….”, unless they skip part (c). (a) and (b) are a whole lot easier, just numbers – maybe they think it’s a case of ‘two outta’ three ain’t bad’…

    I’ll enjoy reading your reply.

    [P.S. g. amos: ... my reply to your 2nd comment to the blog did not appear. Please check back; I am responding now.]

    Thanks jbjd. That 2nd comment holds a lot of questions for me right now, glad that you replied to it. I’ll track it down and read it.

    g. amos: Hello, my friend. Let me give this a try. Volumes of work appears on the internet concerning what is or, more rightly, what ‘should’ be the definition of NBC. At some point, I will switch my focus to drafting model legislation regarding eligibility to appear on the general election ballot. I said some time ago, off the top of my head, I would propose vetting panels. If the party did not want to submit its nominee to such scrutiny, then the name of its candidate would not appear on the ballot. No 1st Amendment or Equal Protection rights implicated; they could still run any candidate they want. Just not on the taxpayers’ dime. In those states where only the name of the candidate appears (and not the names of the Electors), well, I suppose, just a “D” would appear. Note that in states where the major political party fails to place a nominee on the ballot, this usually means, the D party may not automatically run another candidate on the ballot in the next general election, but must qualify like any other candidate.)

    And how would this vetting panel determine who satisfied Constitutional eligibility for POTUS? Well, the voters, of course, through their elected representatives. Now, some people have suggested to me that, the definition applied to the candidate should be derived from this source, or that. Why? Your guess as to what the founders meant is as good as mine. So, I get to define the term. (Clearly, by using the term NBC to apply ONLY to the qualification for POTUS, as opposed to, say, Senators or Representatives, the founders intended this to mean something other than, say, “naturalized” or, “native born.” ) If the major political party wanting to appear on the state’s general election ballot does not like the definition concocted by the state, it should take the state to court. Eventually, we will obtain a federal appeals court ruling in a case on point, as to what is a NBC. Simple as that.

    Now, before I answer any more questions, I need you to read the blog. Just for example, at the time BO first posted the copy of the document entitled, “Certification of Live Birth,” which he captioned, his “Official Birth Certificate,” the word “Certification” in the phrase, Certification of Live Birth (“COLB”), actually meant, Certification. Now, HI officials use the word “Certificate” even to reference the document clearly entitled, “Certification.”

    Before I go, I want to make this fact abundantly clear: a NBC must at a minimum, be a C. I have seen no indication that evidence exists which could tend to prove, BO is even a citizen. Even in the ‘documentation’ HE proffered to establish his Constitutional eligibility when he ran for the job!

    Yes; the “jd” means Juris Doctor. ADMINISTRATOR

    • g. amos says:

      Good day, jbjd.

      I need to read/re-read your blog at this point, I agree.

      So don’t answer this question, if I can find it in the blog, ’cause I’ll look for it there.

      You said this was clear:
      “a NBC must at a minimum, be a C.”

      That’s simpler and better put than what I stated above. My understanding of political reality at present is this:

      1) Can a person today ascertain the meaning of the term, ‘nbc’? Opinions are developing on the blogs as to what it really means, so it seems quite reasonable that, yes, we can rediscover it. But the opinion-fog is what you’ve cautioned us about – any definition right now is a subjective issue, not authoritative.

      2) Why did the const. authors include the term ‘nbc’ in the first place? i.e. What were they prescribing for the nation’s benefit? This, too, seems reasonably discoverable – we can come to a good understanding as to why, if we look long and hard enough.

      3) Can any court adjudicate on this today? This helps me separate things into “what’s obvious and reasonable”, vs. “what’s workable”. “What’s workable” is my intent of inquiry here.

      “A ‘nbc’ is minimally a ‘c’.” As far as #1 above gos, there’s no question, agreed. As far as #2, this is why I’ve come here to this blog, listening in for what I hope to be a developing, commonsense, thought process among the citizenry, and in turn to be helped myself in this – to find the real intent which is not devoid of present day application. The determination that it’s the intent of an author of the constitution which ought to be critical, is what I’m after. But before that, I must be informed as to #3. I turn to you for help in that: if no text exists as to what actually is an ‘nbc’, can ‘c’ be substituted for it and adjudicated?

      i.e. is it workable? do you have a hypothetical example of how one could expect it to be handled, let’s say in VA?

      If the short answer is ‘go read the blog,’ I apologize. A link would be appreciated.

      g. amos: So many questions! I wish I had the time to engage with you in a purely intellectual exercise. But my efforts are focused on exposing the fraud from the 2008 general election and so, for now, I will be ‘brief’ with my answers.

      The work later must reflect on preventing such fraud from occurring again. This will necessitate ascertaining the meaning of NBC, in the most efficacious way.

      1. No, not without the courts.
      2. Because they meant for the President to possess a status distinct from, say, U.S. Senators and Representatives. (Recall that, the phrase in Article II, Section 1 reads, ‘natural born or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.’ The drafters were born in America; so what would have caused them to grandfather themselves in? Perhaps this has something to do with the citizenship status of their parents, and the allegiances prescribed therein, when the founders were born.)
      3. Absolutely. Read the model military Complaint for Declaratory Relief, based on the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, on this blog. (It is dated now – I wrote this almost a year ago – but had it been filed, it could have reached the issue. And once a state enacts new election laws, for example, utilizing eligibility panels to vet the candidates, I would anticipate a court challenge that would result finally, in a definition. That is, states can define NBC any way they want, for the purpose of establishing the names of which candidates they will print on the ballot. If the major political parties object to the definition of NBC applied by the state on the grounds this violates the Constitution, let them take the state to court.)

      Citizens of VA through their elected representatives enacted a law that said, we are not paying to put the names of the candidates from the major political parties on our ballot unless they are eligible for the job. That NBC has not been authoritatively defined is a moot issue, for the purpose of determining whether any vetting of the candidate by the party, occurred.

      VA is also a vote binding state. (You can read about this in several articles on this blog, including “NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON” (2 of 2).) Clearly, her citizens anticipated that through enacting these laws, they had ensured the conduct of the major political parties in their state would not subvert the authority of the state to guarantee the will of these voters is accurately expressed. ADMINISTRATOR

      • g. amos says:

        jbjd,

        I’d like to condense my comments to this single post, “End Game.” Any other previous line of inquiry that I was making, I reference it only as a side light. Now that I understand you a little bit better, we can proceed. Apples and Oranges it is, I’ll follow you along this line. I think this a very useful distinction for me. Perhaps you will convince me, now that I shall more properly assume the frame of mind, as you say, of an Orange. Nice metaphor.

        I’ve read most of your recent posts and comments, including the model military Complaint for Declaratory Relief of last year, as you suggested I do, to answer my previous question about the adjucablity of NBC. Here’s your relief request:

        Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray this Court will Declare whether under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, Defendant is a natural born citizen.

        As of now, 1 year later, there’s still no ‘legal’ definition, as you call it. There has not been ‘a legal definition’ since the inception of the republic, nor has one been tendered for the 200+ years of our nation’s existance. Elsewhere you say, NBC has no ‘legal’ definition until a federal appeals court, including the SCOTUS, says ‘this is what it means.’ So I can see that you, as many do, think now is a golden opportunity to get this forthcoming legal definition of NBC. In terms of the courts, where it begins is irrelevant. We all know where it has to legally end, in SCOTUS. Nothing less will garner a true, nationwide, legally binding definition. Anything short will resolve nothing.

        I like your recent turn towards the states, esp. those which require by law only eligible candidates to be printed on their ballots. My observation is that the analysis of culpability regarding this past election cycle takes us down a different track using a different light, one other than what seems to be obvious and forthright. Id est, it is not so much a question of what is forthright, but it is more a question of what is legal. (Interject apple and orange metaphor here). And not only a question of legality, but more specifically it is a question of what is or is not legally delineated. Your analysis concludes that BO, the VP, Congress, Electors – they did nothing technically illegal. The real place of concern is the DNC, super-delegates, and NP.

        Hence the issuing of complaints to states claiming election fraud. You commented recently,

        …(W)e are taking no position on whether BO is a NBC. We are merely saying, since state law requires the nominee to be eligible for the job, this means, BO must be a NBC; and a member of the D party swore he was eligible for the job, meaning, he is a NBC; but nothing in the public record evidences the fact, he is a NBC. So, on what basis did the party conclude he is eligible for the job?

        Surely you must believe this is the best known chance at …can I say it this way???…cornering SCOTUS. They will have to deal with the states that decide that their own election laws have been violated. Can we not say that in the end, by whatever route, the destination is the same – A uniform, nationwide legal (i.e. SCOTUS mandated) definition of NBC, that would put the question to rest?

        If I am more or less understanding you, then I’d like to suggest perhaps one, or maybe two, points that could prove contentious.

        A) I propose that in order for SCOTUS to discharge their Constitutional duty by delivering to the republic a much needed and anticipated legal definition of NBC, they themselves will have to be legally compelled to do so. This seems to be atleast a reasonable requirement, since they have shown recently that they are not overly eager to tackle this issue. However, it should be explicitly noted, there is no remedy for a SCOTUS bench that chooses not to decide. Furthermore, there is no recourse in the event of unabated neglect of the NBC issue, even by countless future SCOTUS benches into the unforeseeable future – so the legal definition of NBC could remain just as it is today – a non-entity – and the duration of its non-existence can be indefinite. I am speaking legally here, (a.k.a. thinking as an Orange, you might say). Even with innumerable denials, there is no law that requires them to inform others as to why. SC Justices are their own judicial sovereigns, to be sure.

        That is A), and we don’t have time to wait, before next election cycle. So enter state ballot election fraud, and the second point:

        B) The nexus of election fraud complaint:

        “On what basis did she (NP) determine on August 27, 2008, when she signed those Certifications of Nomination and delivered these to state election officials, that he was a NBC? None? Then, she committed election fraud.”

        Now I am not NP, but if I were in her shoes (which wouldn’t fit) signing all those certs., I would insist on only one requisite for my signature on behalf of any person put forth by the DNC to the states – rock solid legal backup. Since we can agree in some regard with A) above, that there is no ‘legal definition’ to NBC, she can take the native citizen position as legal preference of choice. If you insist that there was no way for her to have known where BO was born at the time of her signing, she can say that she then takes the ‘minimal C’ stance (14th amendment style), a phrase coined by you on your blog. If you ask her how she could have confirmed, at that time, that BO was a even a ‘minimal C’?, she can say that it is quite reasonable to assume, based upon the Constitutional requirements for senators, that BO was vetted previously as eligible for the U.S. Senate, that he satisfies the requirement that he be a citizen of the United States. As per your military complaint:

        49. In 2005, Defendant won election to the U.S. Senate.

        Since he was a U.S. Senator, then atleast he was already deemed a citizen. She now appears to have the Constitution to back her up . Since previously established as a citizen by Illinois, and since the NBC requirement for POTUS has no legal definition, any definition that includes ‘citizen’ would be equal to another, just as you have pointed out to several readers.

        I’ve been looking for this on your blog, but I haven’t seen you address it yet. Sorry if I’ve missed it, but I’ve been looking. On my part, as a state official with an eligibility law for the ballot, I would need to be convinced that there is substantial legal footing. If there is silence from the fields of Illinois on his having basic U.S. Citizenship, I would not be the first state in line to crack open the NBC nutshell.

        Actually, jbjd, without what you are calling a ‘legal’ definition for NBC, which must come from SCOTUS, his not even being a U.S. citizen would have no legal remedy, it would seem. Do you disagree? Could you explain why? Otherwise, this may be the most perfect legal loophole without remedy.

        g. amos: Quick answer, for now. The only application of the term “natural born citizen” on which I am currently focusing my work, is in relation to having the name of the nominee for POTUS from the major political party printed on the primary or general election ballot. Certainly, absent a settled definition of NBC, we can certainly agree, the nominee must be a “C.” Can NP establish she confirmed he was a “C”? Also, for future reference, I envision eligibility panels screening nominees for POTUS, using any reasonable definition they want, for NBC. Remember, the only value of such definition is to determine, who gets to appear on the state ballot. If the party does not want to submit to the state’s definition of NBC then, it doesn’t have to use the state ballot. Or, it can take the state to court. Voila! Definition.

        I will write more later; right now, I am fine-tuning testimony for tomorrow’s BoE meeting in VA. ADMINISTRATOR

        P.S. I always recommended people should register their objections to the election process in their states. Before the Convention, I posted comments on other blogs, directing people who thought BO was ineligible to file ballot challenges to keep his name off the ballot. The only reason I came up with that idea for the military complaint was that several people were filing infirm cases in a frantic attempt to ascertain whether BO was a NBC, before he was sworn in; and I knew there must be a way to resolve the problem of establishing standing in federal court. Then, I shared my analysis with them. But to date, no one has filed ‘my’ case.

        • g. amos says:

          I’ll look forward to your fuller answer in a lengthy tome, when you’re done with VA. (wink)

          As for your quick answer,

          Certainly, absent a settled definition of NBC, we can certainly agree, the nominee must be a “C.”

          Sorry, but I can not foresee anyone legally agreeing that the nominee must be a “C”. You’re thinking like an Apple now. Oh sure, on the public front, there will certainly be the appearance of settling the issue, to at least say “NBC is surely a C”, to only be trumped by technicalities and various “jurisdictional” juggling…, can you please explain how it will not be this way? I’m being legally rational here. There is no legal compulsion to even define “C”. If you disagree, please explain.

          g. amos: The legal definition of “citizen” is well settled. You might peruse the several other blogs that have published lengthy dissertations on the subject. ADMINISTRATOR

          • g. amos says:

            I must have misunderstood what you meant.

            If you were saying that, in the judicial branch, as things stand today, a decision could potentially be reached by a low bar definition of NBC – one which has the NB part removed, and uses only the C – I was skeptical as to what mechanism you might have in mind, and wondered if you’d care to elaborate.

            But if you’re saying that in the absence of SCOTUS interpreting the const. for our benefit, rather than leaving NBC undefined and an open door for any alien/non-citizen to “legally” take the POTUS by sheer salesmanship, each state in the union can and should enact a law that sets a citizenship standard for their ballot.

            If THAT’S where you’re going, then that makes a ton of sense to me…. beautiful sense.

            It must still be unclear to me as to how you’re seeking remedy, and in which branch; so I continue to look for some clarification of your thinking, that’s all. I’m not disingenuous with my questioning – I am interested in real answers to a very confusing picture.

            At your leisure, of course.

            p.s. Is BO’s Senate seat admissible in court as evidence of his being a C?

            thanks.

            g. amos: I have no idea what is the legal definition of natural born, because there is none. I understand what the law defines as citizen because I have read the seminal cases on the subject. But technically, getting onto a state ballot has nothing to do with being either a NBC or a C. Rather, the state is concerned only with whether the candidate is qualified for the office sought, which office is printed on the ballot. Technically, this qualification for the ballot is completely distinct from being qualified for a specific office according to the Constitution. In other words, the state is saying, we will not allow a political party to use our state ballots and, by extension, the resources of the state involved in the election process; unless the candidates put forth by the political party are eligibile for the job, whatever are those qualification for the job. But implicit in this provision is the acceptance that a basic set of qualifications exists for the particular office sought. And when it comes to NBC, there is no such basic set of qualifications. So, instead of this ‘shorthand’ qualification to get onto the ballot, that is, ‘the candidate must be qualified for the job sought,’ the state needs to substitute its own definition for NBC. Again, by so doing, the state is not setting a legal standard for the court; it could not. Only the courts can define the Constitution. Rather, the state is merely clarifying those candidate qualifications for getting on the state ballot. So, the political parties are still free to run whatever candidates they choose, for any office, state or federal, with whatever qualifications they determine to accept; but this does not mean, the state will allow the names of these party candidates onto the state election ballot, who fail to satisfy these state required qualifications.

            As DNC General Counsel Sandler so rightly pointed out to citizens asking for documentation that was the basis for the DNC’s Certification of BO’s Nomination: ‘We are not a public agency and so, we don’t have to tell you.’ Well, we are the state and so, we don’t have to give just anyone access to our election process. ADMINISTRATOR

            P.S. One state has no obligation to accept the ‘screening’ done by another state according to that state’s laws, which allowed BO’s name onto that state’s ballot.

          • g. amos says:

            got it. good reply.

            and as for the last p.s., you would mean that, for the present POTUS, and, say a ballot fraud complaint that goes to court, BO’s prev. status as ‘C presumptive’ would not be admissible b/c it’s not hard evidence of his being a C? Is that right? Even though the U.S. Const. mandated his C status as a Senator, regardless of what state, it wouldn’t fly legally?

            thanks yet again.

            btw. if it ever comes to it, i gladly take back seat to you making time as parent for your child/kids – our kids are why we care about this.

            g. amos: That IL placed BO on the ballot is no precedent to having any other state accept his eligibility, regardless of whether IL require its U.S. Senate candidates to be eligible for the job in order to be printed on the ballot. The inquiry regarding the ballot fraud complaint is independent of any inquiry as to whether BO is a NBC. The scope of the complaint is limited to whether the signatory on the Certification ascertained whether he is a NBC before swearing he is.

            I anticipate that when an AG asks NP on what basis she determined BO is a NBC; and she plays the game he has played, that is, she replies as to why she does not have to respond to the AG’s inquiry, rather than offering an actual response; the Congress will act accordingly. ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Susan says:

    jbjd, Letters to the AG of Ga, and copies to Sec of State and Speaker of the house have been mailed.
    Attorney General Baker will recieve it tomorrow and will have to sign w/delivery confirmation.

    Let not your hearts be troubled. I would like to see more citizens get off the couch and send complaints of election fraud in their states. Come on folks if we can do this so can you.

    Susan: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We need filers especially in SC and HI, which complaints are already posted. ADMINISTRATOR

    • d2i says:

      Ditto, Susan. Let’s roll!!! There is strength (and safety) in numbers for both the citizen AND the AG.

      d2i: You are the designated blog cheerleader. ADMINISTRATOR

  13. Slamdunk says:

    jbjd said, “Just because none of us knows whether Barack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen does not mean, he is not a Natural Born Citizen.”

    But we do know, don’t we? Even if he was born in Hawaii, Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. The historically and legally accepted meaning of NBC is “born in the U.S of parents who are both U.S. citizens.”

    Slamdunk: Please, cite the law that uses those words you put in quotations to define NBC. Otherwise, calling this a “legally accepted meaning” means nothing. ADMINISTRATOR

  14. Slamdunk says:

    prowlland: You referred readers to another web site that has posted extensively on what is a NBC. I have stated repeatedly, no one knows what is a NBC until the federal appellate court says what is a NBC.

    There are Supreme Court cases that have ruled on what a natural born citizen is (Perkins v Elg, Minor v Happersett, Schneider v Rusk). These affirm what E. Vattel’s Law of Nations says. A NBC is one born in the U.S. of Parents who are both U.S. citizens.

    Slamdunk: Please, cites! Quote the holding. Otherwise, your claims have no probative value as to what is a NBC. ADMINISTRATOR

  15. Slamdunk says:

    The following show how the historical meaning of natural born citizen have been legally accepted:
    (comments omitted)

    Slamdunk:

    1. You cited a law that was repealed 5 (five) years after passage. You assert the repeal had nothing to do with the term “natural born citizen”; but what you fail to report is, the new law omitted the term altogether.
    2. You quote someone who appears to support your definition without identifying his position, i.e., judge, legislator, etc., or the forum in which his opinion is stated.
    3. You cite a series of laws that precede the formation of our country, failing to establish any privity between those laws and our Constitution.
    4. You cite a SCOTUS case related to citizenship but you fail to mention the term NBC. Does this case you cited mention NBC?
    5. You cite another case partially, omitting those subsequent lines that cast doubt on the previous lines you supplied. Here is the quote you supplied to make your point.

    Minor v. Happersett (1874)- “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    Here is the real quote. Minor v. Happersett, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 88 U.S. 162; 21 Wall. 162, OCTOBER, 1874, Term (Emphasis added.)

    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

    See, this was a case that ruled women have no right to vote in federal elections. So, determining what is a NBC was not the issue; that’s why, when the judges said there is confusion about a definition, they didn’t bother to clarify the issue. Because it wasn’t pertinent to the case.

    6. You cited another case that ostensibly mentioned the term NBC – I couldn’t tell whether you were quoting a case or, your previous remarks – but it failed to define the term.

    7. You cited a case that mentioned the term NBC but failed to define the term.

    8. You cited a case that failed to mention the term NBC.

    ADMINISTRATOR

  16. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “if a state Attorney General finds that a member of the Democratic Party committed election fraud by signing and submitting to state election officials a Certification of Nomination for Barack Obama as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States without first ascertaining whether he was Constitutionally eligible for the job;”

    And if two and two really came out to be five, imagine what would happen.

    As the Wall Street Journal commented: “”Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”

    Not only has Obama shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii to BOTH FactCheck and Polifact (which is run by the St. Petersburg Times), the facts on it have been authenticated twice by the officials in Hawaii (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html). And two birth notices appeared in Hawaii newspapers on the weekend after his birth. These birth notices were sent out by the State of Hawaii at the time for births IN Hawaii–not for births outside of Hawaii.

    smrstrauss: Hello! Where have you been? Obviously, not reading my blog. See, for example, “LIES, RUMORS, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED FACTS,” wherein I expose evidence that Annenberg Political Fact Check posts stolen copies of phantom newspaper birth announcements and on that basis proclaims, “the evidence is clear” BO was “born in the U.S.A.” More importantly, as the disclaimer on the front page spells out, in bold, this complaint charging election fraud takes no position on whether BO is a NBC. Now, come back AFTER you read the evidence, and, if you wish to refute anything I have posted, please, object with specificity. ADMINISTRATOR

  17. Slamdunk says:

    Greetings,
    (comments omitted)

    Peace,
    Slamdunk

    Slamdunk: I could not post your rebuttal because, in my opinion, nothing contained therein logically rebutted any information I posted to counter your first post on this subject of NBC. Besides, BO’s status as NBC is unrelated to these charges of election fraud. (Do you get that about these election fraud complaints? Have you read them?) ADMINISTRATOR

  18. smrstrauss says:

    smrstrauss: The comments you sent concerning phantom birth announcements evidenced the fact, you still did not read my article. I cannot post unfounded claims here on this blog. ADMINISTRATOR

  19. don says:

    jbjd, your patience is incredible, trying to help us understand the way the law works. A paralegal patriot once explained that folks who come to court and tell the judge how a definition works now have two judges in the courtroom. A real judge is hired to give us the legal definition of any legislative work and definitions therein. They aren’t there to argue that their decision is just another judgement coming from a lay person. Another point regarding case citations concerns the specific subject before the court. Random comments and opinions by a real judge are of no value if one is trying to prove a point. Only the exact and specific issue before the court is relevant to another case. Thanks again for your major efforts here. DP

    Don: Thank you very much.

    Random comments and opinions by a real judge are of no value if one is trying to prove a point. Only the exact and specific issue before the court is relevant to another case.

    You got it. ADMINISTRATOR

  20. StayAlive says:

    FYI my email to the CA SOS requesting information on BHO being a qualified candidate for POTUS in the Decmocratic Primary in Feb 2008 has supposedly been referred to their attorneys. I asked them to respond as to who authorized BHO being placed on the Primary Ballot and what was the evidence provided to support his being a “natural-born citizen” as required by CA statutes, http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/election_2008/qualifications/dempres_2008.pdf. It has been more than a week; as soon as I get a response I will forward to you.

    BTW, I wouldn’t get too upset with “Slamdunk”, et al, who are unwilling to do their homework. What you do and have done gobbles up time and energy. Thank you for continuing this site and the excellent work you do, for us all – Democrats, Republicans,and Independents. At the end of the day we are all Americans who want what is truthful and best for our great Nation.

    StayAlive: Thank you; psychic benefits help. I was just commenting to another reader that, other sites with “sizzle” are getting all of the attention; but I have figured out how to reach Articles of Impeachment. She said, ‘People come to your site for the “steak.”‘ As for CA, well, the primary applications / placement on the ballot is a non-issue for me. Because the law in that state does not automatically require proof of eligibility to get onto the ballot; and, names of other people beside BO likely were allowed onto the ballot without having to ‘prove’ eligibility. (For example, I doubt whether HRC or JMc had to produce their birth certificates to get onto the ballot.) In other words, the only fraud that could result from conduct to get onto the primary ballot would be, in swearing he was eligible for the job when he is not. But to establish this ‘fact,’ you would need to know he is not eligible. This is the reason I fashioned my complaint in the way I did. We know the law in applicable states requires eligibility to get onto the general election ballot; we know the D party swore BO was eligible; and we know that, it is unlikely they ascertained this fact prior to such swearing, given the information in the public record at the time of the swearing, including information BO distributed on his web site, which he paid for, to respond to concerns raised as to his eligibility. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. Of course, once BO’s ineligibility is established, I would assume at that point, CA and other affected states will file appropriate charges against him for gaining access to state primary ballots by submitting perjured testimony he was eligible for the job.

  21. redhank says:

    Hey…jbjd…we need to figure out an appropriate follow up as they are obviously ignoring us in TX…Thanks

    redhank: Absolutely agree. But I want to do this just right. And right now, the problem is, not enough people are willing to file these complaints in the other states. Texas has downloaded more than 35; and I know some of these complaints were copied and filed. So, let’s say, 45 complaints have been filed in Texas. (Wow, that’s a lot of voters to be ignored.) But I have to consider whether a unitary action in Texas will have the power that a joint action among 5 (five) or 6 (six) states could have. Ideas? ADMINISTRATOR

  22. Dawn says:

    Dear jbjd,
    YES!! of course I am filing a complaint in SC!! Thank you for providing the tools & knowledge for me to take some action:) Since before the election I knew things were not kosher and now finally know the way to approach it.
    NOW, I have documents that I need for you to see and info regarding those docs that I would like you to have. I have gone all the way back to the start of your blog and skimmed it for info regarding the posting of documents and letters, communications received, etc. but couldn’t find instructions. I noticed that your docs are up on “script” but being somewhat a novice I have no Idea how to do this. Can anyone provide an email do I can send the docs to you? I understand everyone’s need for privacy – I’d be happy to send my email to whoever can help me get these to you.
    jbjd, g. amos, and d2i,
    Thank you all for your invaluable info! One thing I probably wasn’t making clear was that I have contacts in ALL states in the USA who may be interested in getting involved, not just my state of SC. What I’m trying to get at, and what I’m still not clear about, is whether I should make a “call” for those in EVERY state to file a complaint, or is there a complete list of those states in which filing a complaint would be prudent?

    Dawn: Wow, am I happy to hear from you. I know how frustrating is knowing you were bamboozled but not understanding exactly how or, worse, understanding how but not knowing what to do about it.

    The only complaints of election fraud that can be filed are based on laws in those states that only allow eligible candidates on the ballot. And so far, with the help of my readers, I have identified and drafted model complaints for 5 (five) states: HI, SC, TX, GA, and VA. (We have eliminated CA, CO, KY, and NH.) The reason I cannot just draft and post complaints for other affected states – and there are more – is that before I draft the complaint, I need to know who submitted the Certifications of Nomination to election officials in applicable states. And for many of these states, such information has not been previously acquired and must be requested. Then, we wait until state officials satisfy the documents request.

    So, what I asked people to do was, to look at their state laws to determine whether any law requires candidates appearing on the general election ballot to be eligible for the job. If such law exists then, I need the Certifications of Nomination submitted to elections officials so that the name of the candidate – in BO’s case, the nominee – would be printed on the ballot. I need all correspondence that was submitted along with the Certification, too. If people are unsure what their laws mean, they can call their Secretaries of State to ask for guidance; or they can send the laws they found, to me, and I will determine what are the requirements to get onto the ballot. (Obviously, this process will be much quicker if this is done by individuals in the states.)

    Hopefully, after reading the complaints I posted, the scope of this action will become clear. That is, we are taking no position on whether BO is a NBC. We are merely saying, since state law requires the nominee to be eligible for the job, this means, BO must be a NBC; and a member of the D party swore he was eligible for the job, meaning, he is a NBC; but nothing in the public record evidences the fact, he is a NBC. So, on what basis did the party conclude he is eligible for the job?

    As for getting any information or documentation to me, you can send these to the blog because all comments are in moderation. If you don’t want me to post your comment, just make a note on top.

    As for obtaining the complaint for SC, this can be downloaded from the article, by clicking on Scribd below the complaint. ADMINISTRATOR

    • d2i says:

      Dawn – when you click on the scribd link, at the top it says print. you can then print it off, handwrite your name and address and email, fax, hand deliver or certify mail it to the SC AG, Sec’y of Board Elections and Carol Fowler.

      Hope this helps. If you know anyone in Virginia by all means pass this on. Also, I posted a copy of my cover letter to VA’s AG in the Cheese Stands Alone post downstairs. You are most welcome to use that as a template for your cover letter.

      d2i: Thanks for this. (I changed the copy instructions; copies are sent to the named election officials and the member of D party to whom the complaint is directed. Only complaints directed to NP are copied to her.) ADMINISTRATOR

      • d2i says:

        Yes, I have it in my head that all are going to DNC and Pelosi but they are not as you clearly point out. I appreciate your making this clear.

        d2i: But you ‘know’ she ‘gets word’ each time one of these complaints is filed. ADMINISTRATOR

  23. Bdaman says:

    Forgive me if I sound ignorant. New here picked up from over at Donofrio’s Blog.

    Question: What would happen if not one single vote was cast in an election for any canidate?

    Bdaman: Votes cast in the general election are for Electors. The Constitution requires the states to “appoint” Electors on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Since states require names on the general election ballot to be submitted by a date certain, usually 2 (two) months before the election then, the states will know whether the parties are able to produce the requisite number of Electors in time to get their names printed on the ballot. (State laws regarding the printing of names on the general election ballot usually require just the name of the Nominee will be printed on the ballot, often with accompanying language like, ‘Electors for’ followed by the name of the party Nominee.) Surely, we can find an amount of willing Electors, equal to the Electoral votes in the state. (Now, go read, “NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON” (1 & 2), on this blog.) ADMINISTRATOR

  24. Dawn says:

    jbjd-
    Yes – again thank you – everything is clear as to what I should ask people for, how I should ask them to do it, why we/you need what is needed, etc.
    And I will get on it!
    The only matter left that I’m NOT clear on is how I send a PDF file to the blog…I tried dragging & dropping, it won’t copy & paste… I’m sure there is a way one sends a file to a blog – I just don’t know what it is!!
    Best,
    Dawn Duff

    Dawn: Oh, good! You are welcome. Try sending your documents to the blog email – I just set this up – contactjbjd@gmail.com. And drop me a note on the blog to tell me you have done this. ADMINISTRATOR

  25. jbjd says:

    Dawn,

    I tried to email you but, your email blocked me as SPAM. My question is, how do you know that the handwriting on that letter signed by Ms. Fowler, is authentic? The signature of the General Counsel is real; and this letter is significant. I am re-drafting the SC complaint; it will have its own post.

    Hold onto your hats. This is big.

  26. Dawn says:

    Authentic in what way? In that it is really signed by Ms. Fowler and that the wording scrawled on the bottom and signed by Kathryn E. Hensley is authentic? I can’t tell you it’s authentic because I’m not a handwriting expert & I don’t know either of these people. Was that what you meant? We passed on to you what we were sent:)
    D

    Dawn: Okay. BTW, thanks for getting back to me so promptly when you know I am working on something and need the information I ask you to provide. Now, I ‘just’ have to figure out the organizational structure of the DNC Services Corp. so that I can fill in the name of the boss of the person who signed that other letter. FYI, he has been replaced; and so has his boss. So, I just have to make sure I am charging the right boss.

    Should have the revised complaint up tomorrow. Then, I want dozens sent to the SC officials named! ADMINISTRATOR

  27. abby says:

    Hey jbjd, I just wrote something to you thanking you for this blog and then I spell check and the comment disappeared. Hope this isn’t a duplicate.

    Just wanted to tell you thanks for blogging and keeping those of us who are struggling with a bit too much right now in the loop. After Mom passed away, I couldn’t look at politics as she was as ardent as anyone.

    Thanks for keeping up after TD’s blog took hiatus. Dr. Kate’s is difficult to access for some reason; I always get stuck in a wordpress hell-loop.

    Thanks again jbjd, I doubt that I will contribute many comments (I don’t have a jd) but I am here supporting you in spirit.

    Abby

    Abby: You are welcome. But for some reason, some people think I sprouted up on td’s blog and then, when she closed up shop, started my own blog. No; I have been slugging it out with those who would steal this election since the beginning of the primary season. And I set up the blog a year ago, when I had no idea how to blog. ADMINISTRATOR

    • drkate says:

      Hi Abby,

      I can vouch for jbjd’s blog being up aside from TD’s blog. In fact jbjd provided valuable insight into all of our posts over there, and TD eventually had jbjd on the blogroll.

      drkate: Thanks for the ‘authentication.’ Readers, drkatesview is listed in my blog roll.ADMINISTRATOR

  28. abby says:

    dr.kate and jbjd, I don’t need vouching. When jbjd said that he/she had the blog, I believed it. However, I have had more than a few tragedies/upheavals recently so any reference point for me to a time before my world tilted irrevocably is a knot in the rope back to normalcy. sometimes, I can’t remember names of people that I have known for years right now when I run into them. A ‘snap back’ when I reach out with authentic thankfulness that some of the world is still moving forward is confusing and frightening.

    I can access Dr. Kate from here, but can’t from google/bing.

    Abby: Good. Rest here and post at your leisure. ADMINISTRATOR

  29. Grandmasmad says:

    Nevada has not been mentioned….

    Grandmasmad: Welcome! Sorry; Nevada has no law that requires the candidate on the ballot from the major political party, to be eligible for the job. And in only those states that have enacted such laws can not authenticating the candidate before submitting his name to state elections officials, constitute election fraud. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Jacqlyn Smith says:

      So are you saying….we can’t do anything until the statute changes????

      Jacqlyn Smith: No! I am saying, in NV, there is no law that requires the candidate whose name appears on the ballot to be eligible for the job. So, there is no fraud complaint based on Certifiying such eligibility. That’s all. But there’s plenty of other work to be done. ADMINISTRATOR

  30. Linda says:

    I took great interest in your comments on Texas Darlin’s site, always finding them very interesting, concise and extremely informative. I surmised you were either an extremely patient lawyer or teacher, then subsequently learned the latter guess was correct.
    I am now following your blog with great interest and have a question that is probably either off topic (and of no consequence) or dumb: We watched Chief Justice Roberts flub his lines in administering the oath on January 20. Some time later I read that Justice Roberts went to the White House later the evening of January 20 for a re-do so private there wasn’t even a photographer permitted in the room to record the event. How do we know that the private oath was the Constitutionally mandated oath–and if not, does this impact the work you are now doing re President Obama’s NBC status?

    Thank you so much for all the work you’ve done and are doing. I know this work has taken much time that could be spent with your family, but know that you are appreciated!

    Linda

    Linda: Glad you found us. You are welcome. Yes, this work has overwhelmed the rest of my life, and is challenging in more ways than you know.

    Your questions are not unimportant but they are not material to any work that goes on here. I start from the premise that BO is the POTUS. (Read the last few posts; this should get you up to speed.) ADMINISTRATOR

  31. [...] As readers know, I have a special affiliation for Speaker Pelosi.  While I don’t want to tip her off, I want to start raising some serious questions about her [...]

  32. [...] to Election Fraud” on Tuesday evening, October 27, at 9 PM EST, with special guest “jbjd.”  The blog talk radio address is here, and you can always dial in to talk or just listen at [...]

  33. [...] The amazing thing, jbjd has all the evidence. [...]

  34. TeakWoodKite says:

    jbjd, just as an FYI…Happy Holidays. Discovery is a funny thing.

    BY NATASHA KORECKI Federal Courts Reporter nkorecki@suntimes.com
    Rod Blagojevich’s lawyers want the FBI to give up details of interviews conducted last year of President Obama, his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, White House adviser Valerie Jarrett and others as part of the investigation into the former governor.

    In a Friday filing, Blagojevich attorneys also asked for information regarding first lady Michelle Obama. However, a source said late Friday that the FBI never interviewed the first lady.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1935445,CST-NWS-BLAGO13.article

    TWK: And a chag sameach to you, too! Excellent news. All discovery will become part of the public record. Chip, chip, chip… I still believe the fraud complaints will prove to be the quickest way to ‘out’ BO; and I have an idea as to how to gain allies in that endeavor. ADMINISTRATOR

  35. jtx says:

    I’m for anything that will cause the man involved to show for the first time whether he is (or is not) legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

    (Links to YouTube deleted by jbjd.)

    jtx: This statement illustrates precisely the reason that I refuse to focus on BO to establish HIS OWN eligibility. On FTS, the web site he started and for which he paid before becoming the D Corporation nominee for POTUS; he posted the COLB he said is an official document, which proves he is eligible for POTUS. ADMINISTRATOR

  36. jtx says:

    In fact and in the final analysis it IS up to BHO to prove his legal eligibility to hold the office he now occupies. All of his evasive claims so far fall well short of that.

    The NBC clause in the Constitution uses mandatory language – “shall” – and the single person having knowledge of and/or authority over (setting aside definitive court action for the present) that demonstrable proof is the man himself and NOT any functionary of the D party. After all, this party is not bound (in their own minds) by any US laws (which I frankly doubt) and have demonstrated the same by their acts as has BHO himself.

    Those evasions say nothing except that the man has never been proven to be eligible under the Constitution. Until he does demonstrate that eligibility conclusively under our laws he is not legally vested in the office he holds and, therefore, cannot be impeached since he is not legally occupying the office having not met the NBC Constitutional mandate.

    The courts so far have chosen to ignore the actions/inactions by the SOS units involved but perhaps that is due to faulty technical grounds.

    The best hope of resolution of the eligibility issue I think rests with the Kerchner et al case presented by Mario Apuzzo – now going before the Court of Appeals. As can be seen by reading the action, it is not merely BHO being required to “stand up and be counted” but both houses of Congress and Pelosi and Cheney as well … all for failing their Constitutionally mandated requirements. Key in moving all of this forward, however, is having the case heard on merit.

    jtx: I disagree with your legal conclusion that, absent proof BO is a NBC, he is not the lawful POTUS. As I have said many times, given that the EC elected him; that Congress Certified that election; and that the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS administered the oath of office, he is now the POTUS. Assuming he is not a NBC, this means, the Electors and the Congress elected to the office of POTUS a man who is not Constitutionally eligible for the job. And being POTUS, the only peaceful way to get him out of that office, is through Articles of Impeachment.

    I believe that issues related to his ineligibility provide ample grounds for such Impeachment. But given both the obstinacy and the legal ignorance of members of Congress, I figure, the only way any of them will move to introduce Articles of Impeachment is if they are backed into a corner. That is, if members of Congress are on record as saying, I voted to certify the EC vote for BO solely because APFC said, he is eligible and, I believed them; and if we confront them with proof (in the form of ‘rulings’ from a state AG), no representations by APFC establish BO is eligible; then, those members of Congress have tacitly admitted, their belief in APFC’s representations of eligibility are unfounded and, further, they now lack any basis for their decision to certify the EC vote.

    Of course, if we send to members of Congress from whatever state, these citizen complaints of election fraud to A’sG in applicable states, they can sort out this problem of eligibility on their own, and trigger the introduction of Articles of Impeachment.ADMINISTRATOR

  37. [...] Regardless of the unwillingness of TX AG Greg Abbott to investigate the hundreds of these complaints of election fraud his office has received since September; the citizens of TX can proceed on their own under TX state law to compel Chairman Richie to provide the documents that lead one step closer to establishing once and for all, for the record, despite all of these Certifications of Nomination, U.S. President Barack Obama is Constitutionally ineligible for the job. “THE END GAME“ [...]

  38. [...] of the election law in SC.) Outstanding research by blogger jbjd here, here, here, and here, with summary here, showed that Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond , as representatives of the [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers

%d bloggers like this: