REMEMBER the ALAMO?

CRITICAL UPDATE on FEBRUARY 14, 2010: After you have read REMEMBER the ALAMO, please read the follow-up post at TEXAS TWO-STEP, which contains reports of communications between Requestors (of public records) and the TDP (Texas Democratic Party); and jbjd and the (misnamed) FOIFT (Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas).

**************************************************************************************************

Attorney Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party is a lone wolf in the Lone Star State.

In every other state and the District of Columbia, Certifications of Nomination signed by The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, acting in the non-governmental role of Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Convention, were forwarded to election officials to get them to print the name of Barack Obama next to the “D” on the 2008 general election ballot.*  But not in TX.  Nope; in TX, only Mr.  Richie signed those Certifications.  And for all of the citizens in those states where only the names of qualified candidates may be printed on the ballot, who filed charges of election fraud with their state A’sG charging members of the D party swore to state election officials BO was Constitutionally eligible for the job to get them to print his name on the ballot but failed to ascertain beforehand whether he is a NBC; the fact that NP did not sign the TX Certification but BR did, makes all the difference in the world.

*In order to get BO’s name printed on SC’s Presidential Preference Primary ballot, the SC D state party Treasurer, Kathy Hensley, hand wrote the certification on the memo typed by Carol Fowler, party Chair, assuring the Board of Elections that he was Constitutionally eligible for POTUS. “IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK…

Take a look at my model citizen complaint of election fraud to the TX AG, which is also posted in the sidebar on the front of this blog.  (The description of the Certifications Mr. Richie submitted to TX election officials, with links to the documents, appears on pages 2 & 3.)

View this document on Scribd

Now, read “Purpose of Contact” on pages 1 & 2.  See, before citizens of TX and the 5 (five) other states readers have identified so far, filed these complaints, they attempted to find out what documentation was the basis of those certifications of eligibility submitted by members of the D party to state election officials to get them to print BO’s name on the ballot.  But NP, Alice Germond, and Joseph Sandler, all representing the D Services Corporation, would not answer.  JS specifically explained to those citizens who had framed their request  for documents as covered by the ‘freedom of information’ laws, the D Corporation is not a public agency and so, is not subject to public records disclosure laws.  Of course, he was right.  The D Services Corporation is a private club.  Thus, state and federal public records laws were powerless to compel NP,  AG, and others acting on behalf of the Corporation, to produce the requested documentation.   (Of course, as my 9th graders astutely pointed out, since JS went to the trouble to write the letter explaining that his client, the D Corporation, was exempt from public disclosure laws, it made no sense he just didn’t answer the question.  Unless he had something to hide.  “OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES“)

Citizens of TX also asked BR to identify these documents that were the basis of his eligibility determination.  And he also refused to say.  But turns out, in TX, when it comes to defining the meaning of public documents; and avoiding having to disclose such documents, this same ‘get out of jail free’ card that applied to the DNC Corporation, does not apply to Chairman Richie and the state D party.  On the contrary, under TX law, in certain circumstances, documents in the custody of political parties can be ‘discoverable’ as public records.  (Not only that but, the court can compel officers of these parties to hand over these records under a cause of action called ‘mandamus,’ a process which is usually reserved to get government officials to do their jobs.)

Know what this means?

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

Look, we already know, no documents exist in the public record that would establish BO is a NBC.  White House Counsel Bob Bauer said so.  “COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3-CARD MONTE for FEDERAL COURT”  And for this reason, and the fact Boyd Richie refused to name any records when asked in the past, we know he committed election fraud in TX.  AG Abbott knows there is a strong circumstantial case for fraud; we laid it all out in those citizen complaints.  And Mr. Richie knows we are on to him, because he was copied on every complaint filed with Mr. Abbott.  (We also sent copies to our U.S. Representatives and Senators.)

It’s long past time our elected officials perform the work that is a function of their public office.  But as long as AG Abbott (and the House of Representatives) refuses to act, we still have to prove our own case.

So, that’s what we’ll do.  And we’ll do it by applying these TX laws.  Thus, instead of just asking Mr. Richie to provide the requested documentation, we will couch such requests in terms of TX election law, and act more entitled.  And if Mr. Richie wants to avoid honoring requests for these public records this time then, according to TX law, he will have to notify AG Abbott of these requests within the 10-day time period allowed for such delay in production, as well as his stated reasons for refusing to produce the requested records.  Then, AG Abbott will have to determine whether citizens of TX are entitled to these records under the law.  AND ALL OF THIS CORRESPONDENCE IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD!

Here are some of the applicable provisions of the TX Election Code.

ELECTION CODE

TITLE 1. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS

Chapter 1.  General Provisions

Sec. 1.012. PUBLIC INSPECTION OF ELECTION RECORDS. (a) Subject to Subsection (b), an election record that is public information shall be made available to the public during the regular business hours of the record’s custodian.

(b) For the purpose of safeguarding the election records or economizing the custodian’s time, the custodian may adopt reasonable rules limiting public access.

(c) Except as otherwise provided by this code or Chapter 552, Government Code, all election records are public information.

(d) In this code, “election record” includes:

(1) anything distributed or received by government under this code;

(2) anything required by law to be kept by others for information of government under this code; or

(3) a certificate, application, notice, report, or other document or paper issued or received by government under this code.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 728, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, Sec. 5.95(88), eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 393, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

TITLE 9. CANDIDATES

Chapter 141. Candidacy for public office generally

Subchapter B.  Application for place on ballot

Sec. 141.035. APPLICATION AS PUBLIC INFORMATION. An application for a place on the ballot, including an accompanying petition, is public information immediately on its filing.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

Sec. 141.036. PRESERVATION OF APPLICATION. The authority with whom an application for a place on the ballot is required to be filed shall preserve each application filed with the authority for two years after the date of the election for which the application is made.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

TITLE 10.  POLITICAL PARTIES

Chapter 161.  General Provisions

§ 161.004. PARTY DOCUMENT AS PUBLIC INFORMATION.  If a document, record, or other paper is expressly required by this title to be filed, prepared, or preserved, it is public information unless this title provides otherwise.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

§ 161.009. PARTY OFFICER SUBJECT TO MANDAMUS. The performance of a duty placed by this code on an officer of a political party is enforceable by writ of mandamus in the same manner as if the party officer were a public officer.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

Another great source of information for the mechanism for requesting public records in TX is the web site for the TX Office of AG.  http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/requestors.shtml Please review this before you send the letter below.  Make sure that whatever mechanism you use to transmit this letter, you retain proof of delivery or receipt so as to mark the tolling of the “reasonable” “prompt[]” time allowed under law for Mr. Richie’s response.  (For example, if you send via fax, keep the transmission confirmation.)  As always, feel free to send copies of your letters to anyone else you want.  Just make sure the letters to Mr. Richie and AG Abbott contain your real names and addresses, in TX.

Yes, my ‘two-stepping’ Texans, thanks to your enactment of special laws which subject Chairman Richie and the TX D state party to the same disclosure standards of public documents that apply to government agencies; you are in a position to pursue, catch, and de-claw this wolf, exercising the same dedication of purpose your forefathers and foremothers, Tejano and American alike, met Santa Anna’s onslaught against the Alamo, more than 150 years ago.**  Only this time, you have the opportunity to re-write the narrative on the 2008 general election. No doubt, you brave patriots, too, will be remembered for generations after the end of this conflagration.

Remember the Alamo!

**Santa Anna advanced into Texas with 4,000 men, headed for the Alamo, where almost 200 American and Tejano volunteers huddled, awaiting an attack. The now-infamous battle that occurred on March 6, 1836, resulted in a Mexican victory and the death of every last Alamo defender. Not left unscathed, the Mexicans lost 600 men.

Six weeks later, after a surprise attack on the Mexican forces near the San Jacinto River, Texan army commander Sam Houston rallied his troops with the cry, “Remember the Alamo!” Although the battle was won within minutes, the vengeful Texan army — including Tejanos — continued fighting for hours, killing any Mexican soldier they found. Santa Anna was captured the following day, effectively ending the war.

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/AA/qea2.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/alamo/filmmore/fd.html

View this document on Scribd
About these ads

35 Responses to REMEMBER the ALAMO?

  1. Alecia says:

    I like the new blog. Nice work.
    I will study the information on this blog so that I know what I am talking about when they come after me :). I know you put hours in on this. If this works, we are going to put your face on the American dollar….silver of course. I am getting all of this ready to mail tonight. I will send to Kay Bailey, Debra Medina, and Rick Perry …..and all the major news media…cc of course so everyone know that this time I am going public in a big way.
    Thanks jbjd, I know how much work you put in on this. My brain is spinning just reading it.
    I’ll get back to you after I mail this. The clock will be ticking.

    Alecia: Thank you; my son liked the new look, too.

    Just to be sure, you are also faxing the actual request to Mr. Richie, right? And for peope outside of TX, Sen. KBH wants to be the Governor.

    I also want to emphasize that, citizens who file these requests for documents with Boyd Richie, under the TX open records law are not claiming conclusively that, these documents they are requesting from him are public documents under the definition in the law; or that, Mr. Richie is legally bound to have these records or to produce them. But this is their belief. If Mr. Richie believes otherwise then, under the law, he has to say so. In that case, the citizens of the great state of TX would be left with this conundrum. They passed a law saying only eligible candidates can get on the ballot; Boyd Richie said BO was an eligible candidate; but he refuses to tell them the basis for that Certification, arguing to AG Abbott, he is not subject to these disclosure laws. And, adding insult to injury, AG Abbott refuses to investigate this conduct for election fraud! OMG; the fecal matter will hit the fan. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Alecia says:

    Wow!!! jbjd, you rock!! Yeeeee Haaaaaa

    Alecia: Thank you. I am so very glad you liked this. Now, if only it works… I cannot wait to hear back from ‘my’ Texans. (I feel we share a certain ‘sympatico,’ given that, I am from MA. Can you say, U.S. Senator Scott Brown?)

    Alecia, can you imagine what could be accomplished if all of those better known groups involved with this issue of BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS; with money and press coverage and people to spare; concentrated even just some of their efforts on getting to the truth in TX via election fraud? I am a one-person operation. I take days off of my paid work to put together these blog projects / posts. Just assembling the research for this post took several days, let alone compiling it all into a cohesive (and intelligible) narrative for lay people. (Even learning how to update the blog takes hours, but I have to do this myself because I cannot afford to hire an expert!)

    (While we are on the subject, what do you think about the new look to the blog?) ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Michelle says:

    jbjd-”the fecal matter will hit the fan”
    “If you’re going to play the game properly you’d better know every rule.”
    “If the society today allows wrongs to go unchallenged, the impression is created that those wrongs have the approval of the majority.”
    some thoughts from Barbara Jordan
    Texas Senate 1967-1973, U.S. House of Representatives 1973-1979; professor of political ethics at University of Texas
    When I worked in Illinois our bosses were from the great state of Texas, they are strong believers in truth, justice and fair play. As usual jbjd-thank you for the education. Sometimes I think it is a high stakes poker game, other times that you are building an air tight box. I love the new look also, I hope that your son is well

    Michelle: Did you know that Congresswoman Jordan is one of my heroines? I have to believe that the hearty patriotic stock from which sprung Professor Jordan; Governor Ann Richards; and President LBJ has several more soon-to-be recognized patriotic heroes and heroines up its sleeve.

    As I wrote, it’s too bad WE have to dot the i’s and cross the t’s; and this is only because, people who played fast and loose with the rules AND the enforcers of those rules ARE treating this like a “poker game.” That is, at this point, everyone – members of the D party; elected officials; and the public, including BO supporters – knows that members of the D party fudged those Certifications of Nomination to get BO’s name on the ballot in the applicable states. Presumably, members of the D party we have charged with election fraud are trying to preserve their 5th Amendment rights (against self-incrimination) by withholding evidence that could be used against them. The enforcers (A’sG) are trying to avoid the tumult of prosecution UNTIL they cannot escape the public cries to go after the alleged wrongdoers, at least to begin an investigation into the allegations submitted by the citizens of their state.

    And I would bet several people are waiting for me to just give up and go away! ADMINISTRATOR

  4. louisianacajun says:

    great deducting skills! I sure hope it goes as plan. Finally, some real hard facts are answered. Thanks for all your hours of “mental work”.

    louisianacajun: Welcome to the jbjd blog; and, you are welcome. Yes; nothing like using people’s own words, against them. A strategy I have advocated all along. (Now, tell your friends about this blog!) ADMINISTRATOR

  5. drkate says:

    Excellent work once again, jbjd, and superbly framed and written. Kudos. Please keep us updated on Texans’ effort! Thank you.

    drkate: You are welcome. (Please pass this on to ‘your’ Texans, too! I would bet, many more citizen complaints of election fraud to the AG will get filed, in addition to the request for documents from Mr. Richie.) ADMINISTRATOR

  6. Michelle says:

    jbjd-Every day when we came to work our Texas bosses (great guys) bragged about Barbara Jordan-the were so proud of her. Texans respect the Constitution which is why they loved her. I loved Gov. Ann Richards, I had to read her book, if you haven’t read it-it made me laugh out loud, and talk about fiscal responsibility-you will love that part too. I hope Kinky Friedman receives your blog-the Lord knows what he would do with it.
    Last thing-I printed out “Out of the Mouth of Babes” and sent it to Mrs. Pelosi-I had to wait until I got really, really mad-not only do they insult our intelligence, not do their jobs, but have the nerve to ask for a donation. I don’t know who will receive it-Madame or one of her staff-postage paid envelope.
    “just give up and go away”, same attitude with the Constitution. Sad isn’t it-they dwelled so much on “historic” Obama and Pelosi-what a shame and a scandal. It’s historic for reasons people never imagined.

    Michelle: You are such a hoot! I usually return mail solicitations by re-stuffing the payment envelope with the other materials sent. It had not occurred to me to print out some of my posts and send these, too!

    As for getting my blog to Kinky Friedman, well, I invite people to share my blog at their discretion.

    And yes, I absolutely agree. “It’s historic for reasons people never imagined.”ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Faxes were just now sent to Richie and carboned with cover letters to AG Abbott and Kay Bailey Hutchison. Thanks for the intensely detailed, hard work you put into creating these documents. This helps tremendously.

    EricaThunderpaws: Wonderful news! Feel empowered? Is there any way you can send me a picture of the receipt, appropriately redacted? I want to post these, if possible.

    Welcome to the blog. And, you are welcome. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. I’ll try to remember to do that, but I need to copy it, get some whiteout, scan the redacted receipt, and then submit to you. How do I get it to you?

    EricaThunderpass: Oh, my, don’t bother doing that. (I thought perhaps you could scan it and then email it. ) It was just a thought. What is important is this: the clock now is ticking for Mr. Ricie’s response. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. redhank says:

    jbjd…would it help for me to send it as well…sorry, but have not been keeping up every moment….But, if nothing else it is so important for us to keep pressing so this type of fraud is not repeated in 2012 (My own opinion is Barry is already positioning himself for not running again…asI think he knows he can not get away with this again)…and thanks so much for your hard work and diligence…

    redhank: I do this work you kindly tell me, you appreciate, so as to provide citizens with the tools to level the playing field in a political system that has become skewed toward people with superior knowledge about that system. Because people who know more have used their superior knowledge to usurp power from the rest of us. A signal is sent to the recipient of these messages just by the ‘numbers’; as much as the content of the message, which clearly evidences, ‘WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.’

    And, as far as I know, TX is the only state with laws that support this particular strategy to get to the truth, on our behalf. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. d2i says:

    Once again, you hit it out of the ballpark! Great job.

    My apologies for not being around of late, as you know, I’ve decided to start my own blog which will serve as a marketing tool for bloggers like you. So many powerful and intelligent voices, such as yourself, needs to be brought to a wider audience. I’m hopeful, with my marketing and pr skills, I’ll be able to achieve this goal. I’ll also be certain to link this post on my “Daily Specials” board.

    Thanks again and look forward to the results of citizens taking to task the hubris called leadership in TX. Go Texans!!! The rest of the nation is watching with bated or baited breath!!!!

    d2i: “Daily Specials”? Sounds like an on-line cyber cafe. On my site, I only serve blogrolls. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Alecia says:

    jbjd,
    Sorry, my computer crashed and I just got it back..with better protection. I mailed receipt requested to all parties. I also mailed everything you have done and this latest to the Fort Worth Star telegram and all my friends and family. There should be multiple requests for information going out. When I get confirmation, I will send you the numbers, you can look them up and publish the verification of receipt. This was fun!!

    Alecia: You are one fabulous citizen! I suspect the reason doing this work was fun for you is, you now completely understand that your election process likely was undermined, and you have the courage of your conviction that, you can fix this! I am so proud of you and your fellow Texans! (And I know you all are proud of this Bay Stater, too; can you say, U.S. Senator Scott Brown?)

    Can you just tell me; were any of your friends and family formerly supporters of BO who dropped that support as you educated them; or were they always suspicious of the process that elected him? Did they read the materials you distributed; and did they understand these? (I know you had a head start in mastering an understanding of the numerous facts and issues related to the 2008 election cycle and venues for redress of grievances with the process.)

    Finally, let me thank you for posting the link to “REMEMBER the ALAMO,” which has resulted in several new readers showing up at the blog. ADMINISTRATOR

  12. [...] Mr. Obama may be out of a job soon.  Wait for the fallout from dozens of citizen complaints of election fraud to state Attorneys General.  (These complaints were filed in applicable states – we have identified 6 (six) states so far, GA, HI, MD, SC, TX, and VA – which states allow only the names of eligible candidates to appear on the ballot.)  Citizens in these states have charged that members of both the state and national Democratic Party submitted Certifications of Nomination to state election officials swearing Mr. Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job of POTUS to get them to print his name on the ballot without ascertaining beforehand whether he is a Natural Born Citizen.  And, when questioned, so far, the challenged D’s, including The Honorable Nancy Pelosi (acting in her non-governmental role as Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Convention); DNC Secretary Alice Germond; and (former) DNC Services Corporation Howard Dean refused to produce any documentation that was the basis for their determination.  Boyd Richie, Chair of the TX D state party, also refused to produce the documentation.  But turns out, under TX law, he may have no choice but to give the voters what they want; and AG Greg Abbott may have no alternative but to make him.  http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/remember-the-alamo/ [...]

  13. [...] Mr. Obama may be out of a job soon.  Wait for the fallout from dozens of citizen complaints of election fraud to state Attorneys General.  (These complaints were filed in applicable states – we have identified 6 (six) states so far, GA, HI, MD, SC, TX, and VA – which states allow only the names of eligible candidates to appear on the ballot.)  Citizens in these states have charged that members of both the state and national Democratic Party submitted Certifications of Nomination to state election officials swearing Mr. Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job of POTUS to get them to print his name on the ballot without ascertaining beforehand whether he is a Natural Born Citizen.  And, when questioned, so far, the challenged D’s, including The Honorable Nancy Pelosi (acting in her non-governmental role as Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Convention); DNC Secretary Alice Germond; and (former) DNC Services Corporation Howard Dean refused to produce any documentation that was the basis for their determination.  Boyd Richie, Chair of the TX D state party, also refused to produce the documentation.  But turns out, under TX law, he may have no choice but to give the voters what they want; and AG Greg Abbott may have no alternative but to make him.  http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/remember-the-alamo/ [...]

  14. Woo-hoo. Nebraska is behind you all the way, Texas! We won’t even begrudge you that last second on the clock if you can pull this one off. =) I love the “Don’t Mess With Texas” attitude and hope a little of that belligerence forces some action.

    Excellent work, jbjd!

    Butteredezillion: Thank you and welcome to the blog. Yesterday, I called the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas (more on that later) to discuss this issue. ‘Listening’ to myself, I sounded like a cheerleader for the citizens of that great state! I mean, THEY wrote the laws that subjected officers of political parties to the same scrutiny as traditional public officials, the enforcement of which laws they are now pressing. From young to old, liberal to conservative, what guides them all is the pursuit of what is right, which is, the sovereignty of the people!

    Have you read, U.S. SENATOR BEN NELSON (D-NE) to the CITIZENS of NEBRASKA: “You’re not the boss of me!”? ADMINISTRATOR

  15. Hi jbjd,

    First, I now have a jpeg of my fax transmission to Richie, but I can’t find a contact email on this blog in order to send it to you. Have I just overlooked it? You have may email, of course, if you want to contact me directly.

    Second, I’ve just been reviewing the TX FOIA timeline, and have retyped the rules here as a reminder to myself and others. Questions follow.

    =======================================================
    If the governmental body wishes to withhold information from you, it must:

    * Seek an attorney general decision within ten business days of its receipt of your request and state the exceptions to disclosure that it believes are applicable. The governmental body must also send you a copy of its letter to the attorney general requesting a decision within ten business days. If the governmental body does not notify you of its request for an attorney general decision, the information you requested is generally presumed to be open to the public.

    * Within 15 business days of receiving your request, the governmental body must send the attorney general its arguments for withholding the information you requested and copies of the information you have requested. You are entitled to receive this notice, however, if the letter to the attorney general contains the substance of the information you requested, you may receive a redacted copy of the letter. If the governmental body does not send you a copy of this letter, you may request it from the attorney general by writing to:

    Reg Hargrove, Public Information Coordinator
    Office of the Attorney General
    P.O. Box 12548
    Austin, TX 78711-2548
    FAX (512) 494-8017

    If the governmental body does not timely request an attorney general decision, notify you that it is seeking an attorney general decision, and submit to the attorney general the information you requested, the information is generally presumed to be open to the public.

    * If an attorney general decision has been requested, you may submit your written comments to the attorney general stating any facts you want the Open Records Division to consider. You may send you comments to:

    Office of the Attorney General
    Open Records Division
    P. O. Box 12548
    Austin, TX 78711-2548

    You may also fax your comments to (512) 463-2092
    The Public Information Act expressly prohibits the attorney general from releasing the records.

    Third Party Information

    If you have requested information from a governmental body, and the information requested implicates a third party’s interests, that third party may send a letter or brief to the attorney general stating why its information that is held by a governmental body should be withheld. This occurs, for example, in instances where a requestor has asked a governmental body for a copy of a proposal that a certain individual or business has made to a governmental body. In such an instance, you should receive a copy of that third party’s letter to the attorney general, however, if the letter to the attorney general contains the substance of the information your requeste, you may receive a redacted copy. If you do not receive this letter, you may request it from the attorney general by writing to:

    Reg Hargrove, Public Information Coordinator
    Office of the Attorney General
    P.O. Box 12548
    Austin, TX 78711-2548
    FAX (512) 494-8017
    =======================================================

    If I’ve made a mistake below, please let me know.

    I faxed my FOIA request to Richie on Wednesday evening, January 27, 2010. Therefore, Richie will have to submit a request to the AG no later than Feb. 10th, assuming Richie doesn’t have the information requested or wants to make excuses for not giving it to me. If he does the latter, he is required to send me a copy of his request to Abbott, which I should receive on or before Feb 10th.

    I’m a little puzzled by the 10 business days and 15 business days statements. Wouldn’t Richie submit his arguments to the AG at the same time he requests an AG decision, within the first 10 day deadline?

    If I have to wait for the AG to make a decision, the latest I should receive it would be about April 8th (weekends excluded, although the guidlines for AG opinions don’t say “business days”).

    A visual timeline would be useful.

    Erica Thunderpaws: You inspire me.

    Briefly, let me explain the difference between the 10-day and the 15-day time limits in the law. Ten days are the time limit within which the Holder of the records has to ‘acknowledge’ the request received for those records is outside of the scope of the law, by presenting this claim to the AG, with a copy to the Requestor. An additional 5 (five) days are allotted within which time the Holder of the records can perfect an argument as to why these records need not be produced, to support the claim; and present this argument to the AG. Again, the Requestor is entitled to copies of the argument against disclosure. (These copies may be redacted, as an argument against disclosure might be, for example, such records implicate the rights of a 3rd party against breach of confidentiality. However, I cannot imagine what information would need redacting in the case you and your fellow Texans are pursuing.)

    I am working on a critical update to this post; this will include an image of your fax transmission receipt. Suffice to say, more and more I am certain, Texas holds the key to this eligibility dilemma. With this in mind, I urge everyone reading this post to round up as many Texans as possible to join this fight. ADMINISTRATOR

  16. redhank says:

    OK…tomorrow is 10 days for me…

    redhank: OMG, I had no idea you did this. Please, mail the transmission evidence to me ASAP. (I assume when you say, 10 (ten) days, you mean, business days.) contactjbjd@gmail.com ADMINISTRATOR

  17. Texas Voter says:

    I would like to help, but am not sure how to proceed. There is so much info to wade thru and I don’t know what is salient.

    Is there a step-by-step set of instructions or can I sign onto a petition or…?

    THANK YOU for all your hard work! Can I help make it easier for others to help you by developing some procedures?

    Texas Voter: Yes; there is a lot of material to wade through. And, not all of it is essential to the understanding of the citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG. Basically, the ‘background’ explains what went wrong with the 2008 election cycle, and points to the only laws broken that would provide any relief to the contested outcome. That is, in those states we have identified with laws requiring only candidates who meet eligibility requirements for the job sought, will have their names printed on state election ballots; if members of the D party swore to state election officials BO was Constitutionally qualified for POTUS to get his name on the ballot without ascertaining BEFOREHAND whether he was eligible for the job, this constitutes election fraud. We are charging election fraud because we asked those members of the D party who swore to his eligibility, on what documentary basis did you make that conclusion; but they refused to tell us. The citizen complaint of election fraud cites state election law; refers to fruitless efforts to get members of the D party to identify their documentation; and requests an investigation. Okay, those are the citizen complaints. (And I am certain more states are applicable than just these 6 (six) posted in the sidebar to the blog; but citizens still need to look up their state laws to make that determination.)

    Now, for the request for documents to Boyd Richie… The citizen complaints to the A’sG contain the overwhelming circumstantial evidence we have accumulated that tends to establish the fraud we allege. Normally, we would not have to do the AG’s work; but in this case, I wanted to maximize the likelihood the AG WOULD look into these charges. So, volunteering countless hours and days, I put together as strong a case for fraud as I could, making the path easy for the state’s chief law enforcement officer to follow. In TX, we can add another piece to the case in support of our charges. That is, using TX open records law, if Boyd Richie possesses any documents used to establish BO’s eligibility before he swore he was qualified for the job then, we can compel him to produce these documents, as if he is a public official. So, in TX, we added the step of asking BR to produce documents. Understand, this added process only augments those AG complaints. Because we know, if no documents are produced then, BR failed to establish BO is a NBC before swearing he was to TX state election officials. But this alone does not get Congress to introduce Articles of Impeachment to formally investigate whether BO is Constitutionally qualified for POTUS or was merely swept into office by election fraud viz-a-viz state election ballots.

    Complaints and the Request for Records may be downloaded from the site; FILERS MUST FILL IN THEIR REAL NAMES AND ADDRESSES IN THE APPLICABLE STATE before sending. Because entitlement to the services of the AG derives from the status of resident of that state.

    And the Request for Records, under law, has a timetable for response. So, you need to retain the proof of transmission (and forward to me, redacted as to your personal information, for posting).

    Does this help? ADMINISTRATOR

  18. Update on my fax to Richie. I should have had a response as of today. Nothing came in the mail.

    Erica Thunderpaws: Yes; you and Redhank. Could you please call the D state office to confirm you sent the fax and ask whether they intend to provide the documents or request an exemption from AG Abbott? Make sure to get the name of the person who provides the information. Thanks. ADMINISTRATOR

  19. redhank says:

    jbjd…I have called the TDP…I told the receptionist that I was calling in reference to an Open Records Request…I was asked my name and gave it and was connected to voicemail for Mark Corcoran, Special Assistant to the Chair. I left a succinct message and my number…so not much else to report so far…all I can say is I was directed to Mark Corcoran very quickly which surprised me…

    redhank: Okay; and we know, AG Abbott has received copies of all requests for records faxed to Boyd Richie. Next step consists of compelling AG Abbott to do his job. I am working on creating a campaign to recruit help in this regard, as time, energy, and finances allow. ADMINISTRATOR

  20. redhank says:

    Mark specifically said, when he called me back that they were not required to respond…he asked me several times for my attorney;s name ..we need to talk…
    either way…I will help to pay…x

    redhank: OMG. This is fabulous, in a perverse way. That is, when you read the next post, you will see, part of the strength in the TX law lies in its prohibition against asking questions like, why do you want this information; or what will you do with it; or who is your lawyer? Yes; we need to talk. I will email contact information. ADMINISTRATOR

  21. Placed a call to the TDP at 9:37 am and was directd to Mike Corcoran’s VM. Left a message and am awaiting a response.

    Erica Thunderpaws: Good for you! I am in the middle of posting an update to the REMEMBER the ALAMO post, which will include this information from redhank, who received a callback from Mike yesterday. He indicated, no documents would be forthcoming AND he pressed for the name of the lawyer assisting in this request. DO NOT BE INTIMIDATED; as I pointed out to redhank, the introduction to TX law is clear: the people are sovereign over their government (especially when we’re talking about a political party only authorized to nominate the eligible candidate for office). Please be attentive to everything he says and, his tone and inflection; and report back. ADMINISTRATOR

  22. I’ve got my notebook handy, and will remember your advice. It’s now 11:19, and no call back yet.

  23. Michelle says:

    You ladies in Texas are so good-jbjd all the suggestions to the ladies are good too. It’s great that we have someone very knowledgeable to help us all over the rough spots. Lots to be said about experience.

    Michelle: You missed Erica Thunderpaw’s latest ‘report,’ to which I was responding while you were posting this comment. And if you think what you have seen so far is good, wait till you see the update to REMEMBER the ALAMO. ADMINISTRATOR

  24. Since Mark Corcoran did not return my call, I rang his office again at 2:15 pm. This time we spoke. He said with some confidence that their legal counsel advised them that they do not have to respond. I asked him if they were familiar with Title 10, Chapt. 161, Secs. 161.004 and 161.009. He said no. I suggested they familiarize themselves with that code because they can be held to the same FOIA standards as any government agency. Then I asked him again if they intended to respond, even with a letter of denial, and he said no.

    Erica Thunderpaws: You so rock. As others before me have stated so eloquently, nothing is as threatening to tyranny as a well-informed citizenry. This display of hubris from the TDP is not surprising but it is no less unbelievable. Now, for the record, we have an officer of the party informing a citizen, ‘I have determined not to follow the law, which law provides if I refuse to produce requested records, the only mechanism for avoiding sanctions for this refusal is to request an opinion from the AG supporting such refusal.’

    Here’s the bottom line. If BR had ascertained that BO is Constitutionally eligible for POTUS before submitting the Certification of Nomination to TX state election officials, in order that these officials would print his name next to the D on the general election ballot; then why does he refuse to disclose the documentary basis for that Certification? To my 9th graders, the answer was self-evident.

    Now, to get AG Abbott to ask the question. ADMINISTRATOR

  25. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I’m getting so excited. Yeah for jbjd and her friends in Texas. Erica did what you said perfectly. Wow, wow. wow. Better than great work ladies. It begs the question over the years, why did legislatures work so hard, and taxpayers pay for such work,that anyone could be arrogant enough to simply ignore the law.

    Michelle: I know; this is incredible. These 2 (two) women are incredible, as are so many others actively working to straighten out this situation. (I did this same investigative sleuthing with Dawn, in SC, and the BoE.) I am dancing as fast as I can to get to the next steps. But I just want to clarify; true, this latest action is taking place in TX. But for those other 5 (five) applicable states – and if citizens would just read their laws and get back to me, I am certain we could identify several more such states – the fact that the TDP cannot produce records that were the basis for BR’s Certification, BO is a NBC means, the basis for Certification in these other states must be suspect, too. So, once I document what happened in TX, this narrative needs to be forwarded to the A’sG in these other states. For that, I will turn to other heroes and heroines, like you. Perhaps learning about the TDP’s refusal to open up the records in TX will be the impetus for them to investigate the citizen complaints filed in their states; especially given the bad press that will accompany their failure to do so. (I am working on this; I came up with a great idea to recruit thousands of unlikely helpers to press for such investigation.) Plus, the narrative will be forwarded to federal elected officials in all 50 states. Perhaps this will finally cause them to introduce the Articles of Impeachment. ADMINISTRATOR

  26. jb,
    We may be zephyrs in the night for the moment, but we will become tomorrow’s tornado as Texas law lifts our wings to justice. Thank you, jb, for helping us achieve takeoff.

    Erica Thunderpaws: Have you listened to any of the Revolution Radio podcasts, linked in the sidebar? I think I begin to talk about the unique laws in TX relating to the treatment of political parties, in the second show, and more in the third show. It took me a while to get this aspect of the project together, that is, drafting the formal request for records and researching your laws; in the meantime, I suppose no one else from TX tried to obtain documents, or I would have heard something on the blog. Anyway, I am glad you finally found this blog. You certainly hit the ground running! ADMINISTRATOR

  27. Sorry, I have been so busy researching and writing for my own blog that I have not listened to the radio programs yet, but will do so this weekend.

    Erica Thunderpaws: No need to be sorry; contrary to our best intentions, we all get a little behind. ADMINISTRATOR

  28. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I hope that you don’t have to file this under duh, but something occurred to me from prior conversations. I am not in applicable states Illinois (where I grew-up) Florida (where I wrote in Hillary-considered a protest vote in potus election). I went into shock when I read Phil Berg’s web-site early Aug 08-and he seems like such a nice man. I was thinking about the convention and all the abuse to the Hillary people, delegates and Hillary committing the crime of winning, winning, winning. Is it possible in their haste to “steal” the convention that they started in Illinois (where Obama is from sad to say-gag) and assumed all state laws (49 others) were the same, and got more sloppy and careless as they rushed this all through. I like many others are more used to working for corporations where the paperwork is always consistent company wide (less headaches). Just thought I’d mention while it was on my mind. My best to you and your fellow patriots that are just trying to keep the system honest. Bless everyone’s hearts.

    Michelle: Originally, I had intended to email my response to this comment, and not post it on the blog because it called for speculation as to other people’s motives. As much as possible, I try to steer clear of such second-guessing. But then I realized, sufficient evidence exists as to the conduct you raise, to warrant an evaluation. And besides, this provides me with another opportunity to counteract some misinformation that is still floating around out there.

    In short, people wrongly concluded that since the HI Certification of Nomination submitted to state election officials by the D Corporation contained a line that was missing in other Certifications, this line had intentionally been omitted in those other states, in the furtherance of fraud. As I explained, this difference in Certifications could be explained away simply by examining the requirements for such Certifications spelled out in state laws. HI requires an explicit statement of eligibility; FL, for example, does not. SC does; MN does not.

    Some people, seeing conspiracies where none could be established, retorted that, the R Certification was uniform for all states, thus sufficiently broad to encompass the requirements in each state. I pointed out, this is not necessarily evidence that the D’s perpetrated fraud but rather, that they are disorganized.

    Great minds… ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. I am wrapping up the follow-up to REMEMBER the ALAMO. Look for it.

  29. Alecia says:

    jbjd,
    Sorry, my computer crashed again.
    I have my Return Receipts.
    Reg Hargrove: Public Information Coordinator for AG of Texas. Received on 2-1-2010 # 7008-1830-0003-9935-9407 (Stamped in)
    Ft. Worth Star Telegram (News Tips)Received on 2-1-2010 #7008-1830-0003-9935-9421 (signed by Jim Keese)
    Hope Andrade Tx Sec of State:Received 2-1-2010# 7008-1830-0003-9935-9391(Stamped in)
    Boyd L. Richie Chair of D.Party Received 2-1-2010 # 7008=1830-0003-9935-9414 (can’t read the signature and they did not print their name as instructed) Wow, the Chair and his office do not follow directions well.

    Since everyone else is calling DParty Chair, I started calling Reg Hargrove to complain that I have not received the proper letters and to ask if the Attny General has received any request from Richie. Give me directions and I will stay at it. Do you want me to also call D.Party Chair? or have we enough info from his office???

    Alecia: Wow; I wondered where you were! This is fabulous work. We are assembling the follow-up on TEXAS TWO-STEP, the post that appears on the home page. (I will put a note at the end of this post, directing people there.) Could you please re-post? I will answer your questions there. ADMINISTRATOR

  30. [...] letter, also on TDP letterhead, on p. 3 of the citizen complaint of election fraud to AG, in REMEMBER the ALAMO [...]

  31. [...] to provide documentation as required by the state of Texas election and public information laws. REMEMBER the ALAMO? jbjd File a complaint, many Texas citizens have already filed complaints, the more complaints received [...]

  32. [...] this was signed by Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party.  His documents can be seen in REMEMBER THE ALAMO, posted in January [...]

  33. [...] like they had done to several requestors in 2010; the TDP ignored Canon’s first request for documents in 2012, in which she had failed to [...]

  34. [...] ROADMAP to ELECTION FRAUD in TEXAS in the 2008 PRESIDENTIAL (ELECTORS) ELECTION; TEXAS TWO-STEP; REMEMBER the ALAMO?; and [...]

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 57 other followers

%d bloggers like this: