CLUBS RULE

UPDATE 04.14.12: As of today, neither the Texas Democratic Party nor the Republican Party of Texas is registered with the Secretary of State as a corporation; limited partnership; or limited liability company. In other words, they remain private clubs.


NOTE: Reading this article in conjunction with TEXAS TWO-STEP enhances its significance.

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

In the summer of 2008, before I knew half as much about the political process as I have learned since that time, I submitted a comment to the PUMA PAC blog, containing this epiphany:  the Democratic Party is only a club.

See, I had just ‘learned’ there exists a category of states I dubbed ‘vote binding states,’ which are those states that have enacted laws essentially saying, ‘In our state, being a “pledged delegate” means, you must vote for the person voters elected you to represent, on the roll call vote on the floor of the party Convention.’  (Did you know, DNC rules only require pledged delegates to use their “good conscience”?)  (“All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”)  (http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/fb3fa279c88bf1094b_qom6bei0o.pdf, p. 23.)

I saw that BO’s people were harassing HRC pledged delegates to change their votes to him, in advance of the Convention.  In other words, in these vote binding states, BO’s people were enticing HRC’s people to break the law.  So, I drafted letters to state Attorneys General in the 13 (thirteen) vote binding states I identified, complaining about this illegal conduct from BO’s camp.  Next, I needed to recruit voters from those vote binding states to send these letters.  But first, I had to explain to these recruits, in lay terms, what I was talking about.  For this, I developed a primer.  And in the primer, here is how I summarized the hierarchy of commandments applying to pledged delegates: state laws trump the rules made up by the political party, every time.  http://jbjd.wordpress.com/to-stop-harassment-of-clinton-pledged-delegates-in-vote-binding-states/

That’s when it hit me: the Democrats (and Republicans) are nothing more than private clubs.

#309 jbjd on 08.18.08 at 3:59 am

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT COMMENT I HAVE EVER WRITTEN OR WILL EVER WRITE ON THIS BLOG… PLEASE REFER OTHERS TO THIS COMMENT THROUGHOUT THE DAY, IN SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS… I AM BUSY WRITING YOUR STATE-SPECIFIC LETTERS TO THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL, TO BE COPIED TO OUR DEAR STATE DELEGATES PLEDGED TO HRC, TO LET THEM KNOW, WE HAVE THEIR BACKS…

***************************************************************************
DECONSTRUCTING DEMOCRACY AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

My Dear Fellow PUMAs,

If you are going crazy trying to figure out what’s happening with the Democratic Party, join the club. I’m not kidding. Join the club. Because it just hit me, the way to understand this Democratic nominating process is to think of The Democratic Party as what it is – a club. And the only thing that makes this club so special is that it was able to get permission from each of the 50 states to collect campaign contributions and put the names of the candidates it wants to hold office onto the state’s election ballot. That’s it. That’s all there is. Let me explain.

According to Party – or rather, club rules, presidential candidates are chosen at the club’s nominating convention. Afterward, the club submits the name of its candidate for POTUS to the appropriate state official in each state – usually the Secretary of State – as part of an application to get onto the state’s general election ballot, in compliance with that state’s laws. In fact, states only allow the candidate for POTUS chosen by a “major political party” to submit ballot papers so late in the game because club rules and by-laws require their candidates to be chosen at a “nominating convention.”

The club determines who will be its candidate for POTUS on the general election ballot through a vote at the convention by people it calls “delegates,” which delegates obtained that status through an allocation process set by the club. That is, the club places the names of its proposed candidates on state ballots in the primary and caucus elections and then, in exchange for receiving a specific number of votes in that process, the candidates are assigned a delegate to vote for them at the convention. Most state delegates are given a special status, called “pledged.” According to club rules, when these pledged delegates cast their votes at the convention, they should use their best judgment to represent the wishes of the voters based on whose votes they were elected. Historically, by counting these delegates pledged to each candidate, the club has usually been able to predict which of its candidates will end up with the nomination at the end of the primary and caucus process, since one candidate usually garners enough pledged delegates to surpass the number the club set as the requirement at the convention. But not this year. Neither club candidate – BO or HRC – was assigned enough delegates through the primary and caucus process to secure the nomination at the convention. Luckily, the club had in place rules whereby this deficit in delegates could be made up by special delegates commonly referred to as super delegates who get to cast their votes for either candidate at the convention.

The Democratic Party set up volumes of rules and by-laws that govern all these operations, with auspicious sounding titles like “Charter,” “Constitution,” “Model Rules to Delegate Selection Process,” and “Call to the Convention.” But here’s the thing about all these club rules: they can be changed at any time. According to club rules. So, if like me, you have read club rules and believe, as I do, that members of the club have not played fair throughout this presidential nominating process, am I saying there is nothing you can do about it? Hardly.

Remember what I said in the beginning: the state only lets the club get onto official state ballots as long as they follow state rules. And unlike club rules, when states make rules, they’re called laws. (TO BE CONTINUED…)
©jbjd

(In the interest of full disclosure, let me say, I was banned from that blog just days after this comment was posted.)

In the 1 1/2 years since I experienced this 3:00 AM epiphany that ‘club’ is just another word for ‘political party,’ I have learned (and written) volumes about the DNC.  Now, I know it by its official name:  the Democratic National Committee Services Corporation.  That’s right; it’s a corporation.  That’s why I now regularly refer to this business entity as the D Corporation (in case you hadn’t noticed).

Before I initiated the present campaign to submit document requests to the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) under the Texas open records law, I had to determine whether the TDP was a covered entity under that law.  First, I tried to ascertain its legal construct. I hit a brick wall.  Luckily, through other means, I was able to conclude, the TDP is subject to provisions of the open records law, regardless of its organizational construct.  Then, after the campaign to obtain records was underway, a loyal Texan and I continued to research the nature of the TDP until we got answers.

So, what is the legal construct of the TDP?  Let me give you a hint what it’s not.

Here are the documents returned by the TX Secretary of State web site after a paid on-line search of documents held by that office, for an entity called Texas Democratic Party (“Find Entity Name Search”).  (Recall that the Certification of BO’s Nomination signed by TDP Chair, Attorney Boyd Richie, and submitted to state election officials to get them to print the name of Barack Obama next to the D on the general election ballot; was printed on letterhead showing the name, “Texas Democratic Party.”) (See this document and Mr. Richie’s accompanying letter, also on TDP letterhead, on p. 3 of the citizen complaint of election fraud to AG, in REMEMBER the ALAMO )

Did you notice what name is missing?  Yep; the Texas Democratic  Party.  In the words of Randall Dillard, Director of Communications, Office of the TX SoS:  “There is no requirement in state law that political parties organize as a business entity and since the parties are not found in a search of our records, they are not organized as corporations, limited partnerships or limited liability companies.”

Whoa!  If the TDP is none of these then, what is it?

Well, I tried a Google search for “clubs in Texas.”  And look at what showed up at the bottom of page 6  (not to be confused with Page Six, the NY Post scandal column, http://www.nypost.com/pagesix): Clubs and Organizations:  Texas Democratic Party

So, I clicked on that link, which led me to all of the Clubs and Organizations organized under the big top of the TDP.

I clicked on the link in the lower right-hand corner, txdemocrats.org.  Look who was staring me in the face.

Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party.

In sum, here is the answer to the question, what is the TDP.  It is the club mystically possessed with the power to get TX election officials to print the name of Barack Obama next to the D on the state’s 2008 general election ballot based only on the word of its Chair that he is Constitutionally eligible for POTUS, notwithstanding no one in the club is willing to disclose, why.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Freedom costs.

About these ads

14 Responses to CLUBS RULE

  1. Texas Voter says:

    FWIW, I spoke today with an attorney who has decades of municipal law experience in TX (after being in the JAG’s office in the military). He has served as a city atty. or city mgr. for many of the mid-to-larger municipalities in Texas.

    This source says that a poltical party is not considered a political subdivision. That designation is reserved for cities, water districts, school districts, and such.

    Texas Voter: Well, I did not want to get into a legal analysis of whether the TDP is required to produce documents under the TX open records law, since the appearance of election fraud is indicated merely by the fact they refuse to voluntarily produce these records which supposedly provided the basis for an oath to election officials that BO is Constitutionally eligibile for POTUS, causing them to print his name on the ballot.

    While it is true that a plain reading of the statute might lead to the legal conclusion offered up by your local source; the federal appeals court reaffirmed in August 2009, specifically, the TDP can be considered to be a “political subdivision.” It all depends on the delineated function allocated to that club, by the state. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10391674/LULAC-V-Texas-Democratic-Party

    Remember, the quest here is not for citizens to compel the TDP’s compliance with the open records law but to compel the AG to investigate citizen charges of election fraud perpetrated by the Chair of that club. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Just wondered if you are already familiar with this case filed 10/30/08. As with every case so far, this too failed. Is there anything useful to be learned from this suit?

    (The bulk of Erica’s comment calls my attention to the various endeavors with which Leo Donofrio has been identified, including a mandamus suit against the SoS of NJ; a petition for Quo Warranto; and a fixed definition of NBC. She asks my opinion of these various topics, and kindly supplied links to his documentation. She concludes with this remark.)

    I’m not an attorney. I don’t know whether either of them is right. I’m just so desperate to legally remove Obama that I study all avenues that sound reasonable. That’s why I was attracted to your endeavors.

    Erica Thunderpaws: The comments on this blog are full of references to mandamus (and why that cause of action has no bearing on vetting BO for Constitutional eligibility for POTUS); Quo Warranto (and why that cause of action has no bearing on vetting BO for Constitutional eligibility for POTUS or, on getting him out of office); and a fixed definition of NBC (which, under our system of jurisprudence, does not exist). Here are just some of these.

    http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/a-word-to-the-wise/#comment-439
    http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/catching-my-breath/#comment-1411
    http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/catching-my-breath/#comment-1410

    http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/catching-my-breath/#comment-1410

    http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/never-less-than-a-treason-2-of-2/#comment-972

    http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/if-drowning-out-opposing-facts-is-un-american-then-ignoring-unpleasant-facts-must-be-un-american-too/#comment-842

    http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/if-drowning-out-opposing-facts-is-un-american-then-ignoring-unpleasant-facts-must-be-un-american-too/#comment-833

    http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/never-less-than-a-treason-2-of-2/#comment-1117

    If you have any questions after reading these, come back here. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. Next time, try the “search” function at the front of the blog, on the sidebar. Just type in the word you are looking for and, voila.

  3. I will review the links this weekend.

  4. TeakWoodKite says:

    I will say this jbjd,

    With all these expired, forfeited, disolved entities, it looks more like RICO fronts. What are the applicable state laws regarding financial filings and disclosures of these entities?
    What a “diverse” collection of “democratic” entities, similar to alice as she swam in the pool after a long fall down the rabbit hole.

    At what point would the AG be compelled to depose Boyd Richie?

    TWK: Can you believe this? Of course, there is a history of deceit here, only some of which is suggested by those dissolved entities (on the SoS printouts) which you so astutely found. Ironically, the very reason the federal court ruled the TDP is a “political subdivision” subject to the Voting Rights Act is precisely this shady history.

    People could proceed on any number of fronts to dissect the TDP. But I hope readers here do not miss the forest for the trees. That is, the TDP, which appears to be on par organizationally with any other club operating in TX, say, the Shriners; or Toastmasters; or even the American Fish & Game Club, determined what name TX state officials would print on the 2008 general election ballot next to the club’s (national affiliate) designation. This would be farce enough. But adding insult to incredible injury, voters cannot even cause their AG, a (state) Constitutional officer, to do anything about this!

    After Sunday, I will have a better idea where we need to go from here. (Off the top of my head, I would say, get everyone you know to file a complaint of election fraud with AG Abbott; print these out and distribute them, if you have to! Then, take your proofs of transmission to the steps of the state capital in Austin; bring along members of the media on the Board of Directors for the FOIFT. And demand an immediate investigation, with a time certain for results. But not just yet…) ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. You asked, “At what point would the AG be compelled to depose Boyd Richie?” In general, he won’t. Determining which cases to pursue is a discretionary function of the job. (That’s why voters need to give him no choice.)

  5. TeakWoodKite says:

    second, Does the DNC convention, when “applied” to the LULAC v Texas Democrats, have any bearing to the allocation of delegates and preclear aspect?

    TWK: This case essentially steers clear of any de facto discrimination; rather, it merely charges, the allocation of delegates by the TDP, which has the possibility of resulting in discrimination, is one of those provisions related to voting under the Voting Rights Act, that explicitly requires pre-implementation clearance by the court. ADMINISTRATOR

    • TeakWoodKite says:

      So the outcome of LULAC v. was defect “corrected”?
      or was the “condition” allowed to be sent to the DEMonic National Convention as is?

      By applied, I mean are there any parrells that may be drawn by the actions of the DNC during the national convention as to the “preclearance” of delegate, as they were from “binding” states and subject to the same legal opinion? There were complaints filed as to the actions of the DNC, specifically Nancy Pelosi.

      TWK: Nice try, but no.

      You write, “There were complaints filed as to the actions of the DNC, specifically Nancy Pelosi.” You know I initiated all of that work with the vote binding states, right? Here is one of Ricki Lieberman’s newsletters, posted on Alegre’s Corner. http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=717 Note the report of the GA AG telling HRC pledged delegates in that state, they must vote for her, under state law! GA was the first state we contacted – me and ‘my’ Georgians, from the PUMA PAC blog – on our own, when the blog delayed posting the action project.

      But delegates were not assigned to numbers of voters under those vote binding laws, which could have resulted in citizens from one district being disparately represented when contrasted to another district; only the manner of delegate voting at the Convention was implicated by vote binding laws, passed by the state. ADMINISTRATOR

      P.S. I realized, what you are asking in relation to the Convention is this: given a violation of the Voting Rights Act; can another cause of action be initiated by the suspect class, alleging real discrimination? Theoretically, yes; but in this case, establishing a factual proof of such discrimination would be virtually impossible.

  6. TeakWoodKite says:

    Is one required to be a resident of Texas to file a complaint with the AG of texas?

    Sorry about my typing.

    TWK: Being a citizen of the state entitles you to the services of AG Abbott. (Are you from an applicable state for the purpose of filing a complaint of election fraud?) ADMINISTRATOR

  7. jb,

    Well, I have learned a thing or two reading those links. Keep in mind that your site only came to my attention a couple months ago, so I have missed a wealth of information, largely because I have been focused on putting together my own blog since October, and in creating a lot of graphics for the site.

    When Obama was elected I was miserable, I learned a lot about the issue from reading (Leo’s) articles. Still, I was frustrated that it took so many words to explain NBC.

    For this reason I created a few graphics which I hoped would synthesize NBC so that the public might grasp the issue quicker than by reading through lengthy legal summaries. I finished my first graphics on or about the same day Donofrio shut down his site, so he never saw them. However, I ended up using them to start my blog. If you’re curious:

    (Information deleted by jbjd.)

    With that in mind, would it be okay with you if I directed my readers’ attention to your blog and strategy? If that’s okay, what would be the most effective way to do that? For example, which links, and in what order? Or do you have a better idea?

    Erica Thunderpaws: Wow, you have done a lot of work, too! But I am disappointed that you adopted the faulty methodology of approaching this problem of Constitutional eligibility for POTUS of previous ‘legal mentors,’ that is, before you ‘found’ me.

    As you see (or will see) from reading past posts: there is no such thing as a NBC as defined by the federal appeals court in a case directly on point, in a ruling on that issue. None. Everything else is hyperbole or wishful thinking. However, case law is overflowing with definitions of C.

    This is one of the beauties of these complaints of election fraud. We are not saying BO is not a NBC; we don’t even know what that means, even if we had documentation that could establish his status, one way or the other. But then again, we did not swear as to that status, to state election officials, in order that they would print his name on state ballots.

    As for sending people here, please, do; but tell them, we are an interactive site. That is, if they live in already identified applicable states then, they need to send complaints of election fraud to their A’sG. And if they don’t know the laws in their states, they need to look them up.

    People have said that, OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF BABES provides a simple basic primer of the issues fleshed out here. Maybe you should recommend that, first. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. ET, I want to make sure you have read and understood the complaint, too. Because it should be clear from that reading, you alleged that no documentation in the public could establish BO is a NBC; and this becomes the basis for your allegation, BR cannot have ascertained BO was a NBC based on this public record. Primarily, this vests in the fact, nothing in the record could even establish he is a C!

  8. Texas Voter says:

    Sorry if I have missed this “bottom line status” detail…

    Are you seeking additional complaints to be sent to the TX AG, or is it best to await a response to any previous complaint(s) until a certain date?

    Texas Voter: I would hope dozens and dozens of Texans file these complaints of election fraud against Boyd Richie with AG Abbott. If any of you Texans were on the fence about this before; well, BR and the TDP are thumbing their noses at you now, aren’t they?* (As for those of you in other applicable states; obviously, if BR refuses to produce qualifying documents, none exists. So, your AG needs to be educated about what’s going on in TX. I would suggest, setting up a meeting to push your state complaint along, using the facts about the situation in TX to help make your point, the D’s are unable to produce documents that were the basis for Certifying, BO is a NBC, for the purpose of getting state officials to print his name on your ballot. That’s election fraud.)

    After tomorrow – Sunday – I will post next steps. Because tomorrow’s post solicits help from an unlikely source. I want to see what comes of that request before I post next steps. ADMINISTRATOR

    *These complaints are revised when major information changes; but can be downloaded and sent at any time, in whatever iteration is posted on line. For example, I will be updating the TX complaint to reflect the recent efforts to obtain documents from the TDP Club.

  9. jbjd says:

    Note to readers regarding time settings on comments: I just figured out how to reconcile the time inside of the blog with the time on the computer, which is the same as the time in the real world. Consequently, the timing of previously posted comments may appear ‘off’ (+5 hours). (Yes, TeakWoodKite and ericathunderpaws, you did submit comments to the blog between 1:00 AM and 5:00 AM Saturday morning; and yes, I did respond to those comments at that time! However, with the updated time changes, this now deceptively looks as if we all got a good night’s sleep.) ADMINISTRATOR

  10. TeakWoodKite says:

    jbjd, thanks for the responses to the rather pedestrian questions from a lay kite. As I recall, your articles during the DNC convention were top notch and do recall your stellar efforts to shine a light on what occured.

    With that in mind, thanks.

    TWK: You are welcome. (Your questions are great; surely, others have similar questions and can benefit from our exchange(s).) ADMINISTRATOR

  11. “(Yes, TeakWoodKite and ericathunderpaws, you did submit comments to the blog between 1:00 AM and 5:00 AM Saturday morning; and yes, I did respond to those comments at that time! However, with the updated time changes, this now deceptively looks as if we all got a good night’s sleep.) ADMINISTRATOR”

    jbjd: You are correct about the time. After an aborted attempt to go to sleep, I gave up and went to my computer around 1:00 am CST, at which time I read your blog, and then left a comment. If I was up at 1:00 am and you were up at the same time, you are keeping some very late hours since you are on the East Coast!

    Today I have been going through your all of your archives, and have an idea gestating in my mind. Stay tuned.

    P.S. jdjb: Please, can you manually change the link attached to my username? The link you currently show is a mirror image site I tried to set up on WordPress, but that effort didn’t work out as planned. Very soon I will take the mirror site down. It is very much out of date. The current link to my username should be http://jeffesonsrebels.blogspot.com

    Thanks.

    ericathunderpaws: No problem. (Did you see in my earlier response to you that, I had noticed you ‘changed’ your moniker, and addressed you in the ‘new’ name?)

    When I say, I am sacrificing sleep to get these articles out; I was not exaggerating. ADMINISTRATOR

  12. […] But in what can at best be characterized as a flagrant abuse of discretionary authority, these state government officials, Republican and Democrat alike, refuse even to acknowledge receipt of the complaints, let alone to investigate these reported crimes.  In this regard, the dismissive conduct of these elected officials toward citizens of the state mimics that of Certifying members of the D Corporation (and, in the case of TX, the state D club).  (See, CLUBS RULE) […]

  13. […] TEXAS TWO-STEP (UPDATE 02.22.10: See follow-up post at CLUBS RULE.) […]

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: