I get the feeling people aren’t fully grasping the importance of the work we have done in Texas because it’s not ‘sexy.’ For example, we have not conclusively proven any particular candidate for President or Vice President is Constitutionally ineligible for the job – ineligibility doesn’t per se make illegal obtaining the job, anyway – or established the definitive meaning of NBC – your opinion is as good as mine but not nearly as good as a federal appellate court – produced a famous spokesperson to proclaim we have (almost, press conference pending).

What we have done is to obtain evidence that, in TX 1) ballot eligibility laws are not being carried out; and 2) the TDP failed to federally qualify its candidates (notwithstanding people have spent 4 years misdirected on whether electronic images (or hard copies thereof) are ‘real.’) (Think about it; if these images were more than part of a political advertising campaign, wouldn’t someone certifying a candidate’s name to the ballot in a state requiring job eligibility; summon that image as a basis for the candidate’s federal authentication?)

I am not talking out of school when I disclose that, even you spent too much time sidetracked on ancillary issues, before coming home to what matters: given existing ballot laws, how do we ensure that any candidate whose name appears on our ballot is federally qualified for the job? (Of course; you had the advantage of living in a state with such laws!)

In the past 4 years; people in other states could have enacted these candidate eligibility laws. And they, too, could now be working to ensure these laws are being carried out for the 2012 ballot. But they appear to be sidetracked, still, focusing their energies on railing against perceived inequities in our electoral system but unwilling to expend those same energies on fixing it. Maybe that’s too much work. At least they can contribute to our work; because we certainly have the determination required to follow through with the legal case, despite exhausting ourselves and our finances to get to this point.

I know that speaking publicly – even on the radio Saturday mornings – does not come naturally to you. But you keep on keeping on. I am so proud of you. Thank you. ADMINISTRATOR

As jbjd has mentioned, I am going this alone as the one who will actually *file the injunction*, because of my unique situation: I have the documents/evidence. But we need help. Money, time, and effort. None are free. But we’re ready. jbjd is compiling the case. It’s solid. It’s quality work, too, which is the only way she does things anyway. It took 6 months of exhaustive research and collaboration, discussions, and even the occasional “hair-pulling” moments, where you just want to yell at the top of your lungs, “OMG!”. Yes, frustration can get the best of you – even if you have the patience of a Saint. With that said, I think it is only fair to ask for help at this point. I’ve been contributing to jbjd’s blog on a regular basis for the last 6 months. But this is getting to the point where she (and I) need some assistance. I need a small team here in Texas: 3 or 4 people who are willing to set aside time, energy, and valuable financial contributions. Oh, and did I mention, we only have 60 days? Yep. From this point, the clock is ticking. jbjd has my permission to give my contact info to those who are willing to step up, and offer the kind of help mentioned above.

ARE YOU IN?
-Kelly Canon

Another ‘fine point’ to your position may be to suggest that the ‘failure’ of the SOS to demand that the TDP include the NBC requirement to the TDP’s application/certification is tantamount to accepting the TDP as a ‘de facto’ guv’mnt agency and that their Rule making process in regard to the composition of their application/certification should be covered by the States administrative rules acts……………

In TX, we’re not trying to get the court to define anything. The SoS already has ruled what is a federally qualified candidate. That is, she promulgated a ballot application which asks the candidate whether s/he is a NBC. A ‘yes’ answer gets you on the ballot. But this means; the candidate who failed to answer ‘yes,’ does not get on the ballot. Because in TX, failing to answer ‘yes’ means, you’re not federally qualified for the job.

All of the D candidates in the primary failed to answer ‘yes.’ Indeed, they weren’t even asked. So, under TX law, they are not entitled to appear on the general election ballot. Not because they are ineligible for the job – who knows – but because they failed to meet eligibility for the ballot.

Thanks for your offer of help. We need money to pay for what we are doing. Just meeting with the SoS required a drive to and from Austin; and an overnight hotel stay. But that meeting produced material evidence that the SoS will not obey the law, without court intervention. ADMINISTRATOR

IMO, it is the lack of a “legal” definition that is the “legal-loop-hole” that the usurping cabal relies on.

I am willing to assist with the efforts in Texas in whatever way I can and may make another attempt to injoin Ballot access here in OK on principle.