THE END GAME

September 27, 2009

© 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


MODEL COMPLAINT OF ELECTION FRAUD TO STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL (see new comments daily)

September 8, 2009

UPDATE 03.24.10:  All citizen complaints posted here are current.

UPDATE 10.03.09: THE NEW SC COMPLAINT IS POSTED AND IT’S DYNAMITE. I KNOW I SAID THAT ALL COMPLAINTS OF ELECTION FRAUD NAMING NP WOULD BE POSTED ON, “THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE,” BUT I HAD TO GIVE THIS SC COMPLAINT ITS OWN POST. READ IT; YOU WILL SEE WHY. “UP TO HERE IN ELECTION FRAUD IN SC, FROM THE CHAIR OF THE 2008 DNC CONVENTION TO THE CHAIR OF THE DNC.”

UPDATE 10.02.09: HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS. BASED ON NEW INFORMATION, I NEED TO REVISE THE SC COMPLAINT. IN FACT, I NEED TO GIVE IT ITS OWN POST. LOOK FOR IT.

UPDATE 09.24.09: THE GEORGIA MODEL COMPLAINT FOR ELECTION FRAUD IS NOW POSTED, ON THE NEXT SITE, “THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE.” JUST LIKE THE VIRGINIA COMPLAINT, GEORGIA, TOO, IS DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE NANCY PELOSI, ACTING IN A NON-GOVERNMENTAL ROLE AS CHAIR OF THE 2008 DNC CONVENTION. BECAUSE IN BOTH OF THOSE STATES, MS. PELOSI FORWARDED THE CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION TO THE STATE ELECTIONS OFFICIALS AND, THEREFORE, IS NAMED AS THE PERPETRATOR OF THE FRAUD. ALL COMPLAINTS NAMING HER WILL APPEAR ON THE OTHER SITE.

UPDATE 09.22.09: CALLING ALL TEXANS WHO SENT COMPLAINTS OF ELECTION FRAUD TO TEXAS AG ABBOTT: COULD YOU PLEASE CHECK IN WITH ME? I NEED A ‘NUMBER’ SO THAT I CAN DETERMINE BEST STRATEGY AT THIS POINT TO COMPEL A RESPONSE. (IF ANY OF YOU HAS RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO YOUR FILING OR, INITIATED FOLLOW-UP CONTACT WITH THE OFFICE OF THE AG, PLEASE, LET US KNOW.)

UPDATE 09.17.09: I ADDED THE SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTION FRAUD COMPLAINT BELOW TEXAS AND HAWAII. PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU ARE SENDING THE CORRECT COMPLAINT.

UPDATE 09.18.09:  PLEASE READ MY LENGTHY REMARKS POSTED IN “COMMENTS,” REGARDING THE THEFT AND SUBSEQUENT DISTRIBUTION OF WORK PRODUCED HERE ON THIS BLOG, AS RELATES TO THE BROUHAHA THIS THEFT HAS INCITED OVER WHETHER A VIABLE COMPLAINT OF ELECTION FRAUD SHOULD ISSUE IN NH.

UPDATE 09.17.09:  I ADDED THE SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTION FRAUD COMPLAINT BELOW TEXAS AND HAWAII.  PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU ARE SENDING THE CORRECT COMPLAINT.

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

If you live in a state with a law that requires the candidate for POTUS from the major political party to be eligible for the job before state elections officials will print his or her name on the general election ballot then, Certifying BO is the D nominee without ascertaining whether he is a NBC, just to get his name printed on the ballot, is election fraud.  Here’s how you can compel your elected Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer in the state, to do something about it.

The Model Complaint of Election Fraud immediately below is tailored specifically to the Attorney General in the State of Texas.  (HI immediately follows TX.)  If you live in Texas and use this complaint, make sure you fill in your name and address in the space marked “From.”  Also, remember to distribute copies to Hope Andrade, the SoS; and Boyd Richie, the state D party Chair.

View this document on Scribd

Here is the Model Complaint of Election Fraud tailored specifically to the Attorney General of Hawaii, citing Hawaii Revised Statutes and fitting the set of facts involved with the Hawaii Certifications to the law.  To send, download by clicking on the Scribd link below the image.  Make sure to fill in your name and address in the space marked “From.”  Also, remember to distribute copies to Brian E. Schatz, Democratic Party of Hawaii; and William Marston, Chairperson, Election Commission.

View this document on Scribd

The Model Complaint of Election Fraud immediately below is tailored specifically to the Attorney General in the State of South Carolina, citing South Carolina Code Annotated and fitting the set of facts involved with the Certifications submitted in South Carolina, to the law.   If you live in South Carolina and use this complaint, make sure you fill in your name and address in the space marked “From.”  Also, remember to distribute copies to Carol Fowler, Chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party; and Marci Andino, Executive Director, South Carolina Election Commission.

Hold onto your hats. Based on new information, I need to revise the SC complaint. In fact, I need to give it its own post. Look for it.

View this document on Scribd


NEVER LESS THAN a TREASON (1 of 2)

August 25, 2009

© 2009 jbjd

The title of this post is inspired by a line in the last stanza from one of my favorite poems, Reluctance,  by my favorite poet, Robert Frost.

Ah, when to the heart of man
Was it ever less than a treason
To go with the drift of things,
To yield with a grace to reason,
And bow and accept the end
Of a love or a season?

I have always found giving up without a fight to be treasonous, especially when I am certain I am right.  And I am certainly right about Barack Obama.  That is, people within  the DNC selected him to become POTUS notwithstanding the evidence indicates he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job.  Specifically, he is not a NBC.  Indefatigable, I have assembled this primer which, hopefully, will end the interminable farce over how best to address his Constitutional eligibility.    I name the names of those people responsible for depositing him in the Oval Office, and define the precise scope of their culpability, in anticipation that efforts to rectify this election anomaly will now be focused squarely on them.   Keep in mind that, by identifying the people with direct culpability, I am by definition ruling out everyone else.   For starters, this blameless faction includes Barack Obama.  Because even assuming he is not a NBC, without these others, he could never have gotten the job.

Recognizing the real culprits in this drama requires an understanding of the process for electing the POTUS, as spelled out in the Constitution.   Fortunately, our tax dollars paid for an enterprise that will contribute to such an understanding.  The Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress published an excellent report entitled, “The Electoral College: How It Works,” which contains this concise summary on the Presidential election process.  Please, master this passage before you proceed.  (All emphasis to the original is mine.)  (jbjd note (08.05.10):  Subsequent to writing this article, I decided to stop referring to Electors using the word “College,”  as this term does not appear in the Constitution.)

When Americans vote for a President and Vice President, they actually vote for presidential electors, known collectively as the electoral college. It is these electors, chosen by the people, who elect the chief executive. The Constitution assigns each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate and House of Representatives delegations; at present, the number of electors per state ranges from three to 55, for a total of 538. Anyone may serve as an elector, except for Members of Congress, and persons holding offices of “Trust or Profit” under the Constitution. In each presidential election year, a group (ticket or slate) of candidates for elector is nominated by political parties and other groups in each state, usually at a state party convention, or by the party state committee. It is these elector-candidates, rather than the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the election held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November (jbjd note:  date omitted). In most states, voters cast a single vote for the slate of electors pledged to the party presidential and vice presidential candidates of their choice. The slate winning the most popular votes is elected; this is known as the winner-take-all, or general ticket, system. Maine and Nebraska use the district system, under which two electors are chosen on a statewide, at-large basis, and one is elected in each congressional district. Electors assemble in their respective states on Monday after the second Wednesday in December (jbjd note:  date omitted). They are pledged and expected, but not required, to vote for the candidates they represent. (jbjd note (08.05.10):  Some states have enacted laws that  require Electors to support the nominee of the party; but no faithless Elector has ever been prosecuted for violating this oath, and Congress has never failed to ratify the vote of the Electors even when this includes the votes of these faithless Electors.) Separate ballots are cast for President and Vice President, after which the electoral college ceases to exist for another four years. The electoral vote results are counted and declared at a joint session of Congress, held on January 6 of the year succeeding the election. (jbjd note:  Congress enacted a law changing this date to January 8 just for the year 2009.)  A majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) is required to win. This report will be updated as events warrant.

http://www.fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/28109.pdf

Thus, on January 8, 2009, Congress finalized the election of BO for POTUS when, exercising a procedure spelled out in the Constitution, they ratified the individual vote tallies from Electoral College votes cast in all 50 states, and the District of Columbia, which had been submitted to them via the Constitutionally prescribed process by then Vice President Cheney, the President of the Senate, who had received these totals directly from the individual state Electoral Colleges as required by the Constitution.  http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

Immediately after this Congressional Ratification, self-identified “Patriots,” certain BO is not a NBC, flooded the blogosphere with hyperbolic rants against everyone in Congress for failing to insist on a Constitutional vetting of the man before voting for Ratification.  These so-called ‘Patriots’ referred to Congresspeople of both parties as “Traitors,” accusing their elected officials of committing “Treason” for failing to uphold the eligibility requirements for POTUS spelled out in the Constitution, even though, ironically, the Constitution itself  required Ratification once Congress was confident the Electoral College had conducted its vote in accordance with the ‘process’ prescribed by the Constitution.

In other words, Congress is not directly responsible for making BO POTUS but only for Ratifying the results of the voting undertaken by the Electoral College.  This means that they are also not responsible for the fact he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job, even assuming he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

This does not mean the Electoral College is directly responsible for making BO POTUS.

Neither the Constitution nor federal law prescribe the manner in which each state appoints its Electors other than directing that they be appointed on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.  In most States, the Electors are appointed through a state-wide popular election (“general election”).

That is, voters only elect Electors in the state’s general election.

Currently, Electors are nominated to fill these positions by the political parties at their state party conventions or by a vote of the party’s central committee in each state. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to the party. Generally, they hold a leadership position in the party. Often, they are major party fundraisers.  They may be state elected officials but, the Constitution prohibits members of Congress from becoming Electors in the Electoral College.

Whether the names of these nominated Electors then appear on the ballot depends on election laws that vary state to state.  In some states, the names of these Electors appear along with the letter “D” or “R,” along with the name of the party nominee.  In other states, only the name of the nominee appears along with the designation of the party.  But regardless of the appearance of the names on the general election ballot, voters in each state only choose the electors on the day of the general election. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

Weeks after their ‘appointment’ by means of the general election, these elected state Electors meet in each state – this gathering of Electors is referred to as the Electoral College, although the term Electoral College does not appear in the Constitution – to cast votes for the next POTUS.   The Constitution is silent about the factors that go into their voting decision.  Thus, Electors are Constitutionally free to cast votes for whomever they want.  This means, they may even vote for a person who is not the nominee of their political party or, is not in the same party as the slate of Electors that won the state’s general election.  However, some states have enacted laws that require the slate of Electors receiving the largest popular vote in the state’s general election, must cast their votes for the Presidential nominee from the same political party.  In other words, in these states, if the D’s received more votes than the R’s, then the Electors for the D party must cast their votes for the D party nominee.  And every state except for NE and ME, and the District of Columbia are winner take all, meaning, all of the electoral votes assigned to that state (or the District of Columbia) must be cast by Electors of the winning political party.

Immediately after the vote of the Electoral College, self-identified “Patriots,” certain BO was Constitutionally ineligible for the job, flooded the blogosphere with hyperbolic rants against the Democrats in the Electoral Colleges who cast votes for BO without first vetting him for Constitutional qualifications.  These ‘Patriots’ referred to Electors representing the Democratic Party as “Traitors,” accusing them of committing “Treason” for failing to uphold the eligibility requirements spelled out in the Constitution.  But remember, the Constitution does not require Electors to vet the party candidate for President as to Constitutional eligibility,  being silent as to the qualification of the person Electors may elect for the job.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

In other words, the Electoral College is not directly responsible for making BO POTUS but only for casting their votes for him in accordance with both the Constitution and state law, as the nominee of the D party when that party was the winner of the state’s general election.  This also means that they are not responsible for the fact he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job, even assuming he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

Then, the responsibility for electing an ineligible POTUS must be found in a process directly related to his nomination.

(TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 2 OF 2.)

When Americans vote for a President and Vice President, they actually vote for
presidential electors, known collectively as the electoral college. It is these electors,
chosen by the people, who elect the chief executive. The Constitution assigns each state
a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate and House of
Representatives delegations; at present, the number of electors per state ranges from
three to 55, for a total of 538. Anyone may serve as an elector, except for Members of
Congress, and persons holding offices of “Trust or Profit” under the Constitution. In
each presidential election year, a group (ticket or slate) of candidates for elector is
nominated by political parties and other groups in each state, usually at a state party
convention, or by the party state committee. It is these elector-candidates, rather than
the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the election
held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November (November 2, 2004). In most
states, voters cast a single vote for the slate of electors pledged to the party presidential
and vice presidential candidates of their choice. The slate winning the most popular
votes is elected; this is known as the winner-take-all, or general ticket, system. Maine
and Nebraska use the district system, under which two electors are chosen on a
statewide, at-large basis, and one is elected in each congressional district. Electors
assemble in their respective states on Monday after the second Wednesday in December
(December 13, 2004). They are pledged and expected, but not required, to vote for the
candidates they represent. Separate ballots are cast for President and Vice President,
after which the electoral college ceases to exist for another four years. The electoral
vote results are counted and declared at a joint session of Congress, held on January 6
of the year succeeding the election. A majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538)
is required to win. This report will be updated as events warrant.

IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO

August 13, 2009

(CORRECTION:  10.09.10: In this article, I wrote that HI was the only state that required explicit language in the documentation submitted to election officials that the candidate for President from the major political party was Constitutionally eligible for the job, to be entitled to have that person’s name printed on the ballot.  But as I explored the election laws of more states, I learned HI was not alone.  For example, on 10.02.09, 3 (three) weeks after I posted this article, I posted UP to HERE in ELECTION FRAUD in SC, FROM the CHAIR of the 2008 DNC CONVENTION to the CHAIR of the DNC, pointing to the fact that under SC law, the party also must Certify to election officials the candidate is qualified for the office to get them to print the candidate’s name on the ballot.  And I posted the image of the Certification the SC Democratic Party submitted to get Obama’s name on the ballot; only, it was that state’s Presidential preference primary ballot.  Because in SC, candidates participating in the primary must register through the political party.  In this case, the Certification was hand-written by then state party Treasurer, Kathy Hensley.

Ms. Pelosi also did not sign the Certification in TX.  Rather, this was signed by Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party.  His documents can be seen in REMEMBER THE ALAMO, posted in January 2010.)

© 2009 jbjd

FACT: NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TOLD USA TODAY THAT DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS “un-AMERICAN.”

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and 3rd in line of Presidential succession, told  USA Today that drowning out opposing facts is “un-American.”  Certainly, if drowning out opposing facts is “un-American” then ignoring facts must be un-American, too.

FACT: UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE II SECTION 1 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html

FACT: SERVING AS CHAIR OF THE 2008 DNC CONVENTION, NANCY PELOSI SIGNED THE DNC’S OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION SWEARING 1) BARACK OBAMA IS THE “DULY NOMINATED” CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY; AND 2) HE IS LEGALLY QUALIFIED TO SERVE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED STATED CONSTITUTION.

Last summer, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives assumed the civilian role of Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention.  As Chair, her principle duty was to sign the DNC’s Official Certification of Nomination, which document was then forwarded to state elections officials via the state D party chairs,  in order that these election officials could print the name of Barack Obama, the party nominee, next to the D on state general election ballots.  (Depending on state law,  some states print the names of Electors for that nominee on the ballot, either with or without the name of the nominee.)

Under the laws in every state, once elections officials receive the Official Certification of Nomination, the name of the nominee for POTUS from the major political party is automatically entitled to appear on the state’s general election ballot.  That is, in every other state in the union except HI.  In HI, just identifying the name of the nominee does not guarantee his name will be placed on the ballot.  No;  in order to get BO’s name on the ballot in just that state, NP also had to swear he was Constitutionally eligible for the job. (In some states, like TX and GA, the law requires that the party candidate must be Constitutionally eligible for the job.  But even in these states, no provision of law requires anyone in government to check.  DNC rules dictate that the candidate for the Democratic nomination for President “shall meet those requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States.”  http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf (p.14, K.1 and 2).  Thus, identifying under oath that BO was the D party nominee was tantamount to swearing, he is a NBC, anyway.)

(CORRECTION 05.18.12: In TX, the Constitutional requirement only goes to the candidates’ entitlement to appear on the ballot. The SoS may still exercise her discretion to print the name of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates even without evidence of such federal qualification.)

Here are the Certifications of Nomination submitted to HI state officials by the RNC and DNC to get the names of their respective candidates for POTUS printed on HI’s general election ballots.  The cover letter from HI elections officials cites HI’s unique presidential verification law.  (Special thanks to Justin Riggs.)

View this document on Scribd

(Note:  Usually I refrain from getting involved in discussions as to the authenticity of photocopied or scanned documents posted on the internet.  But I want to point out what looks to me to be an anomaly in the HI DNC Certification in NP’s signature.  For comparison, here is an image of the Certification of Nomination received by SC.) (While you are here, can you see the line as to eligibility missing in SC that is present in HI?)

Once state elections officials receive the Certification of Nomination, they automatically print the name of the party nominee onto the general election ballot.  (Remember, even in states that have passed laws requiring the party candidate for POTUS to satisfy the qualifications for office, no provision of law requires any state official to check.  Indeed, when asked, state elections officials confirm, all vetting is left up to the party.)  So, on what basis did NP (and the state D party Chairs) Certify to state elections officials in all 50 (fifty) states, BO is a NBC?

Given the narrow window of time between the Convention nomination and the deadline for submitting the party’s Certification of Nomination to state elections officials – these deadlines vary state to state – any determination as to BO’s Constitutional eligibility presumably was made some time before his August  nomination.  So, what could have been the basis for such verification?

FACT: IN JUNE 2008 THEN DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINEE HOPEFUL BARACK OBAMA PUBLICLY PROCLAIMED ON HIS NEWLY FORMED WEB SITE, FIGHT THE SMEARS, HE IS ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT ON THIS BASIS:  HE IS A “NATIVE CITIZEN.”

Explaining he was ‘reacting to questions swirling around as to his Constitutional qualifications,’  BO created the web site “Fight the Smears” in June 2008, less than 3 (three) months before Ms. Pelosi would sign his Certification of Nomination.  NOTE:   THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL ITERATIONS OF THE WEB SITE NAMED “FIGHT THE SMEARS.”  SOME OF THESE ARE .ORG’S; SOME ARE .COM’S.  BURIED IN THE FOOTER, SOME OF THESE FTS SITES REVEAL THEY ARE “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA”; SOME ARE PAID FOR BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA; SOME SAY THE DNC. But whatever the iteration of FTS, prominently displayed on the site is  a photocopy of the document everyone has seen by now, entitled, “Certification of Live Birth” (“COLB”).  (Until the fall of 2008, HI officials noted the distinction between a “Certificate” and a “Certification.”  See, for example, Atlas Shrugs, linked above.) BO claims the “truth” is, this COLB proves he  is a “native citizen”; and in the following note, he asks his supporters to spread this “fact” around.

Hi everyone!

People who are determined to keep us divided start these rumors about Barack’s birth certificate to manipulate us into thinking he is not an American citizen.

The fact is Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

Learn the facts and see the birth certificate for yourself:

http://my.barackobama.com/birthcertificate

(Accessing that link now leads you to http://www.barackobama.com/fightthesmears/articles.)

(Note:  In December 2007, BO did swear he was a “natural born citizen of the United States,” in nomination papers he submitted to the SoS of AZ to participate in that state’s Presidential Preference Election (primary).) http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/obama-not-eligible-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-signature-on-arizona-candidate-nomination-paper-moniquemonicat-blog-did-obama-commit-fraud-did-obama-lie/

In the following version of FTS, BO actually cites the 14th Amendment to support his nativity.

BUT NONE OF THESE ITERATIONS OF “FIGHT THE SMEARS ” ARGUES CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!

Also prominently displayed on all of these FTS sites is the logo for the organization called Annenberg Political FactCheck.org (“APFC”).   FTS directs readers to an active link to the APFC site, claiming APFC “clarifies Mr. Obama’s citizenship.”  Here is how APFC summarizes this situation.

In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen.

They go on to report that APFC staff personally examined Obama’s COLB before rendering this exact opinion.

Our conclusion:  Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

FACT: CONTACTED BY CONCERNED CONSTITUENTS PRIOR TO RATIFYING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE IN FAVOR OF BARACK OBAMA,  MEMBERS OF THE U.S. SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INSISTED, ANNENBERG POLITICAL FACT CHECK PROVED HE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Some time after the general election on November 4, 2008 but before the Electoral College vote on December 15, constituents contacted their U.S. Senators and Representatives with concerns as to whether Barack Obama is eligible for POTUS under Article II, Section 1  of the U.S. Constitution.   Specifically, is he a natural born citizen?  Here is just a sample of the responses they received from these federal elected officials. (Special thanks to Citizen Wells.)

U.S. Senator Harry Reid, Democrat Majority Leader from Nevada:

Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from you.

According to Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution, any person
serving in the United States House of Representatives must have reached
the age of twenty-five and must have been a citizen of the United States
for at least seven years, and any person serving in the United States
Senate must have reached the age of thirty and must have been a citizen
of the United States for at least nine years. In addition, Article II,
Section 1 mandates that a person must have reached the age of thirty-five
and be a natural born citizen in order to serve as President of the
United States.

As you mentioned, some reports have surfaced that my former colleague,
President-Elect Barack Obama, is not a natural-born American citizen.
These reports are false. Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in
Honolulu, Hawai’i. His birth certificate is a matter of public record
of the State of Hawai’i and is available online through various news
sources, as well as on the Web site for the nonpartisan, nonprofit
Annenberg Political Fact Check: http://www.factcheck.org. I hope you
find this information useful.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
For more information about my work for Nevada, my role in the United
States Senate Leadership, or to subscribe to regular e-mail updates on
the issues that interest you, please visit my Web site at
http://reid.senate.gov. I look forward to hearing from you in the near
future.

U.S. Representative Jay Inslee, Democrat from Washington:

Thank you for contacting me about claims about President-Elect Obama’s
status as a natural-born citizen, as required for admittance to U.S.
Presidential office by the Constitution. As always, I appreciate hearing
from you.

As you know, President-Elect Obama has indeed provided his actual paper
Certification of Live Birth to several media organizations, as well as
the Annenberg Foundation’s non-partisan “Factcheck.org” website and the
conservative news website World Net Daily, which reported that a “WND
investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts
also found the document to be authentic.” In fact, all of these groups
have recognized that the President Elect’s actual birth certificate
document is real and genuine.

U.S. Senator Herb Kohl, Democrat from Wisconsin:

Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from
you and welcome this opportunity to respond.

As you may know, Hawaii became a state on August 21st,
1959. President-elect Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961,
making him a United States citizen at birth under the first section
of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. President-elect
Obama’s birth certificate has been made public, and is widely
available online. This document has been authenticated by a
variety of sources, including…the Annenberg Public Policy Center.

U.S. Representative Tammy Baldwin, Democrat from Wisconsin:

Thank you for contacting me regarding President-elect Obama’s
citizenship. It is always good to hear from you. As you know, some have suggested that President-elect Barack Obama  may have been born outside the U.S. and is not a “natural born citizen” eligible for the presidency. During the presidential campaign,
President-elect Obama voluntarily posted his birth certificate on his
campaign website indicating he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961.

U.S. Senator Carl Levin, Democrat from Michigan:

From: senator_levin@levin.senate.gov senator_levin@levin.senate.gov
Subject: Re: Your Concerns
To: xxxxxxxxx.com
Date: Friday, December 5, 2008, 12:53 PM

Dear xxxxxxxxxx:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the false rumors surrounding
President-elect Obama’s citizenship status. I appreciate you
sharing your thoughts with me.

As you may know, Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution
states that, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen
of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii as documented by his
official birth certificate. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen
of the United States. Thank you again for writing.

U.S. Representative John Tanner, Democrat from Tennessee:

Thank you for contacting our office regarding the allegations that
President-Elect Barack Obama was not born in the United States. I
appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this
issue.

There are claims that President-Elect Obama was born in Africa and not
in the United States which would make him ineligible to become
president. The Obama campaign released a scanned copy of his birth
certificate in June 2008, but many people believe it was a forgery.
The non-partisan organization Political Fact Check (this group monitors
the factual accuracy of political information) has examined Mr. Obama’s
birth certificate and they report that it is valid and he is a U.S.
citizen. I have included a link to a Newsweek article that was written
on this subject and includes links to pictures of the birth certificate
(http://www.newsweek.com/id/154599).

(Note from jbjd:  Newsweek credits that article to a member of FactCheck.org staff. )

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me and I hope you will feel
free to contact our office with any issues of concern to you in the
future.

U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski, Democrat from Maryland:

Thank you for getting in touch with me. It’s nice to hear from you.

I appreciate knowing of your concern over a rumor that President-elect Obama is ineligible to serve as President because he is not a U.S. citizen.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Since President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii two years after it was admitted as the 50th state, he is a natural-born citizen. He has released a copy of his birth certificate and it has been authenticated by experts.

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/us-constitution-hall-of-shame/

(Interestingly, none of the legislators cited as a reason to guarantee BO’s Constitutional qualification, the fact that NP signed that   Official Certification of Nomination swearing he was eligible for the job.)

In sum, between June 2008, when BO admitted questions had been raised as to his Constitutional eligibility for President; and August, when NP signed his Official DNC Certification of Nomination; the only ‘evidence’ he proffered to establish his  qualifications was that COLB he posted on FTS, on which basis Congress ratified the voting by the Electoral College, citing as their reason, ‘FactCheck said, he’s for real.’

FACT: ANNENBERG POLITICAL FACT CHECK DOES NOT CHECK FACTS.

See “RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS.'”


RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’

August 9, 2009

UPDATE 04.22.10:  I have replaced the link to the APFC web site containing the image of the unattributed ‘contemporaneous birth announcement,’ with a screen capture of that ‘now you see it; now you don’t’ facsimile.

(Update 08.11.09:  After you have read this article, make sure to read the readers’ comments, along with my (sometimes lengthy) replies.  “Miri” took the lessons learned from my post one step further, offering up a classic example of the de-construction of BO-speak, in her Comment submitted on 08.11.09 at 1:45 PM.)

(IMPORTANT UPDATE 08.14.09:  UPDATE AT END)

(IMPORTANT UPDATE 01.31.10:  UPDATE AT END)

Last night, I  received this brief comment from jan C.

jbjd: I have been told that the Honolulu Observer states that the birth information published comes from hospitals.  Is that confirmed anywhere?  What is your explanation for the existence of the newspaper birth announcements if he was not born in the hospital?

I conducted some research to prepare my response, and stumbled across  information that blunts another arrow of authenticity in BO’s quiver.

jan C: Welcome.

I generally stay out of discussions as to whether photocopied or scanned documents posted on the web are real.  (Your guess is as good as mine.)  Instead, I try to find out where the image came from.

I remember BO did not post that newspaper birth announcement image on his FTS web site.   (I don’t mean now that the site belongs to the DNC; I mean even before the switch, back when it  was still paid for by Obama for America.)  I always thought this was odd.  He posted the COLB, and the admission that he was a British subject at birth whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.  And I can picture the official logo of Annenberg Political FactCheck.org, which linked to APFC’s web site, where more testimonials were printed as to BO’s Constitutional legitimacy.  I recall how incredulous I was at the time, that he would publicly tout Annenberg as an “independent” arbiter of his eligibility to be POTUS, since that was his boss when he was Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.  (Doesn’t everyone know that?)  I did remember seeing that birth announcement posted on APFC’s web site; so that’s where I went first.

The image of that newspaper birth announcement is  still there.

I clicked on the image to trace its origin.  But wherever I clicked, I kept getting back to the blog named td, or texas darlin.  That is, I got to a screen with a td header and message saying ‘what you want is no longer here.’  Well, I post on td’s blog; in fact, she calls me their “resident lawyer.”  (She is on my blog roll.)  So the first time this happened, I figured, too many windows open, too many thumbs.  Then, it happened again. And now  it dawned on me, could it be that td’s site is the source of the picture of the newspaper announcement APFC posts on their site and uses to prove BO is a NBC; and APFC  merely copied it?

Just below the image, I found my answer: The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded Obama “likely” was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu. Say what?   But APFC must have conducted their own investigation, right?  Surely, they contacted the Honolulu Advertiser to check the facts surrounding this birth announcement publication.  Of course they viewed the archives and located that same image from microfiche or other medium.  Reading just a little further, I was bound to find the record of such comprehensive investigation.  But here was APFC’s last word on the subject.

Of course, it’s distantly possible that Obama’s grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday.  We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat.  The evidence is clear:  Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

In sum, the image of that announcement of BO’s birth in the Honolulu Advertiser posted on APFC came from an anonymous poster on the td blog.  APFC usurped that image, posted this on its site, and with no further evidence of authentication declared, “The evidence is clear:  Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.”

Yet, despite this overwhelming evidence the image of BO’s birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser posted on APFC and all over the internet,  is fake; BO tried to fool a federal judge into finding this was real, too.

Hollister v. Soetoro et. al is only one of the many unsuccessful lawsuits filed against BO in a frantic attempt to ascertain whether he is a NBC.  As in every other case, BO submitted a Motion to Dismiss.  (Defendants’ Motion in Hollister argued Plaintiff had failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted; and failed to establish the court had jurisdiction.  This was all procedural; the court had not yet reached the substantive merits of the case.)  I had read Plaintiff’s Complaint when it was first filed; I knew it was infirm, and the reasons why.  So, I would not have read BO’s Motion to Dismiss if someone hadn’t asked my opinion.  And there, in footnote 1 on the front page of the Memorandum in support of his Motion, I found this sneaky little gem of propaganda, arguably placed there to reap maximum attention from the public as much as the court.  Written quite cleverly so as to disguise its real meaning, the footnote is more easily understood with translation.

1 President Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii. (BO left out that by “publicly produced” he meant, he posted the image of a COLB on the internet.) ( You already know the difference between a certification and a certificate, at least before October 2008, when HI began using the terms interchangeably.) See, e.g., (this means, to back up the point I just made, I am going to use a reference that is not directly on point and only kind of related.) Factcheck.org, (He leaves out the Annenberg Political…) “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections 2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper). (Now, this is a double slight of hand.  First, BO says (AP)FC “conclud[ed]” that the BC is real, so as to reaffirm for the court, the statement he made above that he produced a birth certificate must be true.  Notice he fails to draw any nexus between his producing the BC and, APFC “concluding” it is real, only implying such nexus exists.)  (Look at how cleverly he slipped in a reference to the meaningless newspaper announcement of his birth.  He says, APFC “not[ed] a contemporaneous birth announcement.”  But he does not say they only made this note of it:  “The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded Obama “likely” was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu.”) (By formatting his cite in this way, he maximizes the likelihood that a quick read would bamboozle a clerk into mistaking this to be a holding of law from a court case instead of merely a reference to the opinion of his former employer expressed in a blog posting.) Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” (He is clearly trying to put one over on the court.  As I explained in detail in a prior post, ” jbjd BIRTHER,” HI officials did not say that the “original birth certificate” “on record”  they are referring to, confirms BO was born in HI; nor did they confirm the COLB he posted saying he was born in HI, is authentic; or that the information contained in that on-line COLB matches the information in their files.) See (This means, the next reference is not directly on point but is kind of related.) “Certified,” Honolulu Star Bulletin, Oct. 31, 2008. This Court can take judicial notice of these public news reports. (Whoever wrote this is playing fast and loose with the canons of ethics.  Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, judicial notice means, the court accepts as true that fact not subject to reasonable dispute because it is generally known as true, or it is capable of accurate and ready determination.  The process of judicial notice is the easiest way for the parties to get evidence into the record.  TECHNICALLY, everything BO alleges here is easily verified as true.  Of course, nothing he says here can be understood to mean what he intends the Court to hear.  But if the Court took judicial notice of the fact, APFC said, he’s for real, he would spin this into the narrative, the federal court has ruled he is a NBC, much in the same way APFC insists, an image of a newspaper birth announcement stolen from a blogger is “clear” “evidence”  BO is a NBC.) See The Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Agee v. Muskie, 629 F.2d 80, 81 n.1, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1980). (Presumably, these are cites to cases that contain some vague indication that judicial notice could possibly be taken under the set of facts alleged here; and in light of the fact, the case hasn’t even progressed past the Motion to Dismiss stage.)

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/9-1.pdf

Thankfully, the only thing the court granted BO in Hollister was a Dismissal.

Hollister was filed in January 2009.  But beginning back in July 2008, I surmised, the strongest piece of evidence BO could produce to verify his Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, is that COLB he posted on FTS, which means nothing.  By placing that footnote in his Motion to Dismiss in Hollister, he validated my suspicions.  If he had ‘evidence’ of eligibility with more gravitas than a photocopied COLB; or a phantom image of a newspaper birth announcement, he would have asked the federal judge to take judicial notice of that.  And surely, if that announcement of birth in the Honolulu Advertiser meant anything, he would have posted this on FTS.  (So, on what basis did NP and the DNC Certify BO is a NBC?)

In sum, the newspaper announcement of BO’s birth is a sham, making the rest of your questions moot.

UPDATE 08.14.09: Based on his submission of this footnote to the federal court in January, I am surmising that the strongest evidence BO could have provided to NP to verify his Constitutional status before she Certified his eligibility for POTUS on August 27; was this same APFC characterization of authenticity.  BUT THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE HE HAD TO PROVE TO THE COURT HE WAS A NBC; WAS THAT CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION NP SIGNED AND FORWARDED TO STATE ELECTIONS OFFICIALS SO THAT HIS NAME COULD BE PRINTED ON THE STATE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOTS!  This begs the question:  why did lawyers from PERKINS COIE ask the court to take judicial notice their client was for real by referencing a web site run by the organization APFC, given that they could have cited his authentication as a natural born citizen in any one of the 50 Official DNC Certifications of Nomination sworn to by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives?

UPDATE 01.31.10: For more de-construction of Bob Bauer’s infamous footnote in Hollister, see http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/bob-bauer-rumored-to-be-next-white-house-counsel-to-federal-court-f-you/; and http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/counsel-for-dnc-services-corporation-performs-3-card-monte-for-federal-court/(Also see any of the citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG.)

©2009


jbjd, BIRTHER

August 5, 2009

(08.08.09:  I wish I had entitled this post, “HI OFFICIALS CONFIRM BO NOT A NBC BY CLAIMING, HE IS.”  Because that is the premise of the piece.  And these statements coming from Janice Okibo, Communications Director of HI Department of Health; and Dr. Fukino, Director, are important additions to the narrative that can support charges of election fraud against both NP and the DNC, filed with your state AG.  That is, in order to get BO’s name printed on state general election ballots, they Certified he is a NBC without first determining whether he is.  After reading the post, read the Comments below the post.  I have written tomes in response to readers’ queries.)

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

Notwithstanding that several times I have outlined the case, when it comes to determining whether BO is a NBC, the burdens of proof and production are on him, I have nevertheless been struck at how easily people were duped into construing that recent pronouncements from the state of HI legitimized BO’s HI birth.  On the contrary, they did no such thing.

I was reading td’s blog – she’s on my blogroll – when I came across this seemingly innocuous comment by a poster named Michelle in Texas:

Posted on BBC news. Most facts are correct. More telling are the omissions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8171314.stm

I read that article.  Here was my reply.

Thank you Michelle, whoever you are. I read this link; the article mentioned that Janice Okubo, Dir. of Communications for HI DoH, said in the Washington Independent that, no one born outside HI can get a HI Certification of Live Birth saying he was born in HI. Here’s the money quote.

“If you were born in Bali, for example,” Ms Okubo told the Washington Independent, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate.”

(Recall I wrote in a comment on a previous post that Hi has now undertaken the wholesale substitution of the word “certificate” for the word “certification.”)

The Washington Independent printed Ms. Okubo’s statement on July 17.  Here is that link.  http://washingtonindependent.com/51489/birther-movement-picks-up-steam

IN OTHER WORDS, MS. OKUBO IS SAYING THAT ANY CHILD NOT BORN IN A HI HOSPITAL CAN STILL OBTAIN A HI CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH BY PRODUCING RECORDS VITAL TO IDENTIFYING WHERE THE CHILD WAS BORN.  HOWEVER, SHE FAILED TO IDENTIFY WHAT WERE THOSE ‘VITAL RECORDS.’ AND, GIVEN THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTION, HER ANSWER SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED THIS INFORMATION.

Then, 10 (ten) days later, on July 27, the Director of the Dept. of Health, Dr. Fukino said she had “seen the original vital records…” “verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen.”  http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090727/BREAKING01/90727082/Obama+Hawaii+born++insist+Isle+officials Know what I think she saw? The documentation BO’s mother was required to submit to the DoH verifying her newborn child was born alive in HI outside of the hospital, in order to obtain a HI Certification – oops, I’m not used to HI’s revisionist terminology – Certificate of Live Birth.  These vital records could include a photocopy of a passport verifying his mother is  an American citizen.  And these original vital records submitted by his mother verifying BO was born in HI and she is an American citizen, are still in the file.

The original  COLB is also in the file.  This means that when Dr. Fukino said last October she saw BO’s original birth certificate – remember, HI officials now call the “Certification” a “Certificate” – she was telling the truth.  (“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,” Fukino said.  http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html Indeed, she was telling us the following.  ‘According to state policies and procedures, BO’s mom provided information to us verifying her son was born in HI outside of a hospital.  And we believed her and issued a COLB saying Hi is where he was born.’

Presumably, back in October, she also saw the evidence submitted by his mother verifying she was an American citizen.  So, on July 27, up to here with 9 (nine) months of constant questions about details of his birth records in relation to his Constitutional eligibility to be POTUS, Dr. Fukino also  announced in good faith, he was a NBC.

In other words, we still have absolutely no idea whether BO is a NBC.


THEORIZING HOW TO PROVE BO IS NOT A NBC

August 1, 2009

(NOTE TO VIEWERS OF THIS BLOG:  PLEASE READ THE COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY READERS, HIDDEN BELOW THE ARTICLE, ALONG WITH MY RESPONSES TO THEIR REMARKS.  ESPECIALLY DIGEST THE EXCHANGES BETWEEN ME AND azgo.)

In response to a comment on a blog, I contacted one of the attorneys involved in a court case seeking to determine whether BO is a NBC.  I received a reply asking for help.  Here is my response.

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

I am glad you took me up on my offer to help.

I haven’t formalized my ideas, so I will just throw these out for now.

Okay, let’s talk Plaintiffs, first.  (FYI, I am the person who conceived using National Guard soon-to-be-deployed, as Plaintiffs to gain standing in federal court in a Declaratory Judgment case under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act – these Plaintiffs are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice until they are federalized – because they could be subject to becoming Defendants in a subsequent prosecution related to whether BO is a NBC…  I am the same person who began posting last summer that a “Certification” is not a “Certificate”; unfortunately, this was right after Berg had already filed his first Complaint, calling the document posted on BO’s “Fight the Smears” site, a “Certificate.”)

Pledged Delegates for HRC who switched to BO; or who were pledged to BO in the first place, and voted for him at the DNC Convention, but would not have voted for him had they known, he is not a NBC, would have standing as Plaintiffs in a civil action for (fraud, unjust enrichment…).  ESPECIALLY DESIRABLE ARE PLEDGED DELEGATES FROM THOSE STATES THAT HAVE ENACTED LAWS REQUIRING DELEGATES PLEDGED AS THE RESULT OF PRIMARY VOTING MUST FOLLOW THEIR CANDIDATES ONTO THE FLOOR OF THE CONVENTION.  (There are around 13 of these ‘binding vote’ states; I have the list.)  And some of these vote binding states also have laws about ballot access, that require the candidate for POTUS from the major political party must be eligible for the job.  (None of these states requires any government official to check.)  Off the top of my head, I know GA is both a vote binding state AND a state requiring the party candidate to be eligible for the job.

As for strategy… Months ago, when drafting the Declaratory Judgment case I mentioned above, I reasoned, it made no sense to try to support a claim, BO is not a NBC.   Instead, I argued, Plaintiffs had reasonable cause to believe, he might not be a NBC, based in large part on his own words and actions.  But since that time, things have changed, especially with regard to these 4 (four) events.  1) Several people have contacted Nancy Pelosi qua Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention to ask on what basis she Certified BO is a NBC.  She refused to respond.  2) HI officials have spoken in circles in a botched attempt to ‘confirm’ BO is a NBC.  3) BO, personally (before being sworn in) and through his spokespeople, continue to dodge the issue by lying that the Certification is a Certificate and proves he is a NBC.  4) In Berg’s Hollister case, BO Motion to Dismiss contained a footnote asking the court to take judicial notice that Annenberg Political Fact Check said he’s for real; and that an announcement of his birth had been published in a HI newspaper.  (Of course, if the judge had taken judicial notice, we lawyers would have known, this meant nothing; but everyone else would have interpreted this to mean, the court has ruled, he is a NBC.  Thank goodness, the court did no such thing.  However, this confirmed my suspicions, as spelled out in the earlier draft of the military Complaint, that the strongest ‘evidence’ BO could proffer to establish he is a NBC, is that stupid photocopied on-line Certification; which means nothing!) Taken together, this could form a good faith belief in a reasonable person that no evidence exists that would establish, BO is a NBC.  SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRODUCTION TO HIM!  And as for objections to this strategy, argue “unclean hands” (you blocked access to all documentation and now cannot argue, we cannot submit proof); or unjust enrichment (you distributed the COLB to Daily Kos and Annenberg Political Fact Check in order to refute “rumors” about your citizenship status – you said so, on your “Fight the Smears” site – and now, having banked on that COLB, it isn’t fair to raise privilege and confidentiality to block our access to those records that could verify whether your claims are true).

Finally, to overcome claims of sovereign immunity, I would drop all claims against conduct that occurred viz a viz the Congressional ratification of the EC vote; rather, go after NP as Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention.  Go after any other actors not as failed Congresspeople but as co-conspirators to the fraud.

I know this is a lot to digest; let me know what you think.  (I am not going to proof this because I want to get it out ASAP.)

jbjd


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers