INELIGIBLE to MERIT your SUPPORT

July 5, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

ART2SUPERPAC ran a full-page ad on February 10, 2012, soliciting funds to file the next best ballot challenge to keep the name Barack Obama off the ballot in Florida. Predicting that, this ballot eligibility suit had “an excellent opportunity to succeed”; ART2 proudly proclaimed, “The Obama Defense Team has Finally Met Its Match.” And, according to them; they had cause to be confident after a perfect record of defeat. Because as they explained, this time, “we are putting together an unbeatable legal team.” So, who were these stellar legal minds contributing to the ’cause’? Well, they invoked the “expertise” of crowd favorites Donofrio, Apuzzo, and Taitz. Heading up this legal ‘dream team,’ “We have a time-sensitive opportunity to hire a top-flight, nationally known, dream attorney, Larry Klayman.” The ad touted Mr. Klayman was the founder of both Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch. He writes for WND. And, in case we still failed to grasp the profound possibilities triggered by his participation, there was this: “He has very high visibility, key contacts, presence, visibility, reputation, experience, track record. He is a “heavy hitter.””(Yes; apparently he possesses both “high visibility” and ordinary “visibility.”)

But they needed $25,000, which “must be raised in the next 96 hours,” to pull this off.

Please, read the ad, pictured below. (Note: Several other sites, including ObamaBallotChallenge and ConstitutionActionFund also solicited funds ostensibly for this same purpose, incorporating much of the same language that appears in ART2′s ad.)

http://www.art2superpac.com/floridaballot.html

I read this ad on February 15 and immediately caution people not to waste your money or your time.

jbjd | February 15, 2012 at 7:07 pm|

GORDO and coldwarvet, although I have been very busy lately and cannot check in as often as before; I want to thank you for mentioning those radio interviews on Revolution Radio. People have told me, they were able to learn more about ‘how things work’ by hearing me, than by reading me. And they have assured me, the 1 1/2 hours fly by. (At first, I was concerned that I would be unable to fill the whole time myself but, as I discovered, there was never enough time to discuss everything, anyway!)

I have been posting here since 2008. That some of you would still question my motives, which are to empower citizens to control our government; speaks ill of you, and not me.

As for funding anyone mounting a ballot challenge in a state whose citizens have not yet enacted a law requiring candidate eligibility for office to be on the ballot; well, that’s just throwing good money after bad. Whoever you are.

cw suggests, maybe my analysis is wrong.

citizenwells | February 15, 2012 at 7:18 pm|

jbjd,
Are you referring to challenges in the state of FL?

102.168 Contest of election.–

(1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

(2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

(3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:

(a) Misconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of any election official or any member of the canvassing board sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.

(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.

(c) Receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.

(4) The county canvassing board is an indispensable and proper party defendant in county and local elections; the Elections Canvassing Commission is an indispensable and proper party defendant in federal, state, and multicounty races; and the successful candidate is an indispensable party to any action brought to contest the election or nomination of a candidate.

(5) A statement of the grounds of contest may not be rejected, nor the proceedings dismissed, by the court for any want of form if the grounds of contest provided in the statement are sufficient to clearly inform the defendant of the particular proceeding or cause for which the nomination or election is contested.

(6) A copy of the complaint shall be served upon the defendant and any other person named therein in the same manner as in other civil cases under the laws of this state. Within 10 days after the complaint has been served, the defendant must file an answer admitting or denying the allegations on which the contestant relies or stating that the defendant has no knowledge or information concerning the allegations, which shall be deemed a denial of the allegations, and must state any other defenses, in law or fact, on which the defendant relies. If an answer is not filed within the time prescribed, the defendant may not be granted a hearing in court to assert any claim or objection that is required by this subsection to be stated in an answer.

(7) Any candidate, qualified elector, or taxpayer presenting such a contest to a circuit judge is entitled to an immediate hearing. However, the court in its discretion may limit the time to be consumed in taking testimony, with a view therein to the circumstances of the matter and to the proximity of any succeeding election

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0102/Sections/0102.168.html

Bill G seems to agree, I must be wrong.

Bill G | February 15, 2012 at 7:20 pm|

http://www.scribd.com/doc/81593614/Voeltz-Contest-of-Election-pleading-21

Florida filing delivered. Well done. Supported by arguments we have seen from many others including Leo and Mario. On the merits this looks very strong. How FL will weasel out of it will be interesting to see.

But, I am right. (I have bolded the first paragraph.)

jbjd | February 15, 2012 at 7:45 pm|

CW, any challenge the basis of which is this law involves only the candidate chosen by primary based on the certification of the votes. The Presidential candidate is not chosen by primary but by nominating convention.

If these people are basing their challenge on this law then, they have no idea what they are doing.

I couldn’t say which is worse; basing a challenge on the wrong law or the wrong facts. I suppose, if the challenge is brought by an attorney, I would have to say, it is worse to launch a baseless challenge using the wrong law.

On June 29, 2012, the court issued its decision on the FL Ballot Challenge filed by “dream” “heavy hitter” Attorney Klayman. (I have bolded a couple of lines.)

Because I find that the plaintiff has not and cannot state a cause of action for the relief requested under Section 102.168, Florida Statutes, I grant the motions to dismiss with prejudice.There are several deficiencies in the complaint, but the biggest problem, and one which cannot be overcome by amending the complaint, is that Section 102.168, Florida Statutes, is not applicable to the nomination of a candidate for Office of President of the United States.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/98883537/Voeltz-v-Obama-Dismissal

That’s right. Just as I warned back in February; Klayman et. al were using the wrong law.

By the way, know what the words “with prejudice” mean?

In civil procedure, when a court dismisses a case “with prejudice,” it means that the court intends for that dismissal to be final in all courts, and that res judicata should bar that claim from being reasserted in another court. A dismissal “without prejudice” means the plaintiff is free to refile the claim in a different court.    http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prejudice

In other words; he cannot file this case, in this court or any other court, again. But, not surprisingly, he is not going to let this fact stop him. ObamaBallotChallenge posted his reaction to the adverse ruling.

Larry Klayman’s initial comments:

“The decision issued today by Judge Terry Lewis was poorly reasoned and written. It goes against prior Florida Supreme Court precedent in particular, thus making our chances on appeal great. The judge also equated being a citizen with a natural born citizen and cited no authority to conclude the two terms are the same. In any event, Plaintiff Michael Voeltz filed a new complaint today for declaratory relief which will, in addition to his appeal, now proceed forward. In short, we remain confident that if the Florida courts ultimately decide to obey their own election law, we will prevail in the end.”

Hopefully; at this point, you recognize that, the promises made here cannot be fulfilled.

I began advising people on August 2, 2008, weeks before the Presidential nominating conventions, when I knew far less about our elections process than I do now; if you think a candidate is ineligible for office then, the only way to keep him out of office is to keep his name off the general election ballot. CHALLENGING BO’S ELIGIBILITY TO GET ONTO THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT AS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR POTUS  “In fact, throughout the entire election process, only one opportunity is prescribed in writing to confirm the candidate’s eligibility: when the state in which the candidate seeks to get onto the general election ballot has enacted both a law that says any candidate seeking to get onto the ballot in that state has to satisfy the requirements of the office sought; AND a law that provides for challenging the candidate’s eligibility under state law.” FIND OUT WHETHER BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE II OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND STOP THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FROM VOTING FOR HIM, IF HE IS NOT!

A few years and countless hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted on dozens of frivolous court and administrative law cases later, the better marketed birther attorneys – Donofrio, Apuzzo, Taitz, and now, Klayman – finally focused their crusade against Barack Obama, on ballot challenges. Only, they don’t know what they are doing. As I just proved. (Either that or, they keep messing up because there is money in doing it wrong.)

For years, I have been advising that Texas has the best laws for carrying out a viable ballot challenge. But, as I have done in every state with applicable ballot eligibility laws; I required the citizens of Texas to spearhead the ballot challenge in their state. (And in states without such laws, it’s up to those citizens to enact them.) I have done so primarily on the basis, I actually believe in state sovereignty. (And, I am no one’s savior. It’s your ballot; you fix it. I can show you how.) Finally, in January 2012, Texas citizen/activist Kelly Canon contacted me. Kelly had read my work beginning 4 years ago, even before I began this blog. But as I was the only birther lawyer advocating ballot challenges; she (like so many others) shifted her focus to the gambits of those other attorneys, getting lost in the quagmire that is the minutia of eligibility. She had even begun dissecting the amicus tome Leo submitted to the Administrative Law Judge in GA, engaged in the futile exercise of trying to fix on a definition of NBC! (It isn’t over until the federal appellate court justices sing!) She also read my prediction that GA’s ballot challenge would fail, and my detailed explanation as to why. That’s when, as she describes it, something ‘clicked.’ And she ‘knew’ in order to make sure the Texas ballot only contained the names of federally qualified candidates; she needed my help. And, she convinced me, she was ready to commit her time and energies to seeing this through.

For the next several months, we worked to assemble the record required to launch a viable ballot challenge. And we exposed that both the Republicans and Democrats have failed to federally qualify to appear on the general election ballot. Our efforts are loosely chronicled in TEXAS BALLOT CHALLENGE CHALLENGE (You can also listen to our last show on LoneStarRadio, On the Radio 06.30.12.) And we pulled all this off, on our ‘dime.’ Because we had to. Until we could no longer afford to.

Having accurately and with specificity predicted in February the court’s rejection of the FL ballot challenge; when the decision issued at the end of June, I was so frustrated, I felt like screaming, ‘I told you so!’ But, I never (ever) say, ‘I told you so.’ On the other hand; Kelly, having dedicated her life to our work for the past 6 months; on seeing the resources that, for the past 4 years have been squandered on “charlatans”; insists, it needs to be said.

So, in honor of her Herculean efforts to assemble the Texas Ballot Challenge case we now have no money to present, anyway; and, on her instructions; let me say this one time: I TOLD YOU SO!

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

Please, contribute to the TEXAS BALLOT CHALLENGE CHALLENGE.


TEXAS BALLOT CHALLENGE CHALLENGE

July 3, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

(The following narrative explaining the Texas Ballot Challenge is incorporated into a slide show presented by Texas citizen/activist Kelly Canon of Arlington, to civic groups throughout the state.)

Texas, We Have a Problem

We here in Texas have a problem with our 2012 general election ballot; and I’m going to tell you how we can fix it.

Generally, people will only cast their votes for a President they know is Constitutionally eligible for the job. And, thanks to candidate ballot eligibility laws passed here in Texas; voters should be able to trust that the candidates whose names appear on our general election ballot have been federally qualified. But, at least in 2012; they have not. Because as you will see; these election laws are being ignored by the responsible state governmental entities. And their conduct virtually guarantees that the November 2012 ballot will contain the name of at least 1 candidate who has not been federally qualified for the job.

That is; unless concerned citizens like us intervene.

Before I go any further, I need to emphasize that the problem here is ballot eligibility, not whether a specific candidate is eligible for office. Because under the Constitution; political parties have the right to run any candidates they want.  No doubt about it. But under Texas election laws, those party candidates are not entitled to be placed on the general election ballot unless they are federally qualified for the job.

I also want to remind everyone that I have been collaborating on this Texas ballot challenge with noted blogger “jbjd,” who for the past 4 years has been advising frustrated voters throughout the country: if you think a candidate is ineligible for office then, the way to keep him out of the White House is to keep him off the ballot. But this only works in a state with ballot eligibility laws. She has focused on the ballot here in Texas because, in her words, we already have some of the best laws. They just have to be enforced.

So, how do candidates for President and Vice President get their names on our general election ballot, anyway? Well, it all depends on whether they are Independent or Write-in, that is, Unaffiliated; or representing either the Republican or Democratic Party.

Unaffiliated candidates submit their applications for the general election ballot directly to the Secretary. On the other hand; the names of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominees from the national Republican and Democratic Parties are submitted to the Secretary via the Chairs of their state parties: the Republican Party of Texas (“RPT”) and the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”).

But keep in mind; whether the candidate is Unaffiliated; or representing the Republican or Democratic party; only the names of federally qualified candidates are entitled to appear on the Texas general election ballot.

Let me read the ballot entitlement law that applies to the parties, which is section 192.031 of Texas statutes, “PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT”: “A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law.”

And, if the party nominees possess the qualifications for offices prescribed by federal law then, under section 192.033; …“­­­the Secretary shall certify the names of the candidates for president and vice-president who are entitled to have their names placed on the ballot.”

Taken together; these 2 laws – 192.031 and 192.033 – plainly say that party candidates are entitled to appear on the general election ballot only when they are federally qualified for the job; in which case, the Secretary has no choice but to certify their names to the ballot. Conversely; if candidates have not established their federal qualifications then, they have no right to appear on the ballot; and the Secretary shouldn’t put them there.

So, who determines whether, consistent with the statute, a candidate for President or Vice President can be said to be federally qualified? Well, the Secretary, that is, the Executive branch, promulgates the rules and regulations to carry out the statutory intention of the Legislative branch.

And the Secretary has determined that federal qualification can be met simply by filling out a ballot application which asks the candidate to answer the following questions: are you 35? Have you lived in the U.S. for 14 years? Are you a NBC? And to swear the answers given are true. How do we know this ballot application process satisfies the Secretary’s standard for federal qualification? Well, as I pointed out; Unaffiliated candidates for President and Vice President get on the general election ballot by applying directly to the Secretary. And they do so using application forms which she designed, and which are submitted directly to her. Those ballot applications contain these provisions related to federal qualification. For both the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Unaffiliated candidates.

But as we have said; the Republican and Democratic parties don’t fill out applications to get the names of their Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominees on the general election ballot. No; the state party chair merely passes on to the Secretary the names of the nominees elected at the national party’s Presidential nominating convention. Then, how does the Secretary ascertain whether those national nominees are federally qualified, that is, entitled to appear on the ballot? Well, as those of you who contacted the Secretary with respect to the 2008 general election already know; when it comes to determining candidate entitlement to appear on the ballot; she told us ascertaining federal qualifications was the responsibility of the parties! In fact; having ceded control over ascertaining the federal qualifications of party candidates, to the political parties; she certified to the 2008 general election ballot the names of those national nominees just by assuming their federal qualification.

First, we got mad. Then, at the direction of the Secretary; to find out how the national parties had federally qualified their candidates; we asked them.

In fact, beginning in 2008; citizens from several other states, with and without ballot eligibility laws, did the same thing.

For example, according to the rules for the Democratic National Committee (Services Corporation), their Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees must be Constitutionally eligible for the job. So, voters asked the DNC to disclose the documentary basis for ascertaining that Presidential Nominee Barack Obama, was Constitutionally eligible. And here’s what happened. Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the party’s Presidential Nominating Convention, ignored them. Alice Germond, DNC Corp. Secretary, referred all such questions to DNC Corp. General Counsel Joseph Sandler. He sent back this reply: ‘We are not a public agency and so, we don’t have to tell you. Go ask your Secretary of State.’

Of course, Secretary Andrade had sent Texas voters to them!

Well, it’s true that the national Republican and Democratic parties cannot be compelled to disclose the basis for their candidates’ federal qualification inasmuch as they are not public agencies. But unless we could discover what was the documentary basis for their federal qualification; we could not conclude that by assuming entitlement; the Secretary had abused her discretion. Fortunately for us voters in Texas; there’s another way to find out whether Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees have been scrutinized for federal qualification.

See, under Texas election law; in order to get the names of their Presidential nominee wannabes printed on the Presidential preference primary ballot, the chairs of the Texas state parties – the RPT and the TDP – must submit those names to the Secretary. This means that party candidates who want to appear on the primary ballot must apply directly to the party. And, under Texas law; candidate applications to appear on the ballot become public records upon filing. This makes those applications submitted to the RPT and TDP subject to the Texas Public Information Act (“PIA”).

So, to sum up so far; in Texas, the Secretary has determined that only the political parties are responsible for determining federal qualification, meaning, the only way to find out what documents were the basis for their candidates’ qualification, is to ask them; the national parties are not legally required to disclose such documentation and have refused to voluntarily provide such documentation; but in Texas, state parties are required under the PIA to produce the requested documentation. So, in 2012, using the PIA, I asked both the RPT and the TDP to produce federal qualification documentation. [1]

Turns out, just like the Secretary’s applications for Unaffiliated candidates to the general election ballot; the RPT applications for the primary ballot asks candidates the same eligibility questions,  and contains the same oath that the answers given are true . (Only, this application is designed by the party, and filed with them.) In other words; the RPT candidates in the primary election have satisfied the  standard established by the Secretary for federal qualification to be entitled to appear on the general election ballot.

The TDP requires their candidates to submit a primary ballot application, too. However, unlike the applications used by the RPT for the primary ballot; and the general election ballot for Unaffiliated candidates used by the Secretary; the forms designed and used by the TDP contain neither any language of federal eligibility nor an oath or affirmation. Yet, these applications are the only documents used by the TDP to determine which of their candidates to submit to the Secretary to certify to the primary ballot. How do I know? Because they told me so. In other words, their candidates have not satisfied the Secretary’s standard for federal qualification.[2]

And here is a critical point: ordinarily, the Secretary does not see the applications the candidates submit to the parties to get on the primary ballot.  Rather, having ceded the responsibility for federal qualification, to the parties; the Secretary only asks the parties to electronically transmit to her office the names of those candidates they, that is, the parties, want to appear. That’s it. And she puts those names on the ballot.

Remember, we are talking about 2 separate ballot eligibility laws here, one which entitles the federally qualified candidate to appear on the general election ballot; and the other which requires the Secretary to certify to the general election ballot the name of the entitled candidate. And as I just pointed out, none of the candidates whose names the TDP submitted to the Secretary for the primary ballot in 2012, had been federally qualified by the party. Yes, the Secretary certified their names to appear on the primary ballot, anyway.  And, of course, that was fine. Because, again, the ballot entitlement statute only kicks in, on the general election ballot. But since the nominees for President and Vice President are chosen by the DNC and RNC; even though their names are routed through the TDP and RPT to the Secretary to put on the general election ballot; at that point the state parties have no authority to determine the nominees’ federal qualifications. This means that, those candidate applications submitted to the state party chairs for the primary ballot currently provide the only legal mechanism to determine the nominees’ federal qualifications. Thus, the only Presidential or Vice Presidential nominees entitled to appear on the Texas general election ballot in 2012; are those nominee wannabes who submitted applications to the RPT for the 2012 primary ballot.

But does the fact, the names of candidates who have not been federally qualified are not entitled to appear on the general election ballot mean, the Secretary cannot put them there, anyway? Hardly. As we have said; she can put them there by exercising her discretion. She did that in 2008.

And this is exactly what she intends to do in 2012. How do I know? Because in May, I met with Attorney Keith Ingram, Elections Director; and explained that the primary candidates submitted to the Secretary by the TDP had undergone no federal qualification, meaning they were not entitled to appear on the general election ballot. I even offered to show him the actual candidate applications I have received from both state parties. But, he wasn’t interested. On the contrary; he dismissed me with a wave of the hand (literally), proposing if I had a problem with the ballot configuration, I should ‘go tell it to the legislature.’

So, I did. That is, as the Texas legislature does not formally reconvene until January 2013; I met with members of the legislature’s interim election committee. They agreed; the Secretary is not carrying out the intention of their ballot eligibility legislation. The committee was tentatively scheduled to hold hearings this summer. Yet, too few members were sufficiently interested in remedying the ballot eligibility problem, to reach a quorum. As a result; the hearings have been postponed until after the parties’ Presidential nominating conventions, too late for committee members to help us fix the problem in time for the printing of the general election ballot.

In sum; under TX law, only the names of federally qualified candidates are entitled to appear on the general election ballot but as of now, the Executive branch intends to exercise its discretion to put candidates on the ballot who have not been federally qualified, anyway; and the Legislative branch won’t stop them.

Now, it is up to the Judicial branch to ensure that our ballot complies with state law.

This is where we come in. We, the citizens of TX, must ask the Judicial branch to order Secretary Andrade to refrain from exercising her discretion to place on the general election ballot the names of any Democrat or Republican candidates for President or Vice President who have failed to establish for the primary ballot, they were federally qualified for the job.

How do we do this? We file an injunction. Not to keep off the general election ballot both the Democrat and Republican parties; but only to keep off the ballot the names of those Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees from the parties who have not been federally qualified for the job. (Keep in mind; we don’t elect the President and Vice President in the general election, anyway, but only the Electors for the political parties.)

This means coming up with the money to draft the legal documents, and pay the filing and notice fees. In addition, because the Respondent is a state agency; the Motion must be filed in Austin, which means covering the cost of local accommodations during the court proceedings.

(I had considered that Steve Munisteri, Chair of the RPT, would be well situated to bring this case, because he not only has access to both the financial and legal resources required, but also the added advantage of being located in Austin. But that was before I realized; many of the Vice Presidential nominees currently being considered for the Republican Party were also not federally qualified to appear on the TX general election ballot, inasmuch as they hadn’t applied to the state chair for a place on the primary ballot. And even I am not brazen enough to ask Chairman Munisteri to file an injunction keeping off our general election ballot the name of the Republican Vice Presidential nominee!)

But regardless of who files this injunction; clearly, it needs to be filed, in order to protect the integrity of the ballot so that at least we voters here in TX know which candidates have (or have not) been federally qualified for the job. And we need to do this ASAP, before the Presidential nominating conventions. Because when they end; the national parties, through the state party chairs, will submit the names of the party nominees to the Secretary, who will certify the names of those candidates, even the ones who have not been federally qualified, to the ballot.

I am uniquely situated to file this injunction. For starters; I am the onIy person who can provide first-hand authentication of the evidence required to ‘make the case’: I have met with the Secretary and the Legislature; and, more importantly, obtained those critical candidate ballot applications directly from the parties. But I also have a good grasp of the issues involved and the confidence to present the Motion. (Hat tip to “jbjd” who, having conceived and assembled this case, is now preparing to draft the legal documents.)

But we need help. Lots of it.  And not just financial. We need a core group of Texans – jbjd operates from the east coast – who can carry out a myriad of ‘clerical’ tasks, including but not limited to copying; faxing; and filing.  If you want to sponsor this TX Ballot Challenge; please, see me after this meeting.

Any questions?


[1] The first request I sent to the TDP went unanswered. But jbjd advised me to send another request listing the applicable TX statutes. (She explained; they are more apt to pay attention if they know you know the law.) This time; they responded immediately.

[2] In fact; the TDP had not produced the documents I requested evidencing their candidates were federally qualified. (jbjd joked, it’s like asking the Secretary to produce a list of registered voters and she sends the budget, instead.) So, as provided for under the PIA, I filed a complaint of non-compliance with the Attorney General. Incredibly, AAG June Harden issued an opinion letter saying, the state political parties are not covered by the PIA, in the Texas statutes under Government Code, inasmuch as  they are not listed in the “Definitions” section, as a “government entity.” However, she failed to notice that 1) the section of the PIA immediately preceding the definitions section, clearly indicates records which are “public” are covered by the Act; and 2) ballot applications are explicitly defined as “public records” under another title of the Texas statutes: Election Code.

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

Please, contribute to the TEXAS BALLOT CHALLENGE CHALLENGE.


On the Radio 06.30.12

June 29, 2012

UPDATE 06.30.12:  AT END

Join us on Saturday when TX citizen/activist Kelly Canon and I discuss alternative ways to keep off the 2012 general election ballot the name of the Presidential candidate who documentary evidence exposes was never federally qualified for the job.  Call in number is 714.242.5220. (If you cannot tune in tomorrow; you can listen to the archived show, by visiting the same link.)

Texas, We Have a Solution (Maybe)!

UPDATE 06.30.12:  We just finished the show and, having listened to the entire playback, I must say; it is absolutely fabulous. It offers a comprehensive synthesis of our work on ballot eligibility issues, from who determines whether a candidate is “federally qualified” to appear on the ballot; to how the executive branch carries out the express intention of the legislative branch for ballot entitlement; to how joining the National Popular Vote Initiative can subvert the strongest ballot eligibility laws.

(Or, as Kelly would say, we covered everything ‘from soup to nuts.’)


AG ABBOTT OPINES, TX PUBLIC RECORDS LAWS not WORTH the PAPER on which THEY’RE WRITTEN

June 25, 2012

UPDATED 06.26.12: See update at bottom of article.

© 2012 jbjd

Disagreeing with me on a point of legal interpretation doesn’t per se mean you don’t know what you are talking about. But when Assistant AG June Harden rejected Kelly Canon’s complaint that the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) had violated the Public Information Act (“PIA” or “the Act”) by refusing to produce certain election-related documents; explaining to Ms. Canon that, political parties are not covered by the Act, well, Ms. Harden had no idea what she was talking about.

For the past 12 years, Harden has been the Senior Managing Attorney for Public Outreach in the Open Records Division of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas. Before joining the OAG, she served as Special Counsel to Senator Gregory Luna of Bexar County.  Id. Ms. Harden received her undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University and her J.D. from Texas Tech University School of Law. Id. She has been working at the AG since December 1995; her current annual salary is $80,000. http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/government-employee-salaries/state-of-texas/june-b-harden/1114680/

Judging by her bona fides; by now, she should know her job in and out. But she doesn’t. And I can prove it. First, some background information, which has been covered in previous articles.

The legal standard for getting the name of the Presidential candidate from the major political party on the general election ballot in Texas is spelled out in §192.031 PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT.  The first of four prongs to entitlement is, the person must be “federally qualified” for the job. Id. But no law specifically designates whose responsibility it is to determine either in the first instance, whether the candidate is federally qualified; or, at some point after the political party has electronically submitted the name of the candidate to the Secretary of State (“SoS”) and before she certifies the name to the ballot, whether anyone has previously determined s/he is federally qualified for the job. However, we know that the Secretary does not verify Constitutional eligibility; and so, Ms. Canon determined to find out on what documentary basis both the RPT (Republican Party of TX) and TDP had determined their 2012 Presidential candidates’ federal qualifications. The RPT returned their candidate applications which, like those applications designed by the Secretary for Independent and Write-in candidates, contained the Constitutionally qualified self-affirmation. The TDP returned the candidates’ unauthenticated applications. (See BALLOT ENTITLEMENT LAWS should DISQUALIFY PRESIDENT OBAMA in TEXAS.)

But that’s not what Canon asked for; so she filed a complaint with the AG charging the TDP had violated the PIA. Pending receipt of the actual opinion letter; Ms. Harden telephoned her response.

According to Harden, the TDP is not covered by the PIA. Why? Because, as she told Ms. Canon; under Title 5 of 552.003, Definitions, political parties are not identified as government entities. And, technically she’s right. That is, the TDP is not a government entity. But this fact alone does not end the analysis as to whether the documents requested are covered under the Act. For example, had she read section 552.002; she would have seen this.

Sec. 552.002.  DEFINITION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION; MEDIA CONTAINING PUBLIC INFORMATION.  (a)  In this chapter, “public information” means information that is collected, assembled, or maintained under a law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business:

(1)  by a governmental body;  or

(2)  for a governmental body and the governmental body owns the information or has a right of access to it.

This means, even granting that sec. 552.003 of the TX Statutes, Government Code, Title 5, Open Government; Ethics, does not explicitly define the TDP as a government entity; one cannot rightly infer that the documents held by the TDP which were the subject of Ms. Canon’s request and subsequent complaint to the AG for non-compliance; are not public documents under other provisions of the Act. Or that, under another legal scheme, either the party or the documents are not covered by the Act. And they are. For example, look at the Elections Code.

Sec. 191.003: NOTICE OF CANDIDATES TO SECRETARY OF STATE. The state chair of each political party holding a presidential primary election shall certify the name of each presidential candidate who qualifies for a place on the presidential primary election ballot and deliver the certification to the secretary of state not later than the 57th day before presidential primary election day.

Thus, in TX, the Presidential candidates representing the major political parties do not apply directly to the Secretary of State (“SoS”) to get their names on the ballot. Instead, they must submit their ballot applications to the chair of the party; and s/he must submit the names of these candidates to the SoS. In other words, under Sec. 552.002, the information “collected, assembled, or maintained” with respect to these applications which are made pursuant to Sec. 191.003, requiring the delivery of the certification of qualified candidates to the SoS; is public information.

But just in case the logic of coverage under the PIA is still unclear; there’s this.

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.

Indeed; 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 specify the applicable public records laws.

View this document on Scribd

No; she only received a response after she revised her letter and filed a second request for documents in which she specifically asserted the laws supporting the request.

And she knew if the TDP had any such documents related to the 2012 ballot; these documents would still be held by the TDP.

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.

However, the party failed to produce the specific documents she requested related to how it had ascertained the candidates’ federal qualification, which refusal had prompted her present complaint to the AG.

Presumably, before Ms. Harden issued her opinion; she researched past opinions issuing on this subject from the office of the AG. We looked; there are none. This means, this was a case of first impression. But this also means that, subsequent complaints as to the refusal of the parties to produce specific election-related information; will be rejected on the grounds of her opinion.

It would appear that AAG Harden repeated the mistakes others have made when interpreting the coverage of the PIA. That is, she was too narrowly focused on the definitions which ruled out political party chairs as ‘public officials,’ ignoring the fact  the section of the law immediately preceding those definitions makes unambiguously clear that documents held by these party officers may still be classified as public records.  Or the fact that other laws may define records as public, making them also subject to the PIA; and spell out that when party officers carry out traditional state functions associated with elections, covered by another section of the law; then, just like other public officials, they can still be ordered to hand over these public records, under an action in Mandamus initiated either by the aggrieved citizen or by the AG.

To say nothing of the fact that the opening provision of the PIA urges its provisions not to be narrowly construed so as to limit public access to records but, on the contrary; to be “liberally construed in favor of granting a request for information.” http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.552.htm

But as of now; the erroneous opinion stands.  This means the TDP has the legal obligation to submit the name of a Presidential candidate to the ballot, which name the SoS, who presumes the candidates named by the parties are federally qualified for the job and thus entitled to appear on the ballot; must certify these names to the ballot.  Sec. 192.033. But neither the SoS nor a private citizen has the right of access to the party documents which were the basis for the TDP’s eligibility determination. And the TDP knows this, having been copied on both the complaint and the opinion letter.

Recall that, in the past, the TDP refused to produce documentary evidence of its candidate applications until the requester cited applicable public records and election laws. Until we can reverse Ms. Harden’s patently erroneous legal interpretation of the scope of PIA jurisdiction; how likely do you suppose will be the TDP to voluntarily disclose such eligibility documentation?

And why would the citizens of TX allow to remain intact, a system of elections that presently permits a political party to maintain access to the ballot notwithstanding it cannot produce any documentary evidence to the public or the Secretary, that its candidates satisfy the threshold to entitlement, of being “federally qualified” for the job?

UPDATE 06.26.12: Well, well, well. AAG Harden’s written response arrived; and it’s even ‘better’ in black and white.

View this document on Scribd

See, in addition to memorializing her illogical opinion that, the TDP is not covered under the PIA inasmuch as they are not identified as a “government entity” in the Definitions section of that law; she now preserves for the record her mistaken assertion that the only records covered are those held by entities explicitly defined as ‘government.’ This, of course, leaves out all of those “records” defined in the law as “collected, assembled, or maintained under a law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business … for a governmental body and the governmental body owns the information or has a right of access to it.” Id.

But there’s more. Ms. Canon pointed out to Ms. Harden over the phone; she had filed a PIA request with the SoS seeking all documents the TDP had submitted to that office with respect to the federal qualification of the Presidential candidates whose names they provided to appear on the ballot. The SoS complied with this request. That is, they returned a printout of the electronic spreadsheet that had been submitted by the party, containing the candidates’ names. Because that’s all they had gotten from the party.  But apparently, Harden somehow got the idea that, Canon was perhaps complaining, the SoS had received from the party, documents of federal qualification; but had refused to forward to her that documentation! Now, writing the obvious, Harden advised that the SoS is a government entity under the PIA, and suggested Canon could file a PIA complaint against them!

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

Please support the work going on here at “jbjd.”


WILL TX AG ABBOTT PROSECUTE the TDP for VIOLATING the TX PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT?

June 17, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

The Texas legislature enacted a law that directs the chairs of the major political parties to submit to the Secretary of State (“SoS”) the names of the party candidates who will appear on the ballots in both the Presidential preference primary as well as the general election.  It also passed a law that entitles candidates for President from the major political parties to appear on the general election ballot, only if they are “federally qualified” for the job. TX Election Code  §192.031

Unlike the Presidential candidates from the major political parties; Independent and Write-In candidates apply to appear on the general election ballot directly to the SoS. For this reason; consistent with the ‘federally qualified’ standard; the SoS designed ballot applications for use by both Independent and Write-in Presidential candidates which contain self-affirmations that, under the pains and penalties of perjury, the candidates are Constitutionally eligible for the job. (We found these by searching the SoS’s official web site, http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/index.shtml)

View this document on Scribd

True, a self-affirmation is arguably not as foolproof a method of establishing the candidate is federally qualified as, say, requiring the candidate to authorize a birth certificate to be generated by the issuing authority and delivered directly to the state official. HOW to WRITE SMART CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY LAWS in your STATE (and make applying to get on the ballot harder than applying to get into Harvard) But at least  one might expect that, like in the case of the witness testifying in open court under the pains and penalties of perjury; the self-declaring candidate is more likely than not to be telling the truth.

In TX, Presidential candidates from each of the two the major political parties must apply to the party chair to get onto the Presidential preference primary ballot, using the individualized application forms designed by each party. The chair determines which names to forward to the SoS, who merely prints the names thus supplied.

The forwarding of names of Presidential candidates from the major political parties, to the SoS; is done through an electronic submission of data, using Excel-like spread sheets the Secretary designed. This format limits the information the parties are able to transmit to little more than the candidate’s name, address, and date of birth. BALLOT ENTITLEMENT LAWS should DISQUALIFY PRESIDENT OBAMA in TEXAS. This means that, with respect to the names of the Presidential candidates which are submitted to the SoS by the major political parties; the Secretary never sees the candidates’ actual ballot applications. By thus limiting any opportunity for the political party to transmit documentation which might have resulted in a federal eligibility determination; the SoS is merely assuming the political party has determined their candidates are federally qualified for the job.  Indeed, whenever Texans asked the SoS on what documentary basis her office ascertained the Presidential candidates from the major political parties were federally qualified for office before she certified these names to the ballot; they were always referred back to the political party.

In other words, the SoS makes Independent and Write-In Presidential candidates ‘prove’ they are federally qualified for office before allowing their names to be printed on the general election ballot, consistent with the law. But when it comes to establishing that the Presidential candidates from the major political parties are federally qualified for office and thus have earned the statutory entitlement to appear on the ballot; the SoS takes the party chairs at their ‘implied’ word.

(Note that §192.031 refers to being “federally qualified” as necessary to achieve entitlement to appear on the general election ballot. There is no corresponding statute with respect to the primary ballot. However, as individual candidates must apply directly to state political party chairs to get on the primary ballot in TX; this represents the only opportunity for these chairs to establish whether the candidates are federally qualified for the job.)

TX has an extremely powerful public information law (“the Act”). Here is the opening section.

Sec. 552.001.  POLICY; CONSTRUCTION. (a) Under the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government that adheres to the principle that government is the servant and not the master of the people, it is the policy of this state that each person is entitled, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, at all times to complete information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed to implement this policy.

(b)  This chapter shall be liberally construed in favor of granting a request for information.

Using the Act; TX citizen activist Kelly Canon was able to obtain from the SoS documents such as the electronic transmittal forms they had received from the political parties. However, recall that neither the Republican Party of Texas (“RPT”) nor the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) is required to submit to the SoS either the actual primary ballot applications submitted to them by the Presidential candidates; or any other ‘evidence’ of the candidates’ federal qualifications. As a result, Ms. Canon could not obtain these documents by submitting a request under the Act, to the SoS. However, the Act equally applies to enumerated documents generated by political parties.  http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/pdf/EL.161.pdf Further, under §552.321 of the Act, production of documents requested can be compelled by the courts in an action in mandamus, initiated either by the AG or the aggrieved citizen. Id.  So, in order to obtain any documentation held by the political parties with respect to their candidates’ federal qualification; pursuant to the Act, Ms. Canon sent letters to both the RPT and the TDP specifically requesting “any and all documents which were the basis for your certification to the TXSoS that these candidates are federally qualified for the job.” (Identical letters were sent to both political .parties; here is the letter sent to the TDP.)

View this document on Scribd

Here’s what she got back from the RPT.

View this document on Scribd

As you can see; just like the SoS, the RPT also interpreted the TX ballot entitlement statute to mean, their Presidential candidate must be federally qualified in order to appear on the ballot. And, just like the SoS, they designed a primary ballot application which contains the same self-affirmation found in the SoS’s applications for Independent and Write-In candidates to appear on the general election ballot.

Recall that, ballot applications from both Independent and Write-In Presidential candidates, which contain the self-affirmation of federal eligibility; are submitted directly to the SoS. True, swearing to the chair of a major political party that you are a federally qualified Presidential candidate is technically not the same thing as swearing directly to the SoS. However, in TX, this represents a distinction without a seminal difference. Because when the political party chair is acting like a state official, for example, when s/he is determining which candidates’ names will be forwarded to the SoS to appear on the ballot; then, under TX perjury laws, the penalty for lying is the same! Id.

On the other hand; all Canon got from the TDP was a ballot application that contained neither any language of Constitutional eligibility nor any self-affirmation the candidate is federally qualified for the job!

Obviously, this is not at all what she asked for.

Thus, having refused (for whatever reason) to provide the requested documentation; the TDP violated the Act. And recall that, under §552.321 of the Act, production of documents requested can be compelled by the courts in an action in mandamus, initiated either by the AG or the aggrieved citizen. Id. Consequently, exercising the protocol spelled out in the Act, on June 13, Ms. Canon filed a complaint with AG Abbott against the TDP.

View this document on Scribd

AG Abbott published the Public Information 2012 Handbook. This letter to “Fellow Texans” appears on the first page:

Dear Fellow Texans:

James Madison once wrote, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” The best way for the people to arm themselves with that knowledge is for government to maintain openness in its dealings. Texas places a high priority on government openness, and the Public Information Act (PIA) is the primary law that requires it.

At the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), we are dedicated to helping citizens and public officials understand their rights and obligations under Texas open government laws. To that end, we publish the Public Information Handbook. This comprehensive resource explains the history of the PIA and includes such topics as how to make an open records request, what types of information are subject to such requests, and the consequences of a governmental body’s noncompliance. The 2012 edition also reflects PIA changes that were made by the 82nd Legislature.

Other open government resources are available on the OAG website at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov. These resources include frequently asked questions; a library of open records decisions dating back more than 30 years; and a public information cost estimate model, which assists governmental bodies in determining the cost of a public information request. Texans can also call our open government telephone hotline (877-OPEN-TEX) with their questions.

Thanks to Madison and the rest of America’s founders, this nation was established upon the principle of self-governance. We are heirs to that legacy. I hope this Public Information Handbook assists you in ensuring that Texas government remains accountable to the people it serves.

Sincerely,
Greg Abbott
Attorney General of Texas

Given the commitment memorialized in this handbook, to the principle that “government remains accountable to the people it serves”; will TX AG Abbott now prosecute the TDP for violating the TX Public Information Act?

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

Please support the work going on here at “jbjd.”


BUYER BEWARE BIRTHER BALONEY (2 of 2)

June 15, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

(continued from BUYER BEWARE BIRTHER BALONEY (1 of 2))

When we left off, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett had received from HI the anonymous mailing he describes as his requested “verification in lieu of certified copy.” Now, he declared he was officially out of the business of 2012 Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s authentication – “They have complied with the request and I consider the matter closed.” - because the document proved Mr. Obama was born in HI, notwithstanding as many of us know, in fact, it did no such thing. Pulling defeat out of the mouth of victory, this declaration by a Republican Secretary of State arguably constitutes game, set, and match for the eligibility obstructionists.

Because now, despite the fact that we birthers know better; our detractors can rightly claim, the evidence is in: President Obama is a NBC. And they can justifiably dismiss as baseless any more challenges to his Constitutional eligibility by pointing to the fact, for the first time, a Secretary of State has proclaimed, based on word from HI; he is definitely a NBC. And, as a bonus, the SoS is a member in good standing of the Republican Party.

In general, any birther can be credited with this ignoble defeat who has focused on proving President Obama is Constitutionally ineligible for the job instead of either 1) challenging how anyone who swore he was eligible (in a state with ballot eligibility laws) knew he was a NBC; or 2) spreading the word, his campaign’s release of the COLB in June 2008 and the long form birth certificate in April 2011 were both part of a political ad campaign.

I have been warning you this could happen, ever since Orly Taitz corralled NH State Representative Rappaport into misapplying my ballot fraud principle; in this non-ballot eligibility state.

To: GregNH

Of course he dropped this. Because no NH law requires the candidate whose name appears on the ballot to be qualified for the job. When my work was stolen, the thieves joined together to apply my concept of election fraud to NH. Only, this was not an applicable state for the complaints of election fraud to the AG, filed in applicable states like HI, GA, MD, TX, SC, and VA. Plus, they took it to the SoS, a state constitutional officer with no jurisdiction into criminal matters but whose authority only extends to ruling on the validity of the ballot in NH according to NH law. Their charge? BO committed fraud when he signed the application to get his name printed on the Presidential primary ballot. Big mistake. Because charging him with fraud meant proving he lied. What I mean is, he knows whether he is a NBC. So, in order to go after him, you would have to prove, he lied. That’s why I went after anyone else who Certified he was a NBC, like Nancy Pelosi, or Boyd Richie. How did THEY know he was a NBC before Certifying he was, and sending that Certification to state election officials? By forging ahead with the concept they stole from me, these thieves almost blew our legitimate causes of action. What do you suppose would have happened if the NH SoS had ruled, there was no ballot fraud? (And there wasn’t, in NH.) The AG in TX, where there WAS fraud, could have said, ‘Well, the SoS in NH has determined there was no ballot fraud and so, as far as I am concerned, the case is closed.’ Thank goodness, all the NH SoS did was refer the complaint ostensibly lodged by the NH state Rep. – did you know he was a named Plaintiff in one of Orly’s cases? – to the AG, who would not touch it.

Stealing my work is not only wrong on its face; it is also subverting the mission of that work. My readers are (or are becoming) educated voters. They have read the articles on my blog and asked questions. They sent in their complaints understanding what they were signing their names to. There is no shortcut here. You have to put in the time to become an informed voter. At least, you have to know as much about the system as those who would use their superior knowledge to have power over your lives.

41 posted on November 24, 2009 13:01:39 by jbjd

Laurence Rappaportsays:

I am a State Representative in New Hampshire. On, I believe, November 20th, Representative Carol Vita, her husband and I spoke with Mr. Michael Delaney, the Attorney General of New Hampshire indicating our concerns regarding the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States. I had previously spoken with Mr. William Gardner, the Secretary of State of New Hampshire asking that he investigate. The contention with Mr. Delaney was that the Democratic National Party might have committed fraud upon the voters of New Hampshire. Both Mr. Delaney and Mr. Gardner declined. Mr. Delaney said he thought the matter was federal and that the complaint was a federal one. I would like to pursue this further, but while I certainly have the inclination, I have neither the financial resources nor the knowledge of how to do so. Consequently I would greatly appreciate advice of how to proceed. Thank you.

Laurence Rappaport: Welcome. I have advised anyone reading this blog, until you understand at least as much about this election process as those with superior knowledge who would subvert the process to gain power over you; you cannot make a difference.

I advise people who question BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS to shift their focus away from him. He knows whether he is a NBC; but how does anyone else without access to the requisite documentation but who nonetheless swore he is Constitutionally eligible, know he is a NBC?

NH is an inapplicable state for the purpose of filing a complaint of election fraud with the state AG, against various members of the D party, for swearing to state election officials BO is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS to get them to print his name on the ballot, before ascertaining whether he is a NBC. Only in states with laws requiring the candidates whose names are printed on the ballot, must be eligible for the job, can such conduct be construed as election fraud.

Please, read one of these complaints posted on the front of this blog. The applicable election law in each state is cited within the complaint. Note on the front of each complaint, the complainant makes clear, this complaint takes no stand on whether BO is a NBC. It only alleges members of the D party swore he was before ascertaining this was true as the prerequisite to getting his name printed on the state ballot. That’s election fraud. (In SC, this fraud also occurred in the primary. Because under SC law, unlike in NH, the party had to swear the candidates entering the Presidential preference primary were eligible for the job, too.)

Then read “THE END GAME” on this blog. See, those of us who are questioning the election of BO want a full vetting of his eligibility status, assuming that, if the facts establish he is not eligible then, Congress will move to impeach him. I had hoped these complaints would result in a ruling from a state AG that would be the impetus for Congress to act. Obviously, ‘educating’ even one member of Congress as to these issues could also work to spark such debate. But first, you have to know what you are talking about.

Come back with any questions about the materials. Good luck. ADMINISTRATOR

jbjd | November 19, 2011 at 3:40 pm |

… A long time ago now, with azgo’s help, I proved FTS and anything posted on that site legally constitute political advertising; and no identification document delivered by Obama (including by his lawyers) can be said to be “official.”; (See, for example, DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and (2 of 2).)

  1. Continuing to focus on such minutia with the hope that, even catching Obama in a contradiction will alter the outcome of the 2012 election, appears to me to signal an intentional campaign to avoid altering the results. The only way to make Obama’s birth credentials count, is to enforce ballot eligibility laws, where they exist; and to draft new laws, where there are none. Also, laws must be passed requiring state Electors to elect only eligible candidates. (Nothing I am saying here is new.) In other words, challenge those people who swear he is eligible to get on the ballot, to tell you how they know. (Read and repeat…)

    Stop blaming everyone else for allowing Obama into office. …If you want to change things, stop bullying people into agreeing with your opinion and start working within the law. In NH, Obama complied with state election law. Even if he was lying when he took the oath. …Because as I pointed out on another thread, in NH, the law as written requires the election commission “shall” assume that any candidate fulfilling the requirements spelled out in law, such as taking the oath written in the law, has satisfied the legal filing requirements.

  2. Under NH law, all voting rights complaints must be filed with the state AG. So, the particular NH election officials (ballot commission) who refused to allow Orly’s complaint, were only doing exactly what they were required to do, by law, all unbridled protestations from the onlookers notwithstanding.
    http://www.doj.nh.gov/election-law/complaints.htm
    In some cases, that is, where the matter is deemed not to be criminal, the AG can certify the complaint to be passed on to the ballot commission. But the first stop is the AG.

I had to bring my ongoing ballot eligibility work ‘underground,’ willing to limit its availability to the general public so as to protect its integrity. Because unscrupulous thieves misappropriated the work, in hopes of self-aggrandizement and, in so doing, invited defeats which reflected poorly on the quality of my work. But despite the necessity; restricting the publication of my current efforts necessarily reduced the efficacy of that work. Even so, as ‘evidenced’ by what happened in Arizona; unscrupulous charlatans have found another way to derail any sound ‘birther’ argumentation.

You cannot continue to support these swindlers who front for the eligibility industry but who (not surprisingly) don’t demand you understand how our government works; and, at the same time, insist, anyone who purports to be  working on these eligibility issues, deserves credit for supporting the “cause.”

P.S.  After months of intensive background work; we are about to launch another round of citizen complaints of election fraud, in one state. We might be too late to keep Mr. Obama’s name off the ballot; but we have plenty of time to get out the word, no documentary evidence available in the public record establishes he is Constitutionally eligible for the job.

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

Please support the work going on here at “jbjd.”


BUYER BEWARE BIRTHER BALONEY (1 of 2)

June 9, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

As if providing the facts that would drive the discourse of the 2012 election cycle away from fatuous fiction with respect to President Obama’s origins wasn’t sufficiently challenging; now, when he is turning the corner to what could have been a virtually guaranteed rejection of his bid for re-election, Constitutional huckster Sheriff Joe Arpaio -’I never met a due process right I couldn’t deny’ – beguiled a duplicitous AZ SoS Ken Bennett into helping steer Mr. Obama over the finish line, aided and abetted in his siren song by his WND handlers, including Dr. Jerome Corsi; and a supporting cast of crazies.

The stated story line sounds simple enough. In lieu of a bona fide identification document generated by the issuing authority and conveyed directly to the AZ SoS;  Ken Bennett asked HI officials to verify vital information related to Barack Obama’s birth ( “verification in lieu of a certified copy” ) pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statute section 338-18(g), which allows such confirmation under conditions specified in the law. (The official HI DoH web site carries a downloadable request form; however, I have been unable to locate an image of Bennett’s original request to HI, either in ‘form’ form or, as a written narrative.)

As Bennett rationalized to Mike Broomhead on KFYI radio; he requested a verification in lieu of a certified copy because, while he believes President Obama was born in Hawaii – “at least I hope he was” – his “responsibility as Secretary of State is to make sure that the ballots in Arizona are correct and that those people whose names are on the ballots have met the qualifications for the office that they’re seeking.” He explained that after the press conference held by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his posse, in which Arpaio stated, the long-form birth certificate posted on the WhiteHouse.gov web site “might” be fraudulent; people began contacting his office.  He had received about 1,200 emails from Arizona voters who are concerned about President Obama’s birth records, and felt it was his duty to follow up.

Or, maybe he asked HI to confirm Obama’s credentials, for the reason printed in the Arizona Republic. “I was just trying to put this thing to bed and agree to a constituent’s request, which I’m allowed to do” …”This is a constituent from Arizona, whom I work for.” Perhaps not surprisingly, he never named the constituent.

But neither explanation passes the ‘smell test.’ The only time that candidates for President are required to self-affirm their Constitutional qualifications is on the application to the SoS to appear on the Presidential preference primary ballot. (Most of us first saw this ballot application in 2008.) And the 2012 AZ Presidential preference primary went off without a hitch on February 28. As for the upcoming general election ballot, well, under AZ law; the Presidential nominee of the major political party is entitled to appear on the general election ballot. http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00804.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS

MOST IMPORTANTLY; NO LAW IN AZ REQUIRES THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB IN ORDER TO HAVE THEIR NAMES PRINTED ON EITHER THE PRIMARY OR GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT, ANYWAY! And no law in that state requires Electors to vote only for Presidential candidates who are Constitutionally eligible for the job. In other words, Bennett had no duty to determine Mr. Obama’s Constitutional eligibility!

Besides, people have been asking S’soS in all 50 states, including AZ, to verify Obama is a NBC, since 2008.  Why confront HI now? Rather, what makes sense is that Bennett is pandering to the fringe, believing this will help his presumed gubernatorial bid in 2014. In his present position as Secretary of State; he would have better served the citizens of AZ had he understood the difference between a bona fide identification document generated by the issuing authority (DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and (2 of 2)) and a paid political announcement; and explained this difference so as to inform the voters (to say nothing of the disservice to the state’s campaign for presumptive R Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, for whom he is co-chair).

Now, back to the dance of deception between state officials of both states…

Officials from the Offices of the HI AG and the Department of Health began corresponding with Mr. Bennett so as to establish whether he had a legal right under HI law to the verification requested. If so; then, they would provide the requested verification. TPM (Talking Points Memo) obtained this correspondence from HI through a public records request (based in HI law). Reading the exchange; it appears that HI asked SoS Bennett to prove it satisfied one of the exceptions listed in their law for breaching the confidentiality of vital records; and Bennett, try as he might, could not reach the level of exception. Indeed, the last letter from HI makes clear, he had not established to their satisfaction, his right to obtain such verification. Nevertheless, immediately thereafter, they transmitted that “verification in lieu of a certified copy,” a mere 8 (eight) weeks after he first asked HI – using whatever form – to provide this verification.

Even if you knew nothing else about the laws impacting the exchange – ballot eligibility; campaign expenditure (political advertising); what constitutes a bona fide identification document generated by the issuing authority – this providing such verification despite expressing these reservations, with no intervening ‘change of heart’ evidenced in their communication; should have signaled, ‘something fraudulent this way comes.’

But then there was this…

Obviously, requests to HI for information about Barack Obama have burdened their state agencies. HI Deputy AG Nagamine sent Bennett a “link is to the Department of Health’s website that was created in response to the high volume of inquiries about the President’s birth certificate. It includes the press releases issued by Dr. Fukino, the former Republican-appointed Director of Health. ttp://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.htmlId. Bennett acknowledges her claims of disruption. “I understand your client’s initial trepidation in responding to this request given the significant amount of email, fax and phone call traffic that this issue has spawned. My office too has received numerous constituent requests and I agree with Director Fuddy’s assertion in her letter of April 25, 2011 that the sheer volume of inquires has “been disruptive to staff operations and have strained State resources.”” Id. (Of course, readers of “jbjd” know better than to credit anything credited to Ms. Fukino concerning the so-called ‘facts’ of Obama’s life. They would likely notice, these links to Fukino’s statements contain the disclaimer, ‘no other documentary evidence supports these statements were  made.’

Also see, for example,  TRUMPED by TRUMP (Updated 04.10.11) and RECOGNIZING when the PEOPLE INVOLVED with the PRESS ROLLOUT of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2011 LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AD CAMPAIGN WORE a PUBLIC v. PRIVATE HAT)

So, given the notoriety of a request from a state SoS to verify President’s Obama’s bona fides; and, given the burden imposed on HI offices as the result of similar requests for such verification; and, given this opportunity to (perhaps) once and for all end all such Obama-related requests to HI for authentication; one could rationally expect to see the signature of an official employed by the HI DoH on the bottom of the issued documentation. If so then, one would be wrong. Because for reasons which can only be speculated; whoever actually signed that letter is anonymous, leaving behind only what appears to be his or her initials. (Maybe someone can submit another request to HI using the public records laws, to learn the signer’s real name.)

Nevertheless, notwithstanding these obvious fatal faults with the legitimacy of this ‘verification in lieu of a certified copy’ process; several media outlets have touted the production by the anonymous HI signatory as ‘proof’ of President Obama’s  Constitutional eligibility for office. That is, this confirms his HI birth. Oh, sure, it does no such thing. But that has not stopped such claims; and it serves Bennett and the bumbling Birthers who incited his quest, right.

(continued in BUYER BEWARE BIRTHER BALONEY (2 of 2)

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

Please support the work going on here at “jbjd.”


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers