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.’)


TEXAS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

April 30, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

UPDATED 05.01.12 (15:00 EDT): See below.

This morning, kjcanon, from Arlington; and Native Texan, from Calvert; met in Austin with Attorney Keith Ingram, Election Director, Texas Secretary of State, for what kjc and NT had scheduled would be an “in-depth” discussion of “the Texas election process.” With kjc’s help; I drafted the letter which served as the basis for that ‘discussion,’ in which we synthesized the key glitches we had worked to identify in the Texas electoral process, insofar as these problems related to the job qualifications of candidates whose names appear on the Texas ballot. kjc meticulously assembled a folder containing documentary evidence that backed up these allegations. kjc and NT also provided a narrative of their personal experiences trying to obtain voting related information. The meeting began at 10:30 AM; it was all over by 11:03.

Before reading my report of the results of that meeting, which were conveyed by telephone to me, shortly thereafter; please, read the letter. Trust me: it’s the only way to fully grasp the nature of Mr. Ingram’s response to the presentation.

View this document on Scribd

(If you have trouble viewing this document in Scribd; here are jpeg images of that same letter.)

In short; here was Mr. Ingram’s response. (My abbreviated editorial comments follow, in orange.)

You gave me assertions only; you have not given me any facts. (Obviously, we not only gave you facts but also offered to give you documentary evidence to back up those facts.)

All the information voters need is on VoteTexas.gov. “I would even call it impeccable.” (Yes; you may call the information you provide, impeccable; but not if the Secretary’s purpose in posting that information is to inform the voters. Because we are voters and, we just reported to you that we, along with numerous other Texas voters disagree that the Secretary provides adequate information so as to cast an informed vote. Are you blaming us voters for failing to intuit election related information that’s not on your web site, such as the ‘fact,’ candidates are using at least 3 (three) different ballot applications? Are you rejecting all suggestions that we voters get to decide what  information we require to cast informed votes in the election?)

The Secretary of State has no enforcement power; go to the Legislature. (We are not asking you to enforce anything; rather, we are asking you to tell us what you know about how candidates access the ballot; which are the same things we need to know to become informed voters.) (The TX legislature is not in session until January 2013.)

We’re not required to post completed party application forms. (That’s precisely why we didn’t cite a law requiring you to post these applications and, instead, cited to your promise to appropriately inform voters regarding elections.)

If you want to challenge the ballot, go through the courts. (And say what, that we are Unaffiliated or Write-in candidates who are being denied Equal Protection of the law inasmuch as only we are required by the SoS to swear to Constitutional eligibility for office in order to get on the Texas Presidential ballot, whereas the Republican and Democrat candidates only fill out the party’s application?) (Or are you just trying to send us on a wild goose chase, like your colleague tried before you, alleging a legal violation when, by merely withholding information from the voters; no one has actually broken any laws?)

I always say, any answer is an answer. That is, we now know, the Elections office will not act on our request, on its own. So, to get action on the proposals and problems pointed out in the letter; we are following the chain of command – Mr. Ingram > his boss, Secretary Andrade > her boss, Governor Perry – until the buck stops. (That is, whoever is left with the final decision to amend the Secretary’s operations. This will likely be Ms. Andrade.) That’s where we will concentrate our efforts to ensure whatever steps necessary to make the information referred to in this letter available to all Texas voters. Assuming this means getting Secretary Andrade to act; I will again provide a ‘complaint,’ of sorts, for downloading and sending, which will be a re-format of the letter for wider use and distribution, and will include links to appropriate documentation. Fortunately, the Secretary’s web site suggests that voter concerns are transmitted electronically.

Of course, convincing the Secretary to shore up her operation will not resolve the problem of candidate ballot eligibility, which will require legislative action, up to and including calling an emergency session before the Presidential election. And, if more people understood the mess that is the current ‘system’ of getting candidates on the ballot; well, presumably they would be sufficiently outraged to demand such an emergency session and, to require the passage of appropriate legislation.

That said; with a few simple alterations in the rules; at least, the Secretary could achieve a uniform standard of candidate ballot application. But, as can be inferred by the attitude of Director Ingram; she is unlikely even to do that without massive citizen action. And that’s where you come in. If you can get fellow Texas voters to understand all of this election related material then, feeling like you feel now, they will be inspired in sufficient numbers to mobilize to require changes in the administrative procedures currently in place in the Office of the Secretary, including both posting the requested information and, making the rules apply equally to both unaffiliated and party candidates.

Because once we achieve widespread distribution of the information referenced in these complaint letters; no doubt enough voters will become sufficiently mobilized to demand the necessary candidate ballot eligibility legislation.

UPDATE 05.01.12 (15:00 EDT): kjc hand-delivered a follow-up letter to Mr. Ingram’s boss, the Honorable Hope Andrade, Secretary of State of Texas.

View this document on Scribd

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

Please show your support for the work going on at “jbjd.”


PAYDIRT

April 14, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

I have been saying for years now that, in those states which by law only allow on the ballot the names of candidates qualified to fill the offices they seek; political party officers certified to election officials that Barack Obama’s name should be placed on the ballot notwithstanding no documentary evidence available in the public domain established he was Constitutionally eligible for the job and, therefore, such certification was made without verification.

Not everyone agreed.

I first posted OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES in January 2010; it has remained one of the most popular posts on the “jbjd” blog. It describes my exchange with 9th graders in a U.S. History I class, during a lecture in which I detailed the interplay between the requirements for President found in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution; and real life, as played out with respect to the 2008 general election. Basically, I told the students that the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and Chairperson of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential nominating convention; ignored public requests to disclose the documentary basis for her certification that Barack Obama met the Constitutional qualifications for the job. And DNC Corporation’s general counsel, Joseph Sandler, responded to such inquiries by reminding petitioners, his was not a public agency and so, did not have to disclose the basis for that certification. The students concluded in the first instance, no one checked. In the second instance, they assumed, someone had but, did not like the results.

Others have based their interminable claims that Mr. Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for President is a ‘given’ on such nebulous evidence as contemporaneous newspaper birth announcements (supposedly) available on microfilm or microfiche; or a birth certificate or certification (presumably) indexed in a government record. My response has always been to acknowledge that, I hear what others think establishes the man’s eligibility; but I want answers from party officials who are legally responsible for placing his name on my state ballot. Further, I insisted that if these often cited ‘alternative’ sources actually provided a standard of authentication; then when they were asked, those same officials would have asserted these sources as the basis for their certification.

Indeed, all along I have maintained that none of those party officials who swore to election officials in a ballot eligibility state, Barack Obama was eligible to have his name placed on the ballot since he met the federal requirements of the job; had verified the truth of that certification. I have finally obtained the evidence that proves, all along, I was right.

I will post this evidence in a few days, after all the ‘i’s’ are dotted and the ‘t’s’ crossed on the document for which such evidence was an integral component.

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

Freedom costs.


MISSING the FINE PRINT in GEORGIA

February 6, 2012

©2012 jbjd

I will make this brief, because ever since ALJ Malahi issued the ruling adverse to Complainants at the administrative hearing on the ballot challenge in GA; I have been swamped by disillusioned ‘Minor v. Happersett‘ ex pats now ‘willing’ for the first time to try to shift the burden of proof (and production) as to whether President Obama is a NBC, onto those people who swore he was, the seminal point in the eligibility ‘cures’ I first proposed more than 3 years ago now, before the name Barack Obama was printed on state general election ballots.

(Note to those ‘birthers’ rendered depressed by Malihi’s findings (after raised artificially high by Orly’s ‘false flag,’ ‘I won!!! I won!!!’): just because an ALJ in GA says, MvH’s mention of the phrase NBC doesn’t mean what Leo Donofrio says it means; doesn’t mean, it doesn’t mean what he says it means. Or that Leo generally doesn’t know what he is talking about. Of course, as I wrote in jbjd’s FRENEMIES LIST, MvH’s use of the phrase NBC doesn’t mean what Leo says it means; and Leo doesn’t know what he is talking about. (I wrote this article before ALJ Malihi decimated Complainant’s reliance on MvH; although I believe he overstepped his lawful authority by ‘ruling’ on the meaning of NBC as that term appears in the U.S. Constitution; and by citing as precedent for a decision in a GA (11th circuit) administrative hearing, a decision by an IN (7th circuit) state appellate court, worse, in a state not even in the same (federal) circuit.) http://www.uscourts.gov/court_locator.aspx

At the risk of exposing myself as the only birther in the room able to view the recent events in GA from the ‘glass half full perspective’; I want to point out, in fact, a lot of good news came out of this fiasco. For example, counting down in no particular order of import:

5. Citizens of GA made a modest effort to take control of their state ballots using their state laws. High 5! (Now, if they would only have the self-confidence to do so on their own, that is, without inviting in all of these outside agitators! And speaking of outside agitators, it seems completely incongruous to me that the same people who eschew creeping federalism would invite into a ‘local’ state election law scrimmage; coaches and fans from across the country with the hope that by doing so, they somehow tilt in their favor the decision of the local referee!)

4. By participating at any stage in these ballot challenge proceedings, from formulating the legal cause of action setting off the event as well as the legal theory underpinning the charges; to drafting the documents; to representing the parties, to promoting and providing  coverage of the spectacle, which culminated in a live broadcast of the evidentiary hearing; those involved afforded people across the country the opportunity to see for themselves that the money they had been donating to such ’causes’ was being frittered away by a cast of characters with no business near a hearing room, let alone a courtroom. (Maybe now they will stop funding this litigious juggernaut. NOTE TO THOSE WHO STILL FAIL TO ACCEPT, THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE DOING: art2superpac, the same-old-limited-thinkers-in-the-birther-game-disguised-as-the-new-kids-on-the-block; are now soliciting funds to mount a legal challenge to ALJ Malihi’s ruling. Without attacking the credibility of this ‘configuration’ of the familiar cast of birther characters; let me just assure you, a challenge of this decision has even less chance of success than the original action.)

And now – I told you, I am in a hurry – the best news from GA has nothing to do with anything said or done by either Complainants or ALJ Malihi. Can you guess what that is? (HINT: what did I say was the best news coming out of the equally legally infirm Hollister case, from January 2009?)

1. Attorney Jablonski, by submitting a Motion to Dismiss in which he argued the inviolate right of the political parties to choose their candidates for the state election ballot; as opposed to the party’s right to have the name of its chosen candidate printed on that same ballot; confirmed that the way to keep Constitutionally ineligible candidates out of the WH was to keep their names off the state ballot.

View this document on Scribd

Because political parties don’t have a right to put the names of ineligible candidates on the ballot in states that limit ballot inclusion to only those candidates qualified for the job.

Some of you have reported, state officials respond to your complaints by insisting they have no right to tell the parties which candidates they may choose. You have indicated, they appear to be trying to fob you off. I have encouraged you not to argue but, instead, to respond as if they are sincerely misreading your intent. Concede the obvious. ‘Of course, state officials have no right to tell the parties which candidates they may run for office! It would be silly to think otherwise. That’s why I am not complaining they picked an ineligible candidate – they can pick anyone they want; I couldn’t care less – and I am not asking you to countermand their choice. But I do care about my state laws; and in this state, we don’t print the names of ineligible candidates on the ballot. So, I just want to make sure my state officials aren’t printing the names of those ineligible candidates on my ballot.’

Now, stop leaving your democracy in the hands of this crazy cast of characters; and write the damn laws. 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)  Then, make sure the rules are in place to carry out these laws. (I still can’t believe while these people went to all that trouble to file a ballot challenge on the basis of eligibility; they didn’t bother to ask the SoS to promulgate rules to carry out the GA ballot law.)

If your state already has a candidate ballot eligibility law; petition the SoS to promulgate emergency rules to carry out the intention of the legislation. There is no legitimate reason these cannot be in place by the time these same state officials receive the DNC Service Corporation’s Certification of Barack Obama’s 2012 nomination.

Finally, let me remind you, by writing smart candidate eligibility laws, you will not only guarantee that only the names of eligible candidates will appear on the ballot; but you will also lead the way to reach the federal appellate court with a case on point so as to obtain a legally binding definition of NBC. That is, the parties will, undoubtedly, protest these laws. (‘It’s unConstitutional for you to define NBC!’) And, of course, the state’s reply? ‘We are not defining NBC, as that term is used in Article 2, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution! That would be illegal! We are only defining, the names of which candidates we will print on our state ballots.’

Now, re-read HOW ADOPTING the “NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE INITIATIVE” CAN STEAL an ELECTION ‘BY HOOK’ and ‘BY CROOK’

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

Freedom costs.


IT WAS A GOOD TIME; IT WAS THE BEST TIME; IT WAS A PARTY

January 28, 2012

©2012 jbjd

The party in Georgia is over. And now, having been asked several times both here and on other blogs, what I predict will be the outcome of Thursday’s OSAH hearing in Georgia before Administrative Law Judge Malihi and, further, how Secretary Kemp will proceed in light of the ALJ’s determination; I will tell you what I think.

However, I am not privy to the record in this case and so, I am basing any speculation as to the posture of this case; on publicly available documentation. And I have no contact with anyone else who has privy to the record in this case (although this probably makes no difference as to the caliber of my prediction).

(Having access to the people directly involved would not mean that I would obtain reliable information from them, a fact made unambiguously clear when several people directly involved with the case instigated a massive public campaign of misinformation with a self-serving pronouncement that, the judge in a court of law had ordered President Obama to appear, when he had only refused to grant Respondent’s Motion to Quash Petitioner’s Subpoena. Yes, I agree the press can be blamed for their role in disseminating this propaganda by failing to investigate these claims before streamiing them into syndication; but in my opinion, this makes the attorneys involved doubly culpable for ‘blowing’ this incredible opportunity thereby provided, to educate people, instead, converting it into their personal platform to spread paranoid, error laden, hyperbolic rants.)

Finally, of course, is the fact that, notwithstanding all other considerations, when it comes to predicting a decision by any ruling authority; in fact, your guess is as good as mine.

RUMOR ALERT: Some people have insisted that before the hearing, the lawyers present met with the ALJ, who offered to “Default” Obama for not showing up. At that point, any one of the Petitioners – not just Farrar, who had issued a subpoena for him to appear so as to give “sworn” testimony – could have made a request to the ALJ, in the form of a motion, as prescribed by Rule 11; to default Obama. Or, the ALJ could default Respondent, sua sponte, that is, on its own.

But let’s say, an ordinary citizen files a complaint with the SoS that ends up in the OSAH and the Respondent bails the fact-finding hearing. S/he is likely to look up, IN ADVANCE, how this conduct would impact the proceedings.

Starting from the OSAH home page, I first found the hearing calendar and, from there, a link to Frequently Asked Questions (by parties to these proceedings).

In particular, consider that these guidelines indicate, if the Complainant is late to the hearing; the case “can be” dismissed; and if the Respondent doesn’t appear; the case “can be” decided without his input. In other words, where the burden is on Petitioner; showing up late could mean, the case was dismissed before you arrived. (More on “burden” soon.)

I, of course, looked up the section of the Administrative Procedure rule regarding default, which, again, are accessed from the OSAH home page. But before I post this, understand the meaning of the word “party” as used in the statute and corresponding rules. (Note: the statute creating the OSAH is written by the legislature, and signed into law by the governor. A provision of that law tells the head of OSAH to promulgate rules and regulations necessary for that office to carry out its legal mandate, as spelled out in the statute.)

O.C.G.A. § 50-13-2
GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
TITLE 50.  STATE GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 13.  ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ARTICLE 1.  GENERAL PROVISIONS
O.C.G.A. § 50-13-2  (2011)

§ 50-13-2.  Definitions

As used in this chapter, the term:

(2) “Contested case” means a proceeding, including, but not restricted to, rate making, price fixing, and licensing, in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing.

(4) “Party” means each person or agency named or admitted as a party or properly seeking and entitled as of right to be admitted as a party.

(5) “Person” means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental subdivision, or public or private organization of any character other than an agency.

(5.1) “Record” means information created, transmitted, received, or stored either in human perceivable form or in a form that is retrievable in human perceivable form.

(6) “Rule” means each agency regulation, standard, or statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of any agency.

Now, here is the Administrative rule on Default. (Again, I reached these rules through the OSAH home page.) All emphasis is mine.

RULES
OF
OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CHAPTER 616-1-2
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF PROCEDURE

616-1-2-.30 Default. Amended.
(1) A default order may be entered against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding, a party that fails to file any required pleading, or a party that fails to comply with an order issued by the Administrative Law Judge. Any default order shall specify the grounds for the order.
(2) Any default order may provide for a default as to all issues, a default as to specific issues, or other limitations, including limitations on the presentation of evidence and on the defaulting party’s continued participation in the proceeding. After issuing a default order, the Administrative Law Judge shall proceed as necessary to resolve the case without the participation of the defaulting party, or with such limited participation as the Administrative Law Judge deems appropriate, and shall determine all issues in the proceeding, including those affecting the party in default.
(3) Within ten (10) days of the entry of a default order, the party against whom the default order was issued may file a written motion requesting that the order be vacated or modified, and stating the grounds for the motion.
(4) The Administrative Law Judge may decline to enter a default or may open a default previously entered if the party’s failure was the result of providential cause or excusable neglect, or if the Administrative Law Judge determines from all of the facts that a proper case has been made to deny or open the default.
(5) If a party fails to attend an evidentiary hearing after having been given written notice, the Administrative Law Judge may proceed with the hearing in the absence of the party unless the absent party is the party who requested the hearing, in which case the Administrative Law Judge may dismiss the action. Failure of a party to appear at the time set for hearing shall constitute a failure to appear, unless excused for good cause.

Respondent’s absence from this hearing despite an in effect subpoena to appear could have triggered the sanction of Default, but only with respect to Respondent. This would mean, the record would have been foreclosed as to him, absent a successful appeal of the Default Order. And all of Petitoners’ evidence would have been submitted into the record without objection from the other side.

(Or, in the alternative, Petitioners could have sought an Order to Appear. We already know that only the Superior Court can issue such an Order, on Motion of Plaintiff (who in the OSAH is the Petitioner). Petitioner’s/Plaintiff’s Motion to the Superior Court can be accompanied by the ALJ’s certification as to the facts which led to this point.)

616-1-2-.22 Hearing Procedure. Amended.

(5) Upon application by a party, the Administrative Law Judge shall certify the facts to the
superior court of the county in which a party, agent, or employee of a party:
(a) disobeys or resists any lawful order or process;
(b) neglects to produce, after having been ordered to do so, any pertinent book, paper, or
document;
(c) refuses to appear after having been subpoenaed;
(d) upon appearing, refuses to take the oath or affirmation as a witness;
(e) after taking the oath or affirmation, refuses to testify; or
(f) disobeys any other order issued by an Administrative Law Judge
for a determination of the appropriate action, including a finding of contempt.

Rumor is, ALJ Malihi asked whether Petitioners wanted him to enter such Default; but, reportedly, they said, ‘No.’

Supposedly, although they have entered this same ‘evidence’ into dozens of other records, they did not want to waste this opportunity to submit testimonial evidence into this record, providing ALJ Malihi with a first-hand opportunity to gauge the credibility of their witnesses, under some mistaken belief, submitting this evidence into the record of this administrative hearing without objection from Respondent, automatically validated their submissions. Then, if they won, they could file yet another suit in a real judicial court based on ‘evidence’ certified by the OSAH (but which was outside of the scope of that forum’s expertise or authority) President Obama is Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

616-1-2-.22 Hearing Procedure. Amended.
(1) The Administrative Law Judge shall conduct a fair and impartial hearing, take action to
avoid unnecessary delay in the disposition of the proceedings, and maintain order. The
Administrative Law Judge may, among other things:


(3) Whenever any party raises issues under either the Georgia or United States Constitution,
the sections of any laws or rules constitutionally challenged and any constitutional provisions
such laws or rules are alleged to violate must be stated with specificity. In addition, an allegation
of unconstitutionality must be supported by a statement either of the basis for the claim of
unconstitutionality as a matter of law or of the facts under which the party alleges that the law or
rule is unconstitutional as applied to the party. Although the Administrative Law Judge is not
authorized to resolve constitutional challenges to statutes or rules, the Administrative Law Judge
may, in the Administrative Law Judge’s discretion, take evidence and make findings of fact
relating to such challenges.

Or, if they lost; they could use this record as the basis for an appeal filed in a subsequent judicial proceedings.

616-1-2-.39 Judicial Review. Amended.
Pursuant to the APA, a copy of any petition for judicial review of a Final Decision shall be filed
with the Office of State Administrative Hearings by the party seeking judicial review
simultaneously with the service of the petition upon the Referring Agency. The Referring
Agency shall submit the hearing record as compiled and certified by the Clerk to the reviewing
court.

Of course, they would be very very wrong.

Assume the ALJ allowed all of Petitioners’ materials into the record AND, believing their witnesses genuinely believed everything they said AND reviewing the record, took all evidence as true, and issued findings of fact based on this record. And assume Petitioners subsequently used this administrative record in a real judicial proceeding. Any judge would toss this tripe based on a finding, by crediting this ‘evidence’ the previous tribunal had acted in a manner that was both “capricious and arbitrary” and “contrary to law.”

Then again, maybe petitioners didn’t end the proceedings when ALJ Malihi gave them the option; just so as not to let the cameras go to waste.

At any rate, if this rumor is true that Petitioners could have moved for an Order of Default which would have been granted and which still would not have foreclosed the opportunity to provide live testimony as well as additional documentation then, these people are more incompetent than even I thought. More about that below.

Now,  about what actually happened and what will be the result.

When state law requires that all candidates whose names are printed on the ballot must be qualified for office; in theory, exercising a state ballot challenge will work to keep off the ballot the name of an unqualified candidate in that state, depending on the language of the laws in that state. That’s why I proposed this venue for redress (in those states with candidate eligibility laws) in the first place. And, by using a ballot challenge, the crazies who appeared at the OSAH hearing in Georgia yesterday before Administrative Law Judge Malihi, for the first time were not barred from proceeding because of a procedural flaw, such as lack of standing. Indeed, it was this new-found feeling of not being kicked out before the proceeding which produced this nonsensical elation from Petitioner Farrar’s counsel – “I won!!! I won!!!”

But the ballot challenge they presented in this case won’t work not just because they have no idea what they are doing; but because they made the wrong case.

For example, as I have been saying for years now, you cannot win an eligibility case based on a claim Barack Obama is not a NBC. Instead, you can only claim no documentary evidence available in the public record evidences he is a NBC; or that others, including D party officials who claimed he was a NBC refuse to disclose the documentary basis for such claim..(Even better, you can charge that such official with a duty to disclose refused your request!) You cannot charge Barack Obama is not a NBC because his father was not a U.S. citizen. (As I recall, this ‘legal’ fiction originated in 2008 or 9 with Leo Donofrio.) You cannot use non-experts as experts; or printouts of internet postings as documentary evidence. (You CAN, however, use these postings as evidence of other claims in your case, such as the fact, the candidate posted an image.)

A ballot challenge will not succeed where the Petitioner mistakes the forum (referring to the Executive session as a Judicial proceeding); or where he misstates the law (the court in Minor v. Happersett does not limit a definition of NBC to citizens with 2 citizen parents). It won’t succeed where Petitioner or his associates, colleagues, and attorneys have filed multiple challenges; or have a history of failure at such challenges; or a history of bizarre conduct in public; or have earned a reputation as kooks. (Give up, if your lawyer puts herself on the stand.)

But let’s assume, in Thursday’s hearing, Petitioners had miraculously cured all of these infirmities. The question then is, what does it mean to Farrar’s ballot challenge that President Obama ignored his subpoena to appear as his – Farrar’s – witness – I already told you, that’s exactly what he did – and to bring documents that presumably would tend to support his – Farrar’s – case, after ALJ Malahi denied Obama’s Motion to Quash (that subpoena)? Here goes.

Again, I want to clarify who are the parties in that Georgia ballot challenge case heard Thursday by Administrative Law Judge Malihi. Complainant Farrar, Respondent Obama, and the GA Office of Secretary are all parties.  Here’s a picture of the docket (calendar) for Thursday’s OSAH hearing. Notice, it lists the Case Name as David Farrar, and not Farrar v. Obama. It provides a box for the name of the Non-Agency Attorney, that is, Farrar’s attorney. That space is empty. It also has a box for the Case Official.  Know who that is? The person from the agency who is responsible for representing the (position of the) agency at the hearing. That box is also empty. (Note: I checked the docket for other hearings; the caption for Case Name was always the person seeking redress; and, usually, both the names of non-agency attorneys and case officials were filled in.)

Here is the downloadable subpoena from the GA OSAH web site. Notice in the case caption, that is, the section in the beginning listing the forum – OSAH – and the attached administrative agency – Secretary of State – the words “Petitioner” and “Respondent” appear in lieu of “Plaintiff” and “Defendant.”

http://www.osah.ga.gov/#

Notice that the heading lists the parties as Petitioner and Respondent. Further down, in the section beginning with “YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, to appear in court on behalf of” notice that the party issuing the subpoena, Petitioner or Respondent, identifies itself to the recipient by checking the appropriate box. Also notice, ALJ Malihi’s signature and the OSAH seal are pre-stamped on the downloadable document. (Finally, notice the word “court” as used here refers to this administrative hearing of the Executive branch and not to a Judicial proceeding.)

Notice in particular that the party issuing the subpoena selects whether s/he commands the recipient either to appear and testify as a witness; or to produce a document; or both. (The word “document” here is singular.) Thus, the subpoena allows the party to compel this witness, presumably possessing knowledge as to a specific matter which will help to support his case, to provide such aid, either in the form of sworn testimony, or a document, or both.)

Now, here is the subpoena as filled in by Petitioner Farrar directed to Respondent Obama.

View this document on Scribd

Notice here, Petitioner has checked off, he is both Petitioner and Respondent. And, he is commanding Mr. Obama, who actually is the Respondent; to both be sworn in as a Witness on his – Petitioner’s behalf – but also to produce the several (categories of) documents he lists to support his case.

(On the other hand, when Complainant Swensson wanted documents, he produced a Notice to Produce, as provided for by OSHA Rules of Procedure, cited in his notice.) (Notice that like his fellow Petitioners, he asks for numerous documents, too. Also, see that in the caption he refers to the parties as Plaintiff and Defendant. But, he correctly lists the SoS office as the applicable agency attached to this OSHA hearing.)

View this document on Scribd

Here is Respondent’s Motion to Quash (Petitioner Farrar’s subpoena). (Notice in the caption that, he, too refers to the parties as Plaintiff and Defendant. But, he also correctly lists the SoS office as the applicable agency attached to this OSHA hearing.) Also notice that while the heading is Motion to Quash Subpoenas, plural; Respondent only addresses one Petitioner, Farrar; and mentions the only subpoena issued in this case, by Petitioner Farrar.

View this document on Scribd

And here is ALJ Malahi’s denial of that Motion. Notice he raises only 2 narrow grounds: failure to cite support to claim of hardship to attend; and 2) failure to establish grounds to find improper service. Interestingly, he calls the Petitioners “Plaintiffs,” and Respondent, “Defendant.” But he gets the SoS office right. Notice that he copies the plural Subpoenas in his heading. But, for some reason, he lists all Petitioners in the caption, whereas by this time, the cases had been severed.

View this document on Scribd

(I will not comment in depth as to whether ALJ Malahi should have granted the Motion to Quash except to say, given the limited purpose for which the OSHA subpoena form was obviously intended, that is, to compel a witness to testify as to a specific fact or circumstance supported perhaps by a corresponding document under his or her control; and given Petitioner’s obvious attempt to expand that scope; I think ALJ Malihi had ample grounds to support a decision to quash based on Obama’s objections, Petitioner was impermissably trying to bolster its case by subverting the narrow aim of the subpoena in order to circumvent rules prohibiting Discovery.)

616-1-2-.38 Discovery. Amended.
Discovery shall not be available in any proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge except to
the extent specifically authorized by law. Nothing in this Rule is intended to limit the provisions
of Article 4 of Chapter 18 of Title 50 or Rule 37.

So, when Respondent/Witness (Obama), ignoring a subpoena still in force; absented himself from these proceedings; in what way did this failure to appear impact Petitioner’s case? In other words, just because he didn’t show up; did Farrar win?

Well, that depends on a lot of things, including who bears the burden of proof. That is, in a proceeding the purpose of which is to obtain a (non-binding) recommendation from the ALJ to the SoS to take Obama’s name off the ballot; did Farrar need to prove, he is not a NBC? Or did Obama need to prove he is a NBC?  Or, did the SoS need to prove it had acted in accordance with existing rules and regulations with respect to preparing the ballot?

(Note: For the sake of argument, I assumed that ALJ Malihi was so upset with being ‘dissed’ by counsel for Respondent, he would exercise whatever authority available to lock him out of these proceedings.)

Let’s look at the Administrative Rules.

616-1-2-.07 Burden of Proof. Amended.
(1) The agency shall bear the burden of proof in all matters except that:
(a) in any case involving the imposition of civil penalties, an administrative enforcement order,
or the revocation, suspension, amendment, or non-renewal of a license, the holder of the license
and the person from whom civil penalties are sought or against whom an order is issued shall
bear the burden as to any affirmative defenses raised;
(b) a party challenging the issuance, revocation, suspension, amendment, or non-renewal of a
license who is not the licensee shall bear the burden;
(c) an applicant for a license that has been denied shall bear the burden;
(d) any licensee that appeals the conditions, requirements, or restrictions placed on a license
shall bear the burden; and
(e) an applicant or recipient of a public assistance benefit shall bear the burden unless the case
involves an agency action reducing, suspending, or terminating a benefit.
(2) Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge may determine
that law or justice requires a different placement of the burden of proof.

http://www.osah.ga.gov/documents/procedures/administrative-rules-osah.pdf

Petitioners’ original complaint is that SoS Kemp should not have allowed the name of Barack Obama on the GA D Presidential preference primary ballot because under GA law, only the names of candidates who are qualified for office may be printed on the ballot; AND President Obama is Constitutionally unqualified for the job. Well, (1) says, the agency bears the burden of proof (as to why it acted as it did, in this case, determining to keep Obama’s name on the ballot). Only, the SoS, while a party; was not the named Respondent. And no one from the office of SoS was listed as participating in the hearing. But (2) says, the ALJ can shift that burden before the hearing begins. By naming Obama the Respondent/Defendant, is this what ALJ Malahi did? In other words, did he make Petitioner bear the burden of proof that Obama is not a NBC? If so, Petitioners alone failed to meet that burden.

But what if the office of the SoS had been named the Respondent and, therefore, bore the burden of proof in the case? Watch this.

Look at this rule on Nature of Proceedings.

616-1-2-.21 Nature of Proceedings. Amended.

(1) In a hearing conducted under this Chapter, the Administrative Law Judge shall make an
independent determination on the basis of the competent evidence presented at the hearing.
Except as provided in Rule 29, the Administrative Law Judge may make any disposition of the
matter available to the Referring Agency.
(2) If a party includes in its pleadings a challenge to the regularity of the process by which the
Referring Agency reached a decision, the Administrative Law Judge shall take evidence and
reach a determination on such a challenge at the outset of the hearing. The party making such a
challenge shall have the burden of proof. If the Administrative Law Judge finds the challenge
meritorious, the Administrative Law Judge may remand the matter to the Referring Agency.
(3) The hearing shall be de novo in nature, and the evidence on the issues in a hearing shall not
be limited to the evidence presented to or considered by the Referring Agency prior to its
decision.
(4) Unless otherwise provided by law, the standard of proof on all issues in a hearing shall be a
preponderance of the evidence.

Recall the definition of “rules,” above: “Rule” means each agency regulation, standard, or statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of any agency.”

Petitioners’ original complaint, supported by all of the materials they produced to make their case, is that SoS Kemp should not have allowed the name of Barack Obama on the GA D Presidential preference primary ballot because under GA law, only the names of candidates who are qualified for office may be printed on the ballot; AND President Obama is Constitutionally unqualified for the job. That was a fatal mistake. Instead – and I am borrowing this from my work on those citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG, in the sidebar – they should have argued this.

The SoS allowed the name of Barack Obama on the ballot using bad rules. That is, he carried out his ministerial duty to oversee elections by using rules that allowed onto the ballot the name of a candidate for whom even the D’s refuse to provide documentary evidence available in the public record; is Constitutionally qualified for the job. Under the Nature of Proceedings, above, this would place the burden of proof back on Petitioner; the standard, a preponderance of the evidence (>50%). And that’s a good thing. If the burden remained on the SoS, he would argue, the rules are fine, and no one could demonstrate they haven’t worked to keep an unqualified candidate off the ballot. (Remember, nothing Petitioners argued could ever establish Obama is not a NBC.)

But with the burden of proof shifted to them, Petitioners could have made their case merely by issuing subpoenas for all of those officials involved in signing the 2008 Certification of Nomination from the DNC Services Corporation swearing the then nominee Obama was “duly nominated,” that is, vetted for Constitutional eligibility under the DNC Charter; and submitting this to the GA SoS in 2008 to get his name printed on the ballot. Again, the blueprint for this argument and the evidence which Petitioners could have submitted into the record to support this argument; is laid out in those citizen complaints.

Do you suppose any of the D witnesses would have shown up?  Again, under the Administrative Procedure rule regarding default (above), if a default issued, this means, the ALJ has the authority to ignore any input from these witnesses. But this absence would actually speak volumes. It would demonstrate for everyone to see what we – I -have been saying all along: everyone else is willing to explain why Barack Obama is a NBC but the official members of the D party. Not when it comes to answering the question for voters and constituents – see the evidence compiled in the citizen complaints to state A’sG – and not  when it comes to explaining his eligibility to an official judicial or administrative body.  No reasonable person could be expected to trust the word of people who refuse to back up their word with their presence at this proceeding.

The Case Official representing the Respondent SoS could only argue back, ‘We did what we always do; accept the representation of the candidate’s (presumptive) qualification, from the Party.’

Finally, GA Petitioners could have asked that the SoS immediately promulgate appropriate rules so as to ensure that from now on, only the names of qualified candidates will appear on the state ballot.

GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
TITLE 50.  STATE GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 13.  ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ARTICLE 1.  GENERAL PROVISIONS
O.C.G.A. § 50-13-9  (2011)

§ 50-13-9.  Petition for promulgation, amendment, or repeal of rule; agency response

An interested person may petition an agency requesting the promulgation, amendment, or repeal of a rule. Each agency shall prescribe by rule the form for petitions and the procedure for their submission, consideration, and disposition. Within 30 days after submission of a petition, the agency either shall deny the petition in writing, stating its reasons for the denial, or shall initiate rule-making proceedings in accordance with Code Section 50-13-4.

And, under the timetable provided for, by law, these rules could be in place in time for the 2012 general election ballot.

That’s my analysis, for what it’s worth.

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

Freedom costs.


THERE COULD BE a LOGICAL EXPLANATION

June 29, 2011

© 2011 jbjd

Not every procedural inconsistency that occurred between the 2008 election cycle and previous elections, is definitive evidence of fraud, let alone proof that such fraud occurred.

I received this comment today from HawaiiSurfer, bemoaning the fact that HI Lt. Gov. Brian Schatz (D), formerly Chair of the HI Democratic Party in 2008; has gotten away with election fraud in relation to the wording of the 2008 D Certification of Obama’s Nomination.  But, HawaiiSurfer got it wrong; and those of you who regularly read my blog know s/he got it wrong.  Here’s that comment, in its entirety.

Brian Schatz should not be allowed to waltz scot-free on his signature and wording on the 27 August 2008 memo in question.  Our country has gone down a road where our children look up and wonder if anyone in leadership has integrity.  Few leaders have touched an honest approach to the shadowy skullduggery surrounding the 2008 election…And the world is just suppose to be okay with it.  Someone needs to call Brian out publicly for signing this form and the wording he knew was in it.  As now our Lt Governor in Hawaii, Brian needs to come clean on why he approved and authorized this release.  Where has the ethical conscience and compass of our government gone?  Forget what the media calls the birth issue, this has to do with why Brian validated for our state the national democratic presidential candidate while “clearly omitting” the authentication that the candidate was Constitutionally qualified.  In stark contrast, two predecessors from Brian’s party, Brikwood Galuteria and Alfred Lardizabul, did the right thing by clearly certifying John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000 as Constitutionally qualified candidates.  If we went back further in time, we’d probably find Brian’s actions as Democratic Party Chair here are in clear contrast to far more than just documentation of the last few presidential elections.  Brian most likely is not to fault in everything related to this.  Many hands across our nation appear to have been deep in the cookie jar.  The democratic party was fed a bad deal with what is most likely one of the biggest frauds in American history.  Good people should have stopped it.  Brian Schatz seems like a wonderful person.  I’m sure Brian has done many great things for our communities and state, but that does not excuse any elected or appointed leader from actions of this weight and consequence.

Brian Schatz signs official campaign document showing missing statement that presidential candidate was Constitutionally qualified.
(link omitted by jbjd)

Our children and neighbors deserve much better.  Our country dies when we let go of our conscience.  Unfortunately, Brian may end up like Blago.  Behind bars.

I began responding to this comment when I realized, I had written all of this before. After a brief search I found BACK UP, BIRTHERS! which contained a well-developed explanation of the inconsistencies related to the 2008 HI Certification, none of which lends itself to a presumption of fraud, certainly not on a state level.

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

(beginning of excerpt)

Not understanding my work or the context of these Certifications, she, too, invented a cottage conspiracy industry related to the mistaken uniqueness of the HI Certification of Nomination, with a twist.  See, she uses the fact the DNC Certification of Nomination contains the line that Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job; to support her argument, the HI D Party refused to put that line in their state Certification because they knew Obama is not a NBC.  How does she know this?  Well, she retrieved both the DNC and the HI D Party Certifications for 2000, 2004, and 2008.  In 2000, the DNC document began without the eligibility line, which was obviously typed in after the original document was completed.  The HDP document in 2000 contained the same eligibility line.  In 2004, the DNC document did not contain the eligibility line; the HDP document did.  In 2008, the DNC document did; the HDP document did not.

butterdezillion points out all of the variables were the same – the election law was the same, Brian Schatz was the HI D Party Chair; and Joseph Sandler was the General Counsel to the DNC – and argues, on this basis, one would expect that the Certifications would have been processed in the same manner.  Since they were not, she concludes, Mr. Schatz “refused” to swear to Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for President because he knew the man was not a NBC.

Only, she is wrong.  For one thing, all of the material variables were not the same.  But that fact has not stopped the ‘usual suspects’ from piggy-backing on her mistakes.  Even worse, her work now specifically contains a reference to research done by “jbjd,” thus arguably giving the false impression, again, my work is the basis for her soon-to-be-exposed-as-discredited findings.

Basically, here is her argument.  Looking at the dates of these Certifications, she found, in 2000, the DNC Certification was dated 08.17.00; HDP 09.08.00.  In 2004, DNC 07.29.04; HDP 08.31.2004.  In 2008, DNC 08.28.08; HDP 08.27.08.  Following is her invented rationale as to what happened in 2008:

So instead of acting independently a month after the National Convention and confirming Constitutional eligibility as in the past, the HDP acted before the Convention to take out the eligibility language from their standard certificate, signed it, and gave it to Joe Sandler before Pelosi had signed anything – signaling to the DNC that they were not going to certify eligibility. They coordinated their efforts with Joe Sandler, who sent both documents together to the HI Elections Office. Apparently Sandler, Pelosi, and Germond all knew that Hawaii’s special certification was necessary because the HDP refused to certify Obama’s eligibility.

Let me just point out one of butterdezillion’s most glaring mistaken presumptions.  Joseph Sandler did not submit both the DNC and the HDP documents “together” to the HI Elections Office.   (This probably explains why his cover letter only references the DNC Certification and not the HDP Certification, and why he uses the word “Certification,” in the singular.)  And how do I know this?  Because way back in January 2009, I asked the HI Election Office.  That is, I asked Justin Riggs to ask them.

See, in December 2008 I learned that Justin Riggs had been corresponding with elections officials in various states asking them to provide the paperwork submitted by the D and R parties to get their respective Presidential nominees on the general election ballot.  Justin posted his paperwork.  I looked at the HI documents – these are now posted on my web site, along with Justin’s correspondence – and had questions.  So, I asked Justin to ask HI election officials, since he had already established a rapport. Especially I was interested in learning when they had received these Certification documents.  Because among those documents I got from him were just the DNC Certification; the HDP Certification; and the HDP cover letter.  Joseph Sandler’s cover letter was missing.  And as you can see from the documents posted on butterdezillion, his cover letter is the only one with a ‘date received’ stamp.

(Actually, the 2008 documents butterdezillion posted on her blog in September 2010 are linked to this blog, http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hawaii-response.pdf, where they were first posted almost 2 (two) years ago.  The date, January 06, 2009 01:17p in the upper left corner, designates a FAX transmission.)

Mr. Sandler’s cover letter, dated August 28, was stamped received by the HI Elections Office on September 03.  And that cover letter was the only one of those DNC/HDP Certification documents received by the HI Election Commission for Obama that received a Date Stamp.  Consequently, as the documents I received from Justin did not contain Mr. Sandler’s cover letter, none of his documents had a stamp evidencing it had even been received by the HI Elections Office!  But obviously, the documents were received, as election officials did print Obama’s name on HI’s general election ballot.  (The date these documents were received didn’t matter, for the same reason, that is, I knew they had been received in time.)  Just to satisfy my curiosity, I asked Justin to ask officials how they received these DNC and HDP documents.  Here is his reply to me.

jbjd,
Here you go… it looks like the HI Democratic party forwarded both documents to the Elections Office.
Hope that helps. Keep me posted on your progress.
Justin—
From: Carolyn.L.Roldan@hawaii.gov <Carolyn.L.Roldan@hawaii.gov>
Subject: Re: Response to December 12, 2008 Request
To: “Justin Riggs” <juriggs@.xxxxx.com>
Date: Friday, March 6, 2009, 1:44 PM
Dear Mr. Riggs,
Both documents were forwarded by the Democratic Party of Hawaii.

Sincerely,

Kevin B. Cronin

Now that I see Mr. Sandler’s cover letter, Mr. Cronin’s answer makes even more sense.  That is, between his use of the singular “Certification”; and the delay between the date his letter was written and the date this was received by the HI Election Office’ it would make sense that the DNC gave the documents to the HDP who then forwarded these to the HI Elections Office.

When butterdezillion wrote her ‘seminal’ Certification article on September 10, 2010, she knew none of this.  Thus, based on her faulty assumptions about how the DNC and HDP letters of Certification reached the HI Election Office, she asks, “The question that begs an answer is: Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama’s eligibility as they had always done to successfully place presidential candidates on the ballots before?”  And answered it with that contrived story.

A more plausible answer as to why the HDP did not add the line about Constitutional eligibility in 2008 like they had in 2004 and 2000 likely could come from anyone reading the work produced on my blog.  Here’s a hint:  what information highlighted in COUP (2 of 3) and (3 of 3) led to my conclusion, Obama and the DNC had identified which Clinton pledged delegates were from vote binding states?  Yep; it’s those state Delegate Selection Plans.  As I told you, provisions in the DNC Model Delegate Selection Plan for 2006 required, in order to obtain final approval from the RBC for state delegate selection plans for use in the 2008 election cycle, state parties were required to submit those plans to the RBC accompanied by all state statutes reasonably related to the delegate selection process. (Emphasis added by jbjd.) http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/e824f455b24c7782dc_jjm6ib44l.pdf In this way, the DNC could monitor any idiosyncratic requirements in individual states so as to ensure Obama’s name would qualify to get onto every general election ballot.

I assumed this provision was not included in the 2002 DNC model delegate selection rules to be used in the 2004 election, and that’s why the HI state party (and, presumably, state parties in other states) handled their special Certifications on their own.  Finally, I had time to check my hypothesis; and I was right.

View this document on Scribd

In other words, where changes would be required in the language of the Certification of Nomination to satisfy the law of individual states, in 2006, the DNC began assuming responsibility for all such changes.

And that would explain why in 2008 the HDP did not certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for office but the DNC did.

(end of excerpt)

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

If your bona fide concern is shoring up the electoral process then, please, stop wasting time on ferreting out fraud and conspiracy where 1) none exists; and 2) this won’t make a difference to ensuring the next President is a NBC, anyway. And, do all of us a favor.  Stop buying into anything coming out of the hyperbolic factually vacuous blogs the links to which I continue to edit out on my blog!  Especially steer clear of any of those blogs which feature the people who have stolen and then, misrepresented the point of my work.  I wonder whether after yet another episode of emotional investment in a gambit which not only has no basis in fact but also was dispelled long ago on this blog; people will have become sufficiently angry to stop crediting another word from their ‘poison pens,’ anyway.


ALOHA OBAMA and SHALOM

January 29, 2011

©2011 jbjd

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Benjamin Franklin

“A citizenry that cannot compel its current elected officials to carry out those laws already in effect, cannot change this outcome by electing new officials or enacting new laws.”

jbjd

 

If Barack Obama is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President then, those members of the D party broke the law in 2008 who swore to state election officials he was, to get them to print his name on the ballot in those states that only print the names of candidates qualified for the job.  Many people who believe he is ineligible advocate we should shore up state election laws to forestall another round of fraud in 2012.  Meanwhile, others urge we should not let off the hook those members of the D party who fraudulently pulled off his election in 2008.

The problem of establishing candidate eligibility for office can be rectified on two fronts.

Those of you in states without existing ballot eligibility laws can focus on drafting smart candidate ballot eligibility laws for 2012.  The rest of you can work to persuade your A’sG to enforce existing laws.  In this way, that is, by concentrating on eliminating election fraud viz a viz the ballot using both prevention AND remediation, we can get at the problem of candidate eligibility coming AND going.

For residents of HI, here are updated citizen complaints of election fraud for the State of Hawaii.  Please, whether you have already filed a complaint, file this current updated one now. Note that Brian Schatz, formerly Chair of the Democratic Party of HI, is now the Lt. Gov.  And the new AG, David Louie, only assumed office a couple of weeks ago.  (Mr. Louie graduated from Occidental College, said to be one of Mr. Obama’s alma maters.)

All filers, old and new, make sure to read and understand the complaint before signing with real names and addresses, and sending.

View this document on Scribd

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)

January 24, 2011

©2011 jbjd

In August 2009 I replied to a Comment here on the “jbjd” blog:

At some point, I will switch my primary focus to drafting model legislation for the several states, to include state verification of the parties’ nominees. For now, I want to use existing laws. After all, this is why we enacted them!

2009/08/08 at 20:37

Due to circumstances beyond my control, this is that “point.”

As you know, several blogosphere pundits have historically scurried to secure for themselves a spot at the head of the eligibility advocacy pack by hyperbolically focusing readers’ attention on one hair-brain epiphany or scheme after another;  alternately raising and quashing the hopes and expectations of millions of citizens desperate for a definitive resolution to the question of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS.  They  have managed to capture unearned credibility (and augment their financial coffers) by stealing bits and pieces of the sound solutions proposed here on the “jbjd” blog, recycled under their monikers, without proper accreditation and with mistakes.

For example, there is the tale referenced below, falsifying and exaggerating the significance of differences in Certifications of Nomination submitted to election officials in various states.  In the year-and-a-half since hatched, this one lie has polluted the blogosphere, effectively depriving millions of citizens from learning the facts about our electoral system, facts which could forestall the chance that those of us who know more about ‘how things work’ will ever again get away with using that superior knowledge to steal power from the rest of us.

Magna Carta says: The Canada Press story is also on Obama File blog. I was trying to figure out how to get to the guy running this blog to notify about your efforts over the last several months.If anyone knows…tell me where to click.

Magna Carta: Before I forget, I had inadvertently held one of your comments in Moderation, even though I had responded with quite a lengthy reply. Have you seen it?

Please, people, if you see my work repeated without attribution, tell the owners of the blog! The integrity of the information I post here can be destroyed by one bogus presentation. It’s like inadvertently buying a knock-off Gucci bag that falls apart after one use; luckily, the name Gucci has been well-established to mean quality, and can survive random usurpation. But these issues I am presenting represent first impressions, that is, situations that have not been examined before. As one commenter wrote, I discuss these issues “sans” the drama. Because once these issues become mired in hyperbolic rant, they lose their import and we who discuss these issues and seek explanations and solutions lose our credibility outright. For example, knowing the Certifications of Nomination presented by the D party to elections officials in SC and HI were different, could be explained by screaming words like conspiracy, or cover-up. Or, noticing the difference in the forms could lead to a discussion that each state legislates the process by which the political parties can get the name of their nominee for POTUS onto the state’s general election ballot. (This means, the people in that state determined how the party would submit the name of its nominee to state elections officials.)

You get what I mean. ADMINISTRATOR

2009/09/12 at 22:03

Or the selfish gambit by those unscrupulous attention junkies to usurp the  strategy we devised that could finally resolve the eligibility question by compelling state A’sG in those states that require candidate eligibility to appear on the ballot; to investigate citizen complaints of election fraud against various members of the D party.

Sheila says: jbjd I have been following your blog for a while now and have seen the work you and other people are putting into this effort and I wanted to inform that there is an article written in THE POST AND EMAIL out of New Hampshire about the NH SOS investigating election fraud by NP,BO and the DEMS. In article they were crediting the Canadian Free Press with all of your work. I sent them an e-mail to inform them they had it wrong. Thought you might be interested!!!

Sheila: Thank you so much. (Remember, Justin Riggs put in the work to obtain the HI documents; I merely noted the difference with other Certifications and ‘interpreted’ that difference to be required by state law.) Are you from NH? Does NH law require the candidate to be eligible to get onto the ballot? ADMINISTRATOR

09.13.09
OMG. This theft of my intellectual property could completely undermine all of our hard work.

CFP copied my blog, making a big deal about the ‘newly’ discovered difference in signatures on Certifications of Nomination, concluding these differences in Certifications meant, the party had committed fraud. They failed to mention, state law dictates what goes on each Certification; and whether the Certification must originate with the DNC or the state D party Chair. Of course, all of this information is on my blog. No; for CFP, the fraud was proven merely by the different versions of the Certification. Then, WND copied my work wholesale, and credited Mr. Williams from CFP but not me. Just like CFP, WND also omitted the fact, HI law required the extra line in the Certification. (This makes sense, since in the same way that CFP is the front for Douglas Hagmann; Center for Western Journalism is the front for WND and Farah. They can label their propaganda however they want; but essentially, they are in the business of shaping opinions and not investigating and analyzing hard ‘news.’)

Now, a state Rep. in NH – he is a Plaintiff in one of Orly’s cases – was given the information from CFP. He contacted the SoS in NH to look into fraud; evidently, she agreed. But no fraud occurred in NH. As I have been saying since last summer, no provision of any law, federal or state, requires any state official to check whether the nominee for POTUS from the major political party is Constitutionally eligible for the job. This is the reason that any lawsuit predicated on Mandamus was doomed to fail. That is, the court – judicial branch – will not order the SoS – executive branch – to perform a specific job function unless such function is spelled out in the law – legislative branch. Most state laws also fail to require the nominee to be Constitutionally eligible for the job. In fact, most laws entitle the name of the nominee to appear on the ballot. All the party is required to do is to Certify the name of its nominee, to appropriate state officials. And since NH law does not require the nominee to be a NBC, having legally Certified he is the nominee, no fraud occurred.

We have begun filing election fraud complaints with A’sG in those states with laws requiring the candidate must be eligible for office to appear on the ballot. The complaints make clear, the D party submitted the Certifications that were required for the SoS to place BO’s name on the ballot. And the SoS did exactly what she was supposed to do, by placing his name on the ballot. In fact, by law, the party nominee is entitled to be on the ballot. However, the law in this state also requires the candidate to be eligible for the job. Now, we have no idea whether BO is eligible for the job; but we have a pretty good idea that based on the documentation in the public domain, as well as admissions by both the candidate and the party, the person signing the Certification on behalf of the party could not have ascertained whether BO is a NBC before signing the Certification submitted to the state.

It is this false meaning underlying the true Certification that is the election fraud; and the job of the AG is to investigate that fraud.

But let’s say, the SoS of NH reports, no fraud occurred. A’sG in other states will hear this and figure, no fraud occurred. So, what are these people filing these 4-page complaints of election fraud talking about?

Does this mean, the D’s did not commit election fraud in states other than NH? Absolutely not. But, tragically, because of the malfeasance of people associated with CFP and WND, and Leo and the NH state Rep., only readers of my blog will ‘get’ that distinction.

Leo Donofrio also posted this stolen information about the NH Rep., AFTER I alerted him CFP had stolen this from me. Here are the first two lines of the comment I sent him today, which comment he refuses to post. No surprise there.

“I cannot believe you posted this after I alerted you that CFP had stolen my work.”

“By stealing my work, CFP and WND have jeopardized the success of the project.”

By the way, NH has no law requiring the nominee from the major political party to be eligible for the job in order to appear on the ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

2009/09/13 at 17:33

Well, these same charlatans are now fabricating equally faulty prescriptions for preventing the problems that plagued the 2008 election cycle from repeating themselves in 2012.  Again, 1) they are stealing from me; and, as usual, 2) they don’t know what they are talking about.  So, in the best interest of enabling a well informed electorate, I am compelled to shift the immediate focus of the work I have been pouring into the “jbjd” blog away from mitigating and remediating the problems I have identified which infected the 2008 election cycle, and toward preventing these same anomalies I originally identified here on this blog 2 1/2 years ago, in the summer of 2008, from infecting the electoral cycle again in 2012.

From now on, those readers who have been emailing proposed legislation in individual states for my comment and review, should now direct all such correspondence to the Comments section of the blog so that our collaboration can benefit everyone who visits “jbjd.”

Okay, here goes.

When it comes to crafting proposals affecting legislation with respect to the electoral process for  the 2012 general election cycle that are intended to ensure we elect a President who is Constitutionally eligible for the job, such proposals cannot achieve this desired outcome which contain provisions contradicting the broad tenets spelled out below, in no particular order.

1. IN STATES WHERE CITIZENS HAVE NOT ENACTED LAWS SPECIFICALLY MANDATING ONLY THE NAMES OF CANDIDATES ELIGIBLE* FOR THE OFFICES THEY SEEK TO FILL MAY APPEAR ON THE BALLOT, THEY NEED TO ENACT THESE LAWS.

*(The word “eligible” is used in Article II, section 1, with respect to the President; neither the word “eligible” nor the word “qualified” appears in Article I, sections 2 and 3 to define who may be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives or U.S. Senate.)

2. IN STATES WHERE CITIZENS HAVE ENACTED LAWS SPECIFICALLY MANDATING ONLY THE NAMES OF CANDIDATES ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICES THEY SEEK TO FILL MAY APPEAR ON THE BALLOT, THE NAMES OF INELIGIBLE CANDIDATES MUST BE KEPT OFF THE BALLOT. Such ballot eligibility laws must be expanded to include verification mechanisms, either by promulgating regulations to carry out existing laws, a state function allocated to the official in charge of elections or, by tweaking the original legislation so as to allow expedited challenges of ballot eligibility; along with stiff criminal and civil penalties for violations. (These solutions to the eligibility problem were first discussed on the “jbjd” blog way back in August 2008.  See CHALLENGING BO’S ELIGIBILITY TO GET ONTO THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT AS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR POTUS)

(Please note, objections raised that the state cannot interfere with the rights of political parties to choose their candidates can be countered with this rationale:  a decision by any state that, one candidate or another is not eligible under state law to have his or her name printed on the ballot does not mean that political parties are  not entitled to ‘run’ a candidate who fails to meet ballot eligibility. Not at all!  Failing to meet the state’s standard for ballot eligibility (or, refusing to subject party nominees to the scrutiny of vetting by the state) in no way implicates the right of the party to the nominee of its choice.  It only relieves the state of the burden to put that person’s name on the general election ballot. People who still want to vote for candidates who have failed to establish state confirmed ballot eligibility must be offered the option to write in the names of these candidates in a space provided!)

(Please note, the portion of the U.S. Code addressing criminal conduct associated with the production, transfer, possession, and use of identification documents – DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2) – should be incorporated into state law, for this reason.  Breaches of federal law must be investigated and prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney, whose discretion to proceed may be influenced by factors outside of the state; whereas violations of state law can be addressed by appropriate law enforcement officials within the state, and subject to the direct influences of its citizens.  Such legislation should in no way prevent federal prosecution of document related fraud.)  (Of course, if we are as lax about persuading our elected officials to exercise their discretion to enforce news laws as we have been when it comes to enforcing laws already on the books, well, scofflaws will have as little to worry about then as they do now.)

3. IN STATES WHERE CITIZENS HAVE ENACTED LAWS SPECIFICALLY MANDATING ONLY THE NAMES OF CANDIDATES ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICES THEY SEEK TO FILL MAY APPEAR ON THE BALLOT, THE WAY TO PREVENT ELECTORS FROM ELECTING AN INELIGIBLE PRESIDENT IS TO ENACT LAWS PROHIBITING THEM FROM ELECTING ANYONE WHOSE NAME DID NOT APPEAR ON THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT IN THEIR STATE. As we now know, laws mandating that Electors must vote for the Presidential nominee of the political party exist in several states.   NEVER LESS THAN a TREASON (2 of 2) Thus, we can also write laws mandating Electors only elect Presidents Constitutionally eligible for the job.  But Electors cannot be charged with determining eligibility, for several reasons.  As we have discussed, the names of Electors are proposed by the political parties, and are usually long-time party contributors and loyalists. But this innate bias on the part of Electors is only one barrier to requiring such scrutiny of the candidates.  More importantly, Electors are not public officials answerable to the electorate.  Thus, all mandates involving candidate eligibility must be implemented by state election officials.

(Please note, requiring Electors to elect only a President whose name appeared on that state’s ballot cures another problem I previously identified with the National Popular Vote Initiative (“NPVI”).  That is, as it stands now, in a ballot eligibility state whose legislature has already voted to join the NPVI compact, Electors could be compelled to vote for the Presidential candidate who amassed the most votes in the compact states, notwithstanding s/he failed to qualify to appear on the ballot in that eligibility state.  Under my proposal, Electors are prohibited from violating their state’s ballot eligibility law.) (Other arguments have been raised questioning the Constitutionality of the NPVI. Id.)

4. IN STATES WHERE VOTERS HAVE ENACTED LAWS SPECIFICALLY MANDATING ONLY THE NAMES OF CANDIDATES ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICES THEY SEEK TO FILL MAY APPEAR ON THE BALLOT, THEY MUST DEFINE THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR CANDIDATES TO APPEAR ON THE BALLOT. That’s right, ballot eligibility. Because this is the only eligibility issue which is justiciable, or capable of being addressed by the courts.  Hopefully, everyone even marginally familiar with the numerous futile attempts to foist the issue of candidate eligibility for office on the judicial branch of government has learned this lesson by now.  It makes sense, therefore, the only legally cognizable interest the public can protect viz a viz enforcing existing laws with respect to candidate eligibility derives from laws passed in several states demanding that only candidates qualified for office are entitled to have the state print their names on the ballot.

4a.  IN STATES WHERE VOTERS HAVE ENACTED LAWS SPECIFICALLY MANDATING ONLY THE NAMES OF CANDIDATES ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICES THEY SEEK TO FILL MAY APPEAR ON THE BALLOT AND DEFINED THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR CANDIDATES TO APPEAR ON THE BALLOT, SUCH BALLOT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS CANNOT CONFLICT WITH THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL OFFICE WHICH ARE FOUND IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. This only makes sense.  Because otherwise, that is, by insisting states get to pass laws defining the eligibility for office; citizens would be attempting to ‘amend’ through state legislation (or regulation) the eligibility found in the Constitution  notwithstanding the only legal way to change the Constitution is through the process of Constitutional amendments prescribed in the Constitution! (And this legal truism has previously been discussed several times on the “jbjd” blog.  See, for example, CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (1 of 2) and (2 of 2); and JUDGE ABBOTT WOULD ORDER TDP CHAIR BOYD RICHIE TO DECLARE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA IS INELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB.)

On the other hand, states get to decide (for the most part) the rational ways to spend their finite resources.  Thus, they can decide to print on the ballot (and tabulate the votes for) only the names of those candidates eligible for office   And to keep off the ballot the names of any candidates who are not.  Anyone aggrieved at being kept off the ballot for failing to meet the state definition of eligibility, can sue.  Defining NBC in any way we want, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, could likely result in a federal appellate court ruling that would establish a legally binding definition of NBC.

(Please note, anyone aggrieved that the definition of eligibility to appear on the ballot conflicts with the definition of eligibility found in the U.S. Constitution, resulting in the exclusion from the ballot a candidate presumed eligible, can file suit against the state in either state or federal court contesting such ballot exclusion.  Eventually, such case will be heard by a federal appeals court and, in this way, we could achieve a legally binding definition of the Constitutional terms of eligibility.)

Here are some prior Comments on the subject containing issues drafters should consider.

bob strauss:  Know what’s funny? When we set up eligibility panels in the states, we can define NBC any way we want. If the party wants to use our state ballots then, their candidate has to fulfill our definition of NBC. If they don’t like our definition, they can take us to court; or stay off our ballots. Because until the federal appeals court defines NBC then, one definition is as good as another. And we will do this by the next general election. But at a minimum, NBC certainly means, born in the U.S.A. ADMINISTRATOR

2009/09/23 at 19:42


Texas Voter:  Great questions.  I have addressed these issues tangentially throughout the blog, while not dedicating an entire article to the subject of vetting candidates for POTUS as to Constitutional eligibility for the job. In short, this discussion can be divided into 2 (two) categories: 1) the Constitutional qualifications for POTUS; and 2) qualifications to get on state ballots.

1) Does the Constitution set a floor or a ceiling on qualifications for POTUS? That is, can Congress pass a law requiring the Electors to vet as to, say, NBC status, where the Constitution does not compel this factor into their deliberations? If the document set a floor for qualifications then, we can expand on these. If it set a ceiling then, we cannot add to the requirements for deliberation.

2) Can states set whatever requirements they want to get on the ballot, notwithstanding requirements for the actual job are prescribed by the Constitution? That is, can states define ‘qualifications for POTUS’ to get on the ballot, such as, for example, saying, NBC means, born in the U.S. to 2 (two) citizen parents?

The good thing about having the states define NBC is that, we could envision, a party (person or political organization) thereby excluded from appearing on the ballot would file suit against the state for being wrongfully excluded from the political process. And through this process, we would achieve the federal court definition of NBC! ADMINISTRATOR

2010/02/18 at 16:49

5. NO MECHANISM INTENDED TO ESTABLISH ONLY ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES WILL BE ELECTED PRESIDENT WILL SUCCEED, WHICH RELIES ON CANDIDATE SELF-AUTHENTICATION. This has always seemed to me to be self-explanatory.

I refuse to focus on BO to establish HIS OWN eligibility. On FTS, the web site he started and for which he paid before becoming the D Corporation nominee for POTUS; he posted the COLB he said is an official document, which proves he is eligible for POTUS. ADMINISTRATOR

2010/01/05 at 20:33

In other words, stop asking Obama or anyone acting on his behalf but not in an official capacity; to get the man to produce anything! And do not under any circumstances accept as true, any document or facsimile any of these representatives not acting as the “issuing authority” introduces and claims is real! azgo has provided this anecdote with respect to producing an original birth certificate that illustrates why.

If a state law requires a B/C as documentation for ballot access, the state should require the candidate to request from the lawful authority of the candidate’s ‘place of birth’ state to issue that identification document and in that request, the document must be sent directly to the state official (SoS, state election official) and this would be similar to applying for a passport.

I went to apply for a passport in 1979 at the county office (so much younger and not so much money). I brought my hospital issued birth paper with my little footprint on it which my mom kept for so many years. The clerk said that’s no good and you have to use the one from the the department agency in the state where were born. I wanted a copy of my birth certificate so I said to the county clerk, “I want a copy of my B/C so can I get the B/C from my state and make a copy for myself (being thrifty) and then send it to the them (Office of Passport Services/Customer Service).” She said, ” No, you can’t, the certified B/C must go directly to them from the state agency where you were born who keeps those records, they won’t accept one from you”. (I thought to myself, ‘What! don’t they trust me?’) So I had to send off another request of my own to get a certified copy (that blew my budget.) In other words the federal government who issues passports requires the certified B/C copy to go directly to them from the state agency who keeps the B/C record.

So the states with eligibility laws requiring documentation should do the same by requiring the candidate to request a certified original B/C copy from the candidate’s place of birth state agency and send it directly to the SoS or state election official. The SoS and/or state election officials would and should respect the candidate applicant’s personal information and not release any copies of the certified B/C copy to the public but the state could require the document to be available for public viewing only at the office of the SoS (no copies made). This would preserve the integrity of a genuine birth identification document. (I think once that the act of making a copy of the an official certified original or short form B/C copy, then that copy instantly becomes a false identification document, no embossed state seal, no original signature, -”altered”. There are only two types of identification documents, “genuine” and “false”, http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01507.htm ) Then it would be up to the candidate to choose whether he wants the public to see it or not, …and that answer may conclude whether or not he wants to be able to achieve ballot access.

The SoS and/or state election officials should not accept a certified B/C copy, original or not, from the candidate or anyone else except from “lawful authority” as defined in U.S. Code 1028.

Even Harvard advises applicants to its Freshman class, “Please note that in order for your application to be considered complete, your official test scores must (sic) submitted directly to Harvard by the testing agency on your behalf.”

http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/application_process/index.html

Finally, for those of you who would prefer to allow the political parties to authenticate the eligibility of their candidates, I recommend this additional caveat.

6. ANY MECHANISM INTENDED TO ESTABLISH ONLY THE NAMES OF ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT, WHICH RELIES ON A POLITICAL PARTY TO AUTHENTICATE ITS CANDIDATES MUST INCLUDE CORRESPONDING LEGISLATION THAT TREATS PARTY OFFICIALS AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS WITH RESPECT TO MANDAMUS AND PUBLIC RECORDS LAWS. This points to the reason I emphasize TX is the state in which prosecution for election fraud viz a viz Certifying Barack Obama was eligible to appear on the 2008 ballot, could succeed.  TX requires candidate eligibility for office in order to appear on the ballot; as Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”), Boyd Richie fulfilled a traditional state function when he determined candidate Barack Obama was eligible to appear on the ballot.  Under TX law, this makes Mr. Richie subject to both Mandamus and the Open Records Law.  See, for example, CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (1 of 2)CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (2 of 2)OPEN LETTER to GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL of TEXAS , JUDGE ABBOTT WOULD ORDER TDP CHAIR BOYD RICHIE TO DECLARE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA IS INELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB, IDIOMS! …..

There.  Any questions?  Ask “jbjd.”

P.S.  I still maintain we can prevent future problems simply by remediating past problems, for example, focusing our collective attention and efforts on enforcing existing ballot eligibility laws.



If a state law requires a B/C as documentation for ballot access, the state should require the candidate to request from the lawful authority of the candidate’s ‘place of birth’ state to issue that identification document and in that request, the document must be sent directly to the state official (SoS, state election official) and this would be similar to applying for a passport.I went to apply for a passport in 1979 at the county office (so much younger and not so much money). I brought my hospital issued birth paper with my little footprint on it which my mom kept for so many years. The clerk said that’s no good and you have to use the one from the the department agency in the state where were born.  I wanted a copy of my birth certificate so I said to the county clerk, “I want a copy of my B/C so can I get the B/C from my state and make a copy for myself (being thrifty) and then send it to the them (Office of Passport Services/Customer Service).”  She said, ” No, you can’t, the certified B/C must go directly to them from the state agency where you were born who keeps those records, they won’t accept one from you”.  (I thought to myself, ‘What! don’t they trust me?’)  So I had to send off another request of my own to get a certified copy (that blew my budget.)  In other words the federal government who issues passports requires the certified B/C copy to go directly to them from the state agency who keeps the B/C record.So the states with eligibility laws requiring documentation should do the same by requiring the candidate to request a certified original B/C copy from the candidate’s place of birth state agency and send it directly to the SoS or state election official.  The SoS and/or state election officials would and should respect the candidate applicant’s personal information and not release any copies of the certified B/C copy to the public but the state could require the document to be available for public viewing only at the office of the SoS (no copies made).  This would preserve the integrity of a genuine birth identification document. (I think once that the act of making a copy of the an official certified original or short form B/C copy, then that copy instantly becomes a false identification document, no embossed state seal, no original signature, -”altered”.  There are only two types of identification documents, “genuine” and “false”, http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01507.htm )  Then it would be up to the candidate to choose whether he wants the public to see it or not, …and that answer may conclude whether or not he wants to be able to achieve ballot access. The SoS and/or state election officials should not accept a certified B/C copy, original or not, from the candidate or anyone else except from “lawful authority” as defined in U.S. Code 1028.

BACK UP, BIRTHERS!

October 12, 2010

© 2010 jbjd

COPYRIGHT WARNING

and

CONSUMER ALERT!


This is a copyright warning and consumer alert to the owners and readers of any of the following internet sites: americangrandjury; americanthinker; butterdezillion; canadafreepress; citizensagainstproobamamediabias; citizenwells; devvykidd; fellowshipofminds; freerepublic; logisticsmonster; obamareleaseyourrecords; oilforimmigration;  sodahead; theconservativemonster; thedametruth; theobamafile; thepostemail; therightsideoflife; washingtontimes; and westernjournalism and and wnd (both Bob Unruh’s bloviating babies).

You have been made accessories after the fact to the theft by JB Williams of  original work produced by and copyrighted to me, “jbjd” and posted on the “jbjd” blog but which work he stole without my prior notice or approval and has been illegally distributing under his name ever since.  Adding insult to injury, having only stolen the work but not bothered to learn what it meant, Mr. Williams misrepresented to his audience what it meant.  As a consequence of his subterfuge,  dozens of blog owners ostensibly motivated by their heartfelt desire to teach others about our electoral process; and hundreds of thousands of citizens ostensibly trying to learn about our electoral process by reading these blogs, have been distributing and consuming false information Mr. Williams wrongly extrapolated from my work.

Worse, crediting this narrative knock-off, citizens have been traveling up blind alleys trying to figure out the fraud that tainted the 2008 election cycle when collectively, they could have been taking positive steps I already laid out to redress the illegal fraud I had previously identified, years ago now, which action would help to prevent its recurrence.  In wasting their time and effort in this way, they have been paying for his crime ever since.

Evidence of the Theft

On August 13, 2009 I posted IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO on my blog, “jbjd.” This article was inspired by  comments from the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, to USA Today, describing boisterous dissent at town hall meetings leading up to the vote on Obamacare as “un-American.”  (“Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.”)  The article focused on the contradiction between 1) Ms. Pelosi’s Certification that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen, and Obama’s statement on “Fight the Smears” that he is only a “native”; and between 2) communications from members of Congress to their constituents claiming that Obama is eligible to be President because Annenberg Political Fact Check says he is, and the fact I exposed that APFC does not check facts, which I documented in RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’ posted 4 (four) days earlier, on August 9, 2009.

As background, I parenthetically reminded readers, saying Obama was “duly nominated” or was “Constitutionally eligible for the job” was a distinction without a difference.

(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.)

To show this difference, I posted images of 2 (two) DNC Certifications of Obama’s Nomination submitted to election officials in SC and HI, both of which had been available individually on the internet for more than 8 (eight) months by that time, since 2008. And, consistent with my writings on the 2008 election cycle since before the August 2008 DNC nominating convention, in which I emphasized that elections are a state by state affair conducted according to individual state laws; I repeated that the difference in wording found in these 2 Certifications was only attributable to the individual requirements of election laws passed in each state. I pointed out according to the election laws in HI, the party must explicitly write this Constitutional eligibility into their Certification.  But again, this difference in the wording of the Certifications was not the point of the article.  Signing two different Certifications was not a problematic ‘fact’ because as I explained, saying either “duly nominated” or “Constitutionally eligible” meant, he is a Natural Born Citizen.

But introducing the side-by-side images of these Certifications in this August 2009 article, I wrote this line:  “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.”  Unfortunately, JB Williams misconstrued that throwaway line to mean, ‘NP failed to Certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for President in 49 states but did Certify his eligibility in HI because HI law required the Party to swear the nominee was Constitutionally qualified.’  Of course, he got it all wrong.  As you know, saying “duly nominated” by the DNC means, saying he is a NBC.  Because DNC rules require the nominee to be a NBC.  (Maybe I should have said, “in just that state, NP also had to explicitly swear he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.”  In other words, under HI election law, just swearing he was “duly nominated” without explicitly writing he was “qualified” under the “Constitution” would not have been enough to get election officials to print his name on the ballot even though Certifying he was “duly nominated” still meant, he was “Constitutionally eligible for the job.”)

And as I was to learn from ongoing research only several days later, that additional explanation still would have been wrong.  Anyone who reads my blog regularly knows, just a couple of weeks after I posted the August article containing the images of the HI and SC Certifications, I posted  UP to HERE in ELECTION FRAUD in SC, FROM the CHAIR of the 2008 DNC CONVENTION to the CHAIR of the DNC, the article that explained election law in SC also requires explicit eligibility language to accompany the submission of candidate names to election officials to print on the ballot.  In other words, HI is not the only state whose election law requires an explicit statement that the candidate is qualified for the job before election officials will print the candidate’s name on the ballot.  So, why wasn’t this explicit language in the SC Certification of Nomination?  Well, as I pointed out in the SC article, this specific eligibility certification in SC was accomplished even before the nominating convention in August 2008, way back in November 2007, in time for the Presidential preference primary.  Because under SC law, candidates who want their names to appear on the party’s primary ballot must register directly with the party! This meant, in SC, Obama’s Constitutional eligibility had to be sworn to by the party, back in November 2007 in time to have election officials print his name on the D Presidential preference primary ballot.  So, in SC, Kathy Hensley, Treasurer of the SC Democratic Party, explicitly swore Obama (and Biden and Clinton…) was Constitutionally eligible for the job, in 2007.  (I obtained these primary documents working with a reader of my blog from SC, who spoke with an official from the SC Election Commission to answer ‘my’ questions.)

On September 11, 2009, playing on the words of the titles of my preceding 2 articles, JB Williams published, “The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don’t Lie,” in Canada Free Press, the neo-Nazi rag which lists him as a “Partner” (along with Douglas Hagmann of Northeast Intelligence Network (“NEIN” for “No” in German, get the ‘joke’?)).   Evidently seeing these dual HI and SC Certifications for the first time, Mr. Williams now hyperbolically announced to the world:

…They snuck it past fifty state election commissions, congress, the US Supreme Court and Justice Department, the Federal Elections Commission and countless members of the Electoral College nationwide. Not a single member of the, as Limbaugh says, “drive-by media” caught it either, or if they did, they decided to become complicit for their own political reasons.

But as is always the case with liars, cheats and thieves, they slip up Ð make a silly mistake Ð overplay their hand Ð leave evidence lying around that they had forgotten about. And as with all chronic liars, they eventually get caught in their own web of lies.

Then, one day, someone stumbles into that evidence, and the house of cards comes crashing down around them. It’s almost poetic…

…Last, the fact that TWO DNC Certifications exist, both signed, dated and notarized by the same individuals on the same day, means that a very real conspiracy to commit election fraud was underway, and since it took until six months after the election to uncover it, the conspiracy was indeed successful.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm

(How many mistakes of fact were you able to count in just these quoted lines?)

(Note to JB Williams:  The Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) is only legally authorized to oversee campaign finance and not candidate eligibility for office.  http://www.fec.gov/)

Immediately, the thief was confronted with the facts, readers detected his theft from my blog and opposed his wrong interpretation of the meaning and significance of these dual Certifications.  How do we know?  Because they told him, in writing, and urged him to refer his readers to my blog, reporting I had been working on these issues for some time, and could accurately explain their meaning in context.

From markcon:

Please give credit where it is obviously belongs: http://jbjd.wordpress.com/
for the correct meaning and interpretation that he has studied for almost a year now and also how to act on it.

Posted by markcon  on  09/10  at  08:51 PM | #

From Paralegal:

Mr. Williams
Please follow the enclosed link. There is a movement just
started to file complaints with State Attorney Generals
about this very problem. A model complaint, prepared by an attorney, has been prepared which can be used in every state, with corrections that will apply to your state of filing. Please take a look, and it could be the subject of a future article. Here is the link:
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/
Thanks for the article, great work.

Posted by Paralegal  on  09/12  at  02:52 PM | #

More from markcon:

people pay attention. the site where these 2 files were borrowed with no credit given is http://jbjd.wordpress.com/ Please give credit where it is obviously belongs: http://jbjd.wordpress.com/
for the correct meaning and interpretation. jbjd has studied for almost a year now and also how to act on it.

Posted by markcon  on  09/12  at  08:14 PM | #

Again from markcon:

MR. Williams,
You stated “I had NO knowledge of the site you reference until AFTER the release of your column. NO knowledge of this site whatsoever.”
I was not implying that you did!
I was referring to the anonymous reader that sent them to you, and the possible idea of fraud that came with it, if any. I commend you on being able to take the initiative and investigate. I am sure your readers understood that point and I thought you did too because you so generously let me post the site http://jbjd.wordpress.com/ where people can take advantage of research that has been done in this area for almost a year now.

I am in no way part of that blog- just a fan.
And as a fan I wanted to point to a blog where I think in my opinion is more detailed and corrects some wrong conclusions on your part and others new come to the issue.

I hope you take advantage of well thought out research and possibly report on http://jbjd.wordpress.com/ work especially in the states of Hi and TX. since the report would be on jbjd there would be no issues and would be a great follow up to your column because I am sure you would agree that there are others like you concerned about fraud.
The NH investigation is a red herring and will give msm a chance to say the issue has been settled even though NH has no such law.

Thanks again for posting my comment about http://jbjd.wordpress.com/ and I am sorry if there was any misunderstanding.columns like yours that are concerned about fraud only want the truth and by posting my comment you showed that you cared enough to show the path to that truth.

From azgo:

Go here, jbjd has been diligently working on this and other things for quite some time. See “MODEL COMPLAINT OF ELECTION FRAUD TO STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL”. Please read the other posts by jbjd.
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/
(Note – The bold lettering may show and somehow got messed up today in the model letter to the Texas Attorney General. jbjd is working on fixing this.)

The Texas chair of the Texas Democratic Party used his letterhead on practically the same letter and as jbjd has noted in the model letter to the Texas Attorney General. Texas election code requires the state political party chair to certify the names of the nominees for POTUS and “the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law”. Please note that the notary’s date of the “27 day of August, 2008″.
http://falseflagrag.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/texas-general-election-certifications/official-tdp-cert/

Posted by azgo  on  09/10  at  04:09 PM | #

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/the-theory-is-now-a-conspiracy-and-facts-dont-lie/P318/

Obviously, given azgo’s information that only Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) signed the Certifications that went to election officials in TX, and not Nancy Pelosi, he was wrong when he told readers, Nancy Pelosi signed Certifications in all 50 states!  And he could have easily checked, because azgo also informed him, those TX documents were the basis for the citizen complaint of election fraud to TX AG Abbott I had posted on my blog and made available to readers for download and sending, free of charge. But by this time, Mr. Williams was too invested in the notoriety he had begun receiving for posting my work, to admit culpability for his crime.  So, he never corrected the mistakes he had incorporated into his faulty analysis of the work I had created which he re-posted under his name.  He couldn’t now post these corrections, or direct readers of his plagiarized column to my blog and the TX complaint I had posted there specifically for their use and which could prove effective against the state party chair; without giving away he had stolen his column from me!

So, how did Mr. Williams respond to these numerous charges, he had stolen my work?  He now claimed he had just received the two differently worded Certifications “anonymously.”  (Later on, he claimed, he still had not found the time to authenticate the HI document.  Thus, he posted these documents from an ‘anonymous source’ without authentication, and then based his conclusions on these images.  Some researcher!)

Fallout From the Theft

Meanwhile, all of those other sites that had posted JB Williams’ work and, like him, failed to credit me or, follow my blog, not only missed out on the truth FOR ONE WHOLE YEAR but also wasted their time and energy on a wild goose chase dependent on the differences in Certifications, instead of pursuing the mechanism I had created on my blog that would allow citizens to go after those members of the D Party who committed election fraud in applicable states.

Especially hard hit was butterdezillion.  In September 2010, she credited JB Williams with writing the definitive article in CFP on the 2 different Certifications of Obama’s Nomination; and she, too, repeated the lie, HI is the only state that requires explicit Certification of Constitutionality to get on the ballot.  Just like the response triggered when JB Williams stole my work, now, one year later, when butterdezillion credited his theft of that same work, she, too, was bombarded with writers informing her, this was my work all along.  And it didn’t mean what JB Williams said it meant.  Additionally, I contacted her and demanded a retraction.  Now, unlike Mr. Williams, she did alter her credits to reflect, the research that produced these Certifications was mine.  (In fact, I had not originally obtained either document.  The SC Certification was on the internet.  The HI Certification came from Justin Riggs.  I only put them side by side to visually demonstrate the differences.) (More on my collaboration with Justin later…) However, like JB Williams, as she had failed to study my work, she now incorrectly told her readers what this research means.

You have to see how far behind the curve she – and her readers – remain in September 2010.  (Note the added ‘mention’ of the election law in SC.)

Outstanding research by blogger jbjd here, here, here, and here, with summary here, showed that Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond , as representatives of the Democratic National Committee, had signed one Certificate of Nomination for Obama and Biden that was sent to 49 states, and another that was sent only to Hawaii. Only the certificate sent to Hawaii included a statement that Obama and Biden were Constitutionally qualified to serve as President and Vice-President.

That certificate of nomination for Hawaii is the ONLY statement in this nation signed by somebody besides Obama which claims that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President. (Note: I am currently checking into whether the South Carolina Democratic Party also signed a statement of Constitutional eligibility. Will update later if this paragraph needs to be edited.) Contrary to arguments that Congress certified Obama’s eligibility when they certified the results of the electoral vote, neither representatives of Congress nor any Secretary of State has signed a legal document saying that Obama is eligible. This one oath by Pelosi and Germond is the only legal claim that Obama’s eligibility was verified.

http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/certificate-of-nomination-summary/

And responding to a reader comment, she writes,

I also saw something about the SC Democratic Party certifying eligibility; I think I’ve seen jbjd write about that. I need to check that out and update the post to reflect that the SCDP also certified eligibility…

But not surprisingly, as of now, despite her ‘conscienscious’ words, she has failed to “check that out and update the post to reflect that the SCDP also certified eligibility…”  Because just like the alternative confronting Mr. Williams, if she corrects her work in 2010 based on work previously processed on my blog beginning in 2008; what does this say about the caliber of her work?  Better to leave her readers in the dark…

Not understanding my work or the context of these Certifications, she, too, invented a cottage conspiracy industry related to the mistaken uniqueness of the HI Certification of Nomination, with a twist.  See, she uses the fact the DNC Certification of Nomination contains the line that Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job; to support her argument, the HI D Party refused to put that line in their state Certification because they knew Obama is not a NBC.  How does she know this?  Well, she retrieved both the DNC and the HI D Party Certifications for 2000, 2004, and 2008.  In 2000, the DNC document began without the eligibility line, which was obviously typed in after the original document was completed.  The HDP document in 2000 contained the same eligibility line.  In 2004, the DNC document did not contain the eligibility line; the HDP document did.  In 2008, the DNC document did; the HDP document did not.

butterdezillion points out all of the variables were the same – the election law was the same, Brian Schatz was the HI D Party Chair; and Joseph Sandler was the General Counsel to the DNC – and argues, on this basis, one would expect that the Certifications would have been processed in the same manner.  Since they were not, she concludes, Mr. Schatz “refused” to swear to Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for President because he knew the man was not a NBC.

Only, she is wrong.  For one thing, all of the material variables were not the same.  But that fact has not stopped the ‘usual suspects’ from piggy-backing on her mistakes.  Even worse, her work now specifically contains a reference to research done by “jbjd,” thus arguably giving the false impression, again, my work is the basis for her soon-to-be-exposed-as-discredited findings.

Basically, here is her argument.  Looking at the dates of these Certifications, she found, in 2000, the DNC Certification was dated 08.17.00; HDP 09.08.00.  In 2004, DNC 07.29.04; HDP 08.31.2004.  In 2008, DNC 08.28.08; HDP 08.27.08.  Following is her invented rationale as to what happened in 2008:

So instead of acting independently a month after the National Convention and confirming Constitutional eligibility as in the past, the HDP acted before the Convention to take out the eligibility language from their standard certificate, signed it, and gave it to Joe Sandler before Pelosi had signed anything – signaling to the DNC that they were not going to certify eligibility. They coordinated their efforts with Joe Sandler, who sent both documents together to the HI Elections Office. Apparently Sandler, Pelosi, and Germond all knew that Hawaii’s special certification was necessary because the HDP refused to certify Obama’s eligibility.

Let me just point out one of butterdezillion’s most glaring mistaken presumptions.  Joseph Sandler did not submit both the DNC and the HDP documents “together” to the HI Elections Office.   (This probably explains why his cover letter only references the DNC Certification and not the HDP Certification, and why he uses the word “Certification,” in the singular.)  And how do I know this?  Because way back in January 2009, I asked the HI Election Office.  That is, I asked Justin Riggs to ask them.

See, in December 2008 I learned that Justin Riggs had been corresponding with elections officials in various states asking them to provide the paperwork submitted by the D and R parties to get their respective Presidential nominees on the general election ballot.  Justin posted his paperwork.  I looked at the HI documents – these are now posted on my web site, along with Justin’s correspondence – and had questions.  So, I asked Justin to ask HI election officials, since he had already established a rapport. Especially I was interested in learning when they had received these Certification documents.  Because among those documents I got from him were just the DNC Certification; the HDP Certification; and the HDP cover letter.  Joseph Sandler’s cover letter was missing.  And as you can see from the documents posted on butterdezillion, his cover letter is the only one with a ‘date received’ stamp.

(Actually, the 2008 documents butterdezillion posted on her blog in September 2010 are linked to this blog, http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hawaii-response.pdf, where they were first posted almost 2 (two) years ago.  The date, January 06, 2009 01:17p in the upper left corner, designates a FAX transmission.)

Mr. Sandler’s cover letter, dated August 28, was stamped received by the HI Elections Office on September 03.  And that cover letter was the only one of those DNC/HDP Certification documents received by the HI Election Commission for Obama that received a Date Stamp.  Consequently, as the documents I received from Justin did not contain Mr. Sandler’s cover letter, none of his documents had a stamp evidencing it had even been received by the HI Elections Office!  But obviously, the documents were received, as election officials did print Obama’s name on HI’s general election ballot.  (The date these documents were received didn’t matter, for the same reason, that is, I knew they had been received in time.)  Just to satisfy my curiosity, I asked Justin to ask officials how they received these DNC and HDP documents.  Here is his reply to me.

jbjd,
Here you go… it looks like the HI Democratic party forwarded both documents to the Elections Office.
Hope that helps. Keep me posted on your progress.
Justin—
From: Carolyn.L.Roldan@hawaii.gov <Carolyn.L.Roldan@hawaii.gov>
Subject: Re: Response to December 12, 2008 Request
To: “Justin Riggs” <juriggs@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, March 6, 2009, 1:44 PM
Dear Mr. Riggs,
Both documents were forwarded by the Democratic Party of Hawaii.

Sincerely,

Kevin B. Cronin

Now that I see Mr. Sandler’s cover letter, Mr. Cronin’s answer makes even more sense.  That is, between his use of the singular “Certification”; and the delay between the date his letter was written and the date this was received by the HI Election Office’ it would make sense that the DNC gave the documents to the HDP who then forwarded these to the HI Elections Office.

When butterdezillion wrote her ‘seminal’ Certification article on September 10, 2010, she knew none of this.  Thus, based on her faulty assumptions about how the DNC and HDP letters of Certification reached the HI Election Office, she asks, “The question that begs an answer is: Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama’s eligibility as they had always done to successfully place presidential candidates on the ballots before?”  And answered it with that contrived story.

A more plausible answer as to why the HDP did not add the line about Constitutional eligibility in 2008 like they had in 2004 and 2000 likely could come from anyone reading the work produced on my blog.  Here’s a hint:  what information highlighted in COUP (2 of 3) and (3 of 3) led to my conclusion, Obama and the DNC had identified which Clinton pledged delegates were from vote binding states?  Yep; it’s those state Delegate Selection Plans.  As I told you, provisions in the DNC Model Delegate Selection Plan for 2006 required, in order to obtain final approval from the RBC for state delegate selection plans for use in the 2008 election cycle, state parties were required to submit those plans to the RBC accompanied by all state statutes reasonably related to the delegate selection process. (Emphasis added by jbjd.) http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/e824f455b24c7782dc_jjm6ib44l.pdf In this way, the DNC could monitor any idiosyncratic requirements in individual states so as to ensure Obama’s name would qualify to get onto every general election ballot.

I assumed this provision was not included in the 2002 DNC model delegate selection rules to be used in the 2004 election, and that’s why the HI state party (and, presumably, state parties in other states) handled their special Certifications on their own.  Finally, I had time to check my hypothesis; and I was right.

View this document on Scribd

In other words, where changes would be required in the language of the Certification of Nomination to satisfy the law of individual states, in 2006, the DNC began assuming responsibility for all such changes.

And that would explain why in 2008 the HDP did not certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for office but the DNC did.

Conclusion

Just because I believe no documentary evidence available in the public record can establish Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen, let alone natural born; does not mean, I buy into every speculative conspiracy theory on the subject polluting the blogosphere.  No; I still want back-up material that would tend to support any such claims.  And claims once supported by such material which are later de-bunked with newer information, I want to be tweaked or rescinded altogether.  But that’s just me.  Sure, I make mistakes; but I never try to bolster my popularity to the detriment of my readers!  (Word to the wise:  if a particular blog continues to post uncorroborated and unsubstantiated conclusions as fact, consider whether you would be better off going elsewhere for your ‘news.’)

To everyone who steals my work, listen:  I have already outed the illegal fraud related to Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for office which occurred during the 2008 election cycle, and prescribed remedies that can produce results now.  But first, people have to pursue those remedies, which requires understanding our electoral process.  The ‘nuts-and-bolts’ information provided on my blog tells you everything you need to know to file citizen complaints of election fraud, in applicable states.  Of course, if you have questions, ask me!  (fellowshipofminds picked up on butterdezillion’s now discredited conspiracy theory in HI.  Eventually, s/he notified readers, s/he received an email pointing out, I have already conducted extensive research on these issues and posted citizen complaints of election fraud for applicable states, in the sidebar on my blog.  But in an incredibly blatant act of hubris, now that this new correspondence has effectively established, the work produced on fellowshipofminds is fatally misinformed; s/he advises readers, ‘Visit jbjd’s blog to get those complaints in the sidebar and if you have any questions, come back here to ask me!’)

My blog competes with these several sites preoccupied with self-notoriety through posting glitzy salacious ‘discoveries’ about anything remotely connected to that election, even re-casting issues already de-constructed on my blog, years ago.   If only these other sites would at long last shift their focus toward learning the ins and outs of our electoral process by actually reading my blog, including the Comments – some of the best work is carried out in interactions between my readers and me – instead of re-inventing the wheel.  Then, when they understand that process, they could demonstrate a bona fide commitment to fixing our electoral system by spearheading massive citizen action in just one state, say, TX, aimed to persuade AG Abbott to follow through on the more than 100 citizen complaints of election fraud filed against Boyd Richie, the D state chair who signed and submitted to state election officials the sole Certification of Obama’s Nomination, which got them to print his name on the general election ballot…

P.S.  What does arouse my suspicion in HI is the ‘coincidence’ that Mr. Schatz, Chair of the HDP, taught in Kenya and went to school there, in the early ’90′s…  What are the odds?

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=10197

A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (3 of 3)

September 6, 2010

(Note to Readers:  The “COUP” Series is now complete.  See, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGHEPILOGUE.)

© 2010 jbjd

A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (3 of 3) is the final installment in the 3-part series describing the fraud pulled off at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention in order to ensure Barack Obama would receive the nomination so that his name would appear next to the D on the general election ballot.  The groundwork for the present article, “The Coup at the Convention,” was laid in the first 2 (two) installments, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3); and A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 3).  Trust me, if you understand what got us here, to the convention, then you are now at the same jumping off point as those people who were determined to steal the nomination.  Yep; just like you, from here on in, they were winging it, too.  Because something they hadn’t anticipated happened at the start of the convention which could have derailed their best laid plans to obtain the nomination.  Indeed, as I wasn’t there, it is only in retrospect I can explain to you what I later realized is about to go down, notwithstanding as it turns out, I was responsible for what happened next.

The Coup at the Convention

Judging by how hard they had fought to elbow Clinton out of the race at the beginning of the primary and caucus contests, powerful parties interested in placing Obama in the White House knew from the start, the only certain way to force this flawed candidate on the American people was to limit his exposure to public scrutiny by sewing up his nomination well in advance of the August 25 nominating convention.  They failed, miserably.  Indeed, while publicly maintaining since February, his nomination was a fait accompli; even they didn’t feel comfortable enough until August 14 that, having strong-armed a sufficient number of pledged delegates and paid off the rest, no matter what, they would pull off the nomination in an open roll call vote of pledged delegates from all states on the floor of the convention; to concede consistent with past practice the name of any other candidate seeking the nomination should also be formally entered into the roll.

Yes, they were confident on August 14 and for almost the next 11 (eleven) days that their Herculean investments in his candidacy over the past couple of years would pay off, better late than never.  And in the end, even accounting for the open roll call vote of pledged delegates from every state, from the floor of the convention,  he would walk away with the nomination.

Have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) recruit Obama in the summer of 2006 to run against Clinton for the 2008 Presidential nomination?  Check.  Immediately thereafter, have DNC Chair Howard Dean rig the delegate apportionment process so as to ensure that Clinton, despite winning on account of real votes cast in state contests for her, would nonetheless lose and Obama, despite losing the actual vote count, would win?  Check, check, and check.   Have him appoint Pentacostal Preacher Leah Daughtry, DNC Chief of Staff, to be the CEO of the 2008 DNC  Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention?  Check.  Have him make Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and 3rd in line of Presidential succession, the Chair of the 2008 Convention thus enabling her to control the nomination process (and after making him the nominee, to co-sign the Certification of his Nomination swearing to election officials he is Constitutionally eligible to be President to get them to print his name on the ballot in states whose laws only allow on the ballot the names of candidates who are legally qualified for the job)?  Check.

Then, on August 25, the first day of the convention, something unexpected happened which began to unsettle his henchmen; and which, by Tuesday, August 26, the second night of the convention, had panicked them into pulling a bait and switch on the scheduled roll call vote of pledged delegates from all states on the floor of the convention, scrambling to preserve the chance that just through the use of that roll call, he could get the nomination.

That’s when they scrapped the scheduled open roll call vote of all states on the floor of the convention, simultaneously orchestrating a convoluted ploy affording them plausible deniability, they had not.

The ‘change’ in voting procedure, fashioned by both the Clinton and Obama camps Tuesday night, was rolled out to the press in Wednesday morning’s conference call.  (Even the word “change” was never used.) Bill Burton, spokesperson for the Obama campaign,  handed off the details to Jenny Backus; and she only prefaced her remarks by saying, she would “talk a little bit today, um, about some of the, um, process that you will see that will happen tonight, um, at the convention.”

Last night, convention secretary Alice Germond; ah, Jeff Berman, who is a senior adviser to the Barack Obama campaign; and Craig Smith who is a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton sent out a joint note to, um, all of the state delegation chairs with some information about, um, Wednesday’s roll call vote.  Ah, basically, um, here’s the guidance that we can give you, ah, so far.  Ah, last night and this morning, state delegations received vote tally sheets for their delegates.  Um, throughout the day today they’ll be distributing those tally sheets to their delegates.  Um, the cheat sheets will be completed by 4pm mountain time.  Eh, today from about 3 to 5pm mountain time   the voting and roll call procedure will happen.  Um, the convention will gavel open at 3, ah, there’ll be, um, 3 nominating speeches, um, for Senator Clinton, a nominating speech and seconding speeches, ah, and then a nominating speech and 3 seconding speeches for Senator Obama.  Ah, they will, ah, each candidate’s speeches will total, ah, no more than 15 minutes, so that’ll be about a half an hour of speeches.  Once the speeches are concluded the vote tally sheets will be collected, ah, by the office of the secretary, ah, and then we will begin the roll call of the states and the delegation chair or her designee will announce the totals for each candidate.  So, that’s the procedure how the roll call vote is gonna work today.

Um, and, ah, you can look forward to later this morning, ah, a joint statement from the Clinton and Obama office about who will be giving those nominating speeches, um, for each of us.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/27/roll-call-details-hammered-out/?fbid=yBSb83MFwB9

A reporter from BBC (whose name I did not get) asked, “…in reference to the roll call vote, I just wanted to confirm that there’s not going to be stoppage of, of any sort of states, that all 50 states will have their say and their vote tallies announced, right?  There won’t be any kind of stopping?” Id.

Ms. Backus replied, “Um, the guidance that we’re giving you on the roll call vote is basically exactly what I just, ah, said to you right there.  Um, it will go from, ah, 3 to 5pm mountain, ah, which is 5 to 7pm eastern, um, and that’s the procedure on how it’s gonna work.”  Id.

Joe Manus, St. Louis Post Dispatch asked, “So the roll call will be at the beginning of tonight’s proceedings; and will the states be doing their unofficial tallies like this morning at the breaksfast?” Id.

“States will, um, begin to do their, um, unofficial tallies at the breakfast and throughout the day, um, and they will turn in those tally sheets, ah, this evening after either during or after, um, the nominating speeches before the call of the roll begins.” Id.

In sum, Ms. Backus told the press, pledged delegates will begin voting at their hotels this morning and throughout the day as delegation chairs distribute the “cheat sheets” to members of their delegations, only until 4:00 mountain time, when they are due to be delivered to the floor of the convention to be added into state totals which will be announced during the roll call of all states on the floor of the convention beginning at 3:00 mountain time.

Get it?

Delegates awoke on Wednesday, August 27, and shuffled off to another round of state delegation breakfasts where, in addition to their coffee and tea, they were now served up this bitter elixir from their delegation chairs.  They would have to cast votes for their candidates after breakfast, in the hotel, behind closed doors, and then re-group on the floor of the convention.

Their response?  Total confusion.

At least according to this account published in the Austin Chronicle at 1:33 on Wednesday afternoon, describing what had happened that morning when Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”), a super delegate who had committed to Obama before the end of the primary/caucus contests, announced the new plans to the Texas delegation.  (All mistakes appear in original.)

Finally, a Roll Call Vote

Boyd Richie announced a change to the Roll Call Vote process at this morning’s Delegate Breakfast. After receiving our delegate credentials, we were directed to a small room in the west wing of the host hotel. Inside the room we presented our delegate credential and ID, then placed our president preference (Obama, Clinton, or Abstain) and signed our name. This was our official vote. The list will be copied and published then delivered to the Pepsi Center via a shuttle bus around 12:30pm (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

Mr. Richie stated that officials staying at other hotels would still have the opportunity to vote later today. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

Chairman Richie was upset both visibility and emotionally when some delegates asked whether observers would be present during the voting process. “We’re all Democrats”, said Richie in an angry tone. Finally, after several interruptions from some delegates requesting an observer, he asked the Obama registered agent Ron Kirk and Hillary registered agent Garry Mauro whether they wanted observers. Registered agents are the official representatives for campaigns. Mr. Kirk said they [Obama delegates] were not interested in having observers. As he said this, some Obama supporters began to chant, “Unity, unity.” In place of Mr. Mauro, John Oeffinger represented the Hillary campaign and honored the request of Hillary delegates to assign observers. John then immediately scrambled about the ballroom to schedule observers in shifts.

Strangely, we’ve also been told that we’ll vote again this evening. Mr. Richie said he did not know the process for delegates that wish to change their vote from what they placed on this morning’s ballot. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

After voting, we were sent to a table to obtain our seating assignment for this evenings Roll Call Vote at the Pepsi Center.

So, how many times do we vote? Which one counts? I guess we’ll find out tonight.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/News/Blogs/index.html/objID666330/blogID/

How many times do we vote?”  “Which one counts?”  Mr. Richie’s announcement there was a “change” in the voting procedure obviously left the Texas delegation with the impression, the ‘process’ used by the DNC to choose their Presidential nominee was ‘play it by ear.’

In contrast, that same morning, at 9:43, the Rocky Mountain News announced convention committee CEO Leah D. Daughtry described the voting process was ‘business as usual,’ pursuant to the ‘rules.’

Convention roll-call plans set for tonight

COLORADO CONVENTION CENTER — Each state at tonight’s session of the Democratic National Convention will announce the results of its delegate tally during a roll call that has been the source of much speculation and controversy this week.

Convention committee CEO Leah D. Daughtry said the roll call will take place as it has in previous conventions, despite speculations that a compromise between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton might result in a departure from the usual process.

The roll call is guided by the rules of the party,” Daughtry said at this morning’s convention press briefing. “It will proceed just as the rules dictate. (Emphasis added by jbjd.) Every state and every delegate will have the opportunity to vote. Everyone will be represented. Everyone will have their votes counted.”

The roll call will begin with each state announcing its delegate vote totals for the two Democratic candidates after a series nominating and seconding speeches for Clinton and Obama, Daughtry said.

Voting has already begun, as delegates began receiving tally cards this morning. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/27/convention-roll-call-plans-set/

Guided by the rules of the party…just as the rules dictate?”  Rules?  What rules?

Certainly not the Delegate Selection Rules, 2, Participation, F:

In accordance with Article Nine, Section 12 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States, votes shall not be taken by secret ballot at any stage of the delegate selection
process
…?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf

Or Article Nine, Section 12 of the Charter:

All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee, and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot.)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/58e635582dc516dd52_5wsmvyn09.pdf

This drivel points to why I said in COUP (2 of 3), it’s useless trying to reinstate order to the Democrat’s Presidential nominating process by falling back on the rules, regulations, and Charter of the Democratic Party.

By 12:53, Ben Smith at Politico was announcing Barack Obama’s campaign has reverted to plans for a traditional roll call on the convention floor… (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

There’s a bit of confusion about the plans for a roll call, and some Democrats say they’re dissatisfied by a process that has them voting in private, by state. But that’s the old-fashioned way, says my colleague Andy Glass, who’s covered these for years.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/A_traditional_roll_call.html

But whichever version of events you bought into – “just as the rules dictate”;  “the old-fashioned way”; or ‘play it by ear’ – one thing was clear.  From the outside looking in, it wasn’t easy to recognize these events for what they were:  the signal that Obama’s warriors had decided at the last minute to scrub the scheduled open roll call vote of pledged delegates from all states on the floor of the convention, which was expected to have been followed by Clinton’s release of her pledged delegates, and then another vote after that, which was supposed to give him the nomination.

Incredible, huh.  Thousands of eye witnesses in Denver, including the press, scrutinizing every detail of the goings on inside the convention, and no one asked why whoever was in charge had decided to scrap the open roll call of pledged delegates.  Why?  Because they lacked the information necessary to recognize what they were observing.  So, what was this ‘thing’ that happened under everyone’s nose yet flew under the radar, so significant it caused Obama’s allies in the DNC to re-orient the nomination process at the last minute in order to hide votes for Clinton from her pledged delegates as the preferred means to guarantee his nomination?

Word had spread to the Clinton pledged delegates sent to the convention from those 13 vote binding states, including CA, that the laws in their states required them to hold fast to their candidate through at least the first round of voting at the convention; and that their Attorneys General had received complaints Obama’s people were subverting the law by trying to get those delegates to promise to switch their votes to him, even before they got to the convention. We know that at least one of those A’sG, Thurbert Baker (D-GA), instructed that state’s pledged delegates to obey the law.  Consequently, these delegates were going to obey the law, and vote for her through at least the first round.  Some, including Clinton pledged delegates from CA, even after that.

So, why was this such a big deal? BECAUSE OBAMA AND HIS CONSORTS HAD ONLY AGREED TO HOLD AN OPEN ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE FLOOR OF THE CONVENTION RELYING ON THE FACT, SEVERAL HUNDRED CLINTON PLEDGED DELEGATES FROM VOTE BINDING STATES WOULD HAVE NO IDEA THEY WERE ‘PLEDGED’ PLEDGED TO CLINTON WHEN THEY REACHED THE FLOOR OF THE CONVENTION. Thus, those pledged delegates who had already been successfully co-opted  to switch their votes to him, added to those who would enthusiastically switch to him in the fabricated momentum of the occasion; plus those who would fatalistically give in to the feigned inevitability of his nomination, would easily put his numbers over the top.

But didn’t I say, in COUP (1 of 3), Obama’s agents would have known which states had vote binding laws before they twisted the arms of Clinton delegates in those states since the state delegate selection Plan sent to the RBC for approval had to include details of any state laws respecting the conduct at the convention of pledged delegates from that state? Yep; that’s what I said.  So now you’re probably thinking, ‘well, jbjd, if Obama’s people knew about the laws in those states by looking at those delegate selection Plans then, wouldn’t any delegates seeking guidance as to their conduct at the convention by examining the state Plan, be able to read about the state’s vote binding status, too?’  Nope.  Know why?  Because there was nothing in those state Plans about vote binding laws. And now you are probably shaking your heads.  Why did I say the Plans submitted to the RBC explain how Obama’s people knew in advance which states had vote binding laws if the Plans contain no information about vote binding laws!

To answer this question, you have to read the fine print in the RBC Regulations.

Section 2, Submission and Review of Plans, regulation 2.2, Formal Submission, reads, “Each State Party Committee shall include the following documentation with the submission of its Plan to the RBC…”  “I., “… a copy of all state statutes reasonably related to the delegate selection process…”  Id. Did you catch that?  The rules don’t say, this documentation about special state laws regarding how pledged delegates must vote at the convention is a part of the state delegate selection Plan.  The RBC rules only tell the state committee, when submitting the delegate selection Plan for our approval, you have to attach this additional information.

In other words, this additional information forwarded to the RBC by the state party about special state laws respecting party delegates – this would include laws spelling out how to submit to state election officials the name of the Presidential nominee to be printed on the state ballot -  does not become a part of the accompanying state delegate Plan.  Wanna see?

Here’s California’s approved 2008 Delegate Selection Plan.  Nothing in either the Table of Contents or the body of the Plan, references any special laws requiring pledged delegates to vote for the candidate voters in that state elected them to represent, on the floor of the convention.

This means that pledged delegates wading through the various DNC documents for guidance as to how they should vote at the convention would only find this line on p. 19 in the DNC Call for the 2008 Convention:

All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.  (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

“Good conscience.”  But nothing about the law!

Here’s just a sample of language I pulled together from the laws in some of those vote binding states.

“Each person selected as a delegate shall sign a pledge that the person will continue to support at the national convention the candidate for President of the United States the person is selected as favoring until 2 convention nominating ballots have been taken.”  OR

“Each political party shall, on the first ballot at its national convention, cast this Commonwealth’s vote for the candidates as determined by the primary or party caucus.”  KY

“Each delegate or alternate delegate to the national convention of his political party shall cast their vote on all ballots for the candidate who received this state’s vote.”  OK

“Each delegate to the national convention shall use his best efforts at the convention for the party’s presidential nominee candidate who received the greatest number of votes in the presidential preference election until the candidate is nominated for the office of president of the United States by the convention.”  AZ

“As a delegate to the national convention of the Democratic Party, I pledge myself to vote on the first ballot for the nomination of president by the Democratic Party as required by Section 1-8-60 NMSA 1978.”  NM

“Delegates and alternates shall be bound to vote on the first ballot at the national convention for the candidate receiving the most votes in the primary.”  VA

“The delegates to the national conventions shall be bound by the results of the preferential presidential primary for the first two (2) ballots and shall vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged.”  TN

In an Opinion now appended to his state’s binding vote law, the words of the Attorney General of GA reach the heart of similar laws enacted in all of these states:  “This section reflects the legitimate interest of the state in insuring orderliness in the electoral process, and it provides a means of presenting the political preferences of the people of this state to a political party.”  GA

(Can you imagine how long it took me to research the election laws in all 50 states in order to find the 13 states that bound their delegates at the convention?)

The majority of pledged delegates from vote binding states were unaware of their special status coming into the convention.  How can I prove this?  And, more importantly, how do I know that news of their obligations under the vote binding laws of their states still managed to reach Clinton pledged delegates?  And that this new found knowledge was a game changer to the roll call vote?

In the summer of 2008, I was only one of hundreds of citizen activists who became immersed in the machinations of the Presidential nominating process of the Democratic Party.  As I previously explained, one of my contributions was to ‘discover’ and then publicize the existence of those 13 vote binding states.  As I wrote in A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 3), my work did not immediately ignite the endorsement of people who could have spearheaded a massive public education campaign in advance of the convention.  GA was the one state in which I and my team of Georgians were able to get out a concerted campaign to alert both Clinton pledged delegates and AG Baker, Obama’s agents were breaking the law.  And, as a result, AG Baker reminded delegates in that state, “pledged” means pledged. Id. Eventually, in the days immediately preceding the convention, my work on vote binding states did attract the attention of members of the party who, previously unaware these laws existed, saw the strategic value of the work to support the Clinton campaign.  Id.

But what I hadn’t yet told you, is that my work on vote binding states also attracted the attention of another citizen activist, from CA, who not only managed to get inside the convention, but who also had a hand in assembling packets of information that were distributed to all delegates.  Guess what she slipped into these delegate packets?  Yep; my materials on the laws regarding the votes of pledged delegates from vote binding states.

Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, was a member of the CA delegation.  She addressed the CA delegates at their first delegation breakfast on Monday, August 25.  Listen as she not-so-subtly twisted arms to get Clinton pledged delegates to violate CA law.  Imagine, the Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, soliciting Clinton pledged delegates to abandon the will of the voters, in defiance of the law, in order to support her candidate of choice?   Imagine being a Clinton pledged delegate sitting in the audience under the watchful eye of the powerful Madame Speaker; holding a packet of materials that informed you for the first time, you are from a vote binding state.  How free do you suppose you would feel to question what she was saying, let alone to express disdain at what she was asking you to do?

Another member of the CA delegation receiving this information was Attorney Gloria Allred, a Clinton pledged delegate.  Watch while she informs reporters when Monday’s breakfast was over, that fellow delegates had asked her to research whether the law required them to vote for Clinton on the first round of balloting.  (Some confusion arose because CA election law applicable to either the D or the R Presidential preference primary is codified in separate sections.   But D delegates are bound by law to the candidate voters elected them to represent, arguably until a candidate is nominated at the convention.)  Ms. Allred makes a point of saying, she will vote for Clinton on the first round in order to carry out the will of the voters who elected her; but makes clear, she does not yet know whether such a result is required by law.

By Tuesday morning’s breakfast, Ms. Allred had researched CA election law.  Here she is after breakfast, informally trying to get word out to Clinton pledged delegates,  they are bound to vote for their candidate at the convention.  (I wish I could see the papers she is waving around.  Maybe one of these was my letter to AG Brown complaining Obama was poaching Clinton delegates in his state and asking him to intervene?)

Later that same day, speaking at the end of a rally to celebrate the 88th anniversary of women’s suffrage, the 19th Amendment, Ms. Allred, claiming she was denied the opportunity to formally address fellow delegates at breakfast, now informs the crowds, in CA, the primary is “binding.”  She points out, ‘voting for Clinton is consistent with DNC rules which say, use your “conscience” to represent the voters who elected us, since they elected us to vote for Clinton…’

She reasons, ‘even if Hillary releases, we owe an obligation to the voters.’

That night, Pelosi, Obama, Dean, and Reid, et al. decided to call off the open roll call vote of all states scheduled to take place Wednesday evening on the floor of the convention.

So, instead of waiting until after the first round of voting during the open roll call of all states on the floor of the convention, Clinton released her delegates early Wednesday afternoon.  AFTER THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING (albeit behind closed doors at the hotel).  Now, technically, according to some of these vote binding laws, pledged delegates from vote binding states were free to vote for the candidate they in “good conscience” (from the DNC Delegate Selection Plan) concluded was a “fair reflection” (from the DNC Charter) of the will of the voters who (indirectly) elected them.  And they might have, except for one thing:  having already voted once, back at the hotel, they would have no opportunity to vote again.

This last minute early release of Clinton delegates from their pledges could have created another problem if it hadn’t also escaped detection.  See, since Clinton did not release her delegates until Wednesday afternoon; when Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states voted at their hotels Wednesday morning, they had to vote for her according to the law.  Thus, any vote totals from those 13 vote binding states that were then transmitted to the Secretary should have reflected the number of delegates appointed as the result of votes cast in the state for the candidate, at the time of the primary or caucus contest, right?  Not surprisingly, they did not.

Here are the numbers of Clinton pledged delegates awarded as the result of votes voters cast for her in those vote binding states: AZ – 31, CA- 204, GA-27, IN-38, KY-37, MA-55, NH-9 NM-14, OH-74, OK-24, OR-21, TN-40, and VA-29. This makes a total of 609, just from those vote binding states. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-HF.phtml The total number of votes from Clinton delegates just from those vote binding states we saw ‘vote’ from the floor of the convention, before NY, should have been 415.  But it wasn’t.  Not even close.  (The low number of Clinton votes becomes even more suspect when you consider, in addition to votes from Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states, the totals would also have included votes from Clinton pledged delegates who were not legally bound to vote for her but who, in “good conscience,” would have honored the voters who elected them by sticking to their candidate, at least on the first round.)

The DNC refuses to release an ‘official’ tally of votes cast in the hotels, by whom.  I received an email from a KY Clinton pledged delegate who said her delegation chair, Jennifer Moore, ignored her request for a list of that state’s votes, too.  Shortly after the convention, the DNC did release some kind of tally sheet that included ALL states, not just those states voting on the floor of the convention; but they rescinded that list shortly thereafter.   The GreenPapers published that list, with links, that are now inoperative.  In the 2 (two) years since the convention, the DNC has failed to post another list.

According to Andy Glass at Politico, “…there’s not even any formal mechanism within national party rules for each delegate’s vote to be recorded. What’s recorded is the vote of each state delegation.” Id.

The CA delegation passed.  The reason?  According to Don Frederick at the LATimes, “because a tally of its 441 votes had not been completed when the state’s name was called.”  But hadn’t they already voted back at the hotel?  (Evidently, Mr. Frederick is another one of those reporters who is unaware of the laws in those vote binding state.  He writes, “Clinton did not receive a majority in any of the recorded tallies — and in most, Obama’s backing was overwhelming. But Clinton’s support was notable in a few instances, including Arizona (40 votes for Obama, 27 for her), Kentucky (36 for him, 24 for her) and Massachusetts (65 for him, 52 for her).”  “Notable”?  How about, ILLEGAL? AZ, KY, and MA are all vote binding states.)

This means, while we can establish which of Obama’s agents suborned Clinton pledged delegates in vote binding states to violate their pledge; we cannot determine which of those delegates ended up breaking the law.  Including those pledged delegates who are PLEO‘s, or party leaders and elected officials, like mayors, governors, city councilors, and legislative leaders.   And this brings us to the heart of the matter involving Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states:  the unpledged PLEO’s, better known as super delegates.

See, here’s the thing.  As long as pledged delegates from vote binding states remained unaware of their bound status, Obama could have managed to convert an only slight (contrived) lead in pledged delegates into a landslide win.  Only, this landslide was in jeopardy once pledged delegates from vote binding states learned they were bound by the law.  But so what?  Even without any shenanigans with respect to any of the pledged delegates, based strictly on the number of pledged delegates awarded immediately after the primary and caucus contests ended; neither Clinton nor Obama had the requisite number of votes from pledged delegates alone to win the nomination.  Certainly not on the first round. At some point, if the typical give and take expected of such political theater could not produce a nominee, the unpledged PLEO’s would have broken the impasse.  And the majority of these unpledged PLEO’s had already come out publicly in support of Obama, even in states where Clinton had won the popular vote. In other words, whatever happened along the way, in the end Obama was set to run off with the nomination.

So, why the mad rush to take the nomination just from votes cast by pledged delegates?

Recall what I wrote in A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3):

DNC rules provide if voting at the convention fails to support one candidate over the other then, special super delegates will add their votes to the totals to reach the number required for nomination. So they were also furiously pouring money into the PAC’s and war chests of these super delegates, in return for which the candidate received a public pledge of support positively correlated to the superior size of his financial investment.

The people who staged the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention needed the pledged delegates to pull off Obama’s nomination because they did not want you to see that the votes of those unpledged super delegates had been bought and paid for, well in advance of the convention, by his wealthy benefactors…

From OpenSecrets:

For those elected officials who had endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25, the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegate received the endorsement 82 percent of the time. In cases where Obama had made a contribution since 2005 but Clinton had given the superdelegate nothing, Obama got the superdelegate’s support 85 percent of the time. And Clinton got the support of 75 percent of superdelegates who got money from her but not from Obama. For this update to the Feb. 14 study the Center combined contribution data with a list of superdelegates and their endorsements compiled by The Politico as of Feb. 25.

http://www.opensecrets.org/capital_eye/inside.php?ID=338

…including Madame Pelosi, his biggest ‘vote fairy godmother’ of all.

From Dr. Lynette Long, in NoQuarter:

“Bought and Paid For! By Nancy Pelosi”

As Americans sat glued to their television sets watching the most hotly contested presidential primary in American history, pundits counted pledged delegates won in caucuses and primaries and discussed the highly prized superdelegates’ endorsements. Eventually it would be these superdelegates, Democratic officials, governors, and members of congress, who would determine the nominee, since neither contestant won enough pledged delegates in the 52 primary contests.

What the pundits forgot to tell the American public was that these superdelegates were doing some counting of their own. They weren’t counting how many of their constituents had voted for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, but rather how much money was being put into their war chests by the Obama campaign and the Democratic hierarchy. This money, moved from one candidate to another via PAC’s, would determine their endorsements and ultimately the nomination….

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/13/bought-and-paid-for-by-nancy-pelosi/

And that’s why they pulled off the coup that hid hundreds of votes of Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention.

Conclusion

For readers expecting a sort of summation of the ‘lesson learned’  from all three installments of “A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH,” the main focus of which series was the fraud pulled off at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention, I offer this.

“I can only imagine Clinton would have made a much better President than Obama but, based on how he obtained the nomination, I anticipated he would make a much better crook.”  jbjd.

EPILOG

A lay person looking at this chart of delegates can easily read, the total number of delegates for either candidate fails to get the nomination.  But Obama had bought off a sufficient number of these super delegates to help him steal the nomination.  So, even with a real open roll call vote of all states from the floor of the convention, before the arm twisting and poaching, eventually, the super delegates would have had to intervene to break the impasse.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers