REVOLVING DOOR, REVOLUTION, or just PLAIN REVOLTING

February 23, 2011

©2011 jbjd

Ever since Electors elected Barack Obama President of the United States, many of those of you who are convinced he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job, unable to forestall his inauguration, alternatively determined to elect new public officials and enact new laws intending to forestall his election in 2012.  I have rejected this response as taking a sort of ‘revolving door’ approach.   That is, as I have reasoned many times, if we are impotent to get our current elected officials to enforce existing ballot eligibility laws then, we will not achieve a different outcome by electing new officials or writing new laws.

Instead, I have been pushing for citizens in applicable states, that is, states with existing ballot eligibility laws, to file with their A’sG the citizen complaints I drafted charging  various members of the D party committed election fraud by swearing to state election officials in 2008, Barack Obama was qualified for the office of President, without ascertaining beforehand he is a NBC; and, if necessary, to lobby these A’sG to exercise their discretion to investigate these complaints.  What I envision to be a true people’s ‘revolution.’

Now, the official conduct of Texas State Representative Leo Berman (R-Tyler) has necessitated a third description that could be applied to efforts to shore up our electoral process with respect to guaranteeing Presidential candidates are Constitutionally eligible for the job:  just plain revolting.

Rep. Berman recently introduced a bill specifying “the secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen.” http://lubbockonline.com/local-news/2010-11-17/birth-certificate-bill-filed-presidential-candidates

Yep; here’s the text of that bill.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/pdf/HB00295I.pdf#navpanes=0

Right off the top, this wording presents many obstacles to fulfilling the function for which it is ostensibly written. For example, how can a birth certificate identify whether a person is a NBC?  And then, there is this word, “entitled.” In the situation called to my attention in TX, wherein Bob Barr challenged the printing of the names of both the R and D nominees on the ballot, I pointed out, even if one is not entitled to something, this does not mean, one cannot get what he wants, anyway.

Submitted on 2009/09/11 at 22:45 | In reply to juriggs.

If you look at what I posted, I posted all the docs I received from the SoS with respect to the Certifications…5 docs. The Republicans actually used a “form” and I queried the SOS with respect to whether there was a specific “form” required and they responded “no”. The Deomcrats sent in two docs. One, the Official Certification, and the other more of a letter form. I believe the letter was in effect a cover sheet and as much as a form was not required, there was intent to comply with guidance from the State with respect to an “Official Certification”.
I am also reading some stuff into this as both Parties missed the filing deadline. The pre-certification on my site from the republicans is I believe a way of showing thier “intent” to comply with the law which required Official Notification 70 days prior to the election.

redhank: Yes; you are absolutely right. And Libertarian candidate Bob Barr filed a lawsuit arguing both the D’s and the R’s had missed the filing deadline. The court dismissed the case, noting that Barr had waited to file his suit until 2 or 3 days before the absentee ballots, already printed, were scheduled to be sent out. (cite omitted) (The suit would have failed, anyway, because the law merely says, the party is “entitled” to have its nominee on the ballot if it gets the name in on time. This does not mean, the state cannot exercise its discretion to include late names on the ballot, anyway.) ADMINISTRATOR

Again, just because a candidate is not entitled to be on the ballot does not prohibit the state from putting his name there anyway.

To say nothing of the conflict between this proposed change to Texas Election Code 192.033; with  192.031, which section entitles party nominees qualified for office to appear on the ballot.  http://law.onecle.com/texas/election/192.031.00.html And as we have already seen, in 2008, Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) swore Presidential nominee Obama was “duly nominated,” making him the qualified nominee.

And did you catch the last line?  ‘Effective date September 1, 2011.’ To paraphrase my Reply to a Comment submitted by gregnh, passing a bill that would alter the 2012 election assumes  the law survives any legal challenges and that regulations/rules instructing the SoS how to carry out this law; take effect in time for the 2012 general election (if not the primary/caucus contests).  (This still does not mean Electors will elect a President who is Constitutionally eligible for the job unless 1) the law (or a law) includes a provision, Electors may only elect a President whose name appeared on the ballot; and 2) the NPVI does not pass.)

But here’s the biggest overall problem I have with Mr. Berman’s ‘efforts’ to shore up the integrity of the election process in Texas:  Texas law already provides ample remedy to redress the fraud from 2008.

As I have detailed in several articles and accompanying Comments, as well as the citizen complaint of election fraud against Boyd Richie, Chair of the TDP:  current Texas state laws offer some of the strongest remedies to the election fraud related to candidate ballot eligibility, that tainted the 2008 election, from subjecting the TDP to the state’s Open Records law to subjecting Boyd Richie to Mandamus.  Just for example, see JUDGE ABBOTT WOULD ORDER TDP CHAIR BOYD RICHIE TO DECLARE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA IS INELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB; 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; A ROADMAP to ELECTION FRAUD in TEXAS in the 2008 PRESIDENTIAL (ELECTORS) ELECTION; TEXAS TWO-STEP; REMEMBER the ALAMO?; and IDIOMS!.

So, we have 3 approaches to fixing our electoral process so as to ensure the Constitutional eligibility of our Presidential nominee.  Let’s compare and contrast their success.

The revolving door policy has resulted in the election of several new state (and federal) officials.  But none of them has publicly raised the issue of election fraud viz a viz ballot eligibility.

Several hundred citizens from 6 (six) states have downloaded and filed my citizen complaints.  But their conduct can hardly be characterized as revolutionary when, ignored by their A’sG, they have not publicly petitioned for a fair hearing on the steps of their state seats of government.  Ha, I cannot even persuade citizens in all 50 states to examine their own laws so as to determine whether they are applicable states for my citizen complaints!  Worse, azgo looked up laws in some other states and was able to identify AL and MO are applicable states – this information first appeared on this blog months ago now – yet no one from MO or AL has contacted me to get the ball rolling in either of those states!

Then, there’s Mr. Berman’s flawed proposed legislation which, according to the article in Lubbock Online, likely won’t pass, anyway.

These are bills that Berman has unsuccessfully filed in previous sessions.

In the 2007 session, for example, then Rep. David Swinford, R-Dumas, chairman of the House State Affairs Committee, single-handedly killed all of Berman’s bills on the advice of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

Committee chairmen have the power to kill bills they consider harmful to the state. Swinford killed Berman’s bills because Abbott advised him that if the Legislature passed them, they would not survive court challenges and the state would spend millions of dollars on legal fees, like California did in the mid-1990s.

(So much for my idea of inviting suit by any candidate aggrieved as to the state’s definition of who is (Constitutionally) “qualified” for office and, therefore, may have his name printed on the ballot; so as to fix on a legally binding definition of NBC!)

Oh, and for your information, Representative Berman just became a member of the House Elections Committee!

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/member-page/?district=6

Revolting.

Given my extensive research into and knowledge of these issues in general and TX law in particular, perhaps citizens in Tyler, TX, the district represented by Mr. Berman, can suggest that if he is determined to propose new laws to address candidate eligibility, he should review the provisions in 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).

Or, Tyler residents could ‘vote with their feet.’  Because besides being the simplest and quickest means to the eligibility end, I am still convinced, carried out as I envision, it will work.

Here is the last paragraph in that Reply to gregnh I posted earlier:

On the other hand, if even one AG in a state with an existing ballot eligibility law, however flawed, acted to initiate an investigation pursuant to one citizen complaint of election fraud, then once the targeted D could not come up with a reasonable basis for swearing Obama was Constitutionally eligible for the job in 2008, this alone would signal the end to Obama’s candidacy, even without an ensuing prosecution for election fraud, or the enactment of any other laws. ADMINISTRATOR


STILL ATTACKING the MESSENGER

February 12, 2011

©2011 jbjd

No good deed goes unpunished.

Two years ago, back in March 2009, I posted this remark at the opening of a Reply to a Comment left on this blog by David A:  “Welcome to the site that both supports critical thinking and offers answers to questions you might not want to hear.” March 24, 2009 at 01:42 Judging just by the information printed on “jbjd” since that time, I would say, it is a good thing I have not allowed the constant onslaught of personalized criticism to silence my work ever since.

As you will see from the following exchange, not everyone would agree with me.

FL is not an applicable state for a citizen complaint of election fraud based on the fact pattern, officials of the D party Certified to state election officials candidate Obama was qualified for office notwithstanding no documentary evidence available in the public record evidences he is Constitutionally eligible for the job.  Because FL has no law requiring candidates must be qualified for the job to get the state to print their names on the ballot.  Consequently, in the absence of such ballot eligibility laws, loyal “jbjd” reader Rlqretired, from FL, has lobbied legislators in that state to adopt such laws.  In the past, he has used various arguments to sway these elected officials, which are spelled out on this blog and others.  However, each time he asked me to review his correspondence, I rejected as frivolous his attempts in these petitions to link whether Obama is Constitutionally eligible for office; to the ‘illegitimacy’ of the on-line COLB based on an examination of its physical attributes (notwithstanding he maintains such analysis is a useful tool in his lobbying efforts).  Recently, he composed this lengthy Comment, apparently intending, once and for all, to put to rest my objections to continued focus on the physical characteristics of that FTS COLB in any campaign the stated goal of which is to pinpoint documentary evidence establishing whether Obama is Constitutionally eligibile for office.
Rlqretired says:

jbjd – I think the reason you and I don’t see the value of the visual photographic truth that the Hawaiian State Seal placed upon the online birth certificate candidate Obama placed on the Internet is fake is because our goals are different. Your efforts deal with a bunch of lawyers and your goal, as I understand it, has been to get the AG’s in those states that already have statutes requiring independent eligibility certification to investigate the person that signed their state level certification without having adequate proof available to them to make such certification. If they did so, as I understand it, it would be an alleged crime based upon your hard work.

Florida has no statute requiring independent verification by the political parties and depends strictly upon nominee certification by the political parties to be correct. My, goal for a year now, has been to convenience the Florida Legislature to pass a statute requiring an independent state level certification and the submission of the documents used to make that certification. At the general public level, as well as many in the Florida Legislature, I am dealing with average citizens who do not understand legalese nor will they take the time to study the issue for themselves. Willful ignorance abounds and this is where the photographic evidence that the Hawaiian State Seal placed upon Obama’s birth certificate is an irrefutable fake, is absolutely essential. These photo’s my not convince them to snap completely out of their willful ignorant bliss but it does blow away their argument that the online image of the Obama’s COLB could be a real copy of a real birth certificate and just transferred over into the advertisement in which it is located. Basically, that is what most people in our state and national governments still believe even today.

I can easily accept and understand your point of view and I really wish you could see mine. For your information, the photographic evidence has, at my level and with some legislators, has been very effective and taken them to your web site for additional study.

If I did not make it clear to you in my previous comment above, that the statute I was referring to was Hawaiian Statute 338-18 (g), I certainly apologize as I mistakenly assumed you had received and read my off blog email of 2/8 in which I stated; “My question deals with the authority the Criminal Justice Subcommittee the Florida House has under the Hawaiian Statute 338-18 (g). It appears to this country boy Florida Cracker that it does (apply), possibly on several counts……Your legal opinion of 338-18 (g) in this regard will be greatly appreciated.

A link to that statute is http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm

You have previously made clear that you have debunked the claim made by another blog that (g) of this statute can be used to the advantage of a lawyer in a criminal case to obtain verification relative to their lawsuits. However, it appears to this layman that under the circumstances I laid out in my previous comment, an authorized legislative committee assigned to investigate the authenticity of the only proof Obama has ever provided that he is even a citizen or either the Department of State whose director is the Chief Election Officer of the State and responsible for reporting possible fraudulent election activities would very likely qualify to receive verification of certain information displayed on the online image or the hard copy FTS made available to FC for examination and taking photographs of the Hawaiian State Seal.

If either of these folks are eligible to obtain verification I can think of a dozen or so questions that I believe will produce answers that will not only be helpful to me in my goals but would help you in your goals as well.

I look forward to your opinion of (g) and I surely hope you can tolerate me and my differing view on that one item.

Before I had completed my reply to this ‘first’ Comment, Rlqretired submitted another lengthy Comment, more caustic than the first.  I will print that second Comment as well.  But first, here is the response I was in the process of perfecting to his ‘first’ comment.

rlqretired: What a great comment. Now, I understand that my remarks about the work of ‘misstickly,’ whom you reference in your correspondence to state officials, mistakenly gave you the impression, I rejected focusing on that COLB qua image only because this took time away from my preferred focus, which is redressing past illegal conduct viz a viz the ballot.  I thought I had stated quite succinctly in my last email to you that, my real objection is this.

“Also, please, trust when I say, continuing to reference whether a ‘seal’ apparent on any particular vision of a document or copy of a document or copy of a mock-up for an ad campaign on the internet, is real or fake, diminishes the credibility of your other well-formulated criticism of that same document or image.”

So, now, I will expand upon that previous statement, with the hope that once and for all, my previously stated explanations become unambiguously clear. The primary reason I continuously advised you to stop referencing in the same correspondence to public officials, both my work and the work produced by “misstickly” is this:  such reference to her work undermines your credibility and, therefore, negates the value of my work.  Because basing a conclusion that Obama is not Constitutionally eligible for office on the physical attributes of a paid political advertising campaign is absurd on its face. Yes, absurd. Ridiculous. Nonsense.  It would be like concluding a physician committed malpractice for endorsing an antacid in a commercial containing a rudimentary drawing of the human digestive system.  Let me see if I can find an artist rendering of what I have in mind. Be right back…

There.  See what I mean?

You ask about HRS ch. 338.  Here are a couple of exchanges that appeared on this blog in April 2009, almost 2 (two) years ago now, discounting the value of 338 in obtaining Obama’s birth documentation from HI DoH.  (I found this merely by searching for “jbjd” and “338″!)

bob strauss says:

jbjd,Was reading a blog @ paraleagalnm and someone published Hawaii statute 0338-14 and 0338-18 (g). If I read it correctly Hawaii will verify what is on the colb or long form BC if you just ask for the information. They will not release the document but they will tell you what is on it. Thanks for answering my questions. Bob

bob: There’s a line in that law you cite which reads in part, “The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:…” I can envision that, unless those Republicans paralegalnm envisions could request such verification, actually comprise an impeachment panel, the State of HI will not be satisfied that such request meets the exceptions to HI’s confidentiality laws.

Of course, this procedure proposed by paralegalnm is backwards, anyway. If these Republicans wonder whether he is an NBC, they should begin impeachment proceedings based on BO’s failure to establish, he is a NBC; and, if he wants to fight the charges, let him produce his long firm birth certificate. ADMINISTRATOR

Like you, bob strauss, too, could not accept the fact that my opinion did not support his.

bob strauss says:

April 3, 2009 at 01:49

jbjd,338-18 (g), it says, “shall not issue verification UNLESS”! the applicant seeking verification meets one, of 5 definitions, to qualify as a person allowed to obtain verification of what is on the docs. PLEASE read the definitions, 1 through 5, where it describes the people, who ARE ALLOWED to obtain verification. Sorry to keep bugging you about this but, it looks like Hawaii will verify records if you fit the description listed at 338-18g. 1-5.

bob strauss: No, you are not bugging me! I did read the law, completely, although the only part I thought mattered was that line I quoted, saying, “The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:…”. I understood this language to mean that, the discretion of the HI Health Department would rule; and this meant, they would exercise their discretion to maintain privacy. Because HI does not want the world to know that, for several decades, they were giving U.S. identities to foreign born babies. Remember, before it will place the name of the nominee for POTUS from the the major political party onto its general election ballot, HI is the only state that requires the party to not only Certify the name of its candidate but also Certify he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. (jbjd note 02.13.11:  Of course, we now know, at least one other state, SC, also requires this explicit language of eligibility on its ballot application. IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK…) I assume Hawaiians enacted this law because of that earlier law allowing foreign births. That is, they of all people know how easily someone who is not a NBC could be nominated for the job.

Anyway, when I got your follow-up question, I looked up the law again, and found the court ruling in Martin v. Lingle. Not surprisingly, the court had denied Andy Martin’s efforts to obtain BO’s records based on a finding that HRS 338-18 bestows “discretion” and “judgment” to the Health Department, on whether to release such records. http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2008/29414ord.htm
ADMINISTRATOR

Obama has never offered up to any state official or to the courts, the electronic image of the FTS COLB , as proof of a HI birth. So please, stop saying he has!  Even in Hollister, Attorney Bauer did not say, this image (or its mock-up) was proof of anything!  He only wanted the court to take judicial notice Obama had publicly released his birth certificate!  COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3 CARD MONTE* for FEDERAL COURT (How many times have I advised people, when confronted with claims, this FTS COLB evidences to the person making the claim, Obama is a NBC; respond by conceding, ‘Yes, I accept this image provides your basis for believing, he is a NBC.  But on what basis did Nancy Pelosi or Boyd Richie or Alice Germond or Kathy Hensley, for example, determine he is a NBC?  Because they refuse to tell us, when we ask them!’)  

Finally, I want to respond to this statement:

“At the general public level, as well as many in the Florida Legislature, I am dealing with average citizens who do not understand legalese nor will they take the time to study the issue for themselves. Willful ignorance abounds and this is where the photographic evidence that the Hawaiian State Seal placed upon Obama’s birth certificate is an irrefutable fake, is absolutely essential.”

I agree that educating public officials is essential to getting passed the legislation that will clean up the electoral process (if electing officials already up to speed is not accomplished) and have always lauded your efforts in this regard.  But even if you are correct in your base opinions that fellow citizens are loath to become knowledgeable in all things electoral; this still does not mean, in the absence of such civic zeal, you (or WND, or CFP, or P&E, among dozens of others) are justified in filling their heads with factually baseless tripe, just because they will pay attention.  ADMINISTRATOR

But before I could post this Reply to Rlqretired’s ‘first’ Comment, he sent along this ‘second’ Comment.  This time, my response, in orange, is inserted amidst his remarks.

Rlqretired says:

February 12, 2011 at 05:35

This comment is submitted while my previous comment is still in moderation along with your insult.

jbjd – I really wish the bad feelings you currently have for some other bloggers that apparently prevents you from understanding the value of at least some of their work, specifically this irrefutable evidence the Hawaiian State Seal on Obama’s birth certificate is a fake could be moderated. We live in layman land and easily understand such things.  “[B]ad feelings” which “prevents (sic) [me] from understanding the value of at least some of their work”?  If I reject the work product of another blogger as being irrelevant to the stated goal of establishing whether Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job, then this rejection is based on my reasoned belief, it fails to add value to such pursuit.  Worse, it detracts from the real work of citizen education which must occur before real change will happen.  How many posts (and reads) over how many months were wasted on trying to refute my admonition, there exist no contemporaneous newspaper birth announcements of Obama’s birth?  Common sense said these did not exist, as any claim they did exist failed to reference any evidence of such publication which could be independently verified! RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’

Now, finally, one of these practitioners whose work I rejected, has posited that, perhaps the wild goose chase she sent her readers on, was based on a contrived premise.  (That is, she suggests any ‘evidence’ of such announcements was intentionally ‘planted.’) Yet, judging by the references to her nom-de-plume throughout the blogosphere, thousands of people still follow her work.

I gather from your insult that you are unwilling to accept my proposal that we simply agree to disagree on the value of the photographic evidence the Hawaiian State Seal on Obama’s one and only birth certificate is a fake.  I reject your characterization that pointing you away from frivolous pursuits when pursuing the issue of candidate eligibility is an “insult.”  These entreaties to get me to ascribe some value to work I deem valueless is all a waste of time.  So, too, it would seem, were the years I spent showing people what went wrong in 2008 and trying to get them to focus on remediating what went wrong and then, on how to correct the system so as to prevent these wrongs from recurring in 2012.  Sure, now, in 2011, some eligibility charlatans have begun to shift their focus away from judicial ‘Hail Mary’ filings and begun to focus on fixing the ‘system.’  However, efforts up to this point have left states no better positioned to avoid electoral disaster in 2012 than they were in 2008.

It is a considerable disappointment that you completely ignore the primary point of my comment which was my request for you to explain if Hawaiian Statute 338-18 (g) can be used by either a legislative committee investigating the authenticity of the one and only birth certificate ever produced by Obama in pursuit of the need for corrective legislation or possibly the Director of the Department of State (SOS) here in Florida who serves as the Chief Election Officer for the same reason.  As was implied in the response above, Obama never produced a “birth certificate.”

In your response to an off blog email from me that mentioned another bloggers post on the use of 338-18 (g) about how lawyers in legal proceedings could use this part of the statute to obtain verification of specific questions about the birth certificate you wrote “ And, as usual, I completely disagree with her ‘legal’ analysis. I have previously de-bunked this specific ploy, and will gladly repeat my objections, on the blog.”  If you insist on taking the legal advice of a self-described Graphic Artist/Designer then, why bother seeking advice from a self-described lawyer?  Anyone, it seems, will do, as long as you share the opinion offered.

If you will not look at 338-18 (g) and give me your opinion, which I desperately need, if (g) can be used as I have suggested, please fulfill your offer to debunk the idea as you said you would be glad to do.

The last thing in the world I wish to do is to get into a senseless argument with you. I am only seeking a legal opinion for what I, as a lawman, see as a possible beneficial thing to do to get at the legally recognized truth about Obama’s and the DNC collusion.  I have provided that opinion previously, as I stated.  You just had to look for it.

You might also remember that your efforts nor any other legal expert’s efforts have been successful as yet and if (g) can be used as I have suggested, it could possibly be a help to all of our efforts.  Ah, the canard, ‘You have been unsuccessful, too.’  But I have not.  Way back in the summer of 2008, I successfully identified the methodology that must be used to approach issues of Presidential eligibility.  In short, almost 3 (three) years ago now, I pointed everyone to the states.  But unlike almost every other blogger pursuing this topic, I never held myself out as a savior of the Republic.  Rather, understanding that fixing our electoral process was the work of the citizens of the states, I merely provided the tools necessary for the citizenry to carry out their work (sans the hysteria and hyperbole).  Ignoring the voluminous exchanges with readers via email, one need only peruse this blog to find ample evidence of my tangible contributions to my fellow citizens in this regard.  Yet, having sacrificed my life to this endeavor and, endured unceasing slings and arrows on that account; I am still attacked for their failure to finish the job.

And you are not the only loyal “jbjd” reader who, having obtained countless hours of private consultation and advice via email, and more through the blog, still deigns to dismiss my contributions to his endeavors because of a perceived personal slight.  azgo, until recently a stalwart supporter and contributor here at “jbjd,” also determined my ongoing consultation – this time, the proposed AZ ‘eligibility’ legislation – fell short.  He wrote, “Are you working with your state in doing anything, have you met with your state lawmakers or are you just talk like so many bloggers?”

Fortunately, I do not gauge the value of my work perfecting our electoral system, on the number of hits to the “jbjd” blog; or to the PayPal buttons; or to my psyche.


COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3 CARD MONTE* for FEDERAL COURT

November 23, 2009

*

Bob Bauer, currently White House Counsel, was formerly the Counsel to DNC Services Corporation and Obama for America, Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign. (BOB BAUER BIOGRAPHY) In January 2009, he defended Mr. Obama in Hollister v. Soetoro, a lawsuit aimed at exposing his client was Constitutionally unqualified for POTUS. HOLLISTER v. SOETORO (Mr. Hollister was represented by Attorney Phil Berg.) Mr. Bauer submitted his usual Motion to Dismiss – this was not the first lawsuit aimed at reaching his client’s eligibility – but this time, seeking to take advantage of the opportunity provided by this lawsuit to end the barrage of eligibility based challenges both inside and outside of the courtroom, he added something new: a footnote asking the judge to take judicial notice of certain facts, which notice he would recycle to construct the fiction, his client was Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

“Judicial notice” is a term found in the Federal Rules of Evidence. It applies to getting facts into the court record and, once those facts have been added to the record, assigns what weight this evidence will receive. (For a full explanation of judicial notice, see the Federal Rules of Evidence at http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm.)

Simply put, a judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Mr. Bauer wanted the federal court to take judicial notice of these facts.

1. His client, Barack Obama “publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii.”

This fact is true. But it fails to establish, his client is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

The only such self-authenticating ‘document’ his client “publicly produced” was that heavily redacted Certification of Live Birth – recall, Mr. Obama re-named this, his “Official Birth Certificate” – posted on “Fight the Smears,” the web site clearly advertising in the footer, this was “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA.” But even if the document was authentic AND the information contained therein was true, at best this could only establish his client is a “native” citizen, but not Natural Born. Mr. Obama admitted right on that site, this COLB only established he is a “native citizen” and not Natural Born. (See, MODEL COMPLAINTS OF ELECTION FRAUD TO STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL IN APPLICABLE STATES, on this page.)

Question: Since Bob Bauer was motivated to stave off attacks against his client by trying to construct Mr. Obama’s Constitutional qualifications for POTUS, why did he try to get the court to take judicial notice that his client publicly produced a certified document showing he was born in HI, when even assuming the fact he produced such a document also meant, he was actually born in HI; that fact could only establish he was a “native” citizen but not Natural Born as required by the Constitution?
Answer: Because if the court had taken judicial notice of these facts which implied his client was born in HI; Mr. Bauer could have perverted such notice into the meme, the federal court has now ruled, his client was born in HI; and, further, Mr. Bauer would have claimed, being born in HI makes him a NBC, propaganda which he and his clients, DNC Services Corporation, would have plastered throughout the print and electronic media. This campaign of propaganda emanating from the man who wrote the book – literally – on federal election law likely would have neutralized the mounting challenges to his client’s Constitutional qualification for POTUS.

Anyway, while referring to this ‘public production’ of a document showing his client was born in HI, Mr. Bauer did not submit the ‘original’ COLB to the court.

Question: Given that Mr. Bauer asked the court to take judicial notice his client produced that COLB, for what reason did he fail to produce for the court, the actual document?
Answer: Because he knew that COLB posted on his client’s blog is bogus.

2. Mr. Bauer wrote, “See, e.g., Factcheck.org, “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections 2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper).”

These facts are true, too. But they also fail to establish, his client is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

Mr. Bauer omits the name “Annenberg” from the proper title of the organization; and fails to reveal to the court, this group is sponsored by his client’s former employer, Chicago Annenberg Challenge, information the court is unlikely to know, absent his revelation; and which financial relationship a reasonable person would expect him to reveal as material to the court’s consideration. He also fails to name the “Honolulu newspaper” he claims printed that “contemporaneous birth announcement.” (The court could not know, APFC failed to name this publication which they “not[ed],” too, unless Mr. Bauer revealed this material information.) Recall, this ‘announcement’ is actually an unattributed image posted anonymously on the td blog, which APFC admits it copied from that site to post on theirs. RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’

Not surprisingly, while seeking judicial notice APFC noted this contemporaneous newspaper birth announcement showing his client was born in HI, Mr. Bauer did not submit an ‘original’ of that document to the court, either.

Plus, notwithstanding Mr. Bauer has now asked the court to take judicial notice [Annenberg Political] Fact Check said the document Mr. Obama publicly produced is “genuine,” again, he failed to produce that “genuine” document for the court.

Question: Why did Mr. Bauer ask the court to take judicial notice APFC said, the COLB his client publicly produced was “genuine”; but fail to introduce into evidence, the actual COLB?
Answer: Because he knew that COLB posted on his client’s blog is bogus.

3. Mr. Bauer asked the court to take judicial notice, “Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” ”

This fact is true. Again, it fails to establish, his client is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

Hawaiian officials allegedly made this statement in late October 2008. Notice, the statement attributed to these officials does not include the words, ‘This “original birth certificate” we have on file indicates, Mr. Obama was born in HI.’ Indeed, Mr. Bauer does not allege these officials said, ‘He was born in HI.’ http://blogs.starbulletin.com/inpolitics/certified/

Lucky for us, the federal court took no such notice. Getting lay people to understand the fact that nothing in the public record establishes BO is a NBC, has been challenging enough, without having to explain the difference between these judicially noted “facts” and the lies Mr. Bauer and the members of the Corporation he represents would insist these facts actually mean.

Luckier for Mr. Bauer, neither Judge James Robertson nor Mr. Berg inquired as to where is this “genuine” document of HI birth he claims his client “publicly produced”; or the “contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper”; or the “original birth certificate” HI officials claim to have on file. (How do you suppose Mr. Bauer would have responded to such request from the bench or opposing counsel, for production of that “original birth certificate” those HI officials said is “on record”?) Because Mr. Bauer is a member of the D.C. Bar and according to the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, these examples of lack of “Candor to Tribunal”; or lack of “Truthfulness in Statement to Others”; or failure to display “Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel” could cost Mr. Bauer his license to practice law. See, DC RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.

Which leads us to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd in line of Presidential succession who, acting in a non-governmental role as Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, swore in August 2008 Mr. Bauer’s client was Constitutionally qualified for POTUS in the official DNC Services Corporation Certifications of Nomination that were submitted to election officials in dozens of states to get his name printed on the general election ballot.

Question: Instead of asking for judicial notice of representations made by APFC, notice which at best could only establish his client was a “native” of HI but not “Natural Born”; why didn’t Mr. Bauer ask the court to take judicial notice of Nancy Pelosi’s Certifications, let alone submit even 1 (one) of those Certifications into the court record?
Answer: Because he knew Nancy Pelosi’s sworn Certifications of Nomination submitted to state election officials are bogus, too.

Question: But given that Bob Bauer was willing to risk his license to practice law by tricking the court into taking judicial notice of misleading facts that, at best, could only establish Barack Obama was a “native” born citizen, anyway, and which notice he would have to message in order to dupe Americans into believing this meant, his client was also Constitutionally qualified for POTUS; why was he unwilling to risk his license on Nancy Pelosi’s Certifications, which explicitly stated, his client was Constitutionally qualified for the job of POTUS, judicial notice of which fact the court likely would have granted, and which notice more likely could have persuaded the public of the fact, his client was Natural Born?
Answer: Because at that time, Nancy Pelosi was his client, too, and under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, he could not exonerate one client facing a civil lawsuit by incriminating another in criminal election fraud.

For your information, here are CONTACTS AT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR.


NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON (2 of 2)

August 28, 2009

© 2009 jbjd

(UPDATED:  08.31.10: The link to the 2007 DNC notice that Chairman Dean appointed Nancy Pelosi to Chair the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention has been scrubbed.  Instead, I substituted the announcement of her appointment which appeared in the Denver Post.)

So, to continue, who is responsible for enabling BO to occupy the office of POTUS notwithstanding no evidence that was proffered could prove he is Constitutionally eligible for the job?  Here’s a list of the people eliminated thus far, in the order in which they were eliminated.  (Note:  After digesting the first half of this article, http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/never-less-than-a-treason-1-of-2/, a few readers objected to the scope of my exoneration. That is, they thought I was too generous in letting people off the hook.  Let me reassure everyone, I had already factored into consideration all of their stated objections.  Hopefully, these excerpts from my replies will allay any other concerns.)

1.  Barack Obama

Let me remind you, i) he did not force anyone to vote for him in the general election. ii) He never Certified to state elections officials he was the Official Nominee for POTUS of the DNC and met all Constitutional requirements of the job, to get them to print his name on the general election ballot. iii) Three months before he obtained the D nomination, he took out an ad on the internet called “Fight the Smears” – he spelled out quite plainly, this ad was “Paid for by Barack Obama” – proclaiming for everyone to see, he was only a “native citizen,” thus ‘outing’ himself as being Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

2.  Congress

This includes VP Cheney, acting in his role as President of the Senate.  Even assuming upon asking for a vote on Ratification, he failed to extend to the members an opportunity discernible to us, to register their objections, if any, to the EC process; any one of these 500+ legislators could have raised a “Point of Order” at any time, to get an objection heard.  As I said previously, Congress is off the hook because the Constitution does not require that they investigate whether the person who obtained the requisite votes for POTUS from members of the EC, is Constitutionally eligible for the job.

3. The Electoral College

For as long as general elections have provided the mechanism to appoint the state Electors; even in those states that require the Elector to vote for the nominee of the national party, no faithless Elector has ever faced legal retribution.  The reason I left the EC off the hook is simple:  the Constitution does not require the EC must determine whether the nominee of their political party is Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS even if they decided to elect him for the job.http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/

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

We have reached the point where the responsibility for electing an ineligible POTUS must be found somewhere in a process directly related to his nomination.  But before we ferret out the source of that responsibility, memorize this fact:  The raison d’etre for awarding BO the national D party nomination  was to get elections officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to print his name next to the D on the general election ballot notwithstanding getting his name on the ballot would have nothing to do with his winning the election.

In July of 2007, Howard Dean, then Chair of the DNC, appointed  Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Chair the 2008 DNC Convention.   This put her in charge of the nomination.   http://www.denverpost.com/dnc/ci_6283384

Now, what do you think it means to “win” the “election”?  Remember, voters who went to the polls on November 4, only cast votes to appoint the (slate of) Electors who would then cast votes for President on December 15.  The person who gets the most votes at that time, wins the election.  And there is no provision in the Constitution, or any Federal law that requires Electors to vote for the person whose name, attached to theirs, received the most popular votes in the general election. In fact, the only Constitutional significance to receiving the most votes cast in a general election is this.  The names of the winning slate of electors thus appointed by the voters, once their appointment by means of this general election is Certified by the Governor of the state in a Certificate of Ascertainment, are then sent to the Archivist of the United States at the Office of the Federal Register, as directed by the Constitution.

Winning” the election simply means, receiving the most votes from the appointed Electors voting in the Electoral College. (Even if a ‘candidate’ concedes the race after November’s  general election, this has no bearing on whether the Electors can elect that loser  on December 15.)

So, why did the EC cast their votes for BO on December 15?  Neither federal law nor any provision of the Constitution says they had to vote for the person who holds the party nomination.  NONE.  Oh, sure, some states have enacted laws that require the Electors to vote for the party nominee.  However, as I previously pointed out, even in those states that have enacted laws requiring Electors to vote for the nominee of the party, no faithless Elector has even been sanctioned for disobeying that law. In fact, the party demands that its Electors swear an oath to support the nominee, before the party informs the state to print his or her name onto the general election ballot.  In other words, those Electors listed on the general election ballot as “for Barack Obama” are really for Barack Obama.  And, ultimately, that’s the reason these D Electors – the party activists, the movers and shakers, the fund raisers  who are chosen as party Electors – cast their votes for him.  Because they said they would. In fact, that’s the only reason they got to be Electors in the first place.

There.  We have established there is no correlation between the votes cast for BO by the Electors in the Electoral College; and the appearance of his name on the general election ballot.

Now, let’s examine the flip side of this process, that is, the primary/caucus campaign that led up to BO’s nomination at the DNC Convention to determine what correlation, if any, there is between the results of that process and his eventual nomination.

First, understand, the way the nomination is supposed to work.  Whichever candidate wins the most delegates from votes cast in the Democratic primary/caucus process will win the party’s nomination at the national Convention.  Well, sort of.  The candidate wins ONLY IF the number of those delegates reaches the threshold required by the party.  If not then, the nominee is chosen based on BOTH the number of votes cast by his or her delegates  on the call of the roll on the floor of the Convention PLUS the number of votes of what are called the “super delegates.”

So, who are these ‘super’ delegates?  Well, they are high profile members of the party, including federal legislators, chosen in advance by members of the DNC.  (Here is a pretty good history of SD’s; ignore the part of the article that refers to whether “pledged” delegates are actually “pledged.” The authors, one a Democratic strategist and the other, an attorney, obviously never heard of vote binding states.)  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18908855

Take a look at how Ms. Pelosi tried to steer the votes of those Democratically appointed SD’s.  On March 16, when BO had just come off his lopsided caucus ‘wins,’ http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/ she told Politico the SD’s “should reflect the will of the voters.”  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9063.html (She never specified whether she meant, the will of the voters as expressed by the final delegate count in their districts; or by the total delegate count; or by the overall popular vote.)  But bombarded by cries of ‘foul’ at appearing to take sides in the battle for the nomination, by April 1, Ms. Pelosi had changed her mind.  Now she decided, these SD’s had the “right to vote their conscience.” http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/pelosi_superdelegates_can_vote.php And it’s a good thing she did.  Because according to the DNC Call, which contains the rules that governed the 2008 Convention she Chaired, even delegates “pledged” to their candidates as the result of votes cast in the primary/caucus election are not actually ‘pledged’ but only, “shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”  http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/c313170ef991f2ce12_iqm6iyofq.pdf (It’s about time they added a line reminding pledged delegates from vote binding states, “If you are from one of the 13 vote binding states then, in your state, voting for someone other than the candidate you pledged to the voters you would represent, is against the law.”)

Okay, back to the scenario facing both BO and HRC at the start of the Convention.  Recall that, neither of them had a sufficient number of delegates pledged to win the nomination at the time they entered the Convention.  So, whoever won more total delegate votes, combining both pledged and super, as the result of the floor vote than the opposition, would be the party nominee.  At least, this has been the tradition within the Democratic Party for as long as I can remember.  But not this time.  Nope; this time, BO was somehow able to take the nomination even though there was never a roll call vote on the floor! How do you suppose that happened?  Of course, without this vote, we can never know what would have been the actual count of delegate votes for either candidate. Furthermore, without a record, we will never know whether pledged delegates from the 13 (thirteen) vote binding states lived up to their obligation to vote for the candidate the voters from back home elected them to support at the Convention.

In fact, nothing in the record BEFORE the Convention indicated that in a full open vote at the Convention, his nomination rather than hers, was a foregone conclusion.  Not a thing.

For example, HRC won the popular vote.  (Did you already know that?) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html (Not at all surprising, since even on election day, polls taken of people who had just cast their votes showed she would have beaten John McCain by 11 percentage points, as opposed to BO’s 7.) http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/11/12/politics/horserace/entry4596620.shtml Plus, even with all of the documented caucus fraud and the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee bait and switch with MI votes; best guesses, BO still only managed to ‘find’ less than 35 more pledged delegates as the result of votes cast for him, than for her. http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/video/index.htm; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html. (A federal court ruling in TX has allowed a lawsuit to proceed based on the under-allocation of delegates in heavily Hispanic districts, which could signal the beginning of the end to the D’s ‘complicated’ delegate allocation process in that state.)  http://www.star-telegram.com/texas/story/1558681.html

Okay.  We previously established there is no correlation between the votes cast for BO by the Electors in the Electoral College; and the appearance of his name on the general election ballot. And we have just established there is NO correlation between winning the Democratic primary contest and garnering the Democratic nomination. Then why do you suppose Chairwoman Pelosi imposed measures that were guaranteed to gag the ‘fair reflection’ of the millions of voters who had dispatched delegates to the Convention, in order to guarantee BO the nomination?  Repeat after me:  The raison d’etre for awarding BO the national D party nomination  was to get elections officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to print his name next to the D on the general election ballot. And, according to state elections laws, only the candidate duly nominated by the national D party at the party Convention, as Certified to by the party, is entitled to have his or her name printed on state ballots for the general election.  But didn’t we just say, the actual election occurs within the EC, and not at the general election?  Then, why were Nancy Pelosi (and Howard Dean and Harry Reid) determined to get BO’s name on the ballot in the general election?  Because they could never have gotten away with stealing the election at the point of the EC vote, when most people think they are actually casting their votes for President in the general election.

As we’ve already said, in order to get the state to print the name of the nominee for POTUS from the major political party, onto the state’s general election ballot; appropriate party officials must Certify to state elections officials, the name of the nominee of the party.  But in some states, for example, TX and GA, just Certifying the name of the candidate is not enough to get his or name printed onto the ballot.  The law in those states says to get onto the ballot, the party nominee must also satisfy all of the qualifications of the job.  But, even in those states that mandate the nominee must be eligible, there’s no law that says, the party must Certify the nominee’s qualifications.  Of course, since DNC rules require the nominee must be eligible under the Constitution, http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf (p.14, K.1 and 2), Certifying BO is the nominee is tantamount to verifying, he is Constitutionally eligible for the job.  Anyway, there’s no law in any state that says any state official has to check.

However, 1 (one) state in the union enacted a law that specifically says, the party must Certify the nominee for POTUS is eligible for the job:  HI.*

*(Correction:  After I posted this article, I learned that SC law also requires specific wording of eligibility to accompany the submission of candidate names that will appear on the ballot.  See http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/up-to-here-in-fraud-from-the-chair-of-the-2008-convention-to-the-chair-of-the-dnc/)

So, in her civilian role as Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, Nancy Pelosi, possessing all of the gravitas of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives signed the DNC’s Official Certification of Nomination relied upon by state elections officials to print the name of Barack Obama on the state general election ballots.  And on the Certification issued to the state of HI, Ms. Pelosi added this line:  he is “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”  http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/if-drowning-out-opposing-facts-is-un-american-then-ignoring-unpleasant-facts-must-be-un-american-too/

But as we now know, there is no evidence she determined beforehand whether he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.  http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/rumors-lies-and-unsubstantiated-facts/; http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/if-drowning-out-opposing-facts-is-un-american-then-ignoring-unpleasant-facts-must-be-un-american-too/

Which leads us to the final question:  In July of 2007, why do you suppose Howard Dean picked Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd in the line of Presidential succession, to Chair the 2008 DNC Convention?  Answer:  Perhaps to guarantee no matter the success achieved by other candidates seeking the D nomination, BO would still win the 2008 election. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/usc_sec_03_00000019—-000-.html

(Editorial Assistance Provided by d2i)


THEORIZING HOW TO PROVE BO IS NOT A NBC

August 1, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jbjd


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers