TEXAS BALLOT CHALLENGE CHALLENGE

July 3, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

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

Texas, We Have a Problem

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

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

That is; unless concerned citizens like us intervene.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any questions?


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

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

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

Please, contribute to the TEXAS BALLOT CHALLENGE CHALLENGE.


SHE SAID / HE SAID: SCRIPTING the 04.27.11 LAUNCH of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

April 1, 2012

©2012 jbjd

This is third in the series of articles addressing the legal nature of that long form birth certificate purporting to establish President Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth, released on April 27, 2011 in the form of both electronic images which were posted on the WhiteHouse.gov blog and, hard copies (of those same images) which were distributed to reporters. (This is all spelled out in the first 2 articles in the series, WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA WAITED until APRIL 27, 2011 to RELEASE a FACSIMILE of his LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE and WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA RELEASED the LONG-FORM IMAGE of his BIRTH CERTIFICATE in PDF versus JPEG, which are meant to be read before tackling the present post,) But the article I originally had in mind to follow these 2 required re-thinking when I received an email from azgo suggesting that “by reading the ‘jbjd’ blog, [the Obama campaign] devised the [long-form birth certificate] scheme to make it look like the image came directly from HI; per our conversations [on this blog] about how state election officials should receive birth records directly from the state in which the candidate was born.” That got me to thinking. So, I looked for any articles referencing the distinction between a real identification document and a fake; which were posted here on “jbjd” before the 2012 re-election campaign launch in April 2011.

azgo could be right.

On January 3, 2011, I posted DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2), which confirms that under the U.S. Code, images such as Barack Obama’s COLB appearing on his web site “Fight the Smears,” satisfy the expenditure disclosure requirements of an electronic political advertising campaign. Here is an excerpt from that post.

Here is just a partial index for TITLE 2 > CHAPTER 14 > SUBCHAPTER I, dealing with federal campaign funds.

DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS

  • § 441d. Publication and distribution of statements and solicitations
(a) Identification of funding and authorizing sources

Whenever a political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing any communication through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising, or whenever any person makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or solicits any contribution through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising or makes a disbursement for an electioneering communication (as defined in section 434 (f)(3) of this title), such communication—
(1) if paid for and authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication has been paid for by such authorized political committee, or [1]
(2) if paid for by other persons but authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication is paid for by such other persons and authorized by such authorized political committee; [1]
(3) if not authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state the name and permanent street address, telephone number, or World Wide Web address of the person who paid for the communication and state that the communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

This was followed on January 12 by DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2), which discussed the criminal implications of producing and distributing electronic images, such as that COLB, on campaign sites; but pretending, these are ‘the real thing.’ Here is a snippet from that article.

Here is just a partial index for TITLE 18 > PART I (CRIMES) > CHAPTER 47, FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS.  (We will only use Part 1 for this analysis but here is a link to Part II, FYI.  PART II—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (§§ 3001—3771).)

But to answer the question concerning the legality of the  FTS COLB under the U.S. Code, we will be concentrating primarily on section 1028.

§ 1028. Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information

(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section—

(1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document;

(2) knowingly transfers an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority;

(4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States;

(7) knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(c) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that—

(1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document is or appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance or the document-making implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document;

(2) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) of this section; or

(3) either—

(A) the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce, including the transfer of a document by electronic means; or

(B) the means of identification, identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement is transported in the mail in the course of the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section.

(d) In this section and section 1028A

(1) the term “authentication feature” means any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code, image, sequence of numbers or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination with another feature is used by the issuing authority on an identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified;

(2) the term “document-making implement” means any implement, impression, template, computer file, computer disc, electronic device, or computer hardware or software, that is specifically configured or primarily used for making an identification document, a false identification document, or another document-making implement;

(3) the term “identification document” means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, political subdivision of a foreign government, an international governmental or an international quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals

(4) the term “false identification document” means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that—

(A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and

(B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization;

(5) the term “false authentication feature” means an authentication feature that—

(A) is genuine in origin, but, without the authorization of the issuing authority, has been tampered with or altered for purposes of deceit;

(B) is genuine, but has been distributed, or is intended for distribution, without the authorization of the issuing authority and not in connection with a lawfully made identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to which such authentication feature is intended to be affixed or embedded by the respective issuing authority; or

(C) appears to be genuine, but is not;

(6) the term “issuing authority”—

(A) means any governmental entity or agency that is authorized to issue identification documents, means of identification, or authentication features; and

(B) includes the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international government or quasi-governmental organization;

(7) the term “means of identification” means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any—

(A) name, social security number, date of birth, official State or government issued driver’s license or identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number;

(C) unique electronic identification number, address, or routing code; or

(D) telecommunication identifying information or access device (as defined in section 1029 (e));

(9) the term “produce” includes alter, authenticate, or assemble;

(10) the term “transfer” includes selecting an identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement and placing or directing the placement of such identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement on an online location where it is available to others;

(11) the term “State” includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other commonwealth, possession, or territory of the United States; and

(12) the term “traffic” means—

(A) to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value; or

(B) to make or obtain control of with intent to so transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of.

(f) Attempt and Conspiracy.— Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.

On January 24, I posted 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). Here is an excerpt from that seminal article, in which I warn voters against accepting as true any candidate’s self-authentication to appear on the ballot. (This also contains a link to a comment in which I issued this same warning, more than 1 year earlier.)

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! 

Apparently, the usual “jbjd” readers hoping to hone their civics educations were not the only ones listening.

To see how that April 27, 2011 launch of the long form image of President Obama’s birth certificate conformed to these requirements of the U.S. Code with respect to campaign advertising and, at this same time, skirted criminal sanctions for document fraud; you can start by looking at the press gaggle that was held that morning. As no cameras or recording devices were allowed, I relied on this press release by WH Press Secretary Jay Carney, issued at 8:48 that morning and posted on the WhiteHouse.gov blog; to memorialize the scene. (Since I will only reference Mr. Carney’s release; after you read my article, I urge you to follow up by reading his, to see for yourself how the fact pattern spelled out in the U.S. Code, fits.)

Attending the early morning press gaggle were Carney; WH Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer; and WH Counsel Bob Bauer. First, a note about Mr. Bauer, who would leave that job in June 2011, 1 month after the long form launch.

President Barack Obama’s top lawyer at the White House, Bob Bauer, is quitting to return to his political law practice and represent Obama as his personal attorney and counsel to his re-election campaign….Bauer, a specialist in campaign finance, election law and ethics, is returning to the role as campaign counsel that he held when Obama ran for the presidency in 2008….

Bauer has been part of Obama’s circle since Obama was a freshman senator in Washington. He has long been a go-to lawyer for Democrats and is married to Anita Dunn, a Democratic operative who formerly served as Obama’s communications director…. He will also serve as counsel to the Democratic National Committee.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/02/bob-bauer-resigns-white-house-counsel_n_870290.html

And this, from Perkins Coie.

Bob returned to the firm after a period of service to President Barack Obama as his White House Counsel from December of 2009 until June of 2011.  He is now General Counsel to the President’s re-election committee, to Obama for America, and General Counsel to the Democratic National Committee.

http://www.perkinscoie.com/rbauer/

Now, from the gaggle. (My editorial comments appear in orange. These are not intended to be exhaustive; I could have colored the whole exchange! Besides, once you get the hang of interpreting ‘Obama-speak’; you will be able to de-construct these remarks, on your own.)

MR. PFEIFFER:

In 2008 (the copyright date in the in the footer of FTS is 2007), in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign (in June 2008, U.S. Senator Barack Obama was only the D Party Presidential nominee wannabe; and the image posted on his FTS web site, which was clearly marked “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA, per campaign expenditure laws) requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii.  We (the nominee’s campaign) received that document; we (the campaign) posted it on the website (FTS). That document was then inspected by independent fact checkers (lay staffers employed by Annenberg Political Fact Check), who came to the campaign headquarters and inspected the document — independent fact checkers did, and declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii.

That essentially — for those of you who followed the campaign closely know that solved the issue.  We didn’t spend any time talking about this after that….There may have been some very fringe discussion out there, but as a campaign issue it was settled and it was –

Q    When you posted this did you post the other side of it where the signature is?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Yes.

Q    Because it is not here and that’s been an issue.

MR. PFEIFFER:  We posted both sides and when it was looked at it was looked at by — the fact checkers came to headquarters and actually examined the document we had.

That settled the issue.  In recent weeks, the issue has risen again as some folks have begun raising a question about the original — about the long-form birth certificate you now have in front of you.  And Bob will explain why — the extraordinary steps we (the President’s 2012 re-election campaign) had to take to receive that and the legal restraints that are in place there.

But it became an issue again.  …  And the President believed that it was becoming a distraction from the major issues we’re having in this country. …  And it was really a distraction. … That really struck the President, led him to ask his counsel to look into whether we could ask the state of Hawaii to release the long-form certificate, which is not something they generally do. (It’s not clear to me from Pfeiffer’s reference whom the President asked to look into this matter, since he uses no names. It’s not even clear whether by “counsel” he meant, lawyer or advisor. But, technically, WH Counsel Bauer represents the Office and not the man and so, is properly referred to as “WH Counsel.”)* And he did that despite the fact that it probably was not in his long-term — it would have been in his — probably in his long-term political interests to allow this birther debate to dominate discussion in the Republican Party for months to come.  But he thought even though it might have been good politics, he thought it was bad for the country.  And so he asked counsel (again, I don’t know to which counsel this refers) to look into this. *(Here’s a good article on the sometimes murky role of WH Counsel. White House Lawyer Role Faces Test.)

And now I’ll have Bob explain that, and then we’ll take your questions.

MR. CARNEY:  I just want to — sorry, I meant to mention at the top, as some of you may have seen, the President will be coming to the briefing room at 9:45 a.m., making a brief statement about this — not taking questions, but just wanted to let you know.

MR. PFEIFFER:  And he will use this as an opportunity to make a larger point about what this debate says about our politics.

Go ahead, Bob.

MR. BAUER:  Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the longstanding prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate.  And so we undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made that we had the grounds upon which to make that request. (Based on several descriptions of the job responsibilities of WH Counsel; it is totally appropriate for him to advise the President as to the legality of his conduct.)

And by Thursday of last week, I spoke to private counsel to the President and asked her to contact the State Department of Health and to have a conversation about any requirements, further requirements, that they thought we (meaning, anyone associated with this ploy) had to satisfy to lodge that waiver request (and simultaneously avoid breaking the law).  She had that conversation with the state Department of Health on Thursday — counsel in question is Judy Corley at the law firm of Perkins Coie, (the law firm in which I was a partner before coming here and to which I will return shortly) and you have a copy of the letter she subsequently sent to the department with the President’s written request.

The department outlined the requirements for the President to make this request.  He signed a letter making that request on Friday afternoon upon returning from the West Coast.  And private counsel (presumably, he mean Ms. Corley) forwarded his written request — written, signed request — along with a letter from counsel (okay, I give up, I have no idea whom he means here), to the state Department of Health on Friday.

The department, as I understood it (plausible deniability here), after reviewing the law and reviewing the grounds asserted in the request, came to the conclusion that a waiver could be appropriately granted.  We (those of us perpetrating this fraud, excluding the President) were advised that the long-form birth certificate (mock-up) could be copied and made available to us as early as Monday, April 25th — the day before yesterday.  And we made arrangements for counsel to travel to Honolulu to pick it up and it was returned to the White House yesterday afternoon. (He keeps referring to the document as “it” but, in the letter provided to reporters, the President requested and received 2 copies of his long-form birth certificate, both certified.) (According to HI DoH instructions posted below, only 1 vital record per request!)

Let me emphasize again, there is a specific statute that governs access to and inspection of vital records in the state of Hawaii (as there is in every state)**.  The birth certificate that we posted online is, in fact, and always has been, and remains, the (facsimile of a) legal birth certificate of the President (or anyone else) that would be used for all legal purposes that any resident of Hawaii would want to use a birth certificate for (and which could be used for that purpose if appropriately presented, for example, if displaying the official seal or, unaltered in any way).

However, there is legal authority in the department to make exceptions to the general policy on not releasing the long-form birth certificate.  The policy in question, by the way, on non-release has been in effect since the mid-1980s, I understand.  So while I cannot tell you what the entire history of exceptions has been, (for effect, I will nonetheless speculate) it is a limited one. This is one of very few that I understand have been granted for the reasons set out in private counsel’s letter (id.).

MR. PFEIFFER:  We’ll be happy to take some questions.

Q    I guess I just want to make sure that we’re clear on this.  Even though this one says “certificate of live birth” on here, this is different than the other certificate of live birth that we’ve seen?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Yes.  The second page there is the one that was posted on the Internet.

Q    Okay.

MR. PFEIFFER:  And that is a copy of the one that has been kept at the Hawaii Department of Health.

Q    Okay.  And this is the one that would be referred to — that people have been asking for that is the birth certificate?

MR. PFEIFFER:  They are both — the second one is the birth certificate.  The one on the top is what is referred to as the long-form birth certificate.  As you can see — and Bob can walk you through it (again, doesn’t take a lawyer to explain this obvious difference between a certificate and a certification but it does add an official imprimatur to the ruse) — it contains some additional information that is not on the second page, which was the birth certificate which was released during the campaign.

If you could just explain the difference.

MR. BAUER:  There’s a difference between a certificate and a certification.  The certification is simply a verification of certain information that’s in the original birth certificate.  The birth certificate, as you can see, has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, who essentially oversees the maintenance of the records.  It contains some additional information also — that is to say, the original birth certificate — it contains some additional information like the ages of the parents, birthplaces, residence, street address, the name of the hospital.

The core information that’s required for legal purposes and that is put into the actual certification that’s a computer-generated document, which we (the members of then U.S. Senator Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential preference primary campaign) posted in 2008, that information is abstracted, if you will, from the original birth certificate, put into the computerized short-form certification, and made available to Hawaiian residents at their request.

So the long form, which is a certificate, has more information, but the short form has the information that’s legally sufficient for all the relevant purposes.

Q    This first one has never been released publicly, correct?

MR. BAUER:  That’s correct.  It is in a bound volume in the records at the state Department of Health in Hawaii.

Q    Bob, can you explain why President Obama let this drag on for four years?  Was it Donald Trump that prompted you to issue this?

MR. BAUER:  I’ll let Dan –

MR. PFEIFFER:  Sure.

Q    I know you expected that question, right?  (Laughter.)
MR. PFEIFFER:  He even said you would be the one who would ask it.  (Laughter.)

I don’t think this dragged on for four years because this was a resolved — for those of you who remember the campaign, this issue was resolved in 2008.  And it has not been an issue, none of you have asked about it, called about it, reported on it until the last few weeks.

And as I said earlier, it probably would have been — a lot of the pundits out there have talked about the fact that this whole birther debate has been really bad for the Republican Party and would probably be good for the President politically.  But despite that, the President, as I said, was struck by how this was crowding out the debate, particularly around the budget, on important issues, and was an example of the sort of sideshows that our politics focuses on instead of the real challenges that we have to confront as a country.

And so that’s why he made this decision now, because it became an issue that transcended sort of this — it essentially was something that was talked about, as I said, from the nether regions of the Internet onto mainstream network newscasts.  In fact, Jay has been asked about this just yesterday in this room.

Q    So I guess the implication is that you did get political advantage by having not released this until today, over the course of the last four years?

MR. PFEIFFER:  There has been — no one that I can recall actually asked us to — we were asked to release the President’s birth certificate in 2008.  We did that.  And then no one — it never — up until a few weeks ago, there was never an issue about that that wasn’t the birth certificate from any credible individual or media outlet.  And it hasn’t been until — I mean, Jay was asked about this yesterday –

Q    When you say that, you mean certification — you released the certification?

MR. PFEIFFER:  When any Hawaiian wants — requests their birth certificate because they want to get a driver’s license, they want to get a passport, they do exactly what the President did in 2008.  And that’s what that is.  And we released that.  And that’s what any Hawaiian would do to release their birth certificate.  And that was good enough for everyone until very recently this became a question again.  And so the President made this decision.  He’ll talk to you more about his thinking on that.

Q    And this is going to sound — I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to — remain unconvinced.  They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper (since that is what this is), you could have typed anything in there.  Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any — (laughter.)

Q    Will the President be holding it?

MR. PFEIFFER:  He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so.  But it will — the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a — what they have on file.  As Bob said, it’s in a book in Hawaii.

MR. BAUER:  And you’ll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states (“that” here refers to the letter, as in, “the letter states” and not, “the director of the Health Department states…”) that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to –

Q    But do you understand that this could quiet the conspiracy theorists?

MR. PFEIFFER:  There will always be some selection of people who will believe something, and that’s not the issue.  The issue is that this is not a discussion that is just happening among conspiracy theorists.  It’s happening here in this room; it’s happening on all of the networks.  And it’s something that, as I said, every major political figure of both parties who’s actually out trying to talk about real issues is asked about this by the media.  And so the President decided to release this.  And I’ll leave it to others to decide whether there’s still — there will be some who still have a different — have a conspiracy about this.

Q    You’ve got two certified copies, according to this study.  You have these physical –

MR. PFEIFFER:  Yes.  I showed you one.  Just one.

Q    You showed us a photocopy of one.

MR. PFEIFFER:  No, I showed you –

Q    Does that have a stamp? (Apparently, the copy distributed to this reporter did not.)

MR. PFEIFFER:  It has a seal on it.

Q    Why does this rise to the level of a presidential statement?

MR. PFEIFFER:  The President — this in itself — when you hear the President I think you’ll understand the point he’s making.  That will be in not too long.

Q    Did the President change his own mind about this?  In other words, was he advocating during the campaign let’s just put it out there and get it over with, or was this an internal shift in thinking based — in other words, was it the President who steadfastly during the campaign said this is ridiculous, I don’t want to give this any more ground, and has now changed his mind? Or is this the –

MR. PFEIFFER:  Let’s be very clear.  You were there for the campaign.  There was never a question about the original birth certificate during the campaign.  It was a settled issue.  (HA HA HA HA HA) I was there (in 2007)  for the original decision to release the birth certificate (if we couldn’t steal the primary before people began asking questions about the candidate’s Constitutional eligibility for office). I was there (in June 2008) when we posted it online (because questions about his eligibility threatened to kill his chances at the nomination).  I’m not sure I even knew there was an original one that was different than the one we posted online because it wasn’t an issue.  (Liar liar, pants on fire.) So it wasn’t like — let’s be very clear.  We were asked for the President’s birth certificate in 2008; we released the President’s birth certificate; and it was done.  That was it.

And so there hasn’t been a discussion about this other document for years.  It’s only been in the last few weeks.  And so to your second question, the President decided to do this and he’ll talk about this when he gets here — decided to do it at the timeline that Bob (Bauer, the campaign law expert and WH Counsel) laid out (so as to protect everyone involved in this farce from criminal liability) because it was a — this was a sideshow that was distracting from the real challenges that we’re facing.

It’s not just a sideshow for him; it’s a sideshow for our entire politics (meaning, our re-election campaign) that have become focused on this.

Q    Not to give Donald Trump more publicity than he has, but is he the person who sort of — sort of that bridge between what you’re calling a fringe and the mainstream?  Do you think that he’s the reason why this tripped the switch to a level where you now have to deal with something you thought was dealt with?

MR. PFEIFFER:  It’s not for me to say why mainstream media organizations began to cover this debate.  They’ll have to answer that for themselves.

Q    Dan, was there a debate about whether or not this deserved being discussed by the White House, whether or not — and I’m going back to the birth certificate.  I lose points, I understand.  But was there debate about whether or not this was worthy of the White House?

MR. PFEIFFER:  The point I’d make is that we weren’t the ones who — we’re not the first ones to bring this up in this room.  Jay has been asked questions about this; the President has been asked about it in media interviews.  And so that wasn’t a decision that we made, and the President made the decision to do this and he made the decision to — and when he comes down here this morning he’ll talk to you about why he thinks there’s an important point to be made here.

Q    Is there a concern that more and more people were actually starting to believe its sideshow — I mean, people have been asking about –MR. CARNEY:  I will let the President speak for himself, but what Dan was saying and I think is important is that the issue here is that the President feels that this was bad for the country; that it’s not healthy for our political debate, when we have so many important issues that Americans care about, that affect their lives, to be drawn into sideshows about fallacies that have been disproven with the full weight of a legal document for several years.

So, again, as Dan said, and a lot of political pundits have said, you could say that it would be good politics, smart politics, for the President to let this play out.  He cares more about what’s good for the country.  He wants the debate on the issues.  He wants the focus on the issues that Americans care about.

Q    Just quickly, back on the birth certificate, yesterday you said this was a settled issue.  So –

MR. CARNEY:  Well, as Dan said, again, it has been a settled issue.

MR. PFEIFFER:  From a factual point of view, it’s absolutely a settled issue.  But the fact that it was a settled issue did not keep it from becoming a major part of the political discussion in this town for the last several weeks here.  So there’s absolutely no question that what the President released in 2008 was his birth certificate and answered that question, and many of your organizations have done excellent reporting which proved that to be the case.  But it continued; the President thought it was a sideshow and chose to take this step today for the reasons Bob laid out.

Q    Aside from the policy distractions that was presented, did you have some concern because it was sort of reaching back into the mainstream news coverage that this could become a factor in the 2012 election with centrist voters?

MR. PFEIFFER:  No.

Q    Just to clarify what this document is –

MR. PFEIFFER:  This is the — the letter first and the two certified copies — this is one of those.  This is the same thing you have a copy of as the first page of your packet.

Q    How did it get here?

MR. PFEIFFER:  As Bob said, it arrived by plane — the President’s personal counsel went to Hawaii and brought it back and we got it last night.

Q    Last night?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Last night.

Q    What time?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Q    When did you decide to do this gaggle?

MR. PFEIFFER:  What’s that?

Q    When was this gaggle put on — when was this planned?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Whatever time you received your guidance suggesting that it would be “this time tomorrow morning.”

Q    Are these letters supposed to demonstrate the legal steps that were involved in releasing it to the White House counsel?

MR. BAUER:  The letters that you have, the personal request from the President, along with the accompanying letter from private counsel, is merely meant to document the legal path to getting the waiver of that policy so we could get the long-form certificate (as opposed to documenting an actual path undertaken to obtain a bona fide waiver from Director Fuddy on the date in the letter, resulting in her office’s production of a facsimile of a record on file with her office, evidencing Barack Obama was born in HI).

Q    The waiver of Hawaii state government policy?

MR. BAUER:  Right.  The non-release of the long-form certificate, which has been in effect since the 1980s — a natural question would have been, well, what did you do to obtain the waiver, and those letters represent the request.

Q    Well, isn’t it true that anybody who was born in Hawaii can write this letter?  (Yes; of course.) I mean, that’s all there is to the waiver process?

MR. BAUER:  No.  Let me just explain once again because I also noticed, by the way, in one report already the wrong certificate was actually posted on the website.  The certificate with the signatures at the bottom — and that’s a key difference between the short form and the long form — the long form has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, and the mother, is the original birth certificate, which sits in a bound volume in the State Department of Health.

The short from is a computerized abstract, and that’s the legal birth certificate we requested in 2008 and that Hawaiians are entitled to.  Since the mid-1980s, the State Department of Health, for administrative reasons, only provides to people who request their birth certificate the short form.  They do not provide the long form.

So in order for us to obtain the long form, we had to have a waiver (which, as you astutely pointed out, only required writing the letter requesting that waiver).  We had to actually determine that there was a legal basis for providing it, and then ask them to exercise their authority to provide us with the long form.  The steps required to accomplish that were a letter from the person with the direct and vital interest — the President — so you have a letter from the President (with no file reference code for document processing, archiving, or retrieval) , and then there was an accompanying letter from counsel basically formalizing the request.  (I cannot figure out the angle on that one. Obviously, unless the President, here, the Requestor of the Record, has been adjudged to be mentally incompetent and placed under the guardianship of Attorney Corley, he doesn’t need her to ‘formalize’ anything! Maybe Bauer is still trying to fool reporters into believing getting the waiver so as to obtain a certified copy of a long form birth certificate is a big deal. Ideas?) So the reason we included that is that those were legal steps we took to obtain the long form by way of this waiver.

Q    Do we have the letter from the President –

MR. BAUER:  It’s in the packet.

Q    And you went to Hawaii?

MR. BAUER:  I did not go to Hawaii.  The counsel, Judy Corley, who signed the — the President’s personal counsel at Perkins Coie, Judy Corley, whose letter — signed letter of request is in your packet, traveled to Honolulu and picked up the birth certificate. (Notice that now, he manages albeit awkwardly, to avoid saying either, ‘Ms. Corley signed the letter,’ or ‘Ms. Corley made this request to the HI DoH.’ Because saying that the President’s lawyer did these things is tantamount to saying, the President did these things. And as you just read, when it comes to the President and these long form shenanigans; the campaign, under the watchful eye of WH Counsel Bauer, is preserving a ‘hands off’ approach.) (434 (f)(3) of TITLE 2 > CHAPTER 14 > SUBCHAPTER I, DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS, is worth a read. While I didn’t use that section of campaign finance laws with respect to the FTS web site; it might apply here, to the cost of that campaign trip to HI to retrieve the campaign document. As for the gaggle being a “campaign communication,” well, since there is no record; and since otherwise ‘official’ topics were also discussed, by non-campaign staff; I am not sure what approach the DoJ would take for the purpose of determining whether illegal campaigning was going on from the WH.)

Thanks.END              9:18 A.M. EDT

** According to the web site of the HI DoH, here’s how to request certified copies of vital information.

How to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records

What Information You Should Be Prepared to Provide

An applicant/requestor must provide the information needed to 1) establish his/her direct and tangible interest in the record and 2) locate the desired record. This will normally include:

  • Applicant’s name, address, and telephone number(s);
  • Applicant’s relationship to the person named on the certificate;
  • Reason why you are requesting the certificate;
  • Full name(s) as listed on the certificate; (not provided)
  • The certificate’s file number (if known); (not provided)
  • Month, day, and year of the event; (not provided) and
  • City or town and the island where the event occurred. (not provided)
  • For birth certificates, also provide the full name of the father and the full maiden name of the mother. (not provided)
  • If you are applying for a certificate on behalf of someone else, you must provide an original letter signed by that person authorizing the release of their certificate to you and a photocopy of that person’s valid government-issued photo ID. (not provided)
  • Valid government-issued photo ID. (not provided)

(H/T azgo)

On the other hand, maybe all you want is a letter.

Letters of Verification

Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/civil union/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.

Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.

The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter.

Either way, you can download an application form directly from the site.

Application Forms

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html

Thus, summing up these first 3 articles in the series, by clearly identifying both orally and in writing, the ‘birth’ documents distributed at the press gaggle and displayed on the WhiteHouse.gov blog are part of the “campaign”; by explicitly stating no public funds were expended in obtaining these documents; by making sure that any ‘official (looking)’ seal from the HI DoH did not appear on copies of documents distributed to the public; by distributing the documents to the public but not to a government official under the guise, this was a bona fide representation of the ‘facts’ contained therein; and by separating the campaign function from the traditional function of the Executive branch; and by transporting the false document via airplane instead of the U.S. mail; President Obama’s team likely skirted criminal violations of both campaign expenditure and public records laws.

Or did they…

(The next article in the series focuses on President Obama’s remarks immediately following this press gaggle; and the nature of comments, both oral and written, with respect to the President’s vital records, attributed over time to state of HI employees.)

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

Freedom costs.


MICHELLE GOLDBERG HAMMERS ANOTHER NAIL in the MSM COFFIN

June 4, 2011

© 2011 jbjd

Granted, Michelle Goldberg has her own web site; has written a couple of books which, according to her, were well researched and appear to be selling well (id.); and writes a column for the Daily Beast. But assuming she means what she says in her recent diatribe, “Why Birthers Won’t Die,” that is, taking on face value that she is not writing just for provocation or brainwashing then, I cannot emphasize enough: when it comes to issues related to establishing Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, Ms. Goldberg has demonstrated she has absolutely no idea what she is talking about.

It’s not just the fact she repeats the fallacy, the hard copy of the electronic image President Obama calls a birth certificate and recently ‘released’ to the press, is actually a long form birth certificate, that makes any information coming from her suspect.  (I will write another article focusing on the lunacy of anyone’s continued bona fide belief, photocopying any electronic image adds to its authenticity.) Obama’s Director of Communications, Daniel Pfeiffer, posted this image on the WhiteHouse.gov blog. Ms. Goldberg even links her readers to that image effectively reasserting its authenticity.  But Pfeiffer’s job is to shape the President’s message and not to communicate news, which is the job of the Press Secretary (notwithstanding Robert Gibbs, Director of Communication of Obama’s Presidential campaign and former Press Secretary for President Obama often conflated those 2 positions).  Unlike Ms. Goldberg, Mr. Pfeiffer was doing a good job, by shaping the message.

Or that, she uses Mr. Corsi’s refusal to buy into this lie (that a bona fide birth certificate has been released) as a weapon against his motives and intellect.  In spades.

Much of Where’s the Birth Certificate? rehashes old, debunked stories meant to cast doubt on Obama’s birth in Hawaii. But the book also claims that even if Obama was born in the United States, he still might not be a “natural-born citizen” because of his father’s foreign citizenship, which would make him ineligible for the presidency. To make this argument, Corsi dredges up a constitutional theory popular in white supremacist and anti-immigrant circles, making an invidious distinction between those granted citizenship by the 14th Amendment and those who were citizens under the Constitution as originally written.

What?  Only those identified with “white supremacist and anti-immigrant circles” espouse that a bona fide difference exists between the terms “natural born citizen” in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution; and the term “citizen” as used in the 14th Amendment?  (Of course, I reject claims by Corsi or anyone else that citizens of non-citizen parents are not natural born citizens; and this only makes sense, since I maintain that no ‘legal’ definition of NBC exists absent a ruling by a federal appellate court, in a case on point.)

Worse, adding insult to injury, Ms. Goldberg justifies her political stereotyping using flawed reasoning, thereby additionally exposing her Constitutional  ignorance.

But Corsi’s ideas about the 14th Amendment, if taken seriously, wouldn’t just affect the children of immigrants—they could disqualify all black people from the presidency. “Obama defenders who want to define him as a natural-born citizen because he is native-born and a citizen under the 14th Amendment are engaged in an effort to redefine Article 2, Section 1, away from its original natural law meaning,” Corsi writes. The original meaning, of course, did not encompass black people. That’s why we needed the 14th Amendment in the first place.

Let me point to the absurdity of just one segment of this drivel:  Ms. Goldberg’s mistaken focus on Corsi’s phrase, “effort to redefine Article 2, Section 1, away from its original natural law meaning,” to mean that, Mr. Corsi rejects Obama’s Presidency based on his race.  She reasons, it is this focus on race which motivates Corsi to object to any attempt to steer the conversation toward 14th Amendment inclusion of blacks as eligible to become President, and away from the original intent, which clearly excluded blacks. But whether he is racist; she doesn’t know her Constitution and, based on her ignorance, obviously misconstrued the ‘plain meaning’ of Corsi’s words.

The phrase “natural born citizen” is listed in Article II, section 1, as a condition of Presidential eligibility.  And, the word “citizen” is listed in Article I, sections 2 and 3, as the eligibility requirements for Representative and Senator, respectively, put there almost 100 years before the 14th Amendment.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

Get it?  The Drafters used the word “citizen” in 2 (two) different contexts of eligibility for office, one to be President; and the other to be a member of Congress. (Technically, the wording for President applies to eligibility; whereas the term for Congress applies to actual holding of the position.  This makes sense since members of Congress are elected directly – perhaps the Drafters did not trust the average citizen to choose the right person for the job – whereas Presidents are chosen by Electors who, it would appear safe to predict at the time, could not be anticipated to elect a President they were not certain was eligible for the job .) Since the Drafters used these 2 (two) different phrases, the tenets of statutory construction require that, we must assume, therefore, the Drafters meant 2 (two) different things.  “When Congress includes a specific term in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it should not be implied where it is excluded.” Arizona Elec. Power Co-op. v. United States, 816 F.2d 1366, 1375 (9th Cir. 1987); see also West Coast Truck Lines, Inc. v. Arcata Community Recycling Ctr., 846 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 856 (1988). http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s104.htm

See, contrary to Ms. Goldberg’s wishful projection; Corsi wasn’t at all waxing nostalgic, harkening back with longing to a time in our history when no blacks were counted as citizens and thus, could not be elected President (or Representative or Senator).  Rather, his use of the phrase “original natural law meaning” referenced the requirement of eligibility for President in Article II – natural born citizen – as opposed to, say, the original requirement in Article I for holding the office of U.S. Representative or U.S. Senator – citizen – which excludes the modifier, natural born.  Both of which applications of the term “citizen” he undoubtedly would agree should presently be read to include all citizens now Constitutionally defined as such, through the 14th Amendment.  Even those whose skin color is black.

In other words, even assuming a preference for color; Corsi just wants people to stop conflating “citizen” with “natural born citizen.” Get it?

But that excerpt points to my biggest objections to Ms. Goldberg’s hit piece on Mr. Corsi: her disingenuous diatribe against the man for what she paints as a racially motivated focus on the 14th Amendment. Those of you who have dissected the information on this blog probably already ‘get’ that she reverses cause versus effect. In fact, the eligibility argument only arose because Obama raised it by calling himself a “native” citizen and not “natural born.”  Indeed, he set up this false dichotomy, way back in 2007, when he – or perhaps more accurately, his campaign’s Director of Communications, Robert Gibbs – wrote “Fight the Smears,” the propaganda piece I have argued they would never have made public had he stolen the D nomination before the D Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention.  And in that same electronic advertising campaign, he posted the red herring argument about the 14th Amendment, couching it in racial terms, perhaps to misdirect the attention of astute citizens who otherwise might have noticed, he had conflated the 2 (two) Constitutional terms; and suspected a likely reason to be, he was trying to mask his ineligibility.

Want to see the evidence that supports my hypothesis, Ms. Goldberg?  IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO; or  TOO IGNORANT TO LEAD Of course, I am only a blogger.  (Then again, so was Dan Pfeiffer, in the context of posting that electronic image of the ‘document’ entitled, “Certificate of Live Birth” on the White House blog.)

Granted, maybe I am holding Ms. Goldberg to too high a journalistic standard.  After all, in the context of writing for the DB; she wears the hat of “columnist,” arguably absolving her from the profession’s constraints of both accurate and impartial reporting.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I am reporting that, evidently, Mr. Corsi’s book endorsed the work originating here on “jbjd” focused on filing citizen complaints of election fraud with state A’sG in those states with existing laws requiring candidate eligibility for office in order to access the ballot.  However, I have not read his book.)


DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2)

January 12, 2011

©2011 jbjd

DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) provided a more sophisticated legal analysis of simple charges I first raised on this blog in 2008 when I advised people investigating Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS to ignore information posted on the web site “Fight the Smears” (“FTS”), which is just a paid political advertisement.  Now, by taking the facts available in the public record, including that FTS was copyrighted in 2007, and correlating these public facts to specific provisions of the U.S. Code; I spelled out that FTS was devised to promote and support the candidacy of Barack Obama, first, as the Presidential nominee wannabe of the D Party and then as its nominee; and is now used by the DNC Corporation to sustain the image of its current President (and, perhaps to promote and support his future run for office).   But the legal analysis offered in that article still left this question unanswered. Even assuming the COLB posted on FTS was only created as a feature of that on-line advertising campaign; is its appearance on that site proscribed by law?

DECODER-RINGS (2 of 2) addresses this last critical concern.

Here is just a partial index for TITLE 18 > PART I (CRIMES) > CHAPTER 47, FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS.  (We will only use Part 1 for this analysis but here is a link to Part II, FYI.  PART II—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (§§ 3001—3771).)

  • § 1001. Statements or entries generally
  • § 1002. Possession of false papers to defraud United States
  • § 1003. Demands against the United States
  • § 1004. Certification of checks
  • § 1005. Bank entries, reports and transactions
  • § 1006. Federal credit institution entries, reports and transactions
  • § 1007. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation transactions
  • § 1010. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Federal Housing Administration transactions
  • § 1011. Federal land bank mortgage transactions
  • § 1012. Department of Housing and Urban Development transactions
  • § 1013. Farm loan bonds and credit bank debentures
  • § 1014. Loan and credit applications generally; renewals and discounts; crop insurance
  • § 1015. Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry
  • § 1016. Acknowledgment of appearance or oath
  • § 1017. Government seals wrongfully used and instruments wrongfully sealed
  • § 1018. Official certificates or writings
  • § 1019. Certificates by consular officers
  • § 1020. Highway projects
  • § 1021. Title records
  • § 1022. Delivery of certificate, voucher, receipt for military or naval property
  • § 1023. Insufficient delivery of money or property for military or naval service
  • § 1024. Purchase or receipt of military, naval, or veteran’s facilities property
  • § 1025. False pretenses on high seas and other waters
  • § 1026. Compromise, adjustment, or cancellation of farm indebtedness
  • § 1027. False statements and concealment of facts in relation to documents required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
  • § 1028. Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information
  • § 1028A. Aggravated identity theft
  • § 1029. Fraud and related activity in connection with access devices
  • § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
  • § 1031. Major fraud against the United States
  • § 1032. Concealment of assets from conservator, receiver, or liquidating agent of financial institution
  • § 1033. Crimes by or affecting persons engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce
  • § 1034. Civil penalties and injunctions for violations of section 1033
  • § 1035. False statements relating to health care matters
  • § 1036. Entry by false pretenses to any real property, vessel, or aircraft of the United States or secure area of any airport or seaport
  • § 1037. Fraud and related activity in connection with electronic mail
  • § 1038. False information and hoaxes
  • § 1039. Fraud and related activity in connection with obtaining confidential phone records information of a covered entity
  • § 1040. Fraud in connection with major disaster or emergency benefits

But to answer the question concerning the legality of the  FTS COLB under the U.S. Code, we will be concentrating primarily on section 1028.

§ 1028. Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information

(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section—

(1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document;

(2) knowingly transfers an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority;

(4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States;

(7) knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(c) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that—

(1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document is or appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance or the document-making implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document;

(2) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) of this section; or

(3) either—

(A) the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce, including the transfer of a document by electronic means; or

(B) the means of identification, identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement is transported in the mail in the course of the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section.

(d) In this section and section 1028A

(1) the term “authentication feature” means any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code, image, sequence of numbers or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination with another feature is used by the issuing authority on an identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified;

(2) the term “document-making implement” means any implement, impression, template, computer file, computer disc, electronic device, or computer hardware or software, that is specifically configured or primarily used for making an identification document, a false identification document, or another document-making implement;

(3) the term “identification document” means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, political subdivision of a foreign government, an international governmental or an international quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals

(4) the term “false identification document” means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that—

(A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and

(B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization;

(5) the term “false authentication feature” means an authentication feature that—

(A) is genuine in origin, but, without the authorization of the issuing authority, has been tampered with or altered for purposes of deceit;

(B) is genuine, but has been distributed, or is intended for distribution, without the authorization of the issuing authority and not in connection with a lawfully made identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to which such authentication feature is intended to be affixed or embedded by the respective issuing authority; or

(C) appears to be genuine, but is not;

(6) the term “issuing authority”—

(A) means any governmental entity or agency that is authorized to issue identification documents, means of identification, or authentication features; and

(B) includes the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international government or quasi-governmental organization;

(7) the term “means of identification” means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any—

(A) name, social security number, date of birth, official State or government issued driver’s license or identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number;

(C) unique electronic identification number, address, or routing code; or

(D) telecommunication identifying information or access device (as defined in section 1029 (e));

(9) the term “produce” includes alter, authenticate, or assemble;

(10) the term “transfer” includes selecting an identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement and placing or directing the placement of such identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement on an online location where it is available to others;

(11) the term “State” includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other commonwealth, possession, or territory of the United States; and

(12) the term “traffic” means—

(A) to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value; or

(B) to make or obtain control of with intent to so transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of.

(f) Attempt and Conspiracy.— Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.

Phew!  To re-cap, it’s a crime to undertake the conduct described in (a) under circumstances spelled out in (c)Attempting or conspiring to commit the crimes spelled out in (a) under circumstances spelled out in (c) becomes a crime according to (f).  In (d), we find definitions for some of the terms in (a) and (c).  But many of the “terms of art” used in 1028, such as “produce,” “transfer,” or “possess” are either defined only in a limited manner or not defined directly in the law.  So, we will look at the U.S. Attorneys Criminal Resource Manual.  (Note:  In the past, I have indicated that when seeking the true meaning of prominent terms within the text of a law, look to the “Definitions” section in that law.  Indeed, finding a word in this section tells the reader, this word is important.   However, §1028 contains only a limited ‘definitions’ section.  So, go to the manual that tells U.S. Attorneys how to practice (investigating and prosecuting) cases brought under this section of the Code.)

US Attorneys > USAM > Title 9 > Criminal Resource Manual 1511
1509 Operative Terms—18 U.S.C. § 1028

Section 1028 of Title 18 has three basic operative offenses. They are to “produce,” “transfer,” or “possess.” With the exception of simple possession of a United States identification document which was stolen or produced without lawful authority, which is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(6), possession is always coupled with the purpose to “use unlawfully,” “transfer unlawfully” or “use to defraud the United States.” Hence, it is necessary to understand the scope of the words “produce,” “transfer,” “possess,” “use,” and “defraud the United States.”

A.    “Produce” is defined in section 1028(d)(2) to include “alter, authenticate, or assemble.” Obviously, since the word “include” is used in the definition, the term is not limited to these three concepts but also encompasses all forms of counterfeiting, forging, making, manufacturing, issuing, and publishing. A government employee whose duty is to simply issue identification documents (i.e., he does not manufacture or assemble the documents) is, by issuing the document, authenticating it. If such an employee were to authenticate such documents without lawful authority, it would constitute an offense under section 1028(a)(1).

B.    “Transfer” is not defined in section 1028, but is intended to reach those persons who “traffic” in stolen and false identification. It includes the acts of selling, pledging, distributing, giving, loaning or otherwise transferring. It does not require any exchange of consideration (anything of value) for the transfer. To transfer “unlawfully” means the transfer of an identification document in a manner forbidden by federal, state, or local law.

C.    “Possess” is not defined in section 1028 but is to be construed broadly. It includes the concept of “receipt” but is not limited thereto. Constructive possession would also be included.

D.    “Use” is not defined in section 1028 but is to be broadly construed and includes presenting, displaying, certifying, or otherwise giving currency to an identification document so that it would be accepted as an identification document in any manner. To use “unlawfully” means that the document was used in a manner that violates a federal, state or local law, or is part of a misrepresentation that violates a law. For example, section 1028(a)(3) would be violated if the possessor intended to use five or more documents to make representations in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

E.     “Defraud the United States” is not defined in section 1028 but is not intended to be limited to misrepresentations related to financial fraud. It would also include the misrepresentative use of false identification to obstruct functions of the government (e.g., display to a government investigator a false pilot’s license or someone else’s driver’s license for the purpose of trying to deceive or mislead the investigator).

[cited in USAM 9-64.400]

Okay, so assuming the COLB displayed on FTS, the political advertising web site, was knowingly produced, transferred, possessed, and used in relation to the FTS political ad campaign to fool people into believing the state of HI issued a document recording the birth of Barack Obama, is its display on FTS legal under the U.S. Code?  Absolutely.

Both the plain language of the statute – under (d)(3), this image of a COLB cannot be considered to be an “identification document” where it was not “made or issued by or under the authority of” “a State, or political subdivision of a State”; but by a candidate seeking public office and then, his political party – and the SCOTUS’ reverence to political speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, recently renewed in Citizens United – “The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether” – should convince you why.

But why bother to conduct this extended legal analysis as to the legitimacy of any ‘information’ visible on the image of the COLB posted on the  FTS site, when the language therein already plainly warns, (under the laws in the state of HI) “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE“?

In sum, between the clear accreditations in the footer of the FTS internet web site identifying under the U.S. Code, this is a paid political advertisement; recent holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court protecting false political speech; and the obvious redactions on the face of the image of the FTS COLB rendering it invalid as a matter of (HI) law; its appearance as a so-called ‘identification document’ on that site is not illegal, precisely because as a matter of law, it identifies nothing.  Indeed, given the patently obvious worthlessness of the posted COLB, it’s as if the site owners have announced to those voters who have expressed concern as to whether Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be the President of the United States: ‘We are banking the political future of the Democratic Party on the fact you are too ignorant to grasp when we insist the “birth certificate” posted on FTS proves, he is, we are not telling the truth.’

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

Freedom costs.


CLUBS RULE

February 19, 2010

UPDATE 04.14.12: As of today, neither the Texas Democratic Party nor the Republican Party of Texas is registered with the Secretary of State as a corporation; limited partnership; or limited liability company. In other words, they remain private clubs.


NOTE: Reading this article in conjunction with TEXAS TWO-STEP enhances its significance.

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

In the summer of 2008, before I knew half as much about the political process as I have learned since that time, I submitted a comment to the PUMA PAC blog, containing this epiphany:  the Democratic Party is only a club.

See, I had just ‘learned’ there exists a category of states I dubbed ‘vote binding states,’ which are those states that have enacted laws essentially saying, ‘In our state, being a “pledged delegate” means, you must vote for the person voters elected you to represent, on the roll call vote on the floor of the party Convention.’  (Did you know, DNC rules only require pledged delegates to use their “good conscience”?)  (“All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”)  (http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/fb3fa279c88bf1094b_qom6bei0o.pdf, p. 23.)

I saw that BO’s people were harassing HRC pledged delegates to change their votes to him, in advance of the Convention.  In other words, in these vote binding states, BO’s people were enticing HRC’s people to break the law.  So, I drafted letters to state Attorneys General in the 13 (thirteen) vote binding states I identified, complaining about this illegal conduct from BO’s camp.  Next, I needed to recruit voters from those vote binding states to send these letters.  But first, I had to explain to these recruits, in lay terms, what I was talking about.  For this, I developed a primer.  And in the primer, here is how I summarized the hierarchy of commandments applying to pledged delegates: state laws trump the rules made up by the political party, every time.  http://jbjd.wordpress.com/to-stop-harassment-of-clinton-pledged-delegates-in-vote-binding-states/

That’s when it hit me: the Democrats (and Republicans) are nothing more than private clubs.

#309 jbjd on 08.18.08 at 3:59 am

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT COMMENT I HAVE EVER WRITTEN OR WILL EVER WRITE ON THIS BLOG… PLEASE REFER OTHERS TO THIS COMMENT THROUGHOUT THE DAY, IN SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS… I AM BUSY WRITING YOUR STATE-SPECIFIC LETTERS TO THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL, TO BE COPIED TO OUR DEAR STATE DELEGATES PLEDGED TO HRC, TO LET THEM KNOW, WE HAVE THEIR BACKS…

***************************************************************************
DECONSTRUCTING DEMOCRACY AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

My Dear Fellow PUMAs,

If you are going crazy trying to figure out what’s happening with the Democratic Party, join the club. I’m not kidding. Join the club. Because it just hit me, the way to understand this Democratic nominating process is to think of The Democratic Party as what it is – a club. And the only thing that makes this club so special is that it was able to get permission from each of the 50 states to collect campaign contributions and put the names of the candidates it wants to hold office onto the state’s election ballot. That’s it. That’s all there is. Let me explain.

According to Party – or rather, club rules, presidential candidates are chosen at the club’s nominating convention. Afterward, the club submits the name of its candidate for POTUS to the appropriate state official in each state – usually the Secretary of State – as part of an application to get onto the state’s general election ballot, in compliance with that state’s laws. In fact, states only allow the candidate for POTUS chosen by a “major political party” to submit ballot papers so late in the game because club rules and by-laws require their candidates to be chosen at a “nominating convention.”

The club determines who will be its candidate for POTUS on the general election ballot through a vote at the convention by people it calls “delegates,” which delegates obtained that status through an allocation process set by the club. That is, the club places the names of its proposed candidates on state ballots in the primary and caucus elections and then, in exchange for receiving a specific number of votes in that process, the candidates are assigned a delegate to vote for them at the convention. Most state delegates are given a special status, called “pledged.” According to club rules, when these pledged delegates cast their votes at the convention, they should use their best judgment to represent the wishes of the voters based on whose votes they were elected. Historically, by counting these delegates pledged to each candidate, the club has usually been able to predict which of its candidates will end up with the nomination at the end of the primary and caucus process, since one candidate usually garners enough pledged delegates to surpass the number the club set as the requirement at the convention. But not this year. Neither club candidate – BO or HRC – was assigned enough delegates through the primary and caucus process to secure the nomination at the convention. Luckily, the club had in place rules whereby this deficit in delegates could be made up by special delegates commonly referred to as super delegates who get to cast their votes for either candidate at the convention.

The Democratic Party set up volumes of rules and by-laws that govern all these operations, with auspicious sounding titles like “Charter,” “Constitution,” “Model Rules to Delegate Selection Process,” and “Call to the Convention.” But here’s the thing about all these club rules: they can be changed at any time. According to club rules. So, if like me, you have read club rules and believe, as I do, that members of the club have not played fair throughout this presidential nominating process, am I saying there is nothing you can do about it? Hardly.

Remember what I said in the beginning: the state only lets the club get onto official state ballots as long as they follow state rules. And unlike club rules, when states make rules, they’re called laws. (TO BE CONTINUED…)
©jbjd

(In the interest of full disclosure, let me say, I was banned from that blog just days after this comment was posted.)

In the 1 1/2 years since I experienced this 3:00 AM epiphany that ‘club’ is just another word for ‘political party,’ I have learned (and written) volumes about the DNC.  Now, I know it by its official name:  the Democratic National Committee Services Corporation.  That’s right; it’s a corporation.  That’s why I now regularly refer to this business entity as the D Corporation (in case you hadn’t noticed).

Before I initiated the present campaign to submit document requests to the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) under the Texas open records law, I had to determine whether the TDP was a covered entity under that law.  First, I tried to ascertain its legal construct. I hit a brick wall.  Luckily, through other means, I was able to conclude, the TDP is subject to provisions of the open records law, regardless of its organizational construct.  Then, after the campaign to obtain records was underway, a loyal Texan and I continued to research the nature of the TDP until we got answers.

So, what is the legal construct of the TDP?  Let me give you a hint what it’s not.

Here are the documents returned by the TX Secretary of State web site after a paid on-line search of documents held by that office, for an entity called Texas Democratic Party (“Find Entity Name Search”).  (Recall that the Certification of BO’s Nomination signed by TDP Chair, Attorney Boyd Richie, and submitted to state election officials to get them to print the name of Barack Obama next to the D on the general election ballot; was printed on letterhead showing the name, “Texas Democratic Party.”) (See this document and Mr. Richie’s accompanying letter, also on TDP letterhead, on p. 3 of the citizen complaint of election fraud to AG, in REMEMBER the ALAMO )

Did you notice what name is missing?  Yep; the Texas Democratic  Party.  In the words of Randall Dillard, Director of Communications, Office of the TX SoS:  “There is no requirement in state law that political parties organize as a business entity and since the parties are not found in a search of our records, they are not organized as corporations, limited partnerships or limited liability companies.”

Whoa!  If the TDP is none of these then, what is it?

Well, I tried a Google search for “clubs in Texas.”  And look at what showed up at the bottom of page 6  (not to be confused with Page Six, the NY Post scandal column, http://www.nypost.com/pagesix): Clubs and Organizations:  Texas Democratic Party

So, I clicked on that link, which led me to all of the Clubs and Organizations organized under the big top of the TDP.

I clicked on the link in the lower right-hand corner, txdemocrats.org.  Look who was staring me in the face.

Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party.

In sum, here is the answer to the question, what is the TDP.  It is the club mystically possessed with the power to get TX election officials to print the name of Barack Obama next to the D on the state’s 2008 general election ballot based only on the word of its Chair that he is Constitutionally eligible for POTUS, notwithstanding no one in the club is willing to disclose, why.

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

Freedom costs.


OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF BABES

January 6, 2010

UPDATED 04.17.10: In the cite linked to President Washington’s papers (below), the date of his swearing in is correctly given as April 1789.  I incorrectly wrote he was sworn in, in March. (Here is another historical reference to that event.  http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pinotable.html )

UPDATED 01.06.10: In a parenthetical comment below, I mistakenly said the first selection of Presidential Electors occurred in November 1788. However, the states first Appointed Electors in January 1789; and these Electors voted for George Washington for President in February. I correctly stated, Mr. Washington was inaugurated in March. http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/presidential/electoral.html
**************************************************************************************************

Students attending this inner city high school not only are racially and ethnically diverse but also hail from several other native countries. For the most part, the students supported the Presidential candidacy of Barack Obama. Some of them even met the future Commander in Chief when he came to town during the primary campaign, their encounters captured forever in photographs proudly displayed in the lobby of the building. Pictures of Michelle appear there, too, under a banner proclaiming her, “Our Queen.”

At the last minute, I was asked to teach American History to 3 (three) classes of 9th graders deep in this heart of Obama territory.

Freshmen are a separate breed. Cocky and in your face, they virtually dare you to successfully re-direct their terrific energy to academic pursuit. But nothing equals the thrill of watching them learn, once you get their attention.

Here is how I got their attention.

I wrote my name on the board, billing myself as a “Guest Lecturer.” This was the provocative title for my presentation: “You Will Never Vote for President of the United States.”

The reaction from my students was boisterous and anticipated. ‘Oh yeah? I’m gonna vote for President as soon as I turn 18.’ And, ‘I thought you were allowed to vote for President as long as you were a citizen!’ I calmed the crowd by repeating the history lesson I was sure they had already been taught but forgot: the President of the United States is not elected directly by the people but by the Electors. In the general election on the next Tuesday after the first Monday in November, voters only select these Electors; but Appointed Electors don’t vote for President until the 15th of December, the dates set for these events in the Constitution.

For approximately the next 45 minutes, I walked my students through the election process spelled out by the Drafters of our Constitution and re-printed in their history books, barely recognizable as it was carried out in the 2008 general election.

‘What are the 3 Constitutional qualifications to be POTUS?’ The students proudly listed all three without prompting. 1) You have to be 35 years old. 2) You have to live in the United States for 14 years. 3) You have to be a Natural Born Citizen. I wrote these on the board. (I went into a side discussion about that 14-year requirement – I have discussed this issue previously on this blog, as well as other blogs – reasoning, the Drafters wanted to ensure that as much as possible, the President, also fulfilling the role of Commander in Chief, was completely intertwined with being American, attached to both her ideals and to the country. They envisioned such loyalty could only derive from being immersed for a fixed time in the American experience. So, why 14 years? Well, the first Continental Congress convened in 1774, establishing the first time (representatives from) the original 13 (thirteen) colonies came together to ponder mutual concerns viz a viz the British, thus evidencing their psychological mindset as a unified ‘nation.’ (One year later, the “shot heard round the world” was fired between British troops and American rebels at Lexington Green, MA, in 1775; and the Declaration of Independence was written in Philadelphia, PA in 1776.) The drafting of the Constitution occurred in 1787 and, allowing for ratification by the requisite 9 (nine) states, the Drafters anticipated Electors would, for the first time, vote for President in November 1788. (The swearing-in would take place in March of 1789.) Thus, 14 (fourteen) years had passed between the time the mindset of ‘being American’ first coalesced, and election of the first President (1788 minus 1774).)

I charted the modern process of electing the President through the intervention of political parties, stressing the fact political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution. I described the mission of the party is to get the name of the person they want fronting for the party or, club, printed onto state general election ballots, an indispensible step to getting the public to forget, they are not voting for the candidate but for the Electors in the general election. Because only the name of the nominee of the political party appears on the ballot next to the party designation. This means, casting a vote for the ‘person’ whose name appears on the ballot next to the D or the R is more correctly characterized as voting for the Electors for that person.

So, who are these Electors we vote for who go on to elect our President? Well, generally speaking, they are chosen by the political party based on their demonstrated loyalty to the party, as evidenced in terms of hours spent supporting party activities such as hosting fundraisers for party backed candidates; or providing financial support to the party. The names of these Elector candidates are then submitted to state election officials by each political party. The number of Electors each party gets to submit is based on the number of Congressional districts in that state, plus 2 more for the number of US Senators. And in states like CA, in the 2008 election, this meant, 55 names. Obviously, printing the names on the ballot all of the candidates for Presidential Elector put forward by the parties is prohibitive. So, in each state, only the name of the party nominee is printed on the ballot, and not the names of the party Electors. (I pointed out; each state enacts the election laws prescribing what names may be printed on its ballots.)

How is the party’s Presidential nominee chosen? Usually, s/he is selected according to the results of party contests called primaries and caucuses held in each state to elect delegates who will vote at the party convention; and, finally, the party convention. Summing up the results for the D candidates for POTUS in the 2008 Presidential preference primaries and caucuses, I reported, on June 3, 2008 when all of the primaries and caucuses were over, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama had failed to reach the requisite number of pledged delegates set by the Democratic National Committee Services Corporation – DNC for short – to guarantee the nomination for their club – of course I inform them, she won more popular votes AND pledged delegates as the result of primary and caucus votes cast directly for her – so the rules called for the difference to be made up at the floor roll call at the Convention held in Denver, CO, in August 2008, by votes cast by party ‘elders’ called Superdelegates, who could vote for anyone they wanted. But for some reason, the Corporation backed Barack Obama well in advance of the Convention, even foregoing the traditional floor vote at the Convention in order to make his nomination a fait accompli. I repeated several times, the DNC Services Corporation is not a government agency but more like a private club, which means, they can make or break their own rules with impunity.

Once the DNC selected Barack Obama as their candidate for President, they had to get state election officials to print his name next to the D on the general election ballot. The DNC (and, in some states, the Chair of the state D party) submitted these Certifications of Nomination to election officials in each state swearing Barack Obama was the duly nominated DNC candidate for President and was Constitutionally qualified for the job.

I pointed out that, the Constitution says Electors will be appointed by the Governors of the states. I reconciled how electing Electors through a popular vote in the general election ends up in an Appointment. That is, the final vote tallies in the general election (for Electors for the candidate whose name appears on the ballot) are Certified by the Governors, who send Certificates of Ascertainment listing the names of the Electors (previously submitted to state election officials by the political parties) and the number of votes cast for them, as well as for the losing candidates for Elector, to the National Archivist, effectively making that Certification of popular votes cast for Electors in the general election, the Constitutional act of Appointment.

More D than R Electors were elected and, therefore, Appointed in the November 2008 general election. And all of the D Electors who voted in December 2008 cast their votes for Barack Obama, the nominee for President of the D party. But this was hardly surprising. Because the only way they got to be Electors for the party in the first place was by promising the party, if Appointed, they would cast their votes for the party nominee. However, I emphasized that nothing in the Constitution requires Electors to vote for the nominee of the political party, which only made sense since, as I said, the Drafters never mentioned political parties in the Constitution.

Congress ratified the vote of the Electors in January and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swore in Barack Obama as President of the United States days after that. All prescribed precisely by the Constitution.

At this point, the students think the lecture is done. But I am just getting to the best part.

‘Wait a minute,’ I challenged, looking back at the board. ‘At the beginning of this lecture, we listed these 3 qualifications for President spelled out in the Constitution, right? You have to be 35 years of age; you have to live in the U.S. for 14 years; and you have to be a NBC.’ Yes. ‘Well, throughout this whole election process we just described, when did we mention that anyone vetted the candidates for President to ensure they satisfied this Constitutional eligibility for the job?’ Silence.

Now, I taught the class, no provision found in any law, state or federal; or in the Constitution requires any state official to determine whether the candidate for President is Constitutionally eligible for the job. None. The Constitution says, the Electors have to elect the President but remains silent as to vetting for Constitutional qualifications. The Constitution requires Congress to ratify the Electors’ vote for President but says nothing about verifying beforehand that the the person they elect is Constitutionally qualified for the job. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swears the President into office, under no Constitutional obligation to determine beforehand whether s/he was qualified for office.

And that led me to the states that require in order to get the candidate’s name printed on the ballot; s/he must be eligible for the job.

I described that some states enacted election laws that only allow the names of eligible candidates to be printed on state election ballots. And some of these states, like HI and SC, enacted laws saying the party must swear, in writing, their nominee for President meets all Constitutional qualifications for the job. (I point out; requiring this statement from the party is kind of superfluous because, according to the operating rules of the DNC Services Corporation, the Presidential nominee of the party must be Constitutionally qualified for the job. Then again, given their exhibited propensity to break their own rules…) I also reiterated, while the law says the candidate has to be eligible for the job to appear on the ballot, no corresponding law requires any government official to check.

The students were aware that Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-California) was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives; several knew the position of Speaker is 3rd in line of Presidential succession. They were unaware that in 2008, the DNC Services Corporation gave Ms. Pelosi the civilian job of Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention. Acting in the non-governmental role of Chair, her chief responsibility was to sign those official DNC Certifications of Nomination swearing Barack Obama was Constitutionally qualified for the job of President of the United States, and send these sworn Certifications to state election officials to print the name of Barack Obama next to the D on their general election ballots.

I reported that questions had arisen during the primary campaign as to whether Barack Obama was a Natural Born Citizen. Students were aware of the controversy. I informed them that several people had even concluded, the documentation available in the public record failed to establish that he is a U.S Citizen, let alone that he was Natural Born. Yet, Ms. Pelosi signed those Certifications of Nomination and sent these to state election officials to get them to print his name on the general election ballot.

‘Some of us wondered; given this controversy about the circumstances of Mr. Obama’s birth, on what documentary basis did Ms. Pelosi ascertain he was a Natural Born Citizen before swearing he was Constitutionally eligible for the job? So, we wrote to Ms. Pelosi and asked her. I even arranged to have one of these letters hand-delivered to her office in Washington. Know what she said?’ Every pair of eyes was now on me. ‘Actually, she didn’t say anything. She ignored us.’ A knowing sound of ‘ooooo’ filled the room. ‘What do you think that means?’ The students smiled. ‘That means, she’s busted; she didn’t check whether he is a Natural Born Citizen before she swore he was.’

I shrugged my shoulders. ’Could be. But people wanted to know for sure. So, now they wrote to Alice Germond, the Secretary to the DNC Services Corporation, who had co-signed those Certifications. Again, they asked on what documentary basis she had determined Barack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen before sending those Certifications of Nomination swearing he was, to state election officials to get his name printed on the ballot. But this time they asserted the right to view whatever documentation the party used, under what’s called the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), the federal law that gives the public the right to see the documents our government has on file.’

‘Did she answer the question?’ ‘No; but she didn’t ignore the voters, either. Ms. Germond forwarded the letters addressed to her, to the General Counsel or, lawyer for the DNC Services Corporation, Joseph Sandler. And he did write back.’ The kids were at the edge of their seats. ‘What did he say!’ ‘Well, he explained that the DNC is not a government agency but rather a private club and, as such, is not subject to state or federal document disclosure laws. He advised people to direct their questions about the qualifications of candidates whose names appear on the ballot, to their state election officials. And he still didn’t answer the question.’ Now, a loud gasp rose up around the room. ‘What do you think that means?’ Without missing a beat, they blurted out, ‘That means they did check whether Barack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen; and he’s not!’

This illustrates another reason I love teaching 9th graders: they are not yet sophisticated enough to abandon their common sense.


NEVER LESS THAN a TREASON (1 of 2)

August 25, 2009

© 2009 jbjd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 2 OF 2.)

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 57 other followers