I conceived the idea of establishing standing in federal court through the use of a military Plaintiff, back in November. That’s when I wrote the lengthy memo entitled, FIND OUT WHETHER BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE II OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND STOP THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FROM VOTING FOR HIM, IF HE IS NOT! My goal in this memo was to explain to lay people that these legal cases already filed regarding BO’s eligibility hadn’t gone anywhere because they were procedurally infirm and not because the issue of his Constitutional eligibility was substantively baseless. And I wanted to propose a means to circumvent one of these procedural infirmities: using military Plaintiffs to establish standing in federal court. (I explained in the memo that, BO had provided a primer of sorts as to how to overcome any problems with standing; in the Opposition he submitted to the Court in the Berg case!)

I posted my memo on this blog (original posting date was November 14). Members of Team jbjd also distributed my memo throughout the blogosphere; as well as to members of the MSM, and attorneys and groups already engaged in trying to ‘out’ the fact BO is not a NBC, including Leo Donofrio; Orly Taitz; Phil Berg; and Edwin Vieira. (I called Orly Taitz and Phil Berg personally.) I had hoped someone would pick up on my idea that the military Plaintiff would satisfy any objections to standing; and run with it. But no one did. A couple of weeks later, I followed up with several attorneys, including Orly Taitz. Now, she informed me, using military Plaintiffs was an “old” idea. I reminded her; I was the person who brought this idea to her, weeks ago! She also claimed, she had several military Plaintiffs who had already signed Releases allowing her to file a Complaint on their behalf. But she hadn’t drafted a Complaint; she asked me to do this.

So, I drafted the military Complaint. The legal theory is mine; the SUMMARY OF THE CASE is mine; and the FACTS are all mine. Indeed, Orly had proposed I should just copy the FACTS section from one of her cases; but I said no. None of the other cases I read contained actual ‘facts.’ Rather, they contained rumors, theories, and hyperbole disguised as facts. Besides, my “FACTS” had to support the theory of my case, which was different from all of the other cases, in these 2 regards. First, I was not claiming BO is not a NBC. Instead, I was only claiming, Plaintiffs have no idea as to his legal status. Second, I was not asking the court to order him to prove whether he is a NBC though the production of documents. Instead, I was only asking the court to Declare his status; how to do this was up to the court.

So, now I just had to fill in the information for the military Plaintiffs she selected. That is, she would send information on a Plaintiff and I had to identify the local federal district court; and amend the Complaint to include his personal information. On January 3, 2009, I notified her of a problem with one of her proposed Plaintiffs, and sent her the following email.

from jbjd
to Orly Taitz
date Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 7:24 PM

Do you realize * is 77? I cannot say he is subject to recall; he is not a good Plaintiff.


Here is her response to my concern.

Orly Taitz
to jbjd
date Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 7:57 PM

Let’s keep him, he is extremely ewll known and putspoken. Let the judge kick him out, he will take the country apart

Orly Taitz DDS Esq

So, she had her Complaint, filled in with the name of 3 Plaintiffs she chose. But she did not file the Complaint. I told her, if she did not file this Complaint then, I would post it on line so that someone else could file this.

On January 12, 2009, I realized there was a problem with the Release Orly had required her potential Plaintiffs to sign, creating a conflict with the Complaint I conceived and drafted; which conflict is spelled out in this email.

From: jbjd
To: “Orly Taitz”
Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 6:45 PM

The Consent Form posted on your site needs to be revised if you use the Complaint I drafted. Because the Complaint only states that Plaintiffs have a good faith belief and understanding Defendant is not a NBC, whereas the Consent Form explicitly says, he is not.

The case I fashioned is not intended to require Plaintiffs to prove Defendant’s legal status; rather, it leaves that heavy lifting up to the Court.


Orly did not revise her Release; so the conflict remains. Military Plaintiffs admit in her Release they will disobey orders and will be accused of treason; my Complaint predicts no such conduct. And evidently, this does not sit right with some members of our military, who would otherwise be willing Plaintiffs. One such Plaintiff who had previously signed her Release, subsequently requested my intervention to revoke his Consent to be a Plaintiff. I was able to rescind that Release.

Still, she would not file the Complaint.

Phil Berg filed a version of a military Complaint using Hollister, retired military, as his Plaintiff; and an Interpleader, totally different from what I had in mind. BO filed his Opposition. Orly sent me another email, now coming up with another justification as to why she had not filed a military Complaint.

Orly Taitz
to jbjd
date Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:12 AM
subject Motion to dismiss Berg’s military claim

I was waiting to see what BO’s lead attorney Robert Bauer will write in response to Berg’s military complaint. As I expected, in his motion to dismiss he notes several hurdles common for all of these cases.
One of them, that the court has no jurisdiction and the plaintiffs have no standing. As discharged members of the military their standing is questionable. He is saying that any injury is highly speculative. Bottom line, the decision by the judge will be merely an advisory opinion, which is impermissible. Even though Dec relief does not require injury in fact, there still has to be a standing and real controversy. He is saying that according to Lujan v Wildlife the damage is not imminent, but rather conjectural or hypothetical. Even in Dec relief the has to be a concrete or actual invasion of a particular right. I suspect the judge will decide for BO. That is why I am still working on proper court, jurisdiction, standing and points and authorities. If I go with guns blazing without proper legal ground, the case will be res judicata and deemed to be heard on the merits. We will loose both the plaintiffs and the whole line of attack. We can’t afford to do that. I might be able to go to SCOTUS on this one on original jurisdiction. One of my active people has met with the top brass at the Pentagon. We are waiting to see their response, will they let an active military to seek dec relief on this issue without exposing him to court martial. It is not just him: there is a family and children. It is a catch 22: retired military will be dismissed quickly, but active faces serious repercussions.

Here is my reply.

date Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:19 AM
subject Re: Motion to dismiss Berg’s military claim


“As I expected, in his motion to dismiss he notes several hurdles common for all of these cases.” Then why did you expand the set of Plaintiffs to include a 77-year-old Plaintiff; or someone retired as opposed to on inactive duty status? If you will note my original memo on the subject, the ideal Plaintiff would be someone about to be or anticipated to be called up to active duty status. National guard would have been great. You expanded the set of Plaintiffs, against my advice.

“One of my active people has met with the top brass at the Pentagon. We are waiting to see their response, will they let an active military to seek dec relief on this issue without exposing him to court martial. It is not just him: there is a family and children. It is a catch 22: retired military will be dismissed quickly, but active faces serious repercussions.” Let me remind you that, the Plaintiff who faces no real jeopardy is not a valid Plaintiff; the case brought by a Plaintiff in no jeopardy fails to present a valid case or controversy to the Court. In other words, by claiming you are attempting to insulate the Plaintiff from liability in advance of filing the military Complaint, you are essentially depriving Plaintiff of the standing required to sue in the first place, and the Court of the jurisdiction to hear the suit.

I will read the response. I have already been asked to comment on my blog.


Today, Orly posted this on her blog. I inserted my comments.

Aside from 4 cases mentioned above, I have about 50 consent forms from the servicemen, however I wasn’t rushing to file, as I wanted to see a response from Obama’s lead attorney Robert Bauer, whom I personally call Der. Gebbels machine, I wanted to see his motion to dismiss Phil Berg’s (Hollister) and Mario Apuzzo’s (Kerchner) cases, I wanted to see the arguments. A definition of insanity, is when you are doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results. No sense of filling exactly the same case. (My case has nothing to do with any of these other cases.) I hope that those cases are not dismissed, but what Bauer is saying among other things, is that the plaintiffs are retired military and therefor a chance of them being called to active duty pursuant Obama’s orders is highly hypothetical, and in order to show standing, you need to show an actual controversy. (My case called for military about to be deployed; check out the Memo posted in November. Orly insisted on using a 77-year-old Plaintiff, against my objections; check out her email, posted above. And her Release includes retired military!) A judge cannot give an advisory opinion for hypothetical situations. (My case is not hypothetical; Berg’s claims that a retired military could be recalled makes his case subject to a claim the case is hypothetical.) Due to the above, I am reworking my military case. (You never had a military case!) I feel it is better to take a bit more time and be better prepared, then go with guns blazing and be shot out of the court. (Except when you file subpoenas under an executive order that gives you no rights of enforcement…)

Liar, liar.

11 Responses to LIAR, LIAR

  1. wodiej says:

    jbjd, thank you for your countless hours of hard work on this despite not getting the credit you deserve. Your passion and determination is honorable and an indication of your love for liberty and justice for all.

    wodiej: You are very welcome. You are right; I do what I do because it’s the right thing to do. But I admit, psychic benefits help. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. cpabooks says:

    jbjd, I hope that you will file your case as you originally crafted it. You have obviously worked out the standing issue and if you can get an active military plaintiff, you have achieved the biggest hurdle.
    The internet is abuzz about the military Judge Pohl. I wonder what is going to happen with that.

  3. cpabooks says:

    Leo Donofrio as been researching the military liability question and has other ideas:

    Go to: Donofrio writes:

    “My research thus far (watch blog for in depth post on the topic) leads me to believe that active military may be able to bring Federal citizen suits regarding POTUS eligibility due to their unique standing with regard to “injury in fact” in that they are alleging specific possible harm different than that of the ordinary citizen class. These are the two “standing” hurdles that other federal Obama and McCain eligibility suits failed to overcome.”

    cpabooks: Yes; and, now that you have read my present post, you know where Leo ‘got the idea.’ He posted his ‘epiphany’ two days ago; I posted my military memo 2 1/2 months ago, and sent it to him. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Ted says:


  5. ccc says:

    Jbjd: Are you a practicing attorney?
    Our country is in imminent danger. Why don’t you, Donofrio, Orly, Berg, all do a phone conference together and come up with a workable suit? Why does one have to be the “first one who came up with the idea”? Our liberty is at stake, ego’s should step aside.
    Thank you for all of your efforts. You are all patriots.

    ccc: Thank you for your suggestion. However, people in need of legal help should seek out their own attorneys. I have no faith in the legal acumen of the people you mention merely because they post on the internet. I read their work, conduct my own research, and make up my own mind. That’s what I wish everyone did. My concern about ‘who came first,’ is that, readers too often follow some of these internet pundits as if they know what they are talking about just because they post on the internet. I decided to provide a historical context to communication between other of these internet lawyers and me so as to educate the reader as to who has original ideas versus who copies ideas of others; or who researches the law before posting opinions, versus who acts off the cuff in the guise of well-thought-out legal analysis. If you come to trust what any of us says then, you might choose to act based on our recommendations. I want to make sure you are not jumping off a cliff, just because someone is popular; or has a pretty web site; or a pretty face. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. ccc says:

    I agree that people should seek out their own attorney if they are to file a suit. The problem I see, is that there are less than a handful of attorney’s getting involved at all. I don’t know who has the best qualifications, but if knowledgeable researchers like you could get together with those attorney’s willing to file the suits with willing plaintiffs, then everyone can benefit. Your research has been very informative and I thank you.

    ccc: One of the benefits of having the ready-made Complaint is that, anyone can take this to an attorney to file. Also, federal courts have a pro se clinic – filing pro se is actually quite easy – and, since we are already paying for this service through our taxes, I recommend checking out this option, too. Often attorneys will not endeavor to take a case, cold, without some likelihood of success. How many attorneys even know BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS is an issue? Even if they do, how many have expertise in this area of law, or wish to be drawn up to speed? Before the election, when people began raising concerns as to whether BO was a NBC, I observed their ‘panic’ over the internet and, given this case of first impression, came up with the idea that, people could file challenges with their state elections officials to putting his name on the general election ballot! (It would have been much easier to keep his name off the ballot than get him out of the White House after the fact!) But we are all winging this. Given what people say they want to accomplish, I am certain what will not work; and I am pretty good at figuring out what will. Keep in mind, I posted the idea of the military Complaint in that memo on November 14 ; Berg finally filed a ‘military’ Complaint on December 30. But this was not exactly what I had in mind. So, I posted my military Complaint the first week in January, for public use. That means anyone, including Orly, Phil, or Leo can use this. I even personalized a Complaint for Dr. Earl-Graef, and arranged for someone from Team jbjd to send this to him. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Northshorelover says:

    Thank you for your hard work. I knew you are a very smart lawyer. IMHO, Mr. Donafrio has a temper problem and who lacks qualities a lawyer must possesses. However I think he is a very good artist, musician, and a o.k. gambler. Many bloggers who visited Mr. Donafrio’s site know whose idea it was, since that’s where we learned about the jbjd and I first came to your site in November, 08. If people are average or above, then they all know this military complain idea came from you. Move on. You are the GUY. We all know.

  8. ged says:

    Mine all mine! – That’s what you sound like.
    Releasing confidential memos is not professional, either.

    In any case, I still support you 100% in your efforts at getting the TRUTH of the birth certificate matter.

    Let’s work together. All this in-fighting is only detracting from the REAL EFFORT.

    We’ll worry about credit later.

    ged: I appreciate your input but, you miss the point. My concern is not about credit but rather whether people mistakenly conflate my work with someone else, the caliber of whose work is different from mine. If the work I have been producing on behalf of my country was only about credit, I would be all over the news, too; and posting videos and photographs, and doing multiple radio shows, and begging for money. I want people to find my work credible. Because once we get BO out of the White House, we need to amend the laws in every state to ensure this never happens to us again. And, since this presents a case of first impression, we will need reasoned thinkers to help us to figure out how best to proceed. I want to be considered one of those people. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. jtx says:


    Re your response to ged … well said!!

    Assuming the template case more or less as-in would be used, does the action need to be first lodged in a lower court? I’m a bit at sea as to where the correct jurisdiction might be.

    Also, what about the possibility of encountering a court that has final jurisdiction that issues the ruling (more or less saying) … “trust us”; we looked things over and we decided that yes, he is a NBC so the case is now dismissed. IOW more or less the same treatment (curt dismissal) that the prior cases have received. Would this not establish the fact that the usurper is legal (despite any flaws in the courts procedure or ruling since it is the final authority)?

    jtx: The military Complaint just needs to be filed. BO is entitled to appeal an adverse decision all the way to the SCOTUS. But he cannot oppose the request for a Declaratory Judgment in the lower court without losing the case, in the court of public opinion. Because the Complaint only asks the Court for a Declaration as to BO’s NBC status. It does not ask the Court to act on that Declaration. Who could object to this? ADMINISTRATOR

  10. Chewy says:


    I like what you have posted here. I hope you can get a military case filed properly.

    I am not sure if you are a practicing lawyer or a researcher. But you sure are good.

    I know you are the one who posted on the military lawsuit way back some time ago. I have been on these blogs all of 2008. I opposed Obama back in 2007.

    Chewy: I recognize your name. Thank you for your support; but more importantly, thank you for getting involved in the process. Yes; the military Complaint I drafted was a piece of art. And until BO responded to Berg’s version of my Complaint, I did not realize how brilliant it was. Because now, he is desperate to get judicial notice that FactCheck said he’s legit; before my Complaint, which de-bunks Annenberg Political Fact Check, gets filed. Berg’s case is certain to be dismissed but, I hope before this happens, he is smart enough (and selfless enough) to calmly make the point, Annenberg Political Fact Check is BO and so, noting he validates himself is outside of the purview of the Court. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Lizzi says:

    I’ve been following these cases all along, and have appreciated your posts as well as your comments on TD’s blog. Is there a reason that you stay behind the scenes? Seems to me that the easiest and most expedient course of action would be for you to actually file the complaint you’ve drafted, rather than hoping someone else does.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: