MESSIAH V. SAVIOR: A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE

An angry but unfocused electorate anticipating rescue from their plight by a charismatic political figure or a litigious lawyer equally portends disaster for our Constitutional republic.

I know that some of you who come here, read Orly’s site, too. In the past, I have posted comments critical to many of her endeavors, all of which comments explain for the lay person, my opposition to the targeted scheme. But Orly now refuses to post my comments. And while avoiding any direct criticism of my work product, she has begun to denigrate me, personally. So, I have decided to occasionally devote space on my blog to de-bunking ‘information’ posted as truth, on hers.

Above all, please, before forking over money to this new foundation Orly created, be certain you know what the money is being used for. For example, just because she claims she filed suit, does not mean she did; or, if she did, that there is a legally cognizable basis for the filing of such suit. For example, a reader asks why no one is suing FactCheck for misrepresenting that BO is a NBC. Orly responds.

Dr. Orly Taitz wrote:
I am ahead of the game on this, I have already served Factcheck.org with subpoena for production of documents. They have 30 days.
Orly

But as a lawyer, she knows or should know, there is no “privity” between Annenberg Political Fact Check and us voters. In other words, this organization has no legally cognizable relationship to us that would oblige them to conduct themselves in any particular way toward us; or would entitle us to expect let alone demand any specific performance from them. So, issuing subpoenas to this organization merely represents more form without substance. Besides, the disclaimer on FactCheck.org’s web site clearly states, only FactCheck staff members are responsible for the information posted on that site. (I previously explained this in my military Complaint.)

While you are mesmerized by the latest tricks Orly, or Berg, or Leo pulls out of a hat, our elected Congresspeople are receiving a $174,000 salary for not doing their jobs. (And, again, the latest legal actions filed against members of Congress for failing to vet BO as to Constitutional eligibility notwithstanding, they are immune from lawsuit for job-related misfeasance under an ancient principle of jurisprudence called Sovereign Immunity. All of the lawyers involved in these cases know this, too.) We would produce more effective results by insisting these people who work for us, actually work for us! And our money would be spent more prudently by supporting those candidates we would have replace the current inept crop.

There is a viable fraud claim to be made against Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, qua (in her role as) the Chair of the 2008 Democratic National Convention for Certifying BO is a NBC and for withholding the material fact, he is not, especially strong in those states where the law reads, the Party’s candidate “shall” be eligible for the office sought. Because this shifts the burden of proof to the Defendant. (Recall that, my military Complaint is the first case that shifted the burden of proof away from Plaintiff; in that Complaint, the burden would have landed on Defendant BO.) I anticipate posting the perfected fraud lawsuit tomorrow, after a trip to the law library. Drafting this fraud Complaint was more challenging than the military Complaint, which is a federal suit; because it has to be done on a state by state basis, since state laws as to fraud tend to vary state to state. But the set of viable Plaintiffs is huge, from regular voters who cast votes for BO to – and this brilliant idea was sent to me by wodiej61, a member of Team jbjd – HRC pledged delegates, who would have acted differently had they known, BO is not a NBC.

Advertisements

12 Responses to MESSIAH V. SAVIOR: A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE

  1. ladyhawkke says:

    Excellent post, jbjd. Thanks for alerting us to Orly’s shenanigans although it is obvious from going to her site that she is scattered and doesn’t know what she is doing. Her actions are causing valid plaintiffs to have concerns when they shouldn’t. I look forward to the fraud complaint. Thank you for your hard work and love for this country. Kudos to wodiej61 also!

    ladyhawkke: Thank you again, as always, for your activism and reason. You and I have worked on several issues related to this election debacle in the past and, I am proud to call you a member of Team jbjd. We know how easily rampant emotionalism can get in the way of productive efforts at change. But some people, clinging to hope beyond reason, appear immobilized, too easily swayed by the promises of false prophets to recognize their own power, let alone channel this power for change. I still believe direct appeals to our elected – and, in some cases, appointed – officials, state and federal, is the best (read, quickest and most direct) way to go. But, absent a concerted constituent assault on state and Congressional offices, in the form of visitations, mailings, and telephone calls and faxes; the Courts offer another viable alternative to end this nightmare. And, responding to various infirm attempts at judicial remedies, I intervened to offer viable mechanisms to obtain satisfaction from the Courts. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. CK says:

    jbjd: I’ve been reading your posts for some time now and really think you have the correct path to take on many of these issues. Have you ever considered bringing these suits to court yourself? I guess maybe I have not followed long enough to know why you could not do this either as a lawyer or citizen hiring legal representation. You have laid out wonderful and complete information to substantiate your cases. It seems that those you have given this info to do not wish to make use of them. Can you do it? I would like to see it happen. Thanks for all the incredible work and time you have put into this. I hate to see it go to waste if it could possibly be successful.

    CK: Thank you very much for your kind words of support. I cannot work ‘in front of the camera,’ for reasons I will explain when this is all over. However, by giving away the fruits of my labor, I anticipate I will empower others to step forward. That is, when they trust my work as much as you evidently do. And this will happen when they compare and contrast outcomes, which requires more vigilance than the electorate in general is accustomed to expending. For example, I anticipated in my military Complaint that, the best evidence BO could provide as to his Constitutional eligibility for POTUS was (Annenberg Political) FactCheck. And, thanks to Berg’s infirm Hollister Complaint, in which BO moved to dismiss citing FactCheck said he is legit, we now know, I was right. And, since FactCheck as an independent arbiter of truth is so easily de-bunked, this means, BO cannot offer any proof he is eligible. By extension, this means, NP cannot have obtained any more credible evidence indicating BO is Constitutionally eligible for POTUS, either. And therein lies the fraud. Simply, she Certified to the states he was eligible without verifying his eligibility. So, even though Berg brought a version of my military Complaint that failed to reach the issue my Complaint was designed to resolve, that is, is BO a NBC; he did not fatally injure that cause of action (at least so far, since the Court has not accepted BO’s motion to grant judicial notice to FactCheck’s representation as to his legitimacy) and, indeed, actually helped. That is, he evoked an Opposition from BO that confirmed my assumption, the best case he can offer as to his legitimacy is Annenberg Political Fact Check, his long-time employer of record. And anyone reading my military Complaint; and then Berg’s military Complaint; and BO’s response, can now see, I know what I am talking about. And maybe this will embolden someone to file one of my Complaints. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Mick says:

    Jbjd,
    Great post. You seem to be the most focused of the group of attorneys looking for the key to “standing”. There are some states (like Hi.) that require that any candidate nominated by that state’s Democratic or Republican State Committee Chairman be “constitutionally qualified” to hold the office. How about a suit against the DNC chair of Hawaii
    under US code Title 18 Section 371.

    CITE

    18 USC Sec. 371 01/02/2006

    EXPCITE

    TITLE 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I – CRIMES
    CHAPTER 19 – CONSPIRACY

    HEAD

    Sec. 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

    STATUTE

    If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense
    against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any
    agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of
    such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
    each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
    five years, or both.
    If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object
    of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such
    conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for
    such misdemeanor.

    Here is the relevant document:

    http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hawaii-response.pdf

    You could sue the Chair and Vice Chair of the DNC of HI. for signing this document verifying that the candidate they are nominating is “constitutionally qualified” as per the requirement of the state of HI.

    Mick: How heartwarming to see an informed citizen. Too bad you are paying your Congresspeople $174,000/year to do this work. I would say, in your case, they owe you! And I found some very useful information on Monique’s site. I have already posted quite extensively about the situation in HI. In fact, my military Complaint references that NP signed two different Certifications of Nomination, adding the caveat that BO is Constitutionally eligible in the Certification she submitted to HI Elections Officials, per HI law. (See TEMPLATE FOR THE MILITARY COMPLAINT AGAINST BARACK OBAMA, below.) (Thanks to Justin Riggs for his work in obtaining the HI Certification.) As to the conspiracy charge you cite, I have not explored this yet. But the issue of standing only arose for me because so many others had attempted to bring suit to expose BO was Constitutionally ineligible for POTUS; and I wanted to solve that problem once and for all. And I wanted to establish standing in federal court so as to put a public and swift end to this election debacle. That’s how I came up with the idea of the military Plaintiff. As for the fraud Complaint I am drafting against NP, standing is not a problem. What is complicating is that, this is a state by state issue. Yes; HI is one of those states where this should be filed. First, I am perfecting the case that should be filed in GA, although it can be amended for filing in other states, too. Fraud here is a state law tort; and in states like GA and HI, with laws that require the Party to submit only the names of eligible candidates, this shifts the burden of proof to the Defendant. Check out other comments for a further explanation of the rationale behind the fraud Complaint. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. cpabooks says:

    I was the local contact who ran the supplemental material for Orly’s Conference (scheduled for the 23rd)up to the SCROTUS and I admit that I had the feeling that things were getting a little haphazard on that other end. Orly was getting on a plane to Texas and she had someone call me at 4:00pm on the 21st to receive the filing by fax/email, make 8 [sic] copies for the Justices and one for Clerk Dan Bickell, and then deliver them to the Court.
    The cases could not be recorded before the next day, which was Thursday, the 22nd.
    It took me about three hours to get the packages together and deliver them to the Supreme Court guard (since the Court was closed by then).
    I knew that this effort seemed futile since the O had already revoked all of Bush’s EO’s and I questioned if the O could be exempt. ( I see, from your posts that he was).
    Nevertheless, I was a good soldier and helped out. Since then, I have tempered my enthusiasm and confidence in her work.
    Some of these cases are like making spaghetti stick to the ceiling.
    You sound like you are onto good strategies and I hope that they are successful.

    cpabooks: Kudos to you for being a citizen activist! Sorry this did not work out for you. Keep reading my posts AND the comments from other readers like you, which I find particularly inspirational. Maybe something they write; or comments I write back to them; or postings on the blog will inspire you to take another action that will produce more fruitful results. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Chewy says:

    I am learning about the law and find it fascinating. I believe I would or at least could enjoy working on a case like this as a lawyer. Unfortunately it is too late in life for me to become a lawyer. However, I hope to continue to follow this issue to its conclusion. It is so important to America. I love America.

    I thought I heard that the one group has been around selling a course in not paying your income taxes and some people have run into trouble with this. This group has tried to unify people around this effort to expose Obama. Unfortunately I do not trust the people running these conferences. I am wondering if they are simply promoters for money instead of truely qualified to carry the torch for us. I am worried that money is going down the drain with the wrong people. Opportunists are everywhere. We have attracted our share which is too bad. They hurt the cause. they hurt it real bad.

    jbjd I have enjoyed reading everything you have posted. I have been on this since 2007. I have read much of your eary work on Berg’s site. You certainly inspire me. Unfortunately, I am just a person. Nothing special. I do not want to be a big person.

    I am also learning so much about politics. At times in the beginning I was sort of grateful that Obama was the usuper because I felt he was going to be easily exposed and the laws would change to make it much harder in the future. However, I did not expect the depth of corruption among all the leadership. I am now grateful that the corruption is being exposed. It is so rampant that the politicians no longer try to hide it.

    I am about ready to succeed from the union and maybe that is the best course for America to break up into some 6 mini countries. Although I do not like the idea that Alaska will become Russia. I love Alaska and do not like Russia.

    Maybe the USA has too much power and it corrupts too easily. I get the feeling that humans can not handle all this power appropriately. They just get corrupted. Maybe smaller countries will be better. Although I do not live in Texas, I read a piece from a Texan and it sounded good.

    We need to get back to our original Constitution and country. It must have been good back then. It is obvious the politicians have no intention or care about paying off the debt. But then what I read about the Fed Reserve looks like we were doomed long ago.

    We have to get back to minding our own business and stop trying to run the world. No one appointed us as the Police of the World. I do not see Obama as doing the right thing for America. We need to develop out own energy. Obama seems to want to keep us dependent and financially bankrupt on Arab oil. Something is fundamentally wrong with this guy.

  6. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    jbjd,

    I found your blog from your postings on Texas Darlin. I want to say it is very refreshing to find someone with legal scholarship and sound reasoning working on this issue. I only wish you could bring a case yourself, but I am hopeful that someone equal to your intellect and passion will work in coordination with you and will give you the credit you deserve.

    I appreciate your efforts. God speed and care to you from one natural born citizen to another.

    curiOusOnefromthe60s: Thank you for the words of support. I want people to know which ideas originated with me for 2 reasons. First, I can answer any questions from citizen activists who want to run with my ideas. Second, I want people to identify those practitioners whose ideas they find consistently have legs; because after we remove BO from the White House, we have to revise the state laws that resulted in this mess in the first place. If I represent with certainty that, I have determined the best way to proceed then, people who trust my sources and reasoning up front can hit the ground running with implementing change. I am perhaps not as well-marketed as others who claim to want ‘change’; but no one who has reviewed my work has questioned my commitment to my country, or my mastery of craft. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Chewy says:

    Someone suggested on the web. a woman from vermont. she suggests a lawsuit to the Supreme Court that the birth certificate of Hawaii laws be declared unconstitutional. She has some good reasoning.

    She says it is unconstitutional to allow foreigners to go to Hawaii and get a BC and keep it secret against the people who need to know. When other states do not do that. She did a better job than me.

    What do you think?????

    Chewy: The HI law that allowed foreign births to be registered in HI was repealed in the 1970s. But the fact the law existed probably explains the subsequent legislation that requires in order to get the name of its candidate for POTUS on the HI general election ballot, the Party has to Certify not only the name of its nominee but also that he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. ADMINISTRATOR
    (CORRECTION: I AM NO LONGER CERTAIN AS TO THE ENACTMENT DATE OF THAT HI LAW; AND WITHOUT MORE RESEARCH, I CAN NO LONGER REPRESENT THAT IT WAS REPEALED. 07.18.09, ADMINISTRATOR)

  8. Tim Allman says:

    Based on what I just read above to CK, you will remain anonymous (Deep Throat of X-Files fame) until it is over? I have been following your comments for some time and appreciate all of your hard work. I find it disturbing that for some reason we cannot come to a satisfactory completion to the NBC issue, which I believe is due to the fact everyone wants or believes they can do it their way rather than as a collective. You will be assimilated. We need to form a more cohesive collaboration between all true patriots who want, no, demand Obama prove he is a NBC (Natural Born Citizen). It is unfortunate you are not able to submit your own suits, however, I will respect your position, you have specific reasons for your anonymity. If there is anything I can do for you, just let me know. It appears you have quite a following, and it appears they love what you have to say, so I too am a fan of your obvious skills. Again, thank you very much for your contribution to this cause of trying to save this once wonderful country of ours and may the blessing of our forefathers be bestowed upon you.

    Tim: Thank you for your kind words. I want people to take my ideas; that’s why I post them. Because my goal in this particular endeavor is not self-aggrandizement but getting BO out of office by exposing he is not a NBC; and then, fixing the laws to ensure this never happens to us again. I finally set up a blog of my own so as to get my information to the widest audience available. Try not to minimize the input of everyone who works on this problem, notwithstanding they often ‘get it wrong.’ None of us knows how much each of us is chipping away at the facade; or, when the facade finally crumbles, whose work can claim what portion of the downfall. I want us all to rightfully claim credit, resulting from doing our part. Keep reading the blog; I will let you and everyone else know what help I need. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. Tim Allman says:

    jbjd,

    I have a personal copy of the document that certified Obama for South Carolina as well as the one for Hawaii. Let me know if someone requires the document for South Carolina.

    Tim: Hang onto those Certifications. I already have both; but you will need these soon, when you confront your state officials. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. Tim Allman says:

    jbjd,

    My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is it does not matter about who gets the credit, it matters that it gets done and soon with least possible repercussions, however, with the Congress breaking the bank so to speak, how will that be undone? rhetorical question.

  11. Tim Allman says:

    jbjd,

    I found the following, thought it might be of interest to you:

    Consider what the Libertarian Party had to say about how they vetted Bob Barr. Notice how they vetted him based solely on good faith.

    The following information was found at yourfellowcitizen.com posted by Justin W. Riggs:

    I haven’t had any luck getting the two major parties to respond to my calls and emails, so today I decided to try the minor parties. One, the Libertarian Party, responded almost immediately to my request for information. What they told me boldly highlighted the problem with our current system. First, the correspondence:

    ————
    Dear Sir/Madam, According to my Secretary of State’s office, it is the responsibility of the party to ensure that its candidates are qualified to hold the office for which they run. I’m doing a research project on how different parties go about fulfilling this obligation. Specifically, I was wondering:

    1) How did your organization ensure that Mr. (redacted – I first got the candidate’s name wrong) was eligible to hold the office of President, should he have been elected?

    2) When did the qualification process take place, and was there a particular date when he was “declared” to be eligible?

    3) What evidence was your candidate required to present to the party in order to prove that he is Constitutionally eligible to hold office? I thank you for your time, and look forward to your response.

    Sincerely,
    Your Fellow Citizen,
    Justin W. Riggs

    ————
    The response:

    There was no question as to Congressman Barr’s eligibility, so we went on good faith that he was Constitutionally qualified.

    ————
    If you’ll remember, the Colorado Secretary of State’s office explicitly stated that the legal responsibility for ensuring that a candidate is qualified falls to the candidate’s party; yet here we have a concrete example of a party who performed no check on their candidate, proceeding on “good faith” because “there was no question” about their candidate’s eligibility. I don’ t think I need to point out the more obvious problems with this scenario. In fact, I don’t know that I need to say anything at all – the problems are so glaringly obvious that they speak for themselves.

    Tim: This is fabulous; yes, it is important news, for those people who still fail to understand, there is no vetting of the candidates for POTUS from the political Party as to Constitutional eligibility. I have worked with Justin; his project evidences what one citizen can accomplish by himself and, what he can inspire others to accomplish from his lead. I had assembled a Team jbjd to help me to distribute the memo on how to gain standing in federal court to question BO’s Constitutional eligibility to be POTUS (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!). They emailed any items of interest; I read everything they sent. Anyway, that’s how I found Justin. He had posted the response to his inquiries from elections officials in HI. I noticed immediately, the language of the DNC Certification that BO was their nominee was different from the language in the SC Certification, in that it included the line, BO was Constitutionally eligible for POTUS! That’s how I found the HI law requiring the Party to Certify the nominee is Constitutionally eligible! Not surprising that the state which formerly allowed foreign births to be registered in HI would now require the Party to prove their candidate was eligible for the job. I contacted Justin. He wrote a letter to Nancy Pelosi in D.C., asking on what basis she determined BO was eligible, as per her signed Certification. I arranged for Orly – at that time she listened to me – to hand-deliver Justin’s letter. She refused to respond. ADMINISTRATOR

  12. JAI says:

    It seems as if the Annenberg Foundation be subject to requests for information under PIA as a result of its status as a Federally not for profit organization?

    Does anyone know the source of funding for Annenberg and ACORN? It appears as if they might have been funded under the “Help America Vote” section of the Federal Election Commission.

    It seems to me that someone should request an oversight hearing for that organization. If it does not vet candidates, it should. A cursory overview of the original legislation appears to imply that by establishing legal actions that result from “fraud” committed against the American public.

    http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.shtml Look here for more info.

    JAI: Welcome. To find out about Annenberg, look up “Walter Annenberg.” The Annenberg Political FactCheck site says, their funding is primarily from Annenberg. (They operate out of the University of PA but are not affiliated with the University.) Whether organized as a non-profit, APFC is not a government agency subject to public records laws disclosure requirements. (That is the simple answer; I would argue, when an organization acts like a public agency, it could be subject to disclosure laws. Read, DNC.) As I understand it, Congress and the DoJ are all over ACORN now.

    Finally, thank you for citing to the web site of the FEC. We pay for these agencies and, their web sites. We should use them. ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: