apPARENTly

I have watched and re-watched the clip of Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, uttering those off-color remarks about the Special Olympics during last week’s taped appearance on NBC’s The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (here). Casting the incident in its most positive light, even his supporters commenting on the blogs concede, this was an attempt at self-deprecating humor gone awry. But I want to offer a different interpretation of the offensive exchange.

BO made that nasty comment – “This is like Special Olympics or something” – after Jay responded to his statement, he had bowled a 129. See, he said he bowled 129; Jay jabbed, “That’s very good,” quickly followed by a sideways glance over at Kevin, fingers placed on his lips, as if to squelch a laugh; and a head turn back to his guest to repeat the sequence, with exaggerated sincerity. “No, that’s very good,” and then the glance-to-Kevin-fingers-over-mouth-to-keep-from-laughing maneuver, propping up his act with half-hearted clapping. BO, who had been smiling broadly, now chuckled aloud and, reaching out his left hand to touch Jay’s right sleeve, countered with the offensive remarks: “This is like Special Olympics or something.”

I believe that, unable to tolerate what appeared to me to be Jay’s good-humored mocking at the revelation of his bowling performance, BO drew a false parallel between the comedian’s reaction and the response of spectators attending the Special Olympics. That is, he wrongly likened Jay’s obviously insincere exaggerated ‘praise’ of his low bowling score to the genuine overwhelming pride pouring from spectators cheering on the athletic accomplishments of Special Olympians.

Only a mental health professional could provide words to adequately convey the depravity that is all things Obama.

Advertisements

23 Responses to apPARENTly

  1. jbjd,

    I’ve been awaiting your perspective of Mr. Donofrio’s “epiphany” regarding QW. You and perhaps two others are all that are left that can, with any clarity, weigh in as to the veracity of his contentions.

    Various litigators, in contradiction to his argument, have failed to recognize the rules have changed since the election and the inauguration. He contends that the constitution stipulates the seperation of powers prevents any entity other than the congress to remove a sitting President. Congress can impeach for crimes or can remove through ineligibility (usurpation) via statutes it has enacted (vis a vis the US and DC AGs with QW). Of course, the constitution can relieve the POTUS for incapacitance or death on its own accord.

    Anyway, it has been a few days since Leo went into his “screw you world that can’t see reason” mode and I was curious as to your slant. For all his erratic behavior it is difficult not to appreciate his logic.

    -Noz

    Noz: When it come to this QW, as in so many other matters of law, Leo does not know what he is talking about. (Read my previous analyses of his work, below.) You write, “For all of his erratic behavior it is difficult not to appreciate his logic.” What logic? He substitutes passion for reason, dazzling laypeople into a mistaken belief he has said something profound. Rest assured, if he has, it is only incidental. QW cannot be used as a fishing expedition. That is, before proceeding, the prosecutor has to have facts indicating beyond a reasonable doubt – this is like a criminal prosecution, after all, hence the necessity of getting the AG or U.S. Attorney to bring suit – the Defendant has usurped the position (or whatever is the language of the statute) now to be vacated. But Leo is asking either the AG or U.S. Attorney not only to bring the QW prosecution but also, as part of that prosecution, to demand that BO produce a long-form Birth Certificate, in other words, proof he is ineligible for POTUS and should be removed via QW so that they can bring the QW against him! Surely you recognize the circular argument this presents. Leo’s demand is made all the more ridiculous by his long-standing insistence, obtaining the Birth Certificate is irrelevant to a determination that BO is not a NBC given his – BO’s – admission, his father was Kenyan!

    Theoretically, QW could be brought to remove BO from office once any official authorized to make such a determination, ‘rules’ he is not a NBC. But with such a ‘ruling,’ no one would have to bring such a prosecution to get him out of there, anyway. (That was the beauty of obtaining a Declaratory Judgment that BO is not a NBC. Once Leo fixated on QW, he posited that, no federal court could remove BO from office because this would violate the separation of powers doctrine. But like so many other of his pronouncements, this made no sense, either. Seeking a Declaratory Judgment as to whether a Plaintiff in a Declaratory Judgment case is in legal jeopardy for upholding his oath of service when it conflicts with another oath of service relying on whether the CIC is a NBC; does not ask the court to remove that CIC from office.)

    By the way, the two cases Leo cites for voiding an election because the U.S. Senators at the center of those cases were found ineligible to hold office, involved the Senate voting to kick them out, BEFORE the QW statute was enacted. (Both cases utilized facts on the record in advance of the ousting from the Senate.) Applying the legal theory of stare decisis in a way I have never heard of, he tells us that since the Senate nullified the holding of office of the unlawful Senators, as if they had never been U.S. Senators; then, a D.C. Court finding in a QW case that BO is not a NBC will nullify the general election results that brought BO into the Presidency.

    The biggest legal obstacle to getting BO out of office on the basis he is not a NBC is this: the people who supported his election to the Presidency, including members of the EC and Congress, ignored the Constitutional requirements for office. Now, I have heard some people say, they don’t care whether he is a NBC. But most people, even those who supported his election, have indicated, they would not have done so had they known for certain he was Constitutionally ineligible for the job. That’s why I need to get the fraud letters out.

    Does this answer your question? ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. You write, you have been awaiting my perspective of Leo’s “epiphany” of QW. Wrong again. He merely copied those who raised the QW issue before him, like Orly and Berg.

  2. Mick says:

    jbjd,
    Good to see you back. I think your take is right on. He doesn’t equate his performance to that of the Special Olynpians, he equates the reaction of laughter from the crowd to the crowd at the Special Olympics. He thinks that the praise of those Special Olympians from the crowd is actually false or mocking. He can’t laugh at himself, his egotism and narcissism won’t let him. George Bush, on the other hand, was very self deprecating (with good reason sometimes) and it made him human. I think that the narcissism will be his downfall. He has been given enough rope to hang himself, and maybe all of us.

    Mick: Interesting twist on my observation. I hadn’t considered the response of the audience, which I discounted outright because I figured, like so many other BO appearances, his audience was hand-picked. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. I knew you weren’t a wallflower. I suggest you succinctly DECONSTRUCT Mr. Denofrio’s arguments in your next article. The point-conterpoint would be helpful to the “lay people” attempting to find reason in a sordid and chaotic world. I implore you to be specific in your challenge that Leo has leapt off into the deep end of passion and unreason. I cannot speak for others, but I feel inundated by the egos of litigators rather than the crux of the challenge that befalls us all. Thanks, man.

    -Noz

  4. Mick says:

    JBJD,
    My understanding is that QW is a civil action, not criminal, so it has a preponderance of the evidence standard.

    Mick: You are correct in pointing out that the standard of proof in most civil disputes is “a preponderance of the evidence.” But Quo Warranto is a hybrid, that is, in the nature of a criminal prosecution brought in a civil case. (Thus, the Defendant is found “Guilty” and not “Liable.”) Plus, the burden of production can shift throughout a legal proceeding. By saying this is “like” a criminal prosecution and that the AG prosecuting the case needs facts “beyond a reasonable doubt,” what I meant is, even if QW could otherwise be prosecuted to remove BO from office, (I predict) no AG or U.S. Attorney will agree to bring the prosecution based merely on an accusation that, he is not a NBC. I would have to do more research to determine in a QW case, what are the burdens of production and proof. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Northshorelover says:

    I watched the Obama special Olympic gaffe YouTube video, too, and came to the conclusion. President Obama should become an entertainer instead of Commander in Chief. Pres.Obama is a reasonably good looking black man and is so gaffe-prone, he naturally makes himself a wonderful comedian-entertainer. Like Conan O’Brien (Mr.O’Brien is also a Harvard grad,) Barack Obama Late Night Show will be a guaranteed success. Being a narcissist is a key requirement for a good entertainer. With Leno, President Obama seemed so happy and comfortable, totally being himself….

  6. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, since we are not allowed to see, what is on file,in Hawaii, as far as a birth certificate goes,can Hawaii be forced to authenticate the certificate Barry put on the internet? Does Hawaii have a duty, to report as fraudulent, the certificate that Barry posted on line, or are they breaking the law? It would seem to me, if they know it’s a fake, they have a duty to say so, and expose any fraud.

    bob: Hello, again. You are on the right track. Months ago, I contacted Andy Martin, then on his first round in HI courts to get access to BO’s HI records. His argument to breach the confidentiality in HI records law was that, BO was now a public citizen and those records were more like historical documents, anyway. I urged him to argue, instead, a kind of ‘unjust enrichment’ estoppel claim. That is, BO should not get to benefit from using those ‘records’ on line to ‘prove’ he is a NBC, even mis-labeling his HI Certification of Live Birth as his “Official Birth Certificate” and then be shielded from revealing the hard copies in the HI files by claims of privilege afforded under HI law. I will include this in the fraud complaint I am working on to submit to the HI AG (by residents of HI). Thanks! ADMINISTRATOR

  7. jbjd,

    I believe that you see the necessity of the QW approach for redress of grievances. Leo Denofrio has baldfacedly stated that his efforts are concluded with the submission of his letter to the AGs. I regret his decision to not press the “third party” course of action if the AGs decide it is not in the best interest of the nation to bring suit. Folks like myself, who appreciate the logic of the seperation of powers to remove a sitting President are dissillusioned that litigators are unwilling to pick up the fallen bannor and charge into the fray.

    I can’t speak for others…but you have been a unique voice that speaks plainly and recognizes the veracity of other’s contentions. You, to your credit, have not put ego before the mission of seeing justice meted IAW with our constitutional republican principles.

    Bottom line, if it is not you, who will litigate on our behalf the third party expectation of compliance with the criteria to hold the office of POTUS?

    V/R

    SFC Noz

    Noz: Please, do not despair; many options remain to remedy this disaster. Even IF QW was a viable legal mechanism for removing a President from office, remember, it is a discretionary writ. That is, permission must be granted to bring it. So, there never was a guarantee such a case could be brought. Also, QW practice requires, if there is another legal cause of action that can be used instead of QW then, the courts will insist this other cause of action is tried. In fact, the literature specifically mentions, Declaratory Judgment. I think I already told you this but it bears repeating. I only came up with the military Complaint – using NG about to be deployed as Plaintiffs in a federal Declaratory Judgment suit – because other people were filing court suits I knew would go nowhere or, which were going nowhere. This was a challenge to me, to come up with a viable legal claim. And, I still think the Complaint I drafted would work to expose BO is not a NBC. However, I have always preferred to work for change outside of the courtroom, through local (read, state) officials. These are people we can meet in person, whose children attend school with our children, and who need our votes to be re-elected. That’s why I decided to work on drafting a fraud Complaint people can use to petition their local officials to investigate BO’s legal status. The problem with this is that, unlike the military Complaint, designed to be filed in federal court; these state fraud complaints must be tailored to the laws in each state. So, I need to familiarize myself with each state’s laws. I am almost done with the HI fraud letter, which will be the model for the others. And who knows, maybe I will only need one letter; because as soon as one state finds fraud… ADMINISTRATOR

  8. jbjd,

    Thanks for the elucidation of the other options. My worry (and most likely unfounded) is that there has not been a clear delineation between Mr. Obama’s inability to render a lawful order and his eiligibility to hold office. In my estimation (admittedly microscopic), there is NO difference. A request for a declaratory judgement is the equivelant of a courts discovery of as to his eligibility to hold office…which defies the seperation of powers stipulated by the constitution. As much as Leo Denofrio escapes my ken, it is hard to contradict his logic to pursue the “legal” methodology of challenging the current POTUS’s authority.

    We have discussed my lack of competence in this realm…I encourage you to, once again, succinctly DECONSTRUCT Leo’s contention in your next posting.

    I do my level best to follow the reasoning of the various litigators, I count on you to provide the counterpoint to what I consider the most reasoned perspective provided thus far.

    In your debt, and respectively,

    Pieter Nosworthy
    SFC, USA

    Noz: As always, I understand your dilemma, and that of millions of other of our armed forces and National Guard. Here is the short answer to your question. BO was lawfully elected POTUS unless and until someone authorized to make such a contrary determination ‘rules,’ he was not. This determination can take the form, for example, of a court ruling, he is not a NBC. But it can also take the form of an AG from any one of the 50 states finding that, in order to become POTUS, he perpetrated a fraud on the electorate. As things stand right now, merely suspecting he is ineligible for the position he holds will provide no defense to any disciplinary consequence resulting from disobeying orders issued by him. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. Free4now says:

    Good Morning jbjd: DELETED BY ADMINISTRATOR
    Just wanted your opinion, sir. Am I wrong?

    Free4now: Sorry to hear about your personal travails but, I cannot address such issues on this blog. I wholeheartedly recommend that you seek counsel. Contact your state bar association for a referral to lawyers in your area who handle this type of case; or contact a local law school to determine whether they handles such cases in their law clinics. Good luck. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. bob strauss says:

    David A, over at citizen wells, has what seems is a good idea. Go after the employers for hiring illegal aliens, and in this case going after the federal government for employing Barack Obama,illegal alien. Use the INS to go after Barry. What do you think jbjd?

    bob: I think that, no law authorizes the USCIS – Citizen and Immigration Service – to scrutinize the immigration status of the person holding the position of POTUS. Remember, he did not have to be vetted by the FBI or anyone else before gaining access to state secrets. However, once we remove him from office then, the CIS will have a field day. (Perhaps you are confusing those dozens of subpoenas Orly sent out to federal agencies to obtain records. As I have previously stated dozens of times (although not on her web site because she banned me some time ago), that EO signed by GWB only applied to contract employees of the federal government and, explicitly stated, this did not create a right of enforcement. In other words, this EO established a personnel organization protocol and not a substantive right.) ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Mick says:

    jbjd,
    Wouldn’t Atty. Taylor, as the one who could bring this QW, consider the information in LD’s open letter as evidence. I mean, the constitution and Marbury v. Madison are the evidence (and should be all that is needed). By the serious precedent of M v. M it is already obvious that a 14A citizen is not a NBC, since that determination would make A2 S1 C5 moot.
    I don’t see where the DJA could work. My understanding is that the Declaratory Judgement prevents a future legal controversy, but it cannot be based on conjecture or hypotheicals. This controversy, in my opinion, is based on the hypothetical theory that BO is not a NBC. If the term NBC is not legally defined, then it must be hypothetical, and is not an ACTUAL controversy.

    Mick: The federal Declaratory Judgment Act allows Plaintiffs who would be Defendants in future proceedings to jump the gun. It’s in the law. Read my military Complaint and look up the federal Declaratory Judgment law cited therein. (Leo got this wrong and then, after I pointed this out to him, changed his rhetoric on that issue. And read my response to Noz, below, in which I explain, courts exercising discretion as to whether to hear a QW case consider whether a lesser action, such as Declaratory Judgment, could provide relief, instead.) I cannot imagine that Mr. Taylor read Leo’s letter; if he did, I cannot imagine that he construed anything therein as “evidence.” ADMINISTRATOR

  12. bob strauss says:

    If nothing else, Orly’s subpoenas brought the issue to the forefront at those departments,and forced them to make declarations as to whether or not they would obey them, and produce documents. They really scrambled when they went after the records at Occidental college. BTW what was the end result on that issue? Has it been resolved?

    bob: Orly’s subpoenas were a waste of time and money. Ultimately, the Office of U.S. Attorney in Sacramento, CA, where Bowen v. Lightfoot, the case underlying all of this chaos was filed, informed her that, they would treat the subpoenas for business records she had served on several federal agencies not parties to her suit; as Touhy requests. (Orly announced 2 (two) U.S. Attorneys signed the stipulation letter but, as usual, she exaggerated. Assistant U.S. Attorney Himel signed the notice to Orly, on behalf of Acting U.S. Attorney Brown.) For a seminal discussion of Touhy regulations, see http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/touhy7final.htm#N_1_.) Simply, the DOJ would treat Orly’s subpoenas on federal agencies not parties to her suit, almost as FOIA requests, determining whether the documents were produceable under the current regulatory scheme. Anyone could have requested these records, for the price of a stamp and envelope. As to ‘scrambling’ when records from Occidental were subpoenaed…Occidental is a private college. They have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the privacy of their students and former students. Anyone can issue a subpoena for records. Upon receipt of such subpoena, any private entity would likely inform the interested party that these records have been subpoenaed. (Presumably, the school’s attorneys were notified.) The school could have gone to court to fight the request for production and, likely, the court – remember, they did not approve this subpoena in advance – would likely have quashed the subpoena. (This was, after all, a fishing expedition.) But why bother when BO’s attorneys could do the same thing, on BO’s dime? Since Orly hasn’t advertised reaching the mother lode, I assume the court, once made aware Orly had attempted to pierce BO’s right to privacy to Occidental records, disallowed her plan.ADMINISTRATOR

  13. David A says:

    jbjd,
    I thought it time to broaden my horizons and visit your site. This is my first post here.
    Thanks to Bob S. for posing the question I posted on CW blog pertaining to citizenship, and thanks to you jbjd for beginning the dialogue. I do value this input. My sole purpose for entering this conversation comes from a strong desire to pry the truth free and into the open.
    May I question you reply.
    “…no law authorizes the USCIS – Citizen and Immigration Service – to scrutinize the immigration status of the person holding the position of POTUS.”

    Doesn’t USCIS have authority over all people in Us citizens or otherwise? Why would a POTUS be treated differently? If one concedes to this and thinks of Obama as real POTUS and as being above the law you are thinking too much like these judges [Robertson].

    Who you accuse of employing BO illegitimately, whether it be Annenburg, who employed him, or a branch of the Gov., it is really not the focus. The method is based on taking an existing immigration statute, and applying it to force Obama prove himself a legal citizen. Obama’s spoken admission of time in Indonesia, adoption by Soetoro, no printed copy of BC, etc. would serve as evidence of non-citizenship. BC would then be needed as evidence to disprove.
    All the better if a Gov. authority [USCIS] is bound to join in the effort.

    These are excerpts from immigration law.

    http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersbcdd

    Harboring Illegal Aliens

    The following is an overview of federal law on hiring and harboring illegal aliens. It is not a substitute for professional legal counsel in specific situations.

    Summary
    A person (including a group of persons, business, organization or local government) commits a federal felony when he:

    assists an alien whom he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him to obtain employment,
    encourages that alien to remain in the U.S., by referring him to an employer, by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
    knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.
    Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime.

    Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.

    ……..Enforcement
    A person or entity having knowledge of a violation or potential violation of employer sanctions provisions may submit a signed written complaint to the INS office with jurisdiction over the business or residence of the potential violator, whether an employer, employee, or agent. The complaint must include the names and addresses of both the complainant and the violator, and detailed factual allegations, including date, time and place of the potential violation, and the specific conduct alleged to be a violation of employer sanctions. By regulation, the INS will only investigate third party complaints that have “a reasonable probability of validity.”26
    Thanks. I look forward to your opinions.

    David A: Welcome to the site that both supports critical thinking and offers answers to questions you might not want to hear.

    Being POTUS means never having to prove that you would otherwise be legally vested with the rights and privileges of American citizenship. Think of the situation in this way. The prospective employer/employee relationship does not implicate any of the 3 branches of government. And BO was not technically ‘hired,’ as this word is used in the federal statutes regarding undocumented workers, anyway. (Have you looked at the Definitions section of the U.S. Code regarding these terms?) Rather, he was chosen through a Constitutionally prescribed process to head the Executive Branch of government. The process through which he acquired this position was followed; but the EC, stacked as it was by Party loyalists and funders, failed to adequately carry out their duties consistent with Constitutional intent. Saying this, I by no means intend to convey, there is nothing we can do to get BO out of there, given he is not a NBC. It just means, sicking the CIS on him is not an option. ADMINISTRATOR

  14. bob strauss says:

    I read the post, covering Ca. election law, that was posted at citizen wells, and saw your post, that indicated you were interested in a fraud case using that law to get to Soetoro. Can you expand, on the possibility of success, on a case of this nature?

    bob: When I use the word “fraud” in connection with individual states, I am referring to filing a complaint with the state AG charging that the Chair of the state Democratic Party committed fraud by Certifying BO is a NBC. Now, this gets kinds technical but, in short, assuming the state has some kind of law requiring candidates to be eligible for office then, by swearing BO is a NBC, the D Party perpetrated fraud. I glanced at the links da verg provided. CA law says something about a candidate or a political party falsifying material information is a misdemeanor. The DNC fraudulently swore BO is a NBC when they know, he is not. Technically, the Certification of Nomination they submitted in CA did not contain that extra line required by HI law saying, the nominee is a NBC. But the DNC rules require the nominee to be a NBC and so, saying he is the nominee is the same as saying, he is a NBC. (Brilliant, huh.) The best evidence BO presented to establish he is a NBC is that HI COLB he asked the court to take judicial notice of, in Hollister. And we know that means nothing, given HI law at the time of his birth allowed HI registration of foreign births. So, neither the state party nor NP could have relied on any better evidence he is a NBC. I say, “could have relied” because NP and the national party have refused requests to provide the basis for their representation, BO is a NBC.

    I am still working on the HI fraud letter (to the AG). This is the first and, the hardest. The rest will be easy. And the first states I am drafting will be those with laws like the ones in CA, which spell out a penalty for fraud.

    What I am aiming for is a decision from anyone authorized to make such a decision, that BO has failed to establish he is an NBC. ADMINISTRATOR

  15. da verg says:

    i think that the lawsuit should be against, and the complaint filed against

    OBAMA
    PELOSI
    REID
    and
    Howard Dean

    in the FEDERAL venue, as well as CA

    da verg: Filing a lawsuit for fraud requires that the Plaintiff allege all of the elements of fraud, which is a civil cause of action. (Criminal fraud must be prosecuted by the state against the alleged wrongdoer.) There are several elements of the tort and, being a state cause of action, the pleading requirements could differ in every state. The only like states would be those that have specifically adopted the definition of fraud found in the Restatement of Torts. But before endeavoring to commence the whole civil Complaint procedure in court, I propose citizens of the states file complaints of election fraud with their Attorneys General. ADMINISTRATOR

  16. bob strauss says:

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

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

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

  17. azgo says:

    As I told Senator Kyl(R-Az) last December, Snoopes.com and Factcheck.com would have to get a court order just to say and prove Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii like the rest of us have to do. Of course his written response was “The United States Supreme Court dismissed a number of challenges relating to President-elect’s citizenship.” (Typical response) Is this something you could add in your write-ups, as far as a court order would be needed by Snoopes.com and Factcheck.com?

    azgo: Good for you for writing to your Senator. (Whether a citizen votes for the person who becomes one of two U.S. Senators representing that state, the Senators still represent that citizen’s interests in Congress.) As you point out, Senator Kyl misses the point. First, none of these court cases was heard on its merits. That is, they were all dismissed on procedural grounds. Have you considered visiting Senator Kyl during his office hours in the state?

    As for what you might say about FactCheck.org… Here is what I wrote in a comment, below.

    # drkate Says:
    Tuesday, 10 March 2009 at 19:24 edit

    Thank you, jbjd. I look to your wisdom for some clues as to how we are, or are not, proceeding.

    I wanted to invite you over to TD blog, there is an interesting idea of suing factcheck.org for placing two forged documents on their website…..the COLB and the Selective Service registration…what do you think?

    I agree thank god the judge did not ‘take notice’ of footnote 1 in the hollister case, which cites fact check.org. The more judges throw out cases like that with such invective the more credibility we lose in general.

    drkate: I am always pleased to hear from you. Here is what I posted at Citizen Wells on the subject, in response to suggestions by his readers that FactCheck should be sued.

    jbjd // March 7, 2009 at 12:13 pm

    I have seen the idea of a lawsuit against FactCheck.org suggested on Orly’s site; and I have seen her propose this. However, this makes no sense, as FactCheck.org has no “privity” with the voting public. That is, there is no relationship between them and us that creates legally cognizable obligations or, expectations of such.

    This is what came back.

    JeffM // March 7, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    jbjd @March 7, 2009 at 12:13 pm,

    Your observation is an excellent one. As there is no “privity” with the public, their information can not be considered legally binding either. Since neither organization can be sued for damages based on false or misleading legal paperwork, their information can not be utilized as legal documentation for eligibility either.

    This obvious fact should be noted to the courts in every eligibility case. Arguments should be made stating the obvious:

    “Factcheck.org and snopes.com are not legal or government-regulated for accuracy and provide no ‘privity’ to the American people regarding any documentation verified. Therefore any ‘verifications’ of Obama’s place of birth are not legal or binding in any court within the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Neither Factcheck.org nor snopes.com carry any private investigation licenses, nor follow any state and federal regulations for evidence collection, nor are sanctioned by any federal, state, or local agency to provide any artifact legally allowed as evidence in any court of law in the United States of America. That being said, Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama has yet to provide legal evidence or proof of eligibility to the American public to become President of the United States as mandated by the qualification requirement stated in Amendment XX of the U.S. Constitution.”

    And this.

    ccc // March 7, 2009 at 2:48 pm

    “Factcheck.org and snopes.com are not legal or government-regulated for accuracy and provide no ‘privity’ to the American people regarding any documentation verified. Therefore any ‘verifications’ of Obama’s place of birth are not legal or binding in any court within the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Neither Factcheck.org nor snopes.com carry any private investigation licenses, nor follow any state and federal regulations for evidence collection, nor are sanctioned by any federal, state, or local agency to provide any artifact legally allowed as evidence in any court of law in the United States of America. That being said, Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama has yet to provide legal evidence or proof of eligibility to the American public to become President of the United States as mandated by the qualification requirement stated in Amendment XX of the U.S. Constitution.”

    That paragraph should be copied to all of the congressmen who had the audacity quote factcheck or snopes as their source to find BO qualified!!!!!

    And this.

    Maddie // March 7, 2009 at 3:41 pm

    Even though Annenberg FactCheck is
    not a legally-binding source of the obama
    documentation, Obama himself sent the
    challengers to this organization to verify
    same.

    Here was my response.

    jbjd // March 7, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    JeffM, ccc, Maddie, and others: you all need to combine your ideas into one paragraph suitable for mailing. Because it is not only the concept that FactCheck.org has no privity to the voting public that is at issue, but also the fact that, knowing this, BO nonetheless represented that, he is for real BECAUSE they said so, even posting the link to FactCheck on his Fight the Smears web site. (I will write more later; I am on the road. Please, don’t start mailing until we can re-visit the final form of the message. Maybe we can get CW to post this!)

    Unfortunately, I never followed up.

    Now, I will go over to td and see how I can help. ADMINISTRATOR

    Hope this helps. ADMINISTRATOR

  18. bob strauss says:

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

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

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

  19. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, Yes, I had forgotten the larger picture, of this fraud. Can we theorize about Barry being on “welfare” at some point in his life? Have you seen Berg’s “sealed” case? Is his case a problem for Soetoro or will it be swept under the rug? The case I am referring to is, the case of Soetoro getting paid by the government while being an illegal alien US senator.

    bob strauss: Mr. Berg’s case has nothing to do with illegally receiving welfare benefits. Rather, he is alleging that, BO took money as a U.S. Senator notwithstanding he was Constitutionally ineligible for the job. As to this whole ‘sealed case’ thing, I hate to disappoint you but, this is much ado about nothing. The case was filed under the federal False Claims Act, a cause of action which is usually brought for things like, Medicare fraud. http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-dcdce/case_no-1:2008cv01933/case_id-133905/ By law, bringing this case must be done under seal, so as to prevent harm to ‘Defendant’s’ reputation pending the adjudication of the case. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pae/Documents/fcaprocess2.pdf Mr. Berg wrongly failed to seal his case; subsequent to its distribution, the court required him to fix his error, which he did. So, this is why the case is under seal, and not because of any secret information Mr. Berg has obtained, which information heretofore has been unavailable to everyone else in the world. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. I have noticed that, sometimes, you paraphrase answers you receive here on my blog, on other sites. Unfortunately, you tend to obfuscate the real meaning of my words by parsing them. If you are going to distribute information I post on this blog, please, either quote me directly or, send people here to read for themselves, along with your comments.

  20. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, If Hawaii requires the candidate to be NBC, can Hawaii be asked, what evidence they used, to determine his eligibility, as a NBC, the same as the DNC?

    bob strauss: When I say that, DNC rules require their nominee for POTUS to be a NBC, this only means that, the rules of this private club state, he must be Constitutionally eligible for the job. But as we have already seen during this past primary, which BO ‘won,’ notwithstanding HRC received more popular votes – given the degree of fraud even now the subject of Congressional hearings, this was no mean feat – and more pledged delegates awarded as the result of votes cast for the candidates; the DNC will contort their rules to suit their desired result. The ‘fraud’ would be this. Say, a state requires the Party to produce a candidate Constitutionally eligible for the job. (Please note that, this law does not mean, the state has an obligation to vet the candidate as to eligibility!) And the Party swears, the candidate is eligible. But the Party refuses to produce evidence on which it based this determination. I am alleging, absent such evidence, the likelihood is, they broke that state law. Now, take HI, which is the only state that requires the Party to Certify, their candidate is eligible for the job. This still does not mean, either the state or the Party has to prove he is eligible. But I am saying, given the demand for Certification, this would be a hollow gesture if the Party merely Certified such eligibility without actually ascertaining whether the candidate is eligible. ADMINISTRATOR

    01.21.11: As most of us know by now, this statement that HI is the only state that requires specific language of candidate eligibility to appear on the ballot, is wrong. SC does, too. IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK…

  21. njresident says:

    jbjd,
    1. I have a copy of the ‘Officail Certification of nomination’ furnished to state of NJ, signed by Nancy Pelosi. It is exactly the same as the one posted here –
    http://countusout.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/dnc-certification_of_nomination-082908-2.jpg.

    2. The state of NJ has the following requirement for presidential candidate –
    http://www.aclink.org/elections/pdf/2008-Chronological-Elections-Guide-3.4.081.pdf

    Candidates must meet the age, residence & petition signature requirements listed below as set forth in the United States Constitution, New Jersey Constitution and N.J.S.A. 19:23-8
    Citizen Office Age Resident Natural Born
    President 35 Country 14 yrs. Citizen of U.S.

    3. I have written to Nancy Pelosi to request copies of the document(s) she used as basis to determine BO’s constitutional eliibility. She failed to respond within the time limit I specified.

    So now I have valid reasons to file complaint against Nancy Pelosi for fraudulently representing to the state of NJ that BO is constitutionally eligible to be POTUS and that his name can go on the state ballots.
    Do you have a sample complaint we can use?

    njresident: Nice work! Now, I just need a couple more things. 1) Find out from the S of S who sent NP’s Certification, that is, was it sent directly from the DNC or, the state D Party? (Some state laws say something like, ‘The appropriate Party official will submit…’) 2) Find out from the S of S what documents, if any, the state Party sent to get BO’s name on the ballot. 3) Assuming the state D Party sent documents to the S of S, get copies of those. 4) Assuming the state Party submitted documents, submit a written request to the Chair asking on what basis he or she determined, BO is a NBC. (Remember, the DNC rules require the nominee for POTUS must at least be Constitutionally eligible for the job. So, by certifying BO is the Party’s nominee, the state Chair certified he is also a NBC.)

    Before we tackle any court cases, we need to expend our political capital on a state basis. We are already paying the A’sG to protect us from election fraud; let them use taxpayer dollars to investigate DNC fraud for the good of the public. ADMINISTRATOR

  22. […] both supports critical thinking and offers answers to questions you might not want to hear.” March 24, 2009 at 01:42 Judging just by the information printed on “jbjd” since that time, I would say, it is a […]

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: