(NOTE TO VIEWERS OF THIS BLOG: PLEASE READ THE COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY READERS, HIDDEN BELOW THE ARTICLE, ALONG WITH MY RESPONSES TO THEIR REMARKS. ESPECIALLY DIGEST THE EXCHANGES BETWEEN ME AND azgo.)
In response to a comment on a blog, I contacted one of the attorneys involved in a court case seeking to determine whether BO is a NBC. I received a reply asking for help. Here is my response.
I am glad you took me up on my offer to help.
I haven’t formalized my ideas, so I will just throw these out for now.
Okay, let’s talk Plaintiffs, first. (FYI, I am the person who conceived using National Guard soon-to-be-deployed, as Plaintiffs to gain standing in federal court in a Declaratory Judgment case under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act – these Plaintiffs are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice until they are federalized – because they could be subject to becoming Defendants in a subsequent prosecution related to whether BO is a NBC… I am the same person who began posting last summer that a “Certification” is not a “Certificate”; unfortunately, this was right after Berg had already filed his first Complaint, calling the document posted on BO’s “Fight the Smears” site, a “Certificate.”)
Pledged Delegates for HRC who switched to BO; or who were pledged to BO in the first place, and voted for him at the DNC Convention, but would not have voted for him had they known, he is not a NBC, would have standing as Plaintiffs in a civil action for (fraud, unjust enrichment…). ESPECIALLY DESIRABLE ARE PLEDGED DELEGATES FROM THOSE STATES THAT HAVE ENACTED LAWS REQUIRING DELEGATES PLEDGED AS THE RESULT OF PRIMARY VOTING MUST FOLLOW THEIR CANDIDATES ONTO THE FLOOR OF THE CONVENTION. (There are around 13 of these ‘binding vote’ states; I have the list.) And some of these vote binding states also have laws about ballot access, that require the candidate for POTUS from the major political party must be eligible for the job. (None of these states requires any government official to check.) Off the top of my head, I know GA is both a vote binding state AND a state requiring the party candidate to be eligible for the job.
As for strategy… Months ago, when drafting the Declaratory Judgment case I mentioned above, I reasoned, it made no sense to try to support a claim, BO is not a NBC. Instead, I argued, Plaintiffs had reasonable cause to believe, he might not be a NBC, based in large part on his own words and actions. But since that time, things have changed, especially with regard to these 4 (four) events. 1) Several people have contacted Nancy Pelosi qua Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention to ask on what basis she Certified BO is a NBC. She refused to respond. 2) HI officials have spoken in circles in a botched attempt to ‘confirm’ BO is a NBC. 3) BO, personally (before being sworn in) and through his spokespeople, continue to dodge the issue by lying that the Certification is a Certificate and proves he is a NBC. 4) In Berg’s Hollister case, BO Motion to Dismiss contained a footnote asking the court to take judicial notice that Annenberg Political Fact Check said he’s for real; and that an announcement of his birth had been published in a HI newspaper. (Of course, if the judge had taken judicial notice, we lawyers would have known, this meant nothing; but everyone else would have interpreted this to mean, the court has ruled, he is a NBC. Thank goodness, the court did no such thing. However, this confirmed my suspicions, as spelled out in the earlier draft of the military Complaint, that the strongest ‘evidence’ BO could proffer to establish he is a NBC, is that stupid photocopied on-line Certification; which means nothing!) Taken together, this could form a good faith belief in a reasonable person that no evidence exists that would establish, BO is a NBC. SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRODUCTION TO HIM! And as for objections to this strategy, argue “unclean hands” (you blocked access to all documentation and now cannot argue, we cannot submit proof); or unjust enrichment (you distributed the COLB to Daily Kos and Annenberg Political Fact Check in order to refute “rumors” about your citizenship status – you said so, on your “Fight the Smears” site – and now, having banked on that COLB, it isn’t fair to raise privilege and confidentiality to block our access to those records that could verify whether your claims are true).
Finally, to overcome claims of sovereign immunity, I would drop all claims against conduct that occurred viz a viz the Congressional ratification of the EC vote; rather, go after NP as Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention. Go after any other actors not as failed Congresspeople but as co-conspirators to the fraud.
I know this is a lot to digest; let me know what you think. (I am not going to proof this because I want to get it out ASAP.)