© 2009 jbjd



The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United State House of Representatives, 3rd in line of Presidential succession,, acting in a non-governmental role as Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, signed and submitted to the Board of Elections in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Official DNC Certification of Barack Obama’s Nomination. Therefore, this Complaint of Election Fraud and Request for Investigation to the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, specifically names her.

It’s not as if citizens have not tried to find out directly from the DNC on what basis they verified Mr. Obama’s Constitutional qualifications before submitting his name to election officials to print on the general election ballot in all of those states that restrict access to the state ballot to only those candidates who are eligible for the job. Last December, when I first saw the Certification Ms. Pelosi signed for HI – you know, with that added line saying he is “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution,” required by HI law – I asked Justin Riggs to compose a letter to her, asking for the basis of such Certification, and made arrangements to hand deliver this letter to Ms. Pelosi’s House office. To date, Mr. Riggs has received no reply to his inquiry.

Then, there were the letters sent to Alice Germond, Secretary of the 2008 DNC Convention and Ms. Pelosi’s co-signer on those Certifications of Nomination. This time, voters from several states couched their request for documentation in terms of public records laws. Like Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Germond also failed to respond to these requests for documentation. However, this time, a reply of sorts was forthcoming, from of all people, the General Counsel of the DNC, Joseph E. Sandler, who pointed out the following: “The Democratic National Committee is not a state agency subject to the open records or freedom of information statutes of any state.”

From: Joseph E. Sandler []
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 3:50 PM
To: (name withheld)
Cc: Alice Germond
Subject: Open Records Act Request

Dear Ms. (name withheld):
This will respond to your e-mail dated 12/31/2008, entitled “Records Request,” directed to DNC Secretary Alice Germond.
The Democratic National Committee is not a state agency subject to the open records or freedom of information statutes of any state.
If you are inquiring about the primary or caucus process used by any state Democratic Party, that process was set forth in the State Party’s Delegate Selection Plan for the 2008 Democratic National Convention. To the extent that you seek documents relating to the filing of any candidate in a state-run presidential preference primary, your request should be directed to the Secretary of State or state Board of Elections in that state.

Sincerely yours,
Joseph E. Sandler
General Counsel, Democratic National Committee

Joseph E Sandler
Sandler Reiff & Young PC
300 M Street, S.E. Suite 1102
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel: (202) 479 1111
Fax (202) 479-1115
Cell (202) 607 0700

Of course, by focusing on the fact, he cannot be legally compelled to turn over these records, Mr. Sandler qua the DNC, thumbs his nose at the voters from states all across the country, who have enacted laws permitting their state to expend its public resources to print on state ballots the name of the nominee for POTUS from this private club. In exchange, these voters only required the major political party to ascertain their nominee is eligible for the job. After all, had that candidate for POTUS been championed by any lesser organization, the state may have undertaken such scrutiny. (Nicaraguan born Roger Calero, the candidate for POTUS of the Socialist Workers Party,, did make it onto the general election ballot in several states. However, the laws in these states did not require the nominee for POTUS to be eligible for the job in order to appear on the ballot. Remember, notwithstanding voters often believe, they are electing the POTUS through their vote at the general election, the function of the general election is only to “appoint” Electors, which appointment is required by the Constitution. And to the extent state elections officials refused to print Mr. Calero’s name on the general election ballot, well, even in cases where eligible nominees are otherwise “entitled” to have their names printed on the ballot, this does not prohibit state election officials from exercising their discretion to exclude from the ballot any candidate commonly recognized as ineligible because he is not a Natural Born Citizen.)

Presuming that voters are unaware the Party could voluntarily comply with their requests for documentation as to the basis for Certifying, Barack Obama is Constitutionally qualified for the job of POTUS insults both the integrity and the intelligence of these voters. It is precisely such hubris and obfuscation that has given rise to this Complaint of Election Fraud against The Honorable Nancy Pelosi.

The Model Complaint of Election Fraud immediately below is tailored specifically to the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia. If you live in Virginia and use this complaint, make sure you fill in your name and address in the space marked “From.” Also, remember to distribute copies to Nancy Rodrigues, the Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections; and The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

View this document on Scribd

Here is the Model Complaint of Election Fraud against The Honorable Nancy Pelosi in Georgia. To use this complaint if you live in Georgia, make sure to fill in your name and address in the space marked “From.” Also, remember to distribute copies to SoS Karen Handel and The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

View this document on Scribd


  1. Victor says:

    What Court ?
    Whar Date?
    Case Number ?

    Victor: This is not a civil complaint for fraud. Rather, it is a complaint brought by a citizen of the state to the state AG, its chief law enforcement official, charging The Honorable Nancy Pelosi committed election fraud on the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and a request that he conduct an investigation. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. d2i says:

    Well, I’ve been monitoring your site for days now waiting on the Virginia complaint and kazam here it is. Please know I have emailed the complaint to all three parties listed on the Memorandum.

    Since May 31, 2008, I have been following your work and want you to know how much I value and appreciate the time and effort you and Team jbjd have conducted to make this day real. Thank you for teaching us election law and constitutional law over the last 18 months. It has truly been a fascinating learning experience.

    Now we need MORE VIRGINIAN’S to step up to the plate and send this Memo to AG Mims, Secretary Rodrigues and Speaker Pelosi. C’mon. If I can do it you can do it.

    d2i: Well, glad to oblige. And if your call to action on the Texas complaint is a portent of things to come, your fellow Virginians will not disappoint. (Just a point of clarification. The team formally designated Team jbjd, which I assembled from posters throughout the internet to help with the specific project, how to gain standing in federal court to establish whether BO is a NBC; disbanded shortly after I posted the November 2008 memo on the subject. So, now you could refer to my random helpers and me as ‘team jbjd.’) ADMINISTRATOR

  3. azgo says:

    Very good, jbjd or I should say, Team jbjd! Nice job of identifying Virginia’s election law and identifying NP as a big player in the alleged election fraud.

    This all would have been so simple if the any authorized representatives of the DNC and even the attorney Joseph Sandler would have provided “no doubt” documentation to the American people to put the question of eligibility to rest. But they cannot.

    The Attorney General’s of all the states need to recognize why the question of eligibility has been a ‘dead end’ for the American people to this point, and why this question has not been answered.

    azgo: Thank you. Yes; this would have been so much easier if we did not have to work so hard to obtain the rights to which ALL OF US are entitled. Like a President who is a NBC. These people act as if they are doing US a favor by installing their candidate into the position. But undermining the electoral process JUST BECAUSE THEY COULD is contrary to every principle for which this process was conceived: equality of voting power; elimination of party cronyism; and selecting the best American patriot for the job. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. d2i helped with the proofing and editing. We joked, too bad this is going up while azgo is out of town; he is certain to find any mistakes we missed! I must say, having that help certainly eases the burden of research and writing.

  4. bob strauss says:

    Good morning. (comment deleted)

    bob strauss: Here’s the thing. I cannot print on this blog, any information more speculative in nature, than fact. Consequently, I edited out most of your comment. In my work, I have not stated conclusively any information I could not back up with substantial documentation. This is another one of those ‘rumors’ I refuse to print, absent authentication. Obviously, anyone can read about this rumor on several other blogs, including those you listed. FYI, I have seen the divorce papers for Stanley Dunham, minus any birth certificate for BO, which you and others claim exists. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. bob strauss says:

    I only sent the info, to make sure you were aware of the latest, going on at AXJ news. The comment section is the only way to communicate with you. I don’t expect you to post anything I write,but knowledge is power, and if I see a piece of news, that may have a bearing on proving Obama a foreign citizen, and ineligible for the job, I pass it on. It is hard, for one person, to keep up with, all of the latest developments. I respect your bobwork and didn’t want you to miss that story, which if true, is a game changer. Did you review the AXJ story?

    bob strauss: bob, I am so sorry. I appreciate your bringing this news to me. Yes; I had seen that. Thank you. I will know better next time. ADMINISTATOR

  6. bob strauss says:

    No problem, next time I’ll tell you the info sent,is just for your perusal. Like this one.
    A lot of people, are looking to you, to be a spokes person, for the Constitutionalists movement, to expel the usurper, and uphold the Constitution.
    The way the courts have been treating the plaintiffs, in the cases that have made it to a hearing, does not look promising for a victory.

    bob strauss: The courts can only rule on what is before them. I am sorry you have been led to believe any one of these several cases is not fatally flawed from its inception. Slamming the courts because the pleading is infirm demonstrates misplaced anger. I think the courts have been exceptionally patient. As for looking to me for ‘rescue,’ well, I look to you to file the complaints in those states with applicable eligibility laws (and to have digested my blog sufficiently to understand what you are doing). As we approach the 2010 elections, I will also need to draft model legislation for candidate eligibility. But for now, we need to concentrate on existing laws to achieve desired results. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Miri says:

    jbjd: Once again, thanks for all of your hard work for the cause. I love the title of this post. The first thing that came to mind is that this particular cheese is starting to smell like Limburger. Assuming that the cheese is one Ms. Pelosi, perhaps she would prefer to smell like Gruyere. It goes so much better with wine. Here’s hoping that she will soon be retiring to her vineyard and leaving the rest of us to repair the damage that she’s done to our fair Republic.

    Miri: You are welcome. I know; we are left to pick up the pieces, no matter what. But, after all, we are the custodians of “our fair Republic.” ADMINISTRATOR

  8. bob strauss says:

    One thing is certain, the law makers, and the majority of the people, in this country, need an education on the Constitution, and the qualifications, to be president.

    It is hard to tell if the electors,
    were ignorant, or crooked, either way they screwed up big time.

    Nancy Pelosi, definitely needs, some education, as to the meaning of natural born citizen.

    bob strauss: Know what’s funny? When we set up eligibility panels in the states, we can define NBC any way we want. If the party wants to use our state ballots then, their candidate has to fulfill our definition of NBC. If they don’t like our definition, they can take us to court; or stay off our ballots. Because until the federal appeals court defines NBC then, one definition is as good as another. And we will do this by the next general election. But at a minimum, NBC certainly means, born in the U.S.A. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. Susan says:

    I sent an email to the SOS and requested any and all documents submitted by the Democratic Party or the DNC in order to get the name of Barack Obama on GA’s general election under the GA publics record law. Will let you know if they reply.

    Susan: This is fabulous. FYI, the public records laws prescribe the time limit for state compliance.

    As you know, I did extensive work the summer before last, with vote binding states; with help from Georgians posting on another blog. (I came to call these helpers ‘my Georgians.’) If we could have harnessed the energy and dedication from that one group of on-line strangers… The thing that is so great about arousing interest in investigating election fraud in states like GA is that, GA is not only a state that requires candidates for POTUS to be eligible for the job but also is a vote binding state. This means, if the AG establishes fraud occurred then, the pledged delegates in GA, either committed to vote for HRC or BO, unwittingly violated their fiduciary obligation to voters who elected them. (Of course, the rationale for this violation is different. That is, HRC’s delegates caved when the opponent hadn’t even won the nomination AND had not been established to be a NBC. BO’s delegates, pledged under the DNC rules to use their “best conscience” to represent the voters, backed a man who stole the nomination and had not been established by the party as eligible for the job.) ADMINISTRATOR

  10. StayAlive says:

    Any update on any filings to SOS and/or AG in California? I was emailed a copy of the DNC certification for Presidential election, w/o Constitutional requirement, and am awaiting additional info/docs from SOS.

    StayAlive: Help me; did we find a CA law that required the nominee for POTUS to be a NBC, or for candidates in general to be eligible to appear on the (general election) ballot? ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Susan says:

    They are very fast. Gave me Dems and Repub
    From: “Rhonda Brown”
    Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 3:37:15 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
    Subject: RE: Web E-Mail [Elections] From Susan

    Please see the attached nomination certificates.
    R. Brown
    Operations Coordinator
    SOS Elections Division

    —–Original Message—–
    Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 3:28 PM
    To: Brown, Rhonda
    Subject: Web E-Mail [Elections] From Susan
    City: State: GA
    Zip Code:

    Question / Comment: Under the GA public records law, I am requesting copies for any and all documents submitted by the Democratic Party or the DNC in order to get the name of Barack Obama printed on GA’s general election ballot.
    I would appreciate any assistance.
    Thank you so much
    2 attachments — Download all attachments
    Presidential Nomination Certificate – Democratic.pdf
    401K View Download
    Presidential Nomination Certificate – Rep.pdf
    764K View Download

    Susan: OMG. Please, can you email the attachments? I will not post these but I need to see them before drafting and posting the GA complaint. Thank you. ADMINISTRATOR

    Susan: I received those documents. Thank you. Now, I am drafting the GA complaint of election fraud to the AG, against The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, who signed and submitted this Certification of Nomination to the SoS of GA. ADMINISTRATOR

  12. StayAlive says:

    Debra Bowen, Secretary of State
    State of California Elections
    Democratic Party
    February 5, 2008
    Presidential Primary Election

    I. Qualifications
    The candidate must be:
    A. A natural-born citizen of the United States,
    B. At least 35 years of age, and
    C. A resident of the United States at least 14 years, U.S. Const., art. II, Section 1(5)

    II. Requirements
    There are two methods by which a person may have his or her name placed on the ballot as a presidential cnadidate in the February 5, 2008, Presidential Prmary Election:
    * by the Secretary of State as a generally-recognized candidate, or
    * by circulating nomination petitions.

    California Elections Code Section 6040-6043
    6040. This article shall apply to the designation of candidates by the Secretary of State for placement only on the presidential primary ballot.
    6041. The Secretary of State shall place the name of a candidate upon the presidential primary ballot when he or she has determined that the candidate is generally advocated for or recognized throughout the United States or California as actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. The Secretary of State shall include as criteria for selecting candidates the fact of qualifying for funding under the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1974, as amended.

    CA Elections Code Section 6900-6909
    6901. Whenever a political party, in accordance with Section 7100, 7300, 7578, or 7843, submits to the Secretary of State its certified list of nominess for electors of President and Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State shall notify each candidate for elector of his or her nomination by the party. The Secretary of State shall cause the names of the candidates for President and Vice President of the several political parties to be placed upon the ballot for the ensuing general election.

    StayAlive: This is wonderful. Now, did you happen to notice that the qualifications for POTUS are spelled out only for those candidates who want to get their names printed on the CA primary ballot? And this means, the candidate and not the party, submits his name to the state elections officials. Thus, the only way to go after the primary candidate for fraud would be, to have evidence tending to prove, he is not a NBC. And when it comes to BO, we have no idea. Presumably, he knows whether he is a NBC. But it is precisely this lack of evidence that gives rise to these election fraud complaints. That is, given the lack of evidence, how were you able to ascertain he is a NBC before you Certified his name to get onto the CA state ballot? The laws you sent regarding Presidential electors submitted by the party fail to require the nominee must be a NBC. See if there are any other laws regarding requirement for placement on CA general election ballots. ADMINISTRATOR

  13. StayAlive says:

    Daniel P. Tokaji in his article in the Michigan Law Review, “The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President?” (107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 31 (2008)) also takes the tact of challenging the process of states putting candidates’ names on the ballot for President,

    StayAlive: This article was printed in October 2008; by that time, I had already been posting for 3 (three) full months my recommendations that people who question BO’s eligibility for POTUS could indirectly address this issue by filing challenges with elections officials to printing his name on the general election ballot. Wanna see? Here is the title of my first blog article, in August 2008: CHALLENGING BO’S ELIGIBILITY TO GET ONTO THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT AS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR POTUS. This contains various comments I had already posted in the blogsphere beginning on August 2, 2008, a full 3 :three) months before this law review article you reference. FYI, I had stumbled onto that article some months ago. The first thing I checked was the date of publication. ADMINISTRATOR

  14. StayAlive says:

    I have posed the question to the CA SOS as to who authorized BHO being placed on the Primary Ballot and what evidence was used to prove he was a NBC? I am still awaiting their response. In my reading of the CA Election Codes, there are no other laws regarding the placement of the candidate on the General Election, aside from providing the SOS the Certfication by the Democratic Party that BHO was their candidate.

    StayAlive: Nice work. But this is the problem. Because the candidate may get his or her name on the primary ballot but if the nominee ‘belongs’ to the major political party then, the Certification of Nomination comes from them. If no requirement in the law says something like, only eligible candidates will have their names appear on the general election ballot then, Certifying BO is the nominee without first ascertaining whether he is eligible, is not a fraud under this present scheme. ADMINISTRATOR

  15. StayAlive says:

    Will be interesting to see their response to how BHO got placed on the Democratic Primary. I agree as to the General Election in CA and I am certainly open to other interpreations and approaches to challenging his legitimacy for election in CA. Look forward to other suggestions.

    StayAlive: There are a million convoluted ways to try to reach a finding of fraud but the most direct route is preferable. Besides, just because CA has no eligibility law on which to base such charges, this does not mean the election in CA is not suspect given a finding of election fraud in any 1 (one) of those other states in which we have filed such complaints. ADMINISTRATOR

  16. d2i says:

    Ahhh company, at last. Whew!

    Virginian’s and Georgian’s PLEASE download the complaint, fill in the form and send the complaint.

    I emailed the Memorandum of Complaint for Virginia to AG Mims, Secretary of the State Board of Elections, Nancy Rodrigues and the Honorable Nancy Pelosi. When I sent it I included the following cover letter:

    September 20, 2009

    The Honorable Bill Mims
    900 East Main Street
    Sixth Floor
    Richmond, Virginia 23219

    Dear Attorney General Mims:

    As a citizen of this great Commonwealth for the last 16 years I find myself in the unfortunate position to request immediate attention to a legal matter that has affected the voters of Virginia.

    I call your attention in particular to the attached Memorandum of Complaint of Election Fraud Against The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Acting in a Non-Governmental Role as Chair, 2008 DNC Convention; and Request for Investigation.

    Specifically, in order to get Virginia elections officials to print the name of Barack Obama as the Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States (“POTUS”) on the state’s 2008 general election ballot, Ms. Pelosi formally submitted to the Virginia State Board of Elections the DNC’s Official Certification of Nomination swearing that Barack Obama was “duly nominated” as the candidate for POTUS for the Democratic Party and had met the legal qualifications for the job, notwithstanding she had failed to ascertain whether Mr. Obama is a Natural Born Citizen (“NBC”) as required under Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. Under Virginia law, the nominee for POTUS of the major political party must be Constitutionally qualified for the job. DNC rules require the nominee must be qualified under the U.S. Constitution. Federal law requires the POTUS must be a NBC. Therefore, swearing he is a NBC, without ascertaining whether he is, for the purpose of obtaining a place on the ballot, constitutes election fraud.

    (Note: This Complaint takes no position on whether
    Mr. Obama is a NBC. Its sole focus is on uncovering whether Ms. Pelosi committed election fraud by failing to ascertain whether Mr. Obama is a NBC before Certifying he was, in order to get the Commonwealth of Virginia elections officials to print his name on the state’s general election ballot.)
    Please note there are several attachments in this email correspondence which provides you the necessary background as to how I have reached this point to request a thorough investigation into these matters.

    I arrive at this decision with a heavy heart as I have been a lifelong Democrat. However, I am an unaffiliated American first, and therefore, must make this request for an investigation of my Party to determine unequivocally whether the Chair of the 2008 Democratic National Convention and the Secretary of the Democratic National Committee committed election fraud to secure for then candidate Barack Obama on Virginia’s general ballot.

    Thank you for your time and for looking into this extremely serious matter immediately. I am available at anytime to discuss this matter further with you. My home phone number is XXX-XXX-XXXX and my cell number is XXX-XXX-XXXX. I sincerely look forward to hearing from you soon.




    It was hand delivered to the AG and Sec’y as well.

    Please feel free to use any part of this letter, but tailor to your own voice.

    A big shout out to my fellow citizens in Georgia and Virginia, it is important that we get this Memorandum to our state AG’s asap. Time is not our friend.


    d2i: I know, you were out on a limb, the ONLY one in the whole country who had filed a complaint of election fraud directly against Ms. Pelosi with your AG. I wish I could have ‘rescued’ you with other Virginians; unable to do that, I did the next best thing. I only posted the GA complaint a few hours ago; let’s see how many people find this by tomorrow. Thank you again, oh brave one. ADMINISTRATOR

  17. markcon says:

    markcon: I had to delete your entire comment but I assure you, I read every word. Now, let me sum up for our readers.

    In an attempt to discredit the work that goes on here, someone wrote on another blog, “If you ask Nancy Pelosi, on what basis did she “certify” Obama as eligible under Article II, she would simply state that she never made any such certification, except in Hawaii… and she would be telling the truth!” You indicated, you tried to post a comment informing him, he was not entirely accurate.

    Of course, what you meant was this. Regardless of the language in the Official DNC Certification of Nomination signed by NP or state D party Chairs, these Certifications swear BO is a NBC. Because DNC rules require the nominee for POTUS must be eligible under the Constitution, for the job. Therefore, any “duly nominated” candidate for POTUS must be a NBC. Besides, in those states that require the candidate for POTUS whose name will appear on the ballot, to be qualified for the job, submitting these Certifications to state elections officials to print on the ballot warranties he is a NBC. markcon, this is exactly what you meant, right? ADMINISTRATOR

  18. TeakWoodKite says:

    Love the title, and the threads comments. My grandaughters pounding that one in to my head.

    If the first requirement of California is to be an NBC, jbjd, and it is not possible to Legally verify the bonifides, how then is it not fraudulent on the face of it?

    Would it not be be a matter of public record how the SOS of CA, verify the representation of a person seeking to be place on the ballot?

    Is the burden of proof on the State or the person filing to be on the ballot? (The person is listed AFTER thwe first requirement of NBC. If it is on the person then what is the standard? Certianly, BO has not provided any legal document to prove it, other than meeting with the Supremes before his swearing in,

    TWK: This is a great question, which came up in the context of the attempts by the people who stole this work we are doing with election fraud, to devise a new fraud related to BO entering the primary in NH. The rules in several states require the candidate who wants his or her name to appear on the primary ballot to be qualified for the job. Individuals sign themselves up for the primaries. (Recall that in MI, BO took his name off the ballot; HRC left hers on. This was an individual and not a party decision.) I believe in CA, SoS Bowen placed some people on the primary ballot based on a general public awareness of their candidacies. But even if you wanted to go after BO for fraud based on statements he made to enter the primary, you would have to allege, he entered his name to appear on the primary ballot knowing he is not a NBC. And you would have to offer evidence that could prove, he is not a NBC. But if we knew he is not a NBC, meaning, we had evidence that could prove this, then we would not be filing complaints of election fraud with A’sG, against anyone who signed his Certification of Nomination to get election officials to print his name on the general election ballot. Rather, we would have raised this evidence to our elected officials in Congress, insisting they initiate Impeachment proceedings. But the good news is, it is precisely this lack of evidence he is a NBC, which lends credibility to our claim, no one could have determined he is a NBC before swearing he is.

    Does this help? ADMINISTRATOR

  19. Mick the Dualer says:

    I’m afraid that all of this is moot. It is a political question. Pelosi does not have to prove anything, you do. What is your proof? She say that she thought that resolution 511 cleared the way, she thought, to the best of her knowledge, that Obama was qualified, etc. You’ve been banging this around for months, same thing over and over. I thought that the declaratory judgement complaint by an imminently Federalized National Guardsman was better. But that only works before they are Federalized, and you saw what happened with Taiz’s case there. They just recinded the orders. File the case already if you think it’s so good, hurry before someone steals your idea!

    Mick the Dualer: You miss the point of the charge of election fraud. Look closely at the front of the complaint: This has nothing to do with determining whether BO is a NBC. I could find no proof NP ascertained BO is a NBC before Certifying, he is, so as to get state elections officials to print his name on general election ballots. That’s why I proposed filing these complaints of fraud. She wanted in on our state ballots; burden of proof is on her.

    Senate 511 only applied to John McCain. (It is only a non-binding resolution, anyway.)

    The court case Orly brought is inapposite to anything I proposed. Her Plaintiff voluntarily asked to be deployed, and was in a situation in which he had the right to rescind that request for deployment up to the time he appeared for duty.

    I only drafted these fraud complaints within the last few weeks. ADMINISTRATOR

    *You misspelled my name. It’s “jbjd,” all small letters, just like in the blog title.

  20. Mick the Dualer says:

    No, you would have to prove that Pelosi disregarded proof that he was not a NBC. It’s a political question that the courts will not get involved with otherwise. Believe me, I am with you on this, but you have been batting this around for months, giving people assignments, etc. What evidence do you have that she knew that BO was not a NBC? If you have that, then file the case already. Sorry about the Capital letters.

    Mick the Dualer: Now I think I get your confusion. You are arguing this action cannot reach the standard of intent necessary to satisfy the ‘criminal’ threshold. But whether NP relied upon photocopied images on an internet verified by BO’s former employers; or ignored such specious ‘documentation’ altogether, before issuing her Certification, certainly such conduct can at least be said to be “reckless.” And that’s all it takes to make fraud. Such analysis contains no facts or allegations that would premise the act of election fraud on a consideration of what constitutes a “NBC.”

    As to your statement that I have been “giving people assignments,” I only try to figure out how those people who want to petition their government for redress of grievances, can do so most effectively. ADMINISTRATOR

  21. TeakWoodKite says:

    Yes it does jbjd. it is interesting that Anneburg fact check was the “source”. I hadn’t thought of it in sometime. Stephen Diamond wrote a solid body of work on them.

    Is there not a public statement by Nancy Pelosi as to how she knew he was NBC because of Fact Check?

    I seem to recall there was a response she gave to that effect.

    TeakWoodKite: If you find such a quote, I will add that to the list. (A list of those members of Congress who claimed they ‘knew’ BO was a NBC because of APFC, is featured in “IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS un-AMERICAN… .”) ADMINISTRATOR

  22. TeakWoodKite says:

    If standing is reached via the AG’s statory obligations in those states, how would discovery work? or would the state AG’s (like or not) be required to prompt the house in some manner?

    TeakWoodKite: The issue of standing has no application in this present action. As citizens of the individual states, we are filing complaints with our state officials charging members of the D party perpetrated election fraud on the citizens of our state. A ruling of fraud means, prosecution of the wrongdoer. But once we get that ruling, in just one state, this means, the sole reason put forward by members of Congress who ratified the EC vote, that APFC vetted BO, is gone. And now, those same constituents who warned them, no one knows whether BO is a NBC, will go back to their Congresspeople to demand Impeachment. (I am condensing here; once 1 (one) AG finds election fraud, I would imagine the MSM would pick up the story, and Congress would act sua sponte, that is, on their own.) ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. Standing comes into play when anyone aggrieved by the fraud files civil suits against the wrongdoers, for damages.

  23. TeakWoodKite says:

    Thanks, that did it.
    So does the APFC have to be found wanting to dictate a finding of fraud? …or is it the fact that the mis-representation by those members of congress who cited the APFC as doing (on their part) “due diligence”, in certifying the EC vote an act of fraud?

    Second is possible to jam on appeal? Or is the finding of fraud irreversalable on appeal or subject to a stay from the Supremes?

    TeakWoodKite: All I want is a finding by the AG in 1 (one) state that the D party committed election fraud. That will be enough to trigger the Articles of Impeachment.

    What happens in court after the AG begins prosecution, has nothing to do with these complaints, as far as the filers with the AG are concerned. The AG prosecutes on behalf of the state (or, Commonwealth, like VA). But on what basis did these complaints allege fraud against the members of the D party submitting Certifications of Nomination for BO? That they swore he was eligible before ascertaining whether he was. And why do we allege this? Because from the time BO admitted questions existed as to his eligibility, to the time these Certifications were signed, the only evidence available in the public domain that COULD establish eligibility were ‘authenticated’ by APFC. If the AG finds fraud – and s/he must – then this means, APFC did not provide a credible basis on which to vest a finding of eligibility.

    And this means, all of those Congresspeople who ratified the EC vote solely on the basis of representations from APFC that, BO was for real; having now lost that basis for authentication, must initiate Articles of Impeachment. ADMINISTRATOR

  24. Susan says:

    jbjd, on my out and about the world today, I found a great website, it has a list of many states with blogs. Which means people from those states could blog and put in your website, if they had time to do so. I did a few in SC, Hawaii,

    Susan: This is great! Imagine what could be accomplished if everyone was as proactive as you. I know there are so many other states in which complaints of election fraud could rightfully be filed. I could be drafting complaints for other states (if people in other states read their laws or, sent these to me; and then, obtained the Certifications/documents I need to be able to fill in the name of the person committing the fraud in that state) if people just flooded me with this information. That’s how we ended up doing Texas in the first place; I asked redhank to look up the law! (Even azgo, not from TX, got into the picture.) I am dancing as fast as I can; I have taken time off work to work on this ‘project.’ But what we do here is what our Founders envisioned we would be doing, to preserve the Constitutional Republic they envisioned. Good job! ADMINISTRATOR

    • Susan says:

      Thank you, I think one of the problems is people don’t know what to say. I just say a little about what they have on the blog and then today put in what you wrote. You have done all the hard work and we appreciate you and your talent.
      “By filing posted complaints of election fraud to the Attorney General in selected states, you can help clear the path to articles of Impeachment”…(Have you read “The End Game”)? This is a must read for every American.
      They can even copy and paste it on a blog.

      Susan: That reminds me… I had directed that question – ‘have you read “THE END GAME”‘ – to you! Because that sums up all the work.

      I am lousy at marketing; I am much better at conceiving and drafting the working documents. And thank you for recognizing my efforts. I haven’t stopped working since early on in the primary season. But look at how much of my original work has brought us to this point, including ‘discovering’ 13 vote binding states; uncovering and documenting BO’s harassment of pledged delegates; outing the phantom newspaper announcement posted on APFC; and realizing BO’s motion for judicial notice in Hollister was evidence, NP and the D state party Chairs could not have ascertained BO was a NBC before swearing he was! It’s all coming into play! ADMINISTRATOR

  25. TeakWoodKite says:

    jbjd, just want to say thanks for what you are doing.

    I will start looking in my stuff for the quote from Nancy about fact check.

    TeakWoodKite: You are welcome. ADMINISTRATOR

  26. d2i says:

    jbjd – I prepared this summary for your readers, of my appearance before the Virginia State Board of Elections (BoE) this morning.

    The VA BoE held a meeting this morning at our State Capitol. Although I made attempts to learn more about today’s agenda, I learned only after the meeting came to order that it was a special meeting regarding a case that was to be heard at the Federal Court. The meeting was scheduled to begin at 10:30 am which didn’t start until 10:42. A gentleman, who was later recognized as the BoE Attorney provided comments about the federal court case and thereafter the Chair opened up the meeting for any new business.

    This is when I rose and stated that I did have new business to present to the board. The Chair asked me if my comments were going to be long and I stated about five minutes. At that time she indicated that my comments needed to remain brief due to the court hearing at 11 am. The Chair shared that if they were not in the courtroom by 11 am they would be held in contempt. Certainly feeling empathy toward her predicament, I shared that I made effort to learn what today’s meeting was about AND that no where on the agenda did it state this was a special meeting.

    She relinquished but asked that I make it quick. Well the minute I got to the part in my comments about election fraud she cut me off and invited me back to Friday’s meeting. I explained to her that I found this unacceptable b/c I, as a citizen followed proper procedure and should be allowed to finish my comments. She finally stated that the court hearing could take hours and they may not be back until around 2:30 pm. I stated 2:30 would be more than fine and the board members headed over to the Federal Court.

    I left around 11:45 am to grab lunch. I returned at 1:00 pm and saw the gentleman who spoke at the board meeting earlier and asked if he was going to be coming back at 2:30 pm? He stated “No. We just adjourned. See you on Friday.” I stated what? You just adjourned? You are on record to re convene the meeting at 2:30 pm? And he said “See you on Friday.” And I said shame on you!

    I headed into the Capitol anyways and sat in House Room 2 until 2:45 pm.

    Of course I phoned the Secretary of the Board of Elections and although she was most gracious, she never apologized and also stated that I could come back to Friday’s meeting and provide comment.

    As I’m sure you can imagine, I’ve lost all faith that I’d even be heard IF I’m not on the agenda. Therefore, I’ve sent a request to the Secretary asking to be placed on the agenda for Friday’s meeting. (Thank you, jbjd.) I’ll let you know if I hear anything back.

    d2i: As I already told you, this was so brave of you, to appear at a special BoE meeting to ask why the Board has failed to respond to or even acknowledge the complaint of election fraud you filed 2 (two) weeks ago now, with both the AG and the Board in VA. (People, keep in mind, the Governor of VA is Tim Kaine, the Chair of the DNC.) After your appearance on Friday, we can post the testimony you are offering into the record, for other people’s use. (This means, I really have to spend the time organizing this web site so that people can easily access the documents that could help them to promote these election fraud complaints.) Again, thank you so very much for fighting the good fight. I am so proud of you. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Dawn says:

      Thank you for doing this – I am so anxious to hear details. Sounds like you might be setting protocol regarding an option for a “next step” !
      Stay strong!
      Best Regards,
      Your new bf!!

      Dawn: You got it. ADMINISTRATOR

      • d2i says:

        Dawn – I decided to step up to the plate and told jbjd I planned to attend the BoE meeting. We worked together to ensure the path I’m leading is sound and strong. I am glad to see my effort has inspired so many others here to do what is necessary as you also lead. It’s a first in many ways for me. I’ve always been the behind the scenes person coaching others to speak their truth. Now it’s time for me to walk my talk and, if I can, do it in such a manner that serves as a template for those who choose to walk their talk.

        And I love you too! Definitely your new BF.

        d2i: Keep up the courage till Friday. ADMINISTRATOR

    • d2i says:

      jbjd – knowing you were a phone call or email away to assist and support me gave me the strength needed to go before the State Board. From the beginning of this incredible and humbled journey, you have been right there educating me, holding my hand and cheering me on. I will go the distance b/c I have you and the rest of the good folks who post here behind me. Everyone’s encouraging words mean the world to me and give me the necessary strength to take that next step. Thank you for everything you are doing to assist us on the ground. I am most blessed to have found you and to have you as one of my dearest friends. Onward!

      d2i: Thank you; ‘she also serves who sits and waits (by the phone)’. ADMINISTRATOR

  27. Susan says:

    d2i,please don’t lose your faith, you go Friday and you hold your head up high and say what you need to say for all of VA. Shame on them for treating you that way. They all want respect yet they don’t offer the average citizens who care so deeply any respect what so ever. Please know we love you and respect you for what you are doing. God Bless you

    Susan: I had asked whether d2i wanted me to invite other Virginians; no. Trust me, I stayed home monitoring the phone, in case she needed help. ADMINISTRATOR

    • d2i says:

      Susan – I promise you and everyone else reading this thread that I will do everything I can to make us all proud. That is mine and jbjd’s collective goal. Maybe I could get someone to do some live blogging at the meeting on Friday. Any volunteers from Virginia?

      Also, I deliberately chose to go alone. jbjd did ask me if I wanted my appearance before the board yesterday posted on the blog. I asked her not too. However, please feel free to post the meeting for this Friday and any Virginian who cares to join me would be most welcomed.

      Keep me and the rest of the good souls on this journey in your prayers. We need them.

  28. don says:

    jbjd, d2i made a fine presentation. What do you think of the suggestion for next visit to take a witness friend along who could also compose a review of these rude events and even perhaps notarize it, just to set the time? What about handing over another copy of the complaint to the responsible party, probably the chair. We are all grateful for your considerable efforts and unique talents. don

    don: Thank you; and thanks for these suggestions. d2i informs me, she intends to write a ‘guest post’ of sorts, to explain some background information about today’s appearance before the BoE. Suffice to say, I did not arm her with a dynamite complaint and then leave her hanging in the proverbial wind. But I will let her tell you all about it. ADMINISTRATOR

    • d2i says:

      don – this is a great suggestion. any Virginian out there willing to join me?

      and no, jbjd has never left me hanging in the wind. Nor will she leave any of you out there by yourselves. I am more than happy to assist you in anyway I possibly can as well.

      Susan – keep all of us in your prayers. it took many positive thinking people to get us here and now we need all the strength we can muster to enter this next round and walk away as winners.

      d2i: Permit me to embellish.

      d2i telephoned me several times, before, during, and after the meeting. I must say, ‘sensing’ the issue was close to being heard and, knowing at least 2 (two) reporters have received copies of the VA complaint, buoyed my spirits. It is with these heightened expectations in mind, which probably accounts for my snapping at d2i when she revealed the following: she informed me, she had gotten into a discussion with a friend of a friend connected to the BoE, concerning the definition of NBC. Having been well schooled in the various prevailing sentiments on what is the meaning of NBC – she did her research by reading research posted on other blog, as well as examining original texts referred to in those tomes – and concluded that, NBC means, both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of birth.

      SAY WHAT?

      This definition of NBC is only a figment of the imagination of anyone espousing such a view. Because it is not the definition of NBC found in the Constitution. (Remember when Orly was on the Colbert Report; and he made a joke about the fact, she was imputing a definition of NBC that cannot be found in the Constitution?) NBC has no ‘legal’ definition until a federal appeals court, including the SCOTUS, says ‘this is what it means.’ However, this is not my major objection to having any one of you who filed this election fraud complaint, discussing your opinion of what constitutes a NBC. No; the problem you create by talking about what is a NBC in context of these complaints is this.

      These election fraud complaints take no stand on whether BO is a NBC. Indeed, the front of each complaint contains a disclaimer, in bold, emphasizing to the reader, this complaint has absolutely nothing to do with whether BO is a NBC. And, having filed a complaint that says this, you have to mean it. Let me give you an absurd example.

      Let’s say, evidence suddenly surfaces tending to prove to anyone, espousing any definition of NBC, that BO is a NBC, evidence which was unavailable to the public, including NP, until now. Given this newly appearing evidence is the only basis to conclude, BO is a NBC; then, on what basis did she determine on August 27, 2008, when she signed those Certifications of Nomination and delivered these to state election officials, that he was a NBC? None? Then, she committed election fraud. See what I mean?

      Yes, I snapped at d2i; because we are absolutely on the right path to exposing election fraud, and I don’t want to blow it now. So, when I wrote ‘the complaint takes no stand on whether BO is a NBC,’ I meant it. And for those of you who already submitted a complaint, you had better mean it too. Otherwise, you not only sound like just another anti-BO zealot who will do anything to get him out of the WH; but you are just like the people who equate a right to a fair and honest election, to a right to kick out of office a man you did not vote in. I have said this since I began working on issues related to fraud in this general election cycle: I absolutely accept the right of my fellow citizens to elect a POTUS who I feel is wholly unsuited to hold the position. But this doesn’t give them the right to foist upon me a man who is Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

      d2i had practiced her oral presentation. (She also took in the typed testimony that will be entered into the official record of the proceedings, a copy of which we will post for everyone after this has been submitted into the record.) But after her slip about the definition of NBC, I told her to explain to me, in her own words, what this complaint she filed was all about. Now, ad-libbing, she mentioned something like, ‘no one knows anything about him and yet he got onto our state ballot.’ I stopped her. Because we enacted the laws that allow candidates onto the ballot without subjecting them to verification by the state. And all of the candidates are in the same boat as BO when it comes to getting onto our ballots. We lose our credibility if we object to BO being on the ballot without a ‘pedigree’ authenticated by the state but, fail to object that the other candidates are similarly situated. Also, this forum – that is, appearances before state elections officials to file election fraud complaints or follow up on complaints already filed – is not the time or the place to object to our lax election laws. It’s the time and place to object that our election laws are being ignored.

      It’s not the fact that inasmuch as NP was the Chair of a major political party, her signature was enough to put BO on state ballots that is the fraud. It’s that to get him there, she swore he was eligible for the job of POTUS but we are we unable figure out how she did it; and we cannot get an answer from her how she did it, when we ask. That’s why we want our state officials to ask. Otherwise, enacting laws requiring the nominee from the major political party to be eligible for the job before we print his name on our state ballots, represents form without function. And in state after state, wherever we file these complaints, our laws have to mean something. ADMINISTRATOR

      • d2i says:

        To all that are filing complaints and then conducting the necessary follow up –

        What jbjd stated above is critical to understand. Part of the problem I’ve had in wrapping my head around all of this is the eight or so months I spent researching founding papers to understand why the founding fathers even put in Article II and its intent. Like many of you, I believed this was the way to go.

        However, in the meantime, I followed jbjd’s work and kept scratching my head thinking her approach was a 180 if not a 360 of the sizzle many other bloggers were writing about and investigating.

        It has taken me a great deal of time, many late night conversations w/jbjd and re reading her posts. Basically, I had to take all of the NBC knowledge and put on a bookshelf for future reference inside my head. It’s been tough, but I wholeheartedly agree with her work and want my state, Virginia, to investigate what official documentation she and the DNC Party used to confirm eligibility when they asked my state to place this nominee on the Virginia general election ballot.

        Since we can’t get a response from Pelosi nor the DNC, we have no other recourse than to request from our State Lawyer to investigate. Thus, the complaint and tomorrow the testimony.

        Now, a gentle word of warning. Because many of us delved into the whole NBC issue, in some ways our eyes and minds were diverted from the real issue. Was this intentional? Who knows. I do know that I’ve learned a helluva lot more about the the Constitution and our laws, and I now know there are millions just like me that simply want to know the truth – is he or is he not eligible. So, if and when you go before your state to testify please be certain jbjd is aware and assists you. She’s been a trooper t/o my journey and yes, she absolutely fusses at me. As a matter a fact she’s tried to fire me and divorce me several times now. I just won’t let her…LOL. Therefore, you can’t let her either. Understand all she is trying to do is ensure you are focused, prepped, knowledgeable and ready for what will come at you.

        We’ve lived in this bubble now for 18 months which has served as our classroom. Now we are going public and I for one want to be damned sure I know the facts, I can articulate them effectively, and I can focus the enquirers on the facts of Virginia’s complaint and nothing else.

        I guess we’ll know tomorrow, eh?

        PS – jbjd – you’ll never get rid of me so you might as well get used to the idea that I’m hanging around for a good long while.

        d2i: (speechless) ADMINISTRATOR

        • d2i says:

          “Speechless” ha! who would have known this was possible? LOL.

        • azgo says:

          “Speechless”, d2i, “Legally Word-full” is more like it! …lol
          Good luck tomorrow, deliver the words with concern and integrity of an American patriot. We are all with you!!!… And Thank you!

          Oh! Hi jbjd, you certainly have been busy – I like this saying out here in the West, “if ya lean on it, it’ll get done”.
          And you are doing just that! Thanks for all ya lean on!

          azgo: You’re welcome. “[B]usy” doesn’t describe the half of it. ADMINISTRATOR

  29. Susan says:

    d2i, I’m glad jbjd is close by and can help you if need be, just please be careful and take some folks with you. You’all are in my prayers daily and all the people who have been brave enough to send their complaints of Fraud.
    “Fear not for I am with you”.

    Susan: As you can see, d2i did change her mind about having other Virginians join her at the Friday meeting of the BoE.

    Several people have now downloaded the VA complaint. Presumably, they have filed these with VA officials. Do any of you want to hook up with d2i for the meeting on Friday of the VA BoE? ADMINISTRATOR

    • Susan says:

      jbjd I am so glad d2i changed her mind, I hope alot of VA go to this meeting on Friday, and I’m happy to know some people have actually downloaded the VA complaint,its so sad when people think that it’s going to be ok, it will be ok if you get up and do something. If you just file a complaint hay your doing something for our children and grandchildren. Speak up.

      Susan: I did not respond to this comment earlier because we – d2i, the BoE, and I – were engaged in logistical maneuvering to try to ‘set’ an appearance before the Board, in stone. So, yes, d2i will be attending the BoE meeting on Friday, although she is not on the agenda. However, she will be afforded time to speak, in the public comments portion of the meeting. Can anyone else from VA who filed a complaint attend? ADMINISTRATOR

  30. ~~JustMe~~ says:

    Good work I am always reading your work here!

  31. George Wright says:

    (comments deleted)

    George Wright: No, I cannot “enlighten” you on rumors, innuendos, and hypotheticals. I offer no opinions on such matters on this blog; but plenty of others do, and you could spend eons there. ADMINISTRATOR

  32. Texas Voter says:

    I like your complaint and I woudl like to help put it to good use. I have a question about this claim in the complaint:

    “Citizens from Texas, concerned that Mr. Richie had submitted to state election officials unauthenticated Certificates of Nomination, contacted him requesting to see the documentation on which he had based this Certification.”

    When did concerned citizens contact Mr. Richie?

    Texas Voter: You ask, “When did concerned citizens contact Mr. Richie?” And the answer is, before I said they did, in the complaint. Check out this comment from one TX reader, back in September. But I had no idea back then, TX has such strong open records laws, that is, that the state assigns quasi-public-official status to officers of political parties, as the price of doing business in that state. ADMINISTRATOR

  33. Texas Voter says:

    Thank you for your responsiveness. Sorry for the lack of specificity, but I was looking for a date. I was hoping that concerned citizens contacted Mr. Richie prior to the 2008 election, or at least before the Jan. 2009 Inauguration. I am concerned about the complaint being rebuffed as “moot,” but it will not deter me from registering my complaint.

    Thanks very much for all your hard work and dedication.

    Texas Voter: You are very welcome. And your comment provides a welcome opportunity to discuss the issue of ‘mootness,’ which legal concept is inapposite to the work we are carrying out here.

    The conduct about which citizens are complaining to the AG, in the complaints I drafted and which are posted on the front of the blog (and elsewhere) is criminal election fraud, carried out by various members of the D Services Corporation and state D parties. This fraud consists of making a false representation (minimally, this consists of knowingly stating a fact, that is, BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, as true, before ascertaining this is true) to state election officials (usually, the SoS) in order to get them to print BO’s name on the ballot and which false representation gets them to print his name on the ballot, in those states that only allow the name of the candidate for office to be printed on the ballot when s/he is eligible for the job.

    The citizen complaints do not argue the election should be overturned; voting for Electors, while seemingly integrally related to electing a POTUS is, in fact, a separate operation altogether. (See, for example, “NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON (2 of 2)“) Also note that on the front of each complaint is a disclaimer making clear, these complaints take no position on whether BO is a NBC.

    Finally, while you are commenting on the article, “THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE,” I want to make sure you have visited “REMEMBER the ALAMO,” which informs how to file a request for documents from Mr. Richie under the TX open records law. ADMINISTRATOR

  34. piaseczno domy na sprzedaż…

    […]THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE « jbjd[…]…

Leave a Reply to d2i Cancel 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: