CATCHING MY BREATH

Everyone, I am working on the next post, deconstructing South Carolina’s ‘interesting’ Certification letter for the 2008 Presidential Preference primary, which should be up momentarily; and the one after that, which will be the MD election fraud complaint to the AG.

Meanwhile, catch me up with what is happening with your efforts to compel officials in your state government to respond to your expressed concerns about the legitimacy of this past election.

Advertisements

9 Responses to CATCHING MY BREATH

  1. d2i says:

    jbjd – saw a post yesterday by Bob Campbell over at the American Grand Jury site. Once again, it’s all about you and your protection of your intellectual property. thought you’d appreciate my response. d2i

    d2i Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    October 9th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
    First time poster, here, thought I’d weigh in.

    What Bob seems to be misunderstanding regarding jbjd’s work is this, it is copyrighted. Therefore, one must ask permission to cross post and obviously you did not do this. So slamming her and her dedication and fine work is seriously misdirected. It’s you who breached her copyrights.

    jbjd is a woman who spends hours upon hours informing, assisting and hand holding others who wish to take the risk in filing said complaints in their respective states. As AleciaTX stated above, JB and a small handful of others, have read her work, surmised its meaning and then posted their own articles without once writing to her to make sure a) she was aware of their imminent post b) they understood “clearly” what they were writing about, and c) that they provided the appropriate credit and attribution.

    For making such a fair request, JB, your pal, admitted in an email that he had read her posts but rather than being a professional he referred to her as a nut job. Some friend you have there.

    I am one who has filed a complaint in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I want and need jbjd to do everything she can to protect the integrity and intellectual property of her work.

    For example, JB erroneously stated in his recent plagiarized series that all 50 states received Certificate’s of Nomination signed by Pelosi which was election fraud. False, not all states Cert’s were signed by Ms. Pelosi.

    Then due to a relationship JB has with Orly and Farrah, they decided, prematurely I might add, that they could get a buddy in New Hampshire to get the Sec’y of their board of elections to admit to fraud by Pelosi and send it to the AG for investigation. Well, guess what, NH law does not have language in it that requires a POTUS candidate has to meet federal or constitutional guidelines. So, if the NH AG comes out and says no election fraud occurred in NH, he’d be absolutely correct BUT his declaration would have ramifications on those state A’sG who may be investigating this charge via citizen complaints.

    My beef with JB and folks like you is this – you jump to conclusions, post articles as though they are your own, you inject your opinion into her posts, and then when busted you point the finger at the very individual who you chose to ignore her copyright rules and who neglected to even contact her to give her a heads up. She more than welcomes cross posting but with conditions that are more than fair.

    That said, maybe one day when you’ve put hours upon hours posting on a particular story and someone comes along and copies your work w/o permission maybe then you’ll understand her position. It’s especially hurtful when you have 50 people who have filed complaints counting on you to make sure nothing gets screwed up. Sure it’s a tight rein, but it is one out of necessity and caution. Don’t take it personally.

    I encourage you and any other bloggers reading this to feel free to contact jbjd and gain her expressed permission to post any of her posts. Once you remove your pride, you’ll quickly come to being a part of the solution rather than the problem.

    Thank you for posting my comment.

    d2i: Thank you. You are right; it’s all about the work. (AleciaTX, I read your comment; wonderful. If you send it here, I will post that, too.) And thank you so much for inviting people here to become involved in the work. As we have discussed, so many people who were so frustrated about what they perceived to be irregularities in the 2008 election cycle, could not channel that frustration into action because they could not distill what went wrong and then, turn around and do something constructive about it. But that’s what we do here! And even when we hone in on the exact problem, we still end up feeling hopeful – I will not allow that word to be usurped, by anyone – because, at this same time, we have the information that will inform the answer. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. d2i says:

    Heads up

    It is my responsibility to keep my AG informed of all new evidence that demonstrates a “pattern” of electoral fraud. Therefore, whenever I do anything public, I make sure he is made aware. I have followed up with my AG and have to date received no response, which is disappointing, but at the same time, understandable. I will also be sending him all new complaints and posts related to the complaints b/c I want to insure he is informed.

    Here is my take on the silence although it is sheer speculation, and I have no facts to substantiate.
    Piecing together how the DNC, Pelosi and state party’s colluded to perpetrate election fraud beginning at the national level trickling down to the states, it took me sometime to wrap my head around the facts, just ask jbjd, and I’ve been following all of this for 18 months or more. It is simply mind boggling to first, believe that a reputable Party would do such a thing AND secondly, that they did it with such hubris.

    Therefore, consider yourselves, me included, as being Generals sitting around a big oval table strategizing on how to get troops to the front line with minimum casualties. Our Field Commander is jbjd and our Chief Commanders are the A’sG.

    Now, each and every one of us who have filed a complaint continues to have a responsibility of reporting action pertinent to the safety of our troops. That is, we must inform, educate and remain on top of the situation at hand. Our responsibility is this – we must keep our CICs informed by sending them key “factual” information posted by our Field Commander, jbjd. Therefore, we must send to them any and all new posts and state complaints jbjd has written. You may ask yourself, well the SC complaint doesn’t have anything to do with TX, but you’d be wrong; all of these complaints taken together demonstrate a pattern of intentional election fraud.

    It is a must that we keep our Commanders informed.

    This is also why EVERY SINGLE PERSON READING THIS POST MUST CHECK THEIR STATE CODE TO LEARN THE FOLLOWING: does your state code REQUIRE a POTUS nominee meet federal or constitutional guidelines before being placed on your state’s general election ballot? If so, send it to jbjd right away. This search takes mere seconds. Once jbjd states in her comments that this would make a sound complaint, then start recruiting your friends to file the complaint once jbjd has posted it. Don’t waste valuable time. Don’t wait until the complaint is done to recruit. Do it as early as possible.

    If you have friends in other states, by all means call them now and begin educating them about these complaints and this effort. Invite them to read Treason I and II and the complaint posts. Tell them this is critical b/c it is.

    Back to my hunch about the A’sG – remember, when jbjd put all of the pieces together in her Treason posts and then synthesized the key “facts” into the Texas complaint, her first one, coupled with what we knew in Hawaii, it became abundantly clear that as she worked on more state complaints exposing the fraud, she, as well as all of us, began to see the devious pattern.

    I’m confident that the R’s knew the D’s did something, but were too close to it all to see it, whereas those of us who were disenfranchised, purposely distanced ourselves from the noise and began to seriously delve into what the hell happened. Therefore, we had eighteen months to become familiar with the facts. The A’sG, our Commander’s, are only now getting up to speed and trust me, it’s these types of cases that makes one’s careers. We are not being ignored.

    Recall, it was less than five weeks ago that the first complaint was even posted. We know the TX AG received multiple copies of the complaint and surely thought his was the only state. Then came HI. Remember, these first two complaints are directed at the state parties. Then came GA and VA which are directed at the DNC leadership and Pelosi. Now A’sG in four states have received multiple complaints. If you don’t think the leadership of the Republican Party has not taken notice of this, you’re silly, because now there are six complaints and two more are on the way b/c of good and honest citizens like you and me.

    Again, citizens from all over America must take action like Jacqlyn did. She looked at Nevada code and learned, much to her chagrin, that such a complaint was not applicable due to the lack of federal/constitutional language in Nevada’s state code.

    Remember, this complaint is not a one size fits all, which is why I took serious issue w/Mr. Williams series over at CFP. He totally misinterpreted the work jbjd has done, but acted like he knew what he was talking about. This type of action only hinders our efforts. Therefore, if you see anyone misrepresenting this work alert jbjd; she is the individual who had the intellect and the guts to put this out in the public venue, she carries responsibility for the complaints as well as for those of us who file. This intellectual property must be protected at all costs even if it makes some of our blogger friends uncomfortable. We’re not out to win a popularity contest here. Instead, we are all about exposing the fraud and supporting and protecting one another.

    Lastly, I need to ask all of you a favor. jbjd is not independently wealthy. She works during the day and takes care of her son. She is up into all hours of the night writing, talking to filers, and processing new information and tips which come to her daily now. Thank goodness. I’m selfish and would personally like to have jbjd focus solely on this critical work, but she can’t due to that pesky little thing called making a living to support her and her son. That said, if everyone contributed $25 or $50 bucks regularly, we could hire her away from her current day job to concentrate her efforts on only this matter. Realizing times are tough and not all of us have the wherewithal to financially give, I might suggest you contact jbjd privately and ask how you can assist. However, for those of us that can financially assist, I ask you to commit $25 or $50 or more bucks weekly, bi-weekly or monthly. Whatever you can afford. We need her full and undivided attention right now and fortunately, this ask is short term. I’m pledging $25 a week b/c that is what I can afford right now. Will you please consider matching my pledge?

    Thanks in advance.
    Onward!!!

    d2i: That’s twice, now. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. jbjd says:

    Here is the comment from Ed Sunderland posted on a previous article but which is applicable here.

    Submitted on 2009/10/10 at 2:02pm

    My understanding is that complaints such as this are referred to the attorney general through the SOS.

    My understanding was from the direction I received from the Attorney General Office who has a copy of my complaint.

    “Bill”, from the AG’s office said to me via phone call, “you need to propose this complaint through the SOS”.

    I replied, “yes sir”, and proceeded to send the complaint via USPS to the SOS, where I was informed previously by a representative from the SOS office, “if the complaint is compelling it will be sent to the AG’s office for further action.

    This by the way is similar to the response I received from my Texas State Rep.

    You are correct, my first complaint was sent to the AG’s office via fax and three follow up phone calls. On the third call I was referred to the SOS office.

    I then called the SOS office and asked, “exactly what do I do and what do you (the SOS) need to file a complaint regarding election fraud?”. I was instructed to send the complaint to the SOS and that if the complaint was “compelling enough” it would be sent over to the AG.

    (I found the post that may be a reminder for you below)

    Ed Sunderland Says:
    September 29, 2009 at 23:30 | Reply

    I talked to the AG’s office again today on a follow up (apparently word is getting out because when I mentioned “election fraud” I didn’t get the usual telephone rodeo). “I was directed to Bill”, and to check status of my complaint. He said I needed to contact the Secretary of State.

    I asked some specific questions about this and and he still referred me to the Secretary of State. “All election fraud charges go through the SOS I asked?”, “yes” he said, “want their phone number?”

    I read above where Alecia was asked if she’d contacted the SOS. I’ll call tomorrow and see what I can dig up.

    Ed Sunderland: Ed, I need from you (or any other Texans out there) the provision of the statute that says, all election fraud complaints must go through the SoS. Because I think what has happened in TX is the same thing that happened in VA. That is, under usual circumstances, a charge of election fraud is anticipated to be something like, standing in front of the polls and sending voters to the wrong voting location; or saying someone’s name is not on the registration list, when it is, etc. This explains why so many of these laws contain the requirement, there must be 2 (two) witnesses. But we are talking about something altogether different; and we are not talking about “challenges” to the ballot, where which such challenges when allowed, the time for filing these challenges is limited to within days of the filing to get onto the ballot. (In other words, assuming BO’s name was submitted by the D party on August 28, 2008; the deadline for challenge to have his name on the ballot would have been shortly thereafter.) In VA, despite indicating in their web literature, these challenges must go through the BoE, in the end, the BoE realized, these complaints charge criminal fraud not explicitly spelled out in the statute. That is, “fraud” is spelled out but, no one anticipated the nature of this fraud would be, to swear a nominee for POTUS from the major political is eligible for the job without first ascertaining, whether s/he is. (Sounds like the beginnings of model legislation to me!) ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Curiouser and Curiouser says:

    Dear jbjd,
    Thanks for your indefagitable energy and unrelenting efforts. With regard to monetary donations; maybe you could publish a short note as to where we could send these and by what methods. (comments regarding the political advocacy organization you cited are omitted)

    Once again thank you as well as all of your supporters and contributors to this blog and especially those who have filed complaints.

    Curiouser and Curiouser: You are welcome. And I looked up the group you mentioned, before I deleted your references. Because both D’s and R’s have organized hundreds of groups (usually PAC’s) aimed at promoting a particular cause that each side believes will result in increased elections of candidates of their respective party, to office. Partisan conduct does not equal criminal conduct. If I believed that the only state officials willing to carry out their jobs were R’s; and the only people they would listen to are R’s; then, I would have tailored the filing and distribution of these complaints accordingly. Not everyone who enabled BO to become the POTUS, however tangentially, is culpable in the fraud. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Susan says:

    The AG’s office received it on 10/2/2009 @9:57 signed by Briss. So much for next day. Offices are closed Monday. The last project we did with the Georgia AG, it was between 5 to 10 days when I received a reply. I would assume it would be the same time frame. I will give it 10 days from the day it arrived and will f/u on it.
    (I removed the link because 1) it is a wiki link and, therefore, lacks credibility; 2) it only could report what we already know, which is, no provision of any law requires the state to vet the eligibility of the candidates whose names appear on state ballots*; and 3) I find headings that contain phrases like the one used on that site, incendiary.)

    Susan: Okay. But I wonder whether this notification is pro forma or, prescribed by law? ADMINISTRATOR

    *Everyone, please, learn the difference between being obliged to vet a candidate; and exercising your statutory discretion to vet a candidate. Just because the law does not require a SoS to vet does not mean, knowing a candidate is ineligible, s/he cannot refuse to post that name on the state ballot.

  6. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    Wow, jbjd, I didn’t realize your motivation appears to be its your way or the highway. I think the staffer was interested to hear that a dual citizen at birth is not a natural born citizen, but apparently I should have been in his office extolling the virtues of jbjd because well apparently jbjd is a genius in these matters and the pervayor of the truth and the only truth. I appreciate your work jbjd, but you should also appreciate that a citizen in Arizona has been attempting to work best within the election laws of her State and attempted to bring to the attention of her elected official a simple birth fact regarding Obama. My intent in that meeting was to find out what my Congressman thought the Constitutional ramifications were of a person holding dual citizenship at birth. My intentions in that meeting were not to promote the agendas of Leo Donofrio and jbjd. Now we’ll see if you print this, or if you will censor it because it doesn’t fit your version of truth.

    curi0us0nefromthe60s: I will not promote any agenda as “fact” just because, having conducted the research, this or that analysis makes sense to me. I refuse to shove the agenda I believe most likely to be true, down people’s throats just because I want to be right, and not because, the law supports my speculation. Calling my decision to focus on election fraud to challenge BO’s Presidency, my agenda, as if I chose this tack instead of other avenues available in law and in fact, completely misses the point of the work done on this blog.

    I realized during the primaries, no one, not the S’s oS; or the Electoral College; or the Congress was charged by law with vetting the candidates for POTUS from the major political parties as to Constitutional eligibility for the job. By definition, this means, no one failed to do his or her job in passing BO into office. But you are certain, he is not a NBC? Based on what? His admission, he was subject to British authority at birth? You cannot produce the legal cite that says, this excludes the man from being eligible for POTUS, because there is none. Yet, for some reason, you and several other people who comment regularly on Leo’s blog, maintain this exclusion as “fact.” Worse, you torment others into accepting your adopted reality, or else subject us to ridicule and disdain. (I previously posted a sample of Leo’s diatribe against me; your present comments speak for themselves.)

    What I know is, if NP swore BO is a NBC to state election officials to get them to print his name on the ballot without first ascertaining whether he is a NBC, she committed election fraud. That’s a fact, according to law. And given the facts in the public record, including admissions made by BO and his attorneys to a federal court; it appears unlikely that NP ascertained BO is a “C,” let alone a NBC.

    According to the rules governing the DNC, by signing the Certification that was submitted to AZ election officials to get BO’s name on the ballot, in which NP wrote BO was “duly nominated,” she swore the DNC vetted him as to Constitutional eligibility. In other words, given the documents available in the public record at the time of her signing, she lied. Get your state officials revved up about this; ask them to ask the DNC how they ascertained he was a NBC. When we asked, they refused to answer. (You could point out this ‘conspiracy of silence’ to those officials; copies of the D’s response to our inquiries are in posts on this blog.) But it is not election fraud because no AZ law says, the major political parties have to submit only the names of eligible candidates to get printed on the general election ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    Thank you for printing my comments, and for your reasonable response with your commitment to exposing the fraud.

  8. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    jbjd,

    I’m from the State of Arizona, so as you know the candidates signed a paper swearing and attesting to their eligibility in our State. As a result we have had to take a different avenue to ensure eligibility which has included revising our statute through SB1158 which did not make it through the last legislative session and is now a “dead” bill. I emailed my State Senators and the sponsor of the bill State Senator Pearce has agreed to reintroduce the legislation in the next term. I have asked him to include a definition for natural born citizen within the bill.

    On another front, I met with my Congressman’s District Chief of Staff to discuss the eligibility issue directly with him. This is how my meeting with him went which occurred on Thursday, Oct. 15th.

    I attended a local Town Hall meeting in late August of this year. Since that time I have diligently been attempting to get a one on one meeting with my Representative. Due to his schedule in Washington D.C., I was not able to get a one on one meeting with my Representative, but I was able to meet one on one with his District Chief of Staff.

    I began the meeting by discussing my Constitutional concerns regarding the healthcare legislation. I spoke with him for about 20 minutes on this topic referencing both the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Once I garnered his trust and had shown that I was a person who was Constitutionally aware and concerned, I told him I had one last question for him.

    I asked him if he could think of any circumstance where a person who was a British citizen at birth could also be considered a natural born citizen of the United States. He of course replied that he could not think of a circumstance and that the person would not be a natural born citizen.

    From this point on, the meeting continued for another 40 minutes in which I was able to provide the District Chief of Staff with information regarding Donofrio’s original lawsuit, information regarding Hawaii’s UIPA and OIP and ongoing activities in Hawaii with the DoH, the AG and the OIP. I explained to him the Quo Warranto statutes and who can bring forth suits under these statutes. I gave him various blog sites so that he could further research the matter, and I gave him my blog address so that he could read my book on the subject. I provided him an archive copy from July 2008 of Barack Obama’s Fight the Smears website where they claim Barack Obama is a 14th Amendment U.S. citizen (which I originally discovered here on your site jbjd). I provided him with a copy of the current page of Barack Obama’s Fight the Smears website where he admits to being bound at birth by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

    I want to convey to you and your readers that my Representative’s District Chief of Staff whom I spoke with today is either an Academy award winning actor, or he had absolutely no idea about the information I was providing to him. He was literally ignorant of all of the facts I was presenting to him. He seemed completely sincere that he would be following up on the information. In fact, he sent me email correspondence after our meeting stating:

    “You brought to my attention a side of these issues that I have not considered before and you also provided a perspective on the citizenship issue that I was not even aware of before now. You have given me a lot to research, which I look forward to doing.”

    I honestly do not think that they are all part of a conspiracy. There are in fact Congressman whom are truly ignorant of our Constitution and the facts surrounding Barack Obama’s dual citizenship at birth. In addition to writing letters to your Congressman, please try to arrange one on one meetings with them. It is not easy as I said it took me 6 weeks and I only got to speak to his District Chief of Staff, but it can be done, your voice can be heard, and you can educate your Congressman.

    As I left the District Chief of Staff’s office today, he thanked me for bringing to his attention matters they were not even considering. He went on to say, it all makes sense now why they won’t release the Hawaiian Birth Certificate. He gets it that it is a distraction and a smoke screen. Now let us hope that they actually do something about it.

    curi0us0nefromthe60s: I wonder how angry will be this staffer at you, when he tries to put forward your argument that BO is not a NBC because he said he was subject to British law at birth; and his boss, or other staffers, point out, neither the US Constitution nor any law or federal court case excludes from being considered a NBC, someone whose purported father could have made him subject to British authority, at birth. That, and this gibberish about quo warranto, and HI UIPA, etc.

    And wait until he looks up Leo Donofrio. Remember Leo’s ‘true story’ in which he claimed he was followed in the DC train station by a hobo talking into his shoes? (I am summarizing and paraphrasing here.) Remember when he superimposed the word, “WUSSY” over a photograph of the SCOTUS after they refused to hear his futile appeal of the adverse rulings from both the trial and appellate courts?

    Leo tends to construe any words and phrases to his benefit, independent of reality. For example, on the same day HI DoH officials made the innocuous statement, BO is a NBC; Congress issued a resolution congratulating HI on their 50th anniversary as a state, the state where ‘our President was born.’ Maybe HI officials were referring to that Congressional resolution. Or maybe they meant, NP swore he was a NBC, in that Certification of Nomination submitted to HI election officials. Consider this scenario: if the DoH official commented to the AG, I am sick and tired of receiving thousands of letters clogging up the operation of the DoH, when Congress and NP have both said BO is a NBC; can’t I just tell people that, without violating his confidentiality or, triggering opening up the records? And I can imagine, the AG could have said, sure, this is all a matter of public record…

    In the mandamus case, he asked the court to order the SoS of NJ to vet BO as to Constitutional eligibility when vetting him was not in her job description, according to law. Quo warranto does not exist to remove a President from office except in Leo’s mind. I assure you, using Leo’s track record to base your belief, BO is not a NBC, will discredit you and the staffer; and he will be angry at you for making him look the fool.

    That is, if he passes on your information at all.

    How much simpler and more effective it would have been, given your ‘face time,’ to point out, citizens in some states have filed election fraud complaints against members of the D party because in these states, voters enacted laws that said, we will only print the names of eligible candidates on our state ballots. And the party submitted a Certification that BO was eligible for the job but, based on documentation available in the public record, there’s no way they could have ascertained such eligibility. And that would explain why, when asked, NP, AG, and the General Counsel refused to tell voters what documents they used as the basis for their Certification.

    AZ has no such ballot eligibility laws but what would have happened if, for example, you had downloaded a complaint from SC and handed this to the Congressional staffer? You could have pointed out, the state D party chair typed a memo to certify the names of the candidates for the SC primary ballot but left out the statutory language about eligibility. So, when the Treasurer delivered the memo to the office of the Election Commission, staffers there pointed out the language was missing; and she filled it in, by hand! And when it came time to submit the Certification for the general election ballot, the DNC General Counsel submitted NP’s Certification. And this means, the D party chair in SC, Carol Fowler, married to the former DNC Chair Don Fowler, never actually certified BO was a NBC!

    I could go on but, I think I have made my point. The D’s perpetrated election fraud in order to install BO into the WH. Read “NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON” (1 & 2) until you really ‘get’ that this is all about election fraud in relation to getting BO’s name on the general election ballot. The rest – dual citizenship, quo warranto, UIPA – is distraction. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. linder says:

    jbjd,

    I have a question…I also live in AZ, and am aware that Az law does not require constitutional eligibility for the presidential election, however I have attached the primary form ..http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/PPE/Nomination_Paper_PPE_Feb_5_2008.pdf. … which may read differently. Is there any difference?

    linder: Yes; this is a form signed by BO. He signed similar forms in several other states. The problem is, if you want to go after BO for fraud, you must be able to prove, he is not a NBC. Because he knows whether he is and so, he can sign a document saying he is. However, if someone else signs a document saying he is a NBC then, knowing what documents are in the public record, we can say, you cannot have established based on these records, BO is a NBC. So, what are the D’s who signed the Certification going to say now, that they asked him whether he was eligible and he said, ‘Yes’? Looks reckless to me, which is the standard for criminal conduct.

    However, the fact he signed this AZ application to appear on the state’s Presidential Preference primary, and submitted this document to the SoS; was important for the purpose of establishing, BO swore he was a NBC in that AZ document he signed in December 2007 but then swore he was a “native citizen” on FTS in June 2008. This inconsistency evidences a fraud. (One piece of evidence will not prove the fraud but we have accumulated a lot of evidence of fraud, which is presented in the complaints.) ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: