BOB BAUER, RUMORED-TO-BE NEXT WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, TO FEDERAL COURT: F*** YOU!

I had intended to issue these revised Complaints of Election Fraud against various members of the Democratic Party and Requests for Investigation by State Attorneys General, anyway; but when I read in FOX News that Robert Bauer, Esquire, General Counsel to the DNC and personal attorney to Barack Obama could replace White House Counsel Greg Craig by the end of the year, I decided to post these updated complaints in an homage to him. BAUER TO BE NAMED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL?

Judging by the historical collaboration between Mr. Bauer and the POTUS, achieving a better match between attorney and client appears unlikely.

This line in the article, which FOX attributes to Wikipedia, jumped out at me: “Bauer is highly regarded in Democratic circles as a tenacious and brilliant lawyer ….” If true, this statement exemplifies everything that is contemptible about Mr. Bauer and his Democratic clientele, including Mr. Obama: they conflate hubris with intellect.

How else to explain Mr. Bauer gets points for helping his clients – The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention; The Honorable Harry Reid, Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate; and Tim Kaine, Governor of Virginia and Chair of the DNC (his AG is the recipient of several of these complaints) – elect a President merely saying, he is Constitutionally qualified for the job?

Or this, from the Complaints to the A’sG, describing how he asked a federal judge to take judicial notice of a mirage.

In January 2009, Mr. Obama was the named Defendant in a case filed in federal district court, ostensibly seeking to determine whether the Uniform Code of Military Justice required a military Plaintiff to obey orders from a Commander in Chief he was not certain was a NBC. (Pleadings for Hollister v. Soetoro, Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-02254-JR, can be found on line at https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/rumors-lies-and-unsubstantiated-facts/.) Mr. Obama submitted a Motion to Dismiss predicated on Plaintiff’s failure to establish the Court’s jurisdiction; and to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (The Defendant was represented by Attorney Robert F. Bauer of PERKINS COIE LLP, who signed the pleadings submitted to the court on his client’s behalf.) Additionally, Mr. Obama asked the court to take judicial notice of the following ‘fact’: he had publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. (Presumably, he used the phrase “publicly produced” referring to the fact, he posted that photocopied COLB on his FTS web site.) Yet he did not provide the court with the ‘original’ COLB so the Clerk could mark up the document as evidence and place it in the case record (where it would be subject to scrutiny by the Plaintiff or the judge’s in-camera inspection). Instead, he tried to authenticate that internet COLB just by asking the court to take “notice” that Annenberg Political Fact Check (“APFC”) “conclude[d] that the birth certificate is genuine.” https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/rumors-lies-and-unsubstantiated-facts/ (APFC is one of many such organizations wholly funded by the Annenberg Foundation, which also paid his salary as Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995-1999.) (And recall he wrote on FTS, this COLB only establishes he is a “native citizen,” anyway.)

Given the fact that 2008 DNC Convention Chair Pelosi is also the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, making her 3rd in line of Presidential succession, with all of the gravitas incorporated therein, it defies credulity that Mr. Obama would seek judicial notice of the lesser fact he is a native citing APFC says he is; but not offer into evidence the DNC Official Certification of Nomination Ms. Pelosi submitted to election officials in the state of HI, swearing Barack Obama is “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution,” or any one of the dozens of her signed Certifications, which persuaded election officials throughout the country to print the name of Barack Obama next to the D on the Presidential ballots in the 2008 general election.

Eschewing reliance on Ms. Pelosi’s Certification, incredibly, Mr. Obama asked the court to take judicial notice of this information: APFC “note[d] a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper.” In fact, APFC had only posted on their web site an image of an unattributed ‘newspaper announcement,’ which phantom image they admitted they had usurped from the “td” blog, where it was posted anonymously. (Note: the “td” TexasDarlin blog site was closed by its owner in August 2009.) With no further investigation into that ‘announcement,’ APFC declared, “The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.” http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html) Like APFC, Defendant Obama omitted the name of this publication. And he failed to enter into the court record any physical evidence of a newspaper announcement, making his claims there was such an announcement, as with his claims the internet COLB was real, impossible to verify, too.

It’s true. Mr. Bauer actually asked a federal judge to take judicial notice that APFC ‘noted’ an imaginary newspaper birth announcement; and that Barack Obama “publicly produced” a “birth certificate” that can only be observed through a computer screen. And he had the audacity to hope the court would grant his wish. Thank goodness, the only relief The Honorable Judge James Robertson granted was the Motion to Dismiss. Because know what Mr. Bauer would have done if Judge Robertson had been as “impressed” with his tenacity as Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Kaine, et al.? He would have twisted judicial notice that APFC made a ‘note’ on their web site and that Mr. Obama posted something on the internet; into a ruling by the federal court that his client is a NBC.

In my opinion, more than 1 (one) ‘birther’ attorney has earned sanctions from the federal court.

(editing assistance provided by d2i)
***************************************************************************************************
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTING COMPLAINTS

1. Download complaint from Scribd by clicking on link below complaint.
2. Fill in your real name and address. Your residency in that state entitles you to the services of your AG.
3. AG complaint gets faxed; copies to parties noted on complaint may be sent by any means preferred.
4. Please distribute copies of filed complaints to the press.

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SOUTH CAROLINIANS

Even if you have previously filed a complaint, please, re-file. Evidently the fax number to the AG’s office was incorrect; and this means, the copies you distributed are copies of documents not on file. So, please, re-file, and re-distribute copies. (The bad news, you need to duplicate your work. The good news? This revised complaint is dynamite.)

GEORGIA

View this document on Scribd

MARYLAND

View this document on Scribd

SOUTH CAROLINA

View this document on Scribd

TEXAS

View this document on Scribd

VIRGINIA

View this document on Scribd
Advertisements

28 Responses to BOB BAUER, RUMORED-TO-BE NEXT WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, TO FEDERAL COURT: F*** YOU!

  1. Dawn says:

    Let me be the first to congratulate you on this latest brilliance. Of course most of the minions know Mr. Bauer as Mrs. Dunn’s husband, thanks to the Internet and Fox News:) Bringing him in as the White House Counsel is but another case of this administration flipping us off.
    I also love the new SC Complaint. WOW. Question: Of course, going forward, all should use this version & the new fax #, and all who sent to the old fax # should re-do using this new version. But, two of us have already faxed to the new # using the old complaint. Just leave that be?
    Thank you jbjd. The new SC complaint is inspiring!!

    Dawn: Thank you so much. No; if the old complaints were sent to the new fax number, do not resend. But do get as many people as possible to send the new complaints. Yes; they are inspiring. As you can imagine, compared to the other complaints, these from SC were the hardest to put together, because the fraud occurred in both the primary and general elections. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Miri says:

    jbjd: This is a most informative post. Thank you so much for reminding us that Anita Dunn’s husband is the lawyer from the Hollister case. I’ve been following a debate about the Hollister case on another blog, where I found a new meme, oft repeated, by (doubtless paid) minions:

    “Rule 11(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that by signing a filing, the signer certifies that ‘The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.’”

    This person asserts that Bauer “certifies” that the factual contentions, including the Factcheck footnote, have evidentiary support or will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation of discovery. The person further states that because Bauer signed this filing, he certified that he CAN produce the documents (not the online COLB or birth announcements, the real things) and that they are authentic.

    So what I’d like to know, jbjd, is your take on this contention. DID Bauer, by signing that filing, assert that the document viewed by Factcheck, as well as the birth announcement, are authentic documents and credible, admissible evidence?

    Furthermore, does his signing the filing mean that he asserts that Obama WAS born in Hawaii and IS eligible to be POTUS?

    However, Bauer also signed a filing in which Barack Obama is referred to as Soetoro, so does that also mean Bauer similarly authenticated Soetoro as his true name?

    I’ve been curious about this switch at the WH. Why is Bauer getting this job NOW? Is it to put him in place to deal with the lawsuits you are facilitating? Possibly to deal with the suits that Leo Donofrio might be filing in Hawaii, where the DoH doesn’t follow their own public disclosure rules? Or do they fear that one of the other eligibility cases might be going further?

    Miri: Let me see if I can answer all of your questions without missing anything. Oh, now I see, much of this is copied from comments you cite from another blog. Okay, as to the assertion that Bauer’s signed pleadings in Hollister indicate he is contending there was a contemporaneous newspaper announcement of BO’s birth AND the COLB proves he was born in HI, neither of these assumptions can be derived from the pleadings. The only thing these documents said is, APFC noted an announcement – they did – and there is a COLB saying BO was born in HI – there is – but not that an actual announcement or COLB was issued by the newspaper or the government of HI, respectively. See the difference? So, Bauer wasn’t lying to the court but bamboozling the court, conduct also prohibited (by the FRCP or rules of professional responsibility).

    As for speculating on the timing of this appointment, well, I have no idea ‘why now.’ ADMINISTRATOR

  3. […] creative yet simple solutions that all citizen activists can adopt, now.  Please take a look at jbjd’s latest article, bound to peak your interest in joining this […]

  4. Miri says:

    Thanks, jbjd. That’s my take on it, too. We know how carefully they parse everything they say. It IS true that Factcheck noted the announcements and said they saw the original document that resulted in the online COLB. But Bauer signed to that “fact” that Factcheck said these things, not that what they said is true. Is that it?

    I know it’s useless to speculate, but I can’t help myself. I figure either they’re getting Bauer in the WH to use him for the various eligibility cases or else to protect him from something, as part of the executive branch.

    Alternately, the guy who’s leaving has been connected to unfortunate clients, so maybe he’s being thrown under the bus and Anita’s husband is being rewarded for services rendered.

    Miri: You have to read BO’s words, and the words of anyone representing him, very carefully. Otherwise, you might misinterpret them to mean what BO wants you to think they mean, and not what they mean. See, even with the benefit of time and explanation, you are just now realizing precisely what was said in fact; and what was attested to in court, as having been said. Imagine, millions of people hearing, Judge Robertson took judicial notice of both the COLB and the newspaper birth announcement! Who would entertain an objection to BO’s Constitutional qualifications for POTUS after that? (Of course, I would, but….) ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Miri says:

    You’re so right. If Obama has taught us anything, it’s to be absolutely precise when trying to interpret what he or his lawyers say. Of course, the point of my original comment about Bauer’s signing that filing is that his minions are saying EXACTLY what you tell us that the filing does NOT say.

    They’re trying to pretend that Bauer would not risk his career by swearing to something that’s not true. But what he swore to is not what they want people to believe he swore to.

    As I believe you pointed out, that’s why they put the claims in a footnote in the first place.

    It’s all obfuscation. They hope that what sounds reasonable will be enough for casual readers of various blogs, especially casual readers who are playing “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” when it comes to Obama.

    Thanks for the enlightenment that you provide and for keeping the pressure on the state attorneys general.

    Miri: You are welcome. What happens when you try to post on those blogs whose “casual readers” “are playing “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” when it comes to Obama”? I wish I could get my comments posted on DK; hey, I cannot even get posted on riverdaughter anymore! (See, “WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE, WHO NEEDS ENEMIES?” on this blog.) ADMINISTRATOR

  6. Miri says:

    What happens? They attack me personally, especially when I make a particularly cogent and logical point. They can’t do anything else BUT to attack me personally, because they can’t argue the facts.

    Miri: I am sorry you get hammered but, knowing this tells me, people who were duped by BO are not even questioning your factual premise anymore. In the past, they challenged any assertions of fact that exposed the problems with BO’s candidacy. Now, they only attack you. ADMINISTRATOR

    • FranSC says:

      jbjd, did you see this on NoQuarter? The hyperlink was in the comments section from “Mia” in the 10/17/2009 article, “Say it ain’t So, Hillary, Say it ain’t So”. I’m curious as to what you think about the authenticity of this 2004 Kenyan news article.

      (link omitted)

      FranSC: I saw this reference all over the place; and I could not care less. Even assuming these articles casting more doubts as to BO’s authenticity as a NBC appeared in real publications and their implicit allegations that he cannot be said to be a NBC are true, I have already established that NP and other D party officials likely failed to ascertain whether BO is a NBC before swearing to state election officials, he was Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS. I wish people would stop wasting their time chasing down tangients like this, and focus their attention on the massive election fraud that occurred in the 2008 general election cycle. Remember, Electors who voted for BO without vetting him, were movers and shakers in the D party who had promised the leadership to vote for him, if he was the nominee. Not even the fact questions had been raised as to his Constitutional qualifications for office caused these Electors to demand proof he was qualified before giving him the job. (That’s why they got their jobs.) Why aren’t people talking about that? ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Miri says:

    A lot of the Obama so-called birther blogs have been attacked by 0bots lately. Minions reporting the blogs as spammers or otherwise somehow messing with people’s e-mail accounts, shutting down their Internet Explorer, or putting trojans on their machines. Many people are complaining about not being able to post comments, so keep trying. I don’t know what “DK” is. But I always welcome your viewpoint. You’ve taught us a lot about the law. As for PUMA blogs like riverdaughter, they probably are working on some other agenda.

    Miri: Sorry, DK is Daily Kos.

    I believe this past general election cycle was rife with fraud. And unless those who perpetrated the fraud are held to account, there is no incentive for them or anyone else not to perpetrate another fraud next time. Besides, if we cannot hold our elected officials accountable now, what difference does it make who is in charge? That’s why voting in new officials in the hope this will fix the ‘system’ makes no sense. It’s we who have to change. Otherwise, all of those people who know more about the ‘system’ than we do, will always have power over us.

    The learning curve is steep. That is, learning everything you didn’t already know about how our government works, takes a while. But once you know it, you are done learning. Then, all you have to do is to monitor the performance of those you elect to run the system. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. StayAlive says:

    I continue to get the run-around from the CA SOS’s office on the CA Democratic Presidential Primary of 5 Feb 08. They refuse to state if anyone checked to see if BHO met the qualification of being first a “natural-born citizen of the United States”. It’s been six weeks and today they sent me a repeat of their first response, i.e., Certifiction of BHO as the Democratic Candidate for the Presidential Race in Nov 08 came from the DNC. They again refused to comment on BHO’s qualifications for the Feb 08 Democratic Primary. Any suggestions?

    StayAlive: Yes; but first, let me ask you a few questions. I recall there is a provision in CA law that says, the SoS will add to the Presidential Primary ballot, the names of candidates in the public arena recognized to be running for POTUS. Further, I interpreted these laws to mean, she had the discretion to pick and choose whose name would be added as a matter of course. Is this correct? If so, I might ask you file a FOIA for any and all documentation that served as the basis for her decision to exercise the discretion authorized by statute, to add BO’s name to the primary ballot. I might propose this action on the basis that, knowing she relied on ‘nothing’ is as important to establishing he was not vetted; as is finding out she based her opinion as to his qualifications for office, on that internet COLB.

    Next, I am going to ask you look into what happened with HRC pledged delegates in CA; more on that when you get back to me.) ADMINISTRATOR

  9. […] creative yet simple solutions that all citizen activists can adopt, now.  Please take a look at jbjd’s latest article, a very cogent analysis of the situation as of this […]

  10. StayAlive says:

    PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES
    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, § 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 candidate in the February 5, 2008, Presidential Primary Election:
    • by the Secretary of State as a generally-recognized candidate, or
    • by circulating nomination petitions.

    A. GENERALLY-RECOGNIZED CANDIDATES
    1. The Secretary of State announces the names of individuals she has determined to be generally advocated for or recognized throughout the United States or California as actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for President. § 6041

    Criteria for determining “generally-recognized” candidates include, but are not limited to:
    a. Being generally recognized as seeking and advocated for the office
    b. Qualifying for federal matching funds
    c. Appearing in public opinion polls, candidates’ forums, debates, etc.
    d. Being on the ballot in other states’ primaries
    e. Actively campaigning in California
    f. Having a campaign office in California
    g. The Secretary of State may also rely on advice and input from the state party chair.

    http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/election_2008/qualifications/dempres_2008.pdf

    § “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.

    “Between the 150th day and the 63rd day preceding a presidential primary election, the Secretary of State shall publicly announce and distribute to the news media for publication a list of the selected candidates that he or she intends to place on the ballot at the following presidential primary election. After the 63rd day preceding a presidential primary election, the Secretary of State may add candidates to the selection, but he or she may not delete any presidential candidate whose name appears on the announced list except as provided in Section 6043.”

    Section 6043 “If a selected candidate or an unselected candidate files with the Secretary of State, no later than the time specified in Section 6042, an affidavit stating without qualification that he or she is not now a candidate for the office of President of the United States, and stating that similar documents, also without qualification, have
    been or will be timely filed, where applicable, with the appropriate public election official in all other states holding open presidential primaries, that candidate’s name shall be omitted from the list of names certified by the Secretary of State to the county elections officials for the ballot and his or her name shall not appear on the ballot.”

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=06001-07000&file=6040-6043

    StayAlive: Thank you; this is the law I recalled reading previously. See, according to this law, Ms. Bowen clearly had the discretion to print the name of Barack Obama on the primary ballot in CA.

    § “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.

    But I want you to see if you can find out something else for me. California is a vote binding state. In case you are unfamiliar with my work on vote binding states, this means, the delegate elected during the party primary is required under CA law to vote for the candidate s/he was elected by CA voters to represent, onto the floor of the Convention. Now, the DNC rules say, the pledged delegate must use “good conscience” to determine how to cast the vote. And no provision in DNC rules reminds pledged delegates from vote binding states, you MUST vote for the candidte whom voters elected you to represent. A blogger named Lana posted a comment on NoQuarter claiming, NP demanded that CA pledged delegates cast their votes in their hotel rooms, BEFORE all of the CA delegates arrived in CO.

    Here’s what I want you to do. Contact Ms. Bowen and ask her, what mechanism is in place to ensure that CA pledged delegates cast their votes for the candidate whom they the citizens of CA elected them to represent at the DNC Convention? Does any record exist as to how CA pledged delegates voted? (If you want more background information, just do a search on the blog for vote binding states. Plus, this will be one of the topics I discuss on drkate’s new Revolution Radio tonight (10.28.09) with tonight’s co-host d2i.) ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Lighting a Fire says:

    Regarding Stay Alives post regarding California Democratic Presidential eligibility rules:

    “PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES
    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, § 1(5)”

    Is it actually listed as “A. A natural-born citizen of the United States” or did that
    hyphen creep in during translation? How is this listed in other Republican and Democratic state parties qualification. Remember Dr.Fukino used the following in her
    statement on July 27, 2009:“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”

    http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/955/Hawaii-DoH-again-verifies-Obama-born-in-Hawaii.aspx

    I think it would be important to clarify this with regards to the various state parties’ qualifications. Thank you for the wonderful work you are doing jbjd and also to all of those other patriots who are contributing to the defense of our constitutional republic.
    Sincerely, Lighting a Fire

    Lighting a Fire: Hello. Let me clarify the end of your comment: to this present work, that is, filing complaints of election fraud based on violations of state statutes, determining any issue related to the definition of NBC is unnecessary. These complaints explicitly say, right on the front, these complaints express no opinion as to whether BO is a NBC. What is important to present work is that, members of the D party SAID he is a NBC; and we have no idea on what basis they said that.

    And, since BO knows whether he is a NBC, and I don’t; I am not accusing him of fraud.

    You are welcome.ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Miri says:

    jbjd: I don’t think the personal attacks are because Obama supporters no longer listen. I think they are because half the commenters on the eligibility blogs are paid Obama minions. I swear. based upon what they write, I suspect that some of them sit in call centers IN OTHER COUNTRIES!

    As for election fraud, oh, yes. ACORN has been doing it, and getting away with it, incrementally for at least a decade. It will only get worse. I believe this FACT is why Obama was so supremely confident during the election. He KNEW that he would win because they were going to fix it so that he did win.

    That they are similarly confident about these upcoming races scares me. Their goal is always to get polls showing that every race is neck and neck, regardless of reality. The polls are lies. But the lies make the fraudulent results “plausible.”

    Miri: Please be patient. The political parties had a giant head start on all of us; but look at how quickly we shed our complacency and figured out how they stole the election? I was advising people during the summer of 2008 to file challenges with their S’s oS to keep BO’s name off the ballot – if he became the nominee – because this was the only way to prevent him from winning the EC vote. Remember? Of course, even back then, I had only a rudimentary understanding of this whole process. Trust me; as soon as we can educate enough people as to what really went wrong during this past election cycle (and get them to stop searching for a magic pill to fix everything for them and, instead, roll up their sleeves and fight for themselves), we will prevent these disruptions to our political process from happening again. Keep in mind, there are more people who would honor our Constitution than ignore it. ADMINISTRATOR

    • d2i says:

      Miri – another reason 0 was “so supremely confident” was b/c Pelosi was going to do everything she could to make sure he was on the general election ballot.

      (speculation omitted)

      d2i: I want to emphasize to my readers that these conclusions are yours. I tend to state the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions! ADMINISTRATOR

  13. just wondering says:

    jbjd,
    I am a big fan of your efforts, and would love to help in any way I can to bring about the unraveling of the Usurper and his minions. I live in CT and am a legal illiterate, so I have no idea if our state laws allow for your type of action, nor do I have any idea how to find out. However, I do know many many people of my same mindset, and I am sure we would all love to file complaints if it is feasible in CT. I also know that we have a big lib AG, so I am unsure of the effectiveness of any action. Can you direct me on how to find out? As I said, I am a legal investigative naif.

    just wondering: Thank you. Congratulations on endeavoring to learn how your state government works. First, look up Connecticut statutes. Find the section dealing with elections. Look for sub-topics that range from ‘eligibility,’ to ‘ballots,’ to ‘political parties.’ Somewhere in these sub-topics, you will find wording that speaks to the requirements to get a name on the ballot in either the primary or the general election. If you find that CT requires the candidate to be eligible for the job in order to get her or his name printed on the ballot, send this to me. I will advise you further. If you find nothing, call your SoS. S/he is likely in charge of carrying out the election – some states have Board of Election – and ask her or him whether state law has any requirements that the candidate whose name appears on CT’s ballot must be eligible for the job. ADMINISTRATOR

  14. just wondering says:

    OK jbjd,
    I just got of the phone with the representative of my secretary of state, and my blood is boiling! Apparently my state feels as though they will print any name on the ballot that a party provides them, and they feel no obligation to the citizens of the state as to checking the eligibility of the persons. What if the election were held, and no name on the ballot was actually eligible. Would that not be a tremendous waste of my tax dollars? He then proceeded to tell me that he thinks that it is Chief Justice Roberts is responsible for confirming the eligibility prior to the swearing in. DOes that mean we can bring a case against the Chief Justice?
    Help!!!! I want to scream. or cry!

    just wondering: I hear you. But s/he is right. The SoS can only carry out the laws you and your fellow citizens pass. No provision of any law in any state requires any elections official, whether the SoS or the Chair of the Board of Elections, to vet candidates as to eligibility. Please remember, under the U.S. Constitution, the POTUS is elected by Electors, who are appointed by the Governor (who in modern times Certifies the popular vote for Electors in the general election and, through that Certification process “appoints” these Electors as required by the U.S. Constitution (s/he signs Certificates of Ascertainment) ); and the vote of the Electors is Certified by the Congress. S’s oS have no Constitutional authority to vet the candidate for POTUS. However, this does not mean, citizens of the states cannot enact laws containing the qualifications for candidates for POTUS who want their names to be printed on the state ballot. Get it? These laws would not spell out qualifications for POTUS but rather, qualifications for candidates for POTUS who want the state to print their names on the ballot.

    As to the fact that person from the SoS’s office said, the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS vetted the President-elect before swearing him in, well, I try not to get angry at people who have no idea how their government works. Rather, I try to teach them. ADMINISTRATOR

  15. just wondering says:

    thanks jbjd. I understand that it is up to the citizens of ct to make a change if we want. I think my anger is a the circular nature if this, where no one seems to be responsible for checking eligibility and no one has yet been given standing. Is there anything I can do in CT now, given our current laws?

    just wondering: You might not realize this but, the fact you called the SoS’s office is a change. Now, check out the laws yourself; find the section that says, the name of the candidate from the major political party is entitled to be on the ballot. Because this law needs to be changed. Bring back any laws you have any questions on, and I will help interpret.

    Also, remember, we are aiming for Articles of Imeachment from our Congress. You need to spread the word that no one has vetted BO for Constitutional eligibility for the job. Send a copy of all of the complaints to all of your elected officials, state and federal, from both parties. Let them see that citizens in several states are on to the fraud.ADMINISTRATOR

  16. Shez ZK says:

    jbjd, I enjoyed the radio show with drkate very much, it was great to finally put a voice to your fine mind. The rest will be even better.

    Above in a comment response you say to see “With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?” post. But the title text isn’t linked in, or the URL cited, and has scrolled off the front page. I’ve read it before and I’ll go do a search to find it for a refresher. I too gave up on sites as mentioned, a long time ago. Their DKos infused arrogance gave away their credibility, amongst other things they believe or pushed. They don’t have a leg to stand on to pass any sort of judgment on anybody else.

    Here’s the link:
    https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/with-friends-likes-these-who-needs-enemies/

    I’ve been wondering for awhile if you could help the navigation on your blog by enabling a couple more Widgets: Archives, and Recent Posts for us please? It would also be wonderful to have an extra sidebar box added for prominently displayed quick reference links to certain posts you cite frequently like the Military Complaint, to be able to find (or for new readers and regulars to notice) them easier.

    Thanks for everything you do jbjd. We must keep pounding away on all of these important issues.

    Shez ZK: I have been pleased to ‘reacquaint’ with you and your comments on the blogs. I know; my site is not easy to navigate. I have been working on fine-tuning the visuals of my blog; when I am not working at teaching or parenting, or writing the articles I post there. (I wish I could blog full time, educating the public as to how to run their government.) I will add your suggestions to my ‘must do’ list. ADMINISTRATOR

  17. just wondering says:

    jbjd,
    I just had a chat with my state senator, and went over this gap with her. I will be following up at the state level to see what can be done. My fear with the current Dem. Congress is that they will not listen to We The People on the impeachment. I also, would like to see the Fraud actually end up in jail, or be tossed out of the country, not just a slap on the wrist. I am glad so many people are waking up, personally 9/11 was when I started paying attention, i had been lost in my mommy roll until then. Thanks for your help.
    When you say “send a copy of letters of complaint”, is this something you have written, and I can just print out?
    thanks

    just wondering: Sorry; I meant to say, Complaints of Election Fraud to State Attorneys General. Send these, all posted on the ‘Bob Bauer’ article. These explain quite simply, even to lay people, how various members of the D party submitted Certifications of Nomination to state election officials to get BO’s name on state general election ballots but could not have ascertained he was eligible for the job.

    As for Articles of Impeachment, as soon as 1 (one) AG finds a basis to charge fraud, the Articles of Impeachment must follow. Because the Complaint alleges the only basis for Certification was BO/APFC. Thus, finding a basis for fraud says, the authentication consisting of BO in conjunction with APFC, is out. But members of Congress wrote to their constituents, the reason they ratified the EC vote for BO was their assurances from APFC, he was for real. This means, BO lied as to his qualifications. So now he will have to prove, he is a NBC.ADMINISTRATOR

  18. Jason says:

    jbjd,

    I’ve noticed your musings here and there about educating the public on a full time basis. Perhaps once this is over and you have successfully brought about the impeachment of Obama, you can ride on your new fame and run for office. We certainly need more civic minded citizens running the government than the current bunch.

    Kind regards,

    Jason

    Jason: How very generous of you to propose my public service. I am not certain that I could be more useful inside the game versus outside, looking in. No; I was thinking out loud how to expand the work I do on this blog into an economically sustainable full time enterprise. ADMINISTRATOR

  19. azgo says:

    What happened to the model complaint letter for Hawaii, it’s not on the side bar for “MODEL COMPLAINTS OF ELECTION FRAUD TO STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL IN APPLICABLE STATES”?

    azgo: Thank you! I forgot to re-post. Will do so shortly. ADMINISTRATOR

  20. TeakWoodKite says:

    Robert Bauer is counsel to the Obama campaign and chairman of the political law group at Perkins Coie LLP in Washington.

    Did Robert Bauer have any relationship with Mayor Ed Koch? When did BO meet Mr. Bower? I am trying to find the first vector of either Ann Dunn and BO or Bauer and BO.

    I got to thinking that with Bauer as BO’s personal attorney and now the OLC head, which is the lawyer for POTUS, isn’t that a conflict of interest between the man and the office of President? What laws govern this type of things?

    You kick butt jbjd, I am grateful.Thanks

    TWK: I am working on this BB angle. Any guidance you can provide will help. ADMINISTRATOR

  21. TeakWoodKite says:

    I was reading up on Bob Boauer;
    Chair of the Political Law Group of Perkins Coie LLP.

    In 1984 he wrote a book on Federal Election Law, and I am concentrating on his dealings back then at the moment.

    http://www.perkinscoie.com/rbauer/

    I would like to know how he can be a partner in a Private firm and be allowed to represent POTUS.

    TWK: I don’t know; but I know, even assuming he is an expert in Federal Election Law, he is not beyond the law or, the Professional Code of Ethics. ADMINISTRATOR

  22. azgo says:

    Here is a tidbit regarding Bob Bauer.

    “Does ACORN trail lead to White House?”

    http://onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=767638

    azgo: I always understood Anita Dunn’s appointment was temporary. Anita Dunn’s appointment last spring was temporary.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/Dunn_to_the_White_House.html

    http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/anita_dunn_joins_white_house_staff.phphe

    But I am still working on best ways to confront the blatant fraud perpetrated by Bob Bauer (evidenced by the footnote in the Motion to Dismiss in Hollister); and Nancy Pelosi (evidenced by her refusal to respond to requests as to the documentary basis for her Certification to state election officials, BO is Constitutionally qualified for the job). ADMINISTRATOR

  23. TeakWoodKite says:

    My point in citing his book on election law, is that to someone like BO (who needed “assistance” with being elected) I am trying to figure out when they met or BO contacted Perkins Coie.

    I have read thaat he is BO’s personal attorney, not sure of the verosoty of it, but for a guy that thinks he has a claim on transparency, if find no comfort in the fact that Bauer will be both the office of POTUS and the human called BO. Something about it stinks.

    TWK: Yes; I get that. But I am accustomed to people who write books, people who are known for their intellectual prowess, being pompous asses. For example, Larry Tribe, the great Constitutional law expert, weighed in, in writing, on S511, the non-binding resolution that John McCain is a NBC. Larry – and I can call him that, I know him – slipperily (I cannot think of a better word, real or contrived) wrote, given that JMc’s parents were associated with a military base at the time of his birth – yes, he never said, JMc was born on a military base or that, if he was born on the base then, by law, this is considered to be U.S. territory; because this is not true – then, JMc is a NBC. (Somewhere on this blog is a discussion of this issue, and cites.) Anyway, the reason BO needed an expert in election law; or rather, the reason his handlers sought out counsel from such an expert, is that he is not Constitutionally qualified for POTUS; his handlers knew this; and they wanted him in office notwithstanding his ineligibility. They figured, Bob Bauer could keep all of them ‘clean.’ But they did not count on me, figuring out how to catch them; and they did not count on Bob, being so very pompous as to ask the federal court to take judicial notice of a phantom computer image. Now, to end this farce, we only need 1 (one) AG; or 1 (one) member of the disciplinary board of the DC bar, to proclaim, the emperor has no clothes.

    Then, let the civil lawsuits begin. ADMINISTRATOR

  24. Want to share with you a press release by Senator
    Leahy. Leahy asked Secretary Chertoff “what is a nbc”?

    U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY
    Judiciary Committee /Reference Senate Res. 511

    EXCERPT OF SECRETARY CHERTOFF TESTIMONY FROM APRIL 2, 2008:
    ***
    Chairman Leahy. We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?

    Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

    Chairman Leahy. That is mine, too. Thank you.

    http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html
    Love your site. Excellent work jbjd. Sharing thoughts!

    Sharing thoughts: Nothing said at this ‘hearing,’ whether by a man described as a former federal judge means anything when it comes to determining the legal definition of NBC. Chertoff is not acting as a judge in this forum; he has no set of facts or ‘evidence’ before him from which to ‘rule.’ He is merely offering what amounts to a lay opinion, off the top of his head. In fact, for example, JMc cannot be said to be a NBC given that his U.S. citizenship was established by statute when he was around a year old. (Cites omitted.) We have no idea whether Mr. Chertoff was aware of this fact.

    Plus, notwithstanding the Senators’ exaggerated perception of self-importance; no reasonable person would construe this session, which resulted in the adoption of a “non-binding resolution,” to constitute enacting “special” legislation. ADMINISTRATOR

  25. Tonight I hope to have a scanner that is finally working so that I can get you a copy of my faxed FOIA request to Richie on 1/27/10. When it’s ready, how do you want to receive it?

    EricaThunderpaws: Ooh, citizen activism is so exciting. Just save the scan as an image and make sure to remove any identifying information. Then, send this as an image in your comment to the blog. (We can keep trying till we get it right.) 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: