(UPDATE 02.22.10: See follow-up post at CLUBS RULE.)

NOTE: Before you read this article, please read REMEMBER the ALAMO, which sets up the campaign to obtain from the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) any records that were the basis for the Certification by TDP Chair, Attorney Boyd Richie: Barack Obama is Constitutionally qualified for the job of POTUS.  Because in TX, it was this Certification, submitted to TX state election officials, which persuaded those officials to place Mr. Obama’s name next to the “D” on that state’s general election ballot, a ballot only open to candidates who are eligible for the job.


Here is the introduction to the TX Open Government law under which citizens of TX are trying to obtain records from Boyd Richie, Chair, Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”).  (All emphasis is mine.)  Keep these words in mind as you read the update to those citizen efforts, following.






Sec. 552.001.  POLICY; CONSTRUCTION.  (a)  Under the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government that adheres to the principle that government is the servant and not the master of the people, it is the policy of this state that each person is entitled, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, at all times to complete information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed to implement this policy.

(b)  This chapter shall be liberally construed in favor of granting a request for information.

Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 268, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993.


There is much to report.  I have now received 2 (two) proofs of transmission of the Open Records Request to Mr. Richie.  (This one shows the confirmation AND the page sent.)

Under the TX open records law, Mr. Richie was obligated to respond to such requests within 10 (ten) business days.  (Technically, even assuming he felt he was not obligated under that law to produce the requested records, he still had only 10 days to request, in writing, an opinion from the AG as to whether for reasons listed in the law, he was exempted from producing the requested records.  And he had only up to 5 (five) days after that to present any additional arguments to the AG, to inform the decision issuing from that office.  For example, Mr. Richie could assert he is not a “public official” under the law; or that, the documents requested are not “public records”; or that the TDP is not a “political subdivision.”)  Before those 10 days expire, Requestors are entitled to either the records requested or, written notice from the Holder of the Records – in this case, this would be Mr. Richie – as to the status of the request for Records, usually in the form of copies of the Request for AG Opinion. Even in a case where Mr. Richie might assert he does not have to present these records because they implicate some rights of a 3rd party, notice of a request for an AG opinion as to whether these records must be produced, must still be copied to the Requestor, appropriately redacted to preserve in advance of such AG decision, the rights, if any, of that 3rd party.

Based on the prior refusal of the TDP to produce such records after an informal request, https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/never-less-than-a-treason-2-of-2/#comment-979 I anticipated they would similarly refuse to produce any records after this formal request pursuant to TX open records law.  So, I tried to elicit help for ‘my’ Texans, both in writing and by phone, from an organization expressing dedication to the nature of this mission; and located much closer to home.

The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas (“FOIFT”) – “Protecting the Public’s Right to Know Since 1978” – is an organization purportedly dedicated to the proposition that citizens are entitled to an “open government.”  http://www.foift.org/index.php Recently, they moved their offices to Austin, the capital city, “to assume a more active and more visible role in advocating for, and preserving, open government.”  http://www.foift.org/index.php?page_id=16 For example, they are holding an “Open Government Seminar,” attendance at the afternoon session of which costs $50, covering “handbooks,” “handouts,” and access to “[o]ne or more of Texas’ leading attorneys on these laws will be on hand to answer your questions.” http://www.foift.org/index.php?page_id=98 And they post videos featuring the Executive Director, Keith Elkins, explaining various provision of the Texas open records law.  http://www.foift.org/index.php?p=144

First, I tried to get their attention.  On Thursday, February 4, 2010, I submitted this comment to the FOIFT blog site, and awaited a response.

February 4th, 2010 at 5:37 pm

Dear Texans,

In every other state and the District of Columbia, Certifications of Nomination signed by The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, acting in the non-governmental role of Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Convention, were forwarded to election officials to get them to print the name of Barack Obama next to the “D” on the 2008 general election ballot.* But not in TX. Nope; in TX, only Mr. Richie signed those Certifications. And for all of the citizens in those states where only the names of qualified candidates may be printed on the ballot, who filed charges of election fraud with their state A’sG charging members of the D party swore to state election officials BO was Constitutionally eligible for the job to get them to print his name on the ballot but failed to ascertain beforehand whether he is a NBC; the fact that NP did not sign the TX Certification but BR did, makes all the difference in the world.

Citizens of TX also asked BR to identify these documents that were the basis of his eligibility determination. And he also refused to say. But turns out, in TX, when it comes to defining the meaning of public documents; and avoiding having to disclose such documents, this same ‘get out of jail free’ card that applied to the DNC Corporation, does not apply to Chairman Richie and the state D party. On the contrary, under TX law, in certain circumstances, documents in the custody of political parties can be ‘discoverable’ as public records. (Not only that but, the court can compel officers of these parties to hand over these records under a cause of action called ‘mandamus,’ a process which is usually reserved to get government officials to do their jobs.)

Know what this means?

For the rest of the story and documents requests for download, see, “REMEMBER the ALAMO?” at https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/remember-the-alamo/

Not unexpectedly, this comment from a newcomer to the blog, was placed in moderation.  But when I checked the next day, Friday, February 5, it had disappeared.  (This is virtually the same comment I submitted to the Boston Globe, which was posted (without moderation) and then ‘disappeared.’ See, for example, “jbjd” BANNED in BOSTON.)  So, on Friday, February 5, I called the FOIFT, and spoke for some time with Pamela Mayo Clark, Director of Education and Special Projects.  As for the ‘disappeared’ comment, well, she referenced the comment while we were on the phone, even accessing my web page through the link provided in that comment.  In other words, somehow, my comment, while no longer visible to me on the FOIFT web site, was visible to her.  She attributed its disappearance on the web site to the fact, the blog had recently undergone dramatic re-design (this is true); and the missing comment was probably just a glitch (this proved to be untrue).  Here is an email I sent afterward, summarizing that conversation.  (Pay special attention to the “P.S.”)


Thank you again for devoting time on Friday to understanding the details of my request for assistance from the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas (“FOIFT”), which request I extended on behalf of the several citizens of Texas who had filed formal complaints of election fraud with Attorney General Abbott in conjunction with requests for records under the Texas open records law, with Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party.  You confirmed you had read the comment I submitted to the FOIFT web site on Thursday, and had accessed the link to an accompanying article posted on my blog, https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/remember-the-alamo/ which provide the background for these current actions. You also assured me, you took “copious notes” of my narrative, promising to pass on to your Executive Director, Keith Elkins, the information I provided, along with my request on behalf of your fellow Texans, for assistance from your organization.  For your convenience, I have summarized the salient points of our lengthy conversation.

This groundswell of citizen activism began with an examination of Texas election law, which only allows the names of eligible candidates to appear on the state ballot.  In August 2008, Mr. Richie Certified the Nomination of Barack Obama as the Constitutionally eligible candidate for President of the D party in papers he submitted to Texas election officials to cause them to print Mr. Obama’s name next to the D on the general election ballot.  Subsequently, citizens asked Mr. Richie, on what documentary basis he had ascertained such eligibility for the job.  (I was informed in September 2009 such requests had been made.) He did not respond.  Resulting in part on this refusal to identify the basis for his Certification, Texans suspected he had sworn the candidate was eligible without determining beforehand this was true.  Consequently, in September 2009, they began filing formal complaints of election fraud with Attorney General Abbott, which complaints detailed the overwhelming circumstantial case that supports their allegations, referencing these unsuccessful efforts to obtain relevant records on their own.

The AG still has issued no official ruling on these complaints of election fraud.  Meanwhile, citizens became aware they may be entitled to access to any such eligibility documentation under the Texas open records law.  Last week – specifically, on January 27, at 6:52 PM – citizens began submitting new requests for records to Mr. Richie, under this law.  (As I pointed out to you, both the citizen complaints of election fraud to AG Abbott; and the requests for records to Mr. Richie can be easily downloaded from my blog.  Citizens need only fill in their names and addresses.)

Given the stated mission of your organization – “Protecting the Public’s Right to Know” – and your geographic proximity to the petitioners – I am in New England – I hoped that you could provide guidance to your fellow Texans, and that I could send them to you for help.  You indicated you would pass on this request to Mr. Elkins.

As I said, the time for Mr. Richie’s response is tolling.  The 10 (ten) days allowed in the statute for an initial response expire in a few days.  I trust your response to my request for help will issue before that time.

I hope this summary aids your recollection.  Thanks again for all your help.


P.S.  During our conversation, you asked whether I was saying, Barack Obama was (Constitutionally) ineligible to be President.  I replied, his eligibility was outside of the scope of the concerns held by the citizens of Texas engaged in these activities to preserve the sanctity of their ballots.  However, I failed to mention, this disclaimer appears in the introduction to the citizen complaints of election fraud.  Note:  This Complaint takes no position on whether Mr. Obama is a NBC. I also want to point out that, having viewed the FOIFT video in which Mr. Elkins instructs would be seekers of public records, the holder of these records is prohibited by law from asking you why you want these records, or what you intend to do with them ( http://www.foift.org/index.php?p=144 ); I was surprised that you seemed to question my motives for wanting to access these particular records from Mr. Richie.  I must tell you, I could easily imagine circumstances under which being hit with that kind of question might have a “chilling” effect on the pursuit of records to which citizens would otherwise be entitled access, under the law.

I forwarded a copy of this email to Brian Collister, an Emmy award winning investigative reporter from WOAI TV, San Antonio, who is on FOIFT’s Board of Directors; and left a voicemail message for him at the t.v. station.

I never heard from Keith Elkins, Brian Collister, Pamela, or anyone else affiliated with FOIFT. The original comment I had submitted to the FOIFT web site never re-appeared.

Using a liberal count of the timetable prescribed by law, by the end of business on Thursday, February 11, 2010, the TDP was required either to produce the records sought by Requestors or to seek an opinion from the AG as to whether these were required to be released.  Plus, Requestors should have been notified in writing by the TDP (the Holder of Records) as to the status of these requests .  As the deadline approached, we had more work to do.

I asked Erica Thunderpaws and redhank to email to me evidence that the fax to Boyd Richie had been sent.  Then, on the 10th day, I asked them to telephone the TDP, to ask whether the requested records would be forthcoming.  Both redhank and Erica Thunderpaws called the TDP and were referred to Mark Corcoran, Special Assistant to the Chair (Boyd Richie).  A summary of those exchanges can be found in the Comments section to REMEMBER the ALAMO.  But I want to emphasize a couple of points from those exchanges.

First, Mr. Corcoran repeatedly pressed redhank to identify the name of her attorney.  And he insisted to Erica Thunderpaws, ‘Our legal counsel advised us, we don’t have to respond (to your request for records), even with a letter informing you, we believe, we don’t have to.’  As I stated in REMEMBER the ALAMO, the web site of the TX AG contains a primer on how citizens can obtain public records under the TX open records law.  http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/requestors.shtml Any citizen could access this information and compose an appropriate request for records.  Indeed, any citizen SHOULD be able to access such information.  After all, we are talking about legislation passed by state senators and representatives elected by the citizens; signed into law by their elected Governor; and published on a web site paid for by their tax dollars, under the auspices of the person they chose as the chief law enforcement officer of the state.  What good is a law  ostensibly intended to keep government open to the people, if the only way people can access its provisions is to have the means to hire an attorney!  But judging by the tone he used when pressing the one caller to identify her lawyer; and insisting to the other caller that TDP counsel said they don’t have to respond, I suspect Mr. Corcoran was trying to intimidate both callers into backing off of their request for records.  Just like Ms. Mayo Clark from the FOIFT, had tried with me.

If that was the goal, neither of them was successful.

Second, Mr. Corcoran was essentially saying, ‘The TDP has determined we need not comply with that aspect of the law which requires us to obtain waivers from its provision, through the Office of the AG.  No; we will consult with our attorneys to determine whether to obey the law.’  It is this hubris which adds insult to the injury of not being able to obtain those records to which citizens have a good faith belief they are legally entitled access in the first place.

Even assuming for the sake of argument the TDP can lawfully substitute its legal opinion for that of the AG, determining it is not compelled by law to produce the requested records, the question remains.  If BR had ascertained that BO is Constitutionally eligible for POTUS before submitting to TX state election officials his signed Certification of Nomination, in order to cause these officials to print his name next to the D on the general election ballot; then why does he refuse to disclose voluntarily the documentary basis for that Certification? To my 9th graders, the answer was self-evident.  OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES

Now, to get AG Abbott to ask that question.

And several options remain to get AG Abbott to ask that question, in the context of investigating the citizen complaints of election fraud against Boyd Richie already filed with his office.  But my recommendation as to best ‘next steps’ depends in part on how many people have requested (or intend to request) these documents; and how many have filed the complaints of election fraud.  So, I need you to let me know who of you have already filed these requests for records to BR and, the citizen complaints.  (I cannot get even a ‘ballpark’ count based on downloads because not everyone who downloaded sent these documents; and some people copied the documents they downloaded to distribute to others.)  Also, where possible, please send along redacted proofs of transmission.  (That is, make sure your identifying information is blocked out before sending.)  (Don’t send confirmations that do not in some way attach themselves to the document sent, for example, that copy the first paragraph of text in the fax transmittal confirmation.)

Finally, I want you to know, creating this post, which includes doing the leg work documented herein – research, emails; phone calls; file conversions; and layout and design, for example –  has taken over 24 hours.  I am compelled to offer my services because I have solutions to some of the unresolved problems that arose during the 2008 election cycle.  While I appreciate your many words of thanks, psychic benefits do not pay the rent; and sleep is not the only valuable commodity I have sacrificed in order to resolve these problems.  There is no such thing as a ‘free lunch.’  Please, take the work; feed the kitty.


Freedom costs.

25 Responses to TEXAS TWO-STEP

  1. d2i says:

    So, let me see if I have this all straight in my head.

    You posted a comment on the Freedom of Information Foundation in Texas new blog. It was then placed in moderation. And then it was removed entirely. How many days was it in moderation before they removed it?

    When you realized they were not going to post it, you phoned them and spoke to a staffer. Have you learned anything about this person’s background? Is she a D? an R? just curious. No matter, she has yet responded to you and neither has the ED. Right? If not, what kind of outfit is this? How can they possibly boast said mission but not follow it themselves? Are state tax dollars supporting this organization? This smells to high heaven.

    So, do I have this first part right?

    d2i: Yes, you get it. And it is interesting that you ask whether Pamela is a D. As you know, I have maintained all along, one’s party affiliation should not impact on one’s performance in a ‘public’ role. In fact, I did look up her background; and she has a strong history of supporting the D’s, which support consists of both donating to campaigns and working for winning candidates. Indeed, I found no evidence of any affiliation with R’s. However, I decided not to post that research. Because she represents an organization (FOIFT) that purports to provide aid to ALL citizens of TX, not just D’s, to open up TX government records, in accordance with the law. And the FOIFT solicits funds that will support such work. I don’t know whether any of these funds come from the state; but clearly, by refusing to help out in this endeavor, the FOIFT is breaching its fiduciary obligation to their donors. (I posted the names of the Board of Directors for the convenience of any Texans who want to follow up.)

    I posted that comment on Thursday, late afternoon; and when I checked back on Friday, it was gone. Luckily, I had emailed the link along with the comment to a friend, and so I was able to retrieve both from my ‘sent’ mail. Otherwise, you would only have my word that this occurred. Phew! (I should learn my lesson and take advantage of screen cap more often!)

    P.S. I meant to add, AG Abbott, who has not acknowledged any of the dozens of citizen complaints of election fraud his office has received, is a Republican.

  2. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I just posted on Breitbart.tv 02/14/10 @12:18 re: Scotus decision seemed an appropriate place-I copied the Texas Law part Sec. 552.001 with comments-Texas citizens are submitting Freedom of Information requests. So here is hoping that you get results. I will do more when I find a good point of entry.
    This was worth waiting for. Happy Valentines Day-your son too. I wonder what he is going to make for his mother. Have fun you two. Hopefully you are not snowed in and/or bone chilling cold.

    Michelle: Thank you so much for spreading the word, as always, and for appreciating the work. You make up the best summaries for posting!

    I am so disappointed, we have neither snow nor cold. In fact, we are mostly bare ground; missed the storms completely! And schools were called off, in advance, on Wednesday, anticipating the worst! All day we waited; nothing. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. redhank says:

    Great work, as usual jbjd! Thanks!…Now could a next step be to formally ask TDP why an opinion was not asked of the AG, citing that requirement…Or should the approach be that we go to the AG and ask an opinion as to whether TDP must comply? And as you know I sent in both the complaint and the request for records…

    redhank: Even if I determine the next best step is to contact the AG, you will not approach him ‘hat in hand’ asking for his opinion as to the openness of TDP records under the law. Rather, you will ask him to compel the TDP to produce the records you requested as he is authorized to do, under the law. But I need to get an idea of the ‘numbers’ before I decide. See, I am trying to figure out win/win scenarios. For example, having the TDP refuse to provide the records is a ‘win/win.’ Getting the ‘records’ would establish, BR could not have ascertained BO was Constitutionally qualified for POTUS before swearing he was, in August 2008. Not getting the records (that is, the TDP’s refusal to honor the citizen requests for these records) established, BR based his determination BO is eligible on something other than these records, which records obviously don’t exist. (For example, maybe he took Nancy Pelosi’s word for it!)

    Of course, nothing prevents any Texans from pursuing whatever lawful means they prefer to exercise in pursuit of their rights. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. kittycat77 says:


    Good work. I’ll spread this over to Zapem.

    kittycat77: Thanks for spreading the word! As I have admitted many times, I am a gifted ‘idea’ person; but I am lousy at sales and marketing. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. redhank says:

    Also jbjd…on another topic, as much as I don’t regret supporting Scott Brown as his election has slowed the disastrous legislation wending its way through Congress, I was miffed when he dissed the Tea Partiers who supported him (I being one of them). Consequently, when I received his letter yesterday thanking me for the donation to his campaign I sent my own note back saying” Dear Senator, If I send you money the next time, I will be sure to say, “Hi Scott, I am a TeaPartier…”, Respectfully, (Name redacted)…I have posted this on my blog if anyone feels the same, contributed and wants to respond. All of these guys/gals, Democrat or Republican need to understand who and why we support them…Thanks for allowing me to rant a bit…http://falseflagrag.wordpress.com/

    redhank: Whoa! I missed that. Great idea to identify yourself to him in that way. Hopefully, with time, he will understand the diverse nature of his constituents. (How could he not, given the demographics that elected him?) ADMINISTRATOR

  6. Texas Voter says:

    I just did searches on the TX Sec’y of State’s Web site. I have not yet found any current TDP filing record with the TX SoS. All I found was “debtor” records. I kept lots of screen caps and some PDFs from my searches. Interested?

    I also have an email inquiry under an innocuous email address asking TDP to ID what kind of entity TDP is.

    Texas Voter: It’s very interesting that you did that; so did I, some time ago. And I, too, was stymied as to the organizational status of the TDP. But under the law, both statutory and common law, the fact that the state of TX authorizes the TDP to Certify the candidate whose name will go on the ballot, satisfies the limited scope of my needs here, to hold them accountable for producing the records.

    Of course, I would be very interested in seeing what you can produce. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Texas Voter says:

    some questions:

    Re: “Mr. Richie formally submitted … 2 (two) Certifications of Nomination” Two certs or two docs? Are copies available?

    On what document(s) did Richie specifically swear to BHO’s eligibility?

    Since you take no position in your complaint about BHO’s citizenship status, why limit your complaint’s focus to that issue, instead of all of the Art. 1 Sect. II qualifications?

    Texas Voter: I am going to make this ‘brief’; let me know if your questions are answered.

    1. The 2 (two) documents BR submitted can be viewed through the TX citizen complaint. (One is an actual Certification of Nomination that looks just like NP’s, except they changed letterheads; the other is a letter that accompanied the Certification.)
    2. The explanation that “duly nominated” equals “NBC” is in the complaint. (Swearing BO was the “duly nominated” nominee for POTUS is saying, he is a NBC because the DNC rules require at a minimum, the nominee will meet all Constitutional qualifications.)
    3. The complaint does not address BO’s eligibility; that is a losing argument. No federal court has defined NBC; and I have no idea whether any evidence exists to establish he is even a “C.” I shifted the burden of proof AND production to the TDP; after all, THEY are the ones who swore BO was eligible to get on the ballot. What did THEY use to meet the ballot standard, the candidate must be eligible? See, as soon as we get the answer, ‘Nothing’; then we go back to Congress and say, ‘You cannot ignore us this time; investigate.’ (This is spelled out in “THE END GAME.”)

    I really think a reading of “OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES” simplifies the ballot issue; a thorough reading of the Complaint provides references and links to the overwhelming circumstantial evidence assembled. For an understanding of the ‘process’ that led to BO’s nomination and election, read “NEVER LESS THAN a TREASON 1 & 2.”

  8. Michelle says:

    “A verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.”
    Samuel Goldwyn
    I heard this quote when I was a little kid and I still love it. If BR took Nancy’s word for it, that wasn’t real smart. re: Tea Party membership. I was/am a Hillary supporter and have become out of necessity a Tea Party person. I don’t think anyone realizes how many of us in the Tea Party are Dems. I love the Tea Party since it is so wild west, within the bounds of the Constitution of course. I like that it is a mix of Dem-Rep-Ind-Unaffiliated and all the folks feel free to express themselves and be heard. There is a lot of common ground, yes there will be differences, but hopefully most will be minor. For most of us it is NOT about money or power it is about love of our Constitution, WE THE PEOPLE, our fellow Americans, justice, fairness. This should be an interesting week. Push is coming to shove.

    Michelle: You understand, the basis for BR’s Certification is only a means to an end. Because even IF by claiming, he believed BO was eligible because NP said so, he can avoid a criminal charge of election fraud; this still leaves unanswered the question, how did she determine his eligibility? Keep in mind, “THE END GAME” is to get Congress to introduce Articles of Impeachment, and begin the formal investigation. Because they said, they would ratify the vote of the Electors for BO, notwithstanding concerns of eligibility submitted by their constituents, based on a good faith belief in the validity of claims by APFC that, he was born in the U.S.A. (As these citizen complaints point out, APFC never said, BO is a NBC.) The information in these complaints establishes, APFC is not credible. This leaves Congress with no basis to have ratified the EC vote for the man whom their constituents tried to tell them, has never been vetted as to Constitutional eligibility for the job.

    I think your observations about the ‘Tea Party’ movement are spot on. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. JJ says:

    Great jbjd…dog ’em!! KIck some Texas azz!!!

    JJ: “She, the People.” ADMINISTRATOR

  10. d2i says:

    okay, second question.

    Texan’s sent a letter to the TDP Chairman Boyd Richie requesting documentation he used to confirm Obama’s constitutional eligibility.

    The TDP had ten business days to respond to said request. Since the TDP is not a government actor and a private corporation, they are under the impression they do not have to abide by the Texan’s request for information. But, they do according to the Texas FOIA law. Do I have my facts straight?

    When these Texan’s did not receive notice in writing from Richie OR the AG they phoned the TDP. This is when a staff person stated as fact that the TDP did not have to comply with Texas FOIA law. But the state code clearly states that they do?

    So, given these facts, what do Texan’s need to do now?

    d2i: You write, “Since the TDP is not a government actor and a private corporation, they are under the impression they do not have to abide by the Texan’s request for information. But, they do according to the Texas FOIA law. Do I have my facts straight?” No.

    This was the beauty of the TX open records law. That is, political parties and their officers can in appropriate situations be considered political subdivisions, and public officials, and not just private entities. (I actually mentioned this in the appearances on Revolution Radio with drkate, linked in the sidebar.) Thus, the disclosure requirements for the TDP would be same as for, say, the Agriculture Commission. But even if the TDP could otherwise have been exempt under the law from producing the requested records, the law says, they have to ask the AG whether they are exempt. (REMEMBER the ALAMO contained the requisite legal cites.)

    As to what Texans do now, that is spelled out in this post. But everyone, including non-Texans, can also help. You can distribute these posts chronicling the difficulty citizens in TX are experiencing trying to retrieve records to which they are arguably entitled under law, which would support Boyd Richie’s sworn Certification, Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job of POTUS, submitted to TX election officials in order to get BO’s name printed on that state’s ballot. Because in TX, officials only print the name of eligible candidates on the ballot. That’s the law. And if Boyd Richie cannot establish any basis for swearing to such eligibility in TX then, on what basis did anyone else who submitted these Certifications of Nomination in every other state, make such determination? ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I just sent part of this over to Defend our Freedoms blog. “This leaves Congress with no basis to have ratified the EC vote for the man whom their constituents tried to tell them, has never been vetted as to Constitutional eligibility for the job.”
    This all reminds me of two dances the Waltz and Dance Macabre. May all the innocent be proven innocent, let the guilty be found out-whoever they may be. Seems like it comes down to Obama, Pelosi and Bauer in the end.

    Michelle: See, it’s that nexus between the Complaint, which de-bunks APFC; and Congress’ insistence BO is eligible because APFC said he is, sort of, which resulted in their Certification of the vote for him by Electors. Because if the only reason Congress assumed he was eligible notwithstanding citizen protestations he was never vetted, was that APFC said so; and we de-bunk APFC as a reliable source of anything then, these Congresspeople no longer have any basis for assuming BO is Constitutionally eligible for the job! At that point, how will they justify their inaction? ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Texas Voter says:

    Texas Ethics Commission (website, http://www.ethics.state.tx.us) may also receive complaints on violations of the Texas Elections Code.

    Texas Voter: I cannot see that the TEC is authorized to investigate the complaints of election fraud we are bringing. See, Constitutional and Statutory Duties, http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/tec/duties.htm

  13. TeakWoodKite says:

    interesting. thanks.

    TWK: You are welcome. ADMINISTRATOR

  14. I’ve been exploring the TX Attorney General’s website, especially the section on AG opinions. Some of this information might be useful here.

    About Attorney General Opinions

    You can subscribe to the AG’s automated email opinion notification service, which I have done.

    Erica Thunderpaws: Good for you! (I reviewed these opinions, briefly, but found nothing on point.) Thank you for putting up the link; Texans, are you listening? ADMINISTRATOR

  15. Michelle says:

    jbjd-As soon as I read this line I thought about you.
    Notably, freelance authors prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.

    Michelle: Thank you very much. (Stealing my work is one thing; I cannot even get the hundreds of people who download and send the complaints and other documents I have posted, to contribute to the kitty. And I cannot make these documents private and charge for access, because that will constrain the timely distribution of these materials, containing the information that could change everything.) ADMINISTRATOR

  16. Alecia says:

    I called Reg Hargrove’s office (Public Information coordinator Office of Attny.Gen. Open Records Hotline (512)478-6736. Within 45 min. I received a call back from Jeff Harvey. He stated that his “title” was assistant attny general?? He stated that my next step should be to send the attn. gen. office a letter of complaint (that Richie had not responded withing the time limits)and a copy of all paper. I explained that the attn gen office had received a copy of the request on the same date as Richie and that I have return receipts for proof. He stated that they needed a letter of complaint and gave me the address:
    Open Records
    Office of the Attorney General
    PO Box 12548
    Austin, Texas 78711-2548
    He was short and sweet, and if my inner social worker intuition has not failed me in my old age…more than a little aggravated.

    Alecia: Thank you for re-posting this comment over here. As I said, I wondered what happened to you; and I am impressed, as always, with your contributions.

    For now, I advise against doing anything, for several reasons, among which are these (in no particular order of import).

    1. Whatever factors allowed AG Abbott to ignore the dozens of complaints of election fraud against Boyd Richie already filed with his office beginning several months ago; these factors likely will not make his office any more predisposed to investigating complaints of violations of the TX open records law. You citizens of TX presented a prima facie case of election fraud that merited a response from the AG, where even a simple complaint sans all of that evidence, should have sufficed.

    2. Shortly, I will be posting the next article on the blog. In ways I cannot explain now, I anticipate this will recruit helpers from unlikely sources, to get the word out.

    Obviously, citizens of TX proceed as they wish. I am just saying, if you choose to participate in the concerted effort being fleshed out on this blog, wait a minute before you do anything else. (Except, can you please email to me, any proofs of transmission, especially those which identify the document sent? When we send ‘a copy of all paper,’ this will include a printout of the blog, establishing, you are not alone; and, you know this.) ADMINISTRATOR

  17. connie says:

    I want to thankyou for all you are doing to expose the usurper. I live here in East Texas and am willing to help in anyway that I can. I was a County delegate and it was my understanding not too may folks like Boyd Richie. I think he came into power to do this dirty work of signing these false documents. I think this is the real story. If we could uncover this maybe it will be a little easier to get them to hand over the information you are requesting. I have been on the phone all day to the Texas DNC and they answer no questions. Have you tried contacting his asst. His name is Mark Cororan. I have to tell you that I have found that this Richie guy seems to be hooked up some way to the Kennedy’s and the guy that everyone in Texas thought would win the seat was an Ann Richards/Bill Clinton guy. So I feel this was a predetermined person to get this seat to overlook Obama’s lack of verification. Thankyou again for all your work and feel free to contact me if needed for further help.

    Connie: Welcome to the blog; and you are welcome. Please re-read this article; Mark Corcoran is mentioned prominently. Also, read readers’ comments and my responses. We covered the win/win situation of not getting any documents. Then, back on REMEMBER the ALAMO, read the TX complaint of election fraud, and follow the links. This will explain everything.

    The next step, after you understand the nature of the fraud and that these requests for documents are a means to the end of augmenting those complaints; download each, fill in your real name and address in TX; and send, as directed.

    Come back with any questions. ADMINISTRATOR

  18. azgo says:

    Hello jbjd,

    Great and Wonderful and Interesting work you have done in finding Texas laws to compel the TDP to provide a public record regarding the candidate’s qualification as required by Texas law!

    Good job Erica and Alecia!

    I found this court case interesting about Tom Delay’s ineligibility in 2006. The court basically found Tom Delay eligible until the day of election as an ‘inhabitant’ even though he claimed residence in Virginia and the people of Texas had voted for him in the primary.

    The court sided with TDP, the plainiff, in this case. Here’s an excerpt from what Boyd Richie’s attorney stated in their own brief which is also a public record.

    in his capacity as Chair of the Texas Democratic Party,
    Tina J. Benkiser,
    in her capacity as Chairwoman of the Republican Party of Texas,

    “1. The “Conclusively Established” Standard

    “The governing standard, “conclusively established,” bears emphasis. Something is “conclusive” when, by virtue of “reason,” it “put[s] an end to debate or question,” usually because of its “irrefutability.” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED (2002).16 Accordingly, Texas courts have explained that public records must leave no factual dispute concerning the conclusiveness of ineligibility.” See In re Jackson, 14 S.W.3d 843, 848-49 (Tex. App.-Waco 2000, orig. pet.) (holding that a state actor under § 145.003 has “no fact-finding authority”; instead, she may “administratively declare that a candidate is ineligible only when the record conclusively establishes the candidate’s ineligibility”) (emphasis in original); Culberson v. Palm, 451 S.W.2d 927, 929 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1970, orig. pet.) (holding that ineligibility was not conclusively established where there remained “a fact question”).“

    (go to line 38)

    Some strong words!
    I know this court case deals with a different part of the Texas Election Code (§ 145.003), but it does also deal with public records of a political party and the eligibility issues of federal candidates with regard to the U.S. Constitution. I find it interesting that Boyd Richie must know the importance of public records of a political party from his own brief as Tina J. Benkiser, chair of the RPT (Republican Party of Texas) used her own public record to defend herself.

    I suspect Mr. Richie doesn’t have a record(s) to defend himself to ‘conclusively establish’ the candidate’s eligibility.

    azgo: Nice to see you again! On behalf of Alecia and Erica and redhank, who also did yeowoman’s work to contact relevant parties and obtain the requested documents, we thank you for recognizing our work.

    I only stumbled onto TX laws, looking for something else. I am certain other states have enacted such laws; and some of those states are also applicable states in which to file complaints of election fraud. But I will not look up these laws. Citizens in those states must assume the responsibility for this part. However, as you know, once they find what they think they are looking for, they can come to me for guidance.

    You provide very interesting materials for anyone wanting to investigate further. As for me, I take the fact BR refuses to produce records AND to consult with the AG (as mandated by law) to determine whether he can opt out of this open records law; as an admission he has no such records. But this determination is up to AG Abbott to make. Watch for ‘next steps.’

  19. azgo says:

    Oh ya! Good job redhank, too !!!
    Texas Rocks!
    I can’t wait for the next steps …

    azgo: Yeah; Texas rocks, big time! (Other Texas voters are working hard behind the scenes there, too.) ADMINISTRATOR

  20. Texas Voter says:

    SO, while I’m wating for me stew to simmer, perhaps jbjd will don the counselor’s cap indulge us a point of curiousity on the side?:

    If both Fed and State govt’s have failed to establish processes to ensure Constitutional eligibility, cannot the people not reserve the right to do so?

    With that in mind, how can lack of standing prevail in deflecting attempts at discovery thru the courts?

    Texas Voter: Great questions. I have addressed these issues tangentially throughout the blog, while not dedicating an entire article to the subject of vetting candidates for POTUS as to Constitutional eligibility for the job. In short, this discussion can be divided into 2 (two) categories: 1) the Constitutional qualifications for POTUS; and 2) qualifications to get on state ballots.

    1) Does the Constitution set a floor or a ceiling on qualifications for POTUS? That is, can Congress pass a law requiring the Electors to vet as to, say, NBC status, where the Constitution does not compel this factor into their deliberations? If the document set a floor for qualifications then, we can expand on these. If it set a ceiling then, we cannot add to the requirements for deliberation.

    2) Can states set whatever requirements they want to get on the ballot, notwithstanding requirements for the actual job are prescribed by the Constitution? That is, can states define ‘qualifications for POTUS’ to get on the ballot, such as, for example, saying, NBC means, born in the U.S. to 2 (two) citizen parents?

    The good thing about having the states define NBC is that, we could envision, a party (person or political organization) thereby excluded from appearing on the ballot would file suit against the state for being wrongfully excluded from the political process. And through this process, we would achieve the federal court definition of NBC! ADMINISTRATOR

  21. […] NOTE: The significance of this article is enhanced when read in conjunction with TEXAS TWO-STEP. […]

  22. Janis says:

    The reason for being a NBC according to the Constitution (remainder of comment omitted by jbjd)

    Janis: I am unable to post the comment you submitted to “jbjd” for these reasons.

    1. The remarks contain a definition of NBC.

    Posted several times throughout the blog are statements similar to this: No definition of NBC exists until a federal appeals court rules in a case directly on point, this is what NBC means. Your opinions are speculative only, and not based in fact.

    2. The remarks contain a prohibition of NBC status based on dual citizenship.

    The U.S. Constitution is silent as to dual citizenship, either in terms of its impact on eligibility for President or, as such status relates to U.S. citizenship. Your opinions are speculative only, and not based in fact.

    3. The remarks express a personal opinion that BO favors Muslims (at the expense of other religions/nationalities).

    Your opinions are speculative only, and not based in quantifiable facts

    We are an interactive blog of activists citizens trying to understand how our government works; and trying to make it work better. We try hard to ‘stick to the facts,’ engaging in speculation only on the basis of those facts. Special attention is paid to the accuracy of information posted, including making sure it is appropriately cited or, credited to the appropriate author.

    I try especially hard to refrain from posting any comments containing words or phrases that likely would give any reader the impression, the author is venting a personal animus against a particular group or individual.

    I take full responsibility for this subjective analysis; after all, that’s my ‘name’ on the top of the blog. ADMINISTRATOR

  23. […] the parties, as holders of these records, were public officials; those 2010 requests were ignored. TEXAS TWO-STEP. Maybe it was because we hadn’t spelled out in our request the legal framework which supported […]


Leave a Reply to Janis Cancel 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: