CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (2 of 2)


In Clowns to the Left of Me; Jokers to the Right (1 of 2), we examined TDP v. RPT, learning that under Texas law, if the ineligibility of a candidate for public office is “conclusively established” then, the state Chair of that party is authorized to declare the candidate is ineligible.  Further, if the candidate’s name was previously submitted to the SoS to be placed on the ballot, the state Chair can now compel the SoS to remove that ineligible name.  (And if the Chair of another state party has a problem with this, s/he can sue to enjoin both the opposing Chair and the SoS from effecting this ‘disqualification.’)

The section of the law referenced in TDP v. RPT – Texas Election Code §145.003(f) – allows a party chair to declare a candidate ineligible.  But it does something else.  Here is the text of that provision and provision (g):

(f)  A candidate may be declared ineligible only if:

(1)  the information on the candidate’s application for a place on the ballot indicates that the candidate is ineligible for the office;  or

(2)  facts indicating that the candidate is ineligible are conclusively established by another public record.

(g)  When presented with an application for a place on the ballot or another public record containing information pertinent to a candidate’s eligibility, the appropriate authority shall promptly review the record.  If the authority determines that the record establishes ineligibility as provided by Subsection (f), the authority shall declare the candidate ineligible. (Emphasis added.)

Did you catch that?  If the authority – that would be, the party Chair – determines the candidate’s ineligibility is conclusively established by another public record, s/he shall declare the candidate ineligible.  Not may declare; or has discretion to declare; but has no other choice but to declare, the candidate is ineligible for the job.

Presumably, Chairwoman Benkiser determined the public record conclusively established Mr. DeLay was ineligible, based on those documents he submitted to her evidencing his current legal residency in Virginia.  So, as required by this law, she declared him, ineligible.

Does this provision mean, if Chairman Richie never “determines that the record establishes ineligibility,” he will never be obliged to declare, Barack Obama is ineligible? Absolutely not.

Recall from the first installment of “Clowns…,” who was responsible for petitioning the court to order the RPT (and the Texas SoS) to leave the name of Tom DeLay on the 2006 Congressional (mid-term) ballot in the first place.  That’s right; Attorney Boyd Richie, Chair of the TDP.*  I have no idea what prompted his involvement in this fight.  Surely, Mr. Richie knew Mr. DeLay had won the R primary; he could assume the RPT had submitted Mr. DeLay’s name to the SoS for placement on the ballot.  Presumably, he had heard Mr. DeLay announce soon after winning the primary, he had decided not to run for re-election.  Mr. Richie could anticipate the RPT would try to remove his name from the ballot and replace it with a more suitable candidate.  But RPT Chair Benkiser did not declare Mr. DeLay ineligible and seek to have the SoS remove his name from the ballot until receiving his VA documents, in May.  And that’s when Mr. Richie made his move.  How do you suppose he knew what Ms. Benkiser was up to?  Did she notify the TDP of her intentions?  Did the SoS receive the RPT de-certification and contact the TDP?  (If you Texans are curious, you can use the open records law to ask the SoS to produce any and all correspondence in whatever form, to and from both the RPT and the TDP between March 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006 inclusive, related to the eligibility of Tom DeLay to appear on the ballot.  (For template, see the link to the records request previously submitted to Mr. Richie for any and all documents that were the basis of his Certification of Barack Obama’s eligibility. , under 6.))

Regardless how the TDP found out the RPT wanted to change the ballot; the point is this.  The TDP anticipated or knew the RPT intended to find Mr. DeLay ‘prospectively ineligible,’ and affirmatively set out to prevent both the RPT and the state from taking his name off the ballot.  And why wouldn’t they?  Obviously, running an ineligible candidate for the R team, means an almost certain win for the D’s! Which leads to this question.

If someone wanted to prevent the TDP from putting the name Barack Obama on the ballot in the 2012 Texas primary or general election, why not take a lesson from them?  (Note, in Texas, the party is responsible for submitting the names of candidates qualified to enter the primary.  (

I have spelled out in the citizen complaints of election fraud to AG Abbott the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that supports the charge, Boyd Richie swore to state election officials Presidential wannabe Barack Obama was eligible for the job without ascertaining beforehand he is a Natural Born Citizen.  Using much of that same evidence, I can argue persuasively to the court that official public documents conclusively establish Barack Obama is ineligible to hold the office of President.  (In a later post, I will present the formalized legal argument in support of the claim, under Texas law, the record conclusively establishes Mr. Obama’s ineligibility.)

Assuming the court can be persuaded the record conclusively establishes Mr. Obama’s ineligibility, Texas election law leaves Chairman Richie with no other choice but to declare him ineligible. But what if after all this, Mr. Richie still refuses to declare him ineligible?

Well, remember, there’s always §161.009, which subjects the party chair to the legal cause of action called mandamus. (I mentioned this on drkate’s Revolution Radio, Part III.)  Mandamus allows the court – the judicial branch of government – to order members of the executive branch of government – and, in Texas, political party Chairs – to perform their ministerial functions, as spelled out in law – legislative  branch – which law, in this case, says Mr. Richie must declare Mr. Obama ineligible.

I cannot be the only person who has figured this out.

Indeed, given the facts that copies of the citizen complaints of election fraud to AG Abbott have been mailed to the RPT (and the RNC); that the laws in TX require a party Chair to declare a candidate ineligible when such ineligibility is conclusively established in the record, and subject party Chairs to Mandamus; and that the TDP has already successfully petitioned the court to keep the RPT and the SoS from taking the name of Congressional candidate Tom DeLay off the ballot; why hasn’t the RPT expended similar efforts to prevent the TDP and SoS from putting the name of Presidential candidate Barack Obama, on?

I don’t know; do you?

And, to use a colloquialism, why hasn’t the RNC or any aspiring R Presidential candidates put their dog in the hunt?  After all, if Barack Obama is ineligible to get his name printed on the ballot in one applicable state, then…

Perhaps because both the RPT and the RNC are embroiled in more pressing matters than fighting to preserve and protect the integrity of election ballots in Texas.

Ms. Benkiser stepped down as Chair of the RPT in September 2009 to work as a Senior Adviser on Governor Perry’s re-election campaign, and was replaced by Cathie Adams. Before this, Ms. Adams successfully campaigned to become an RNC Committeewoman.  She was endorsed by conservative stalwart, Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum National President.  “Cathie Adams is a leader in the battle for God, Family and Country. She is extremely capable and I am confident that she would excel as Republican National Committeewoman.”

One of Ms. Adams’ first priorities was to spearhead a campaign on behalf of conservative members of the party, to get the RNC to pass a resolution renaming the DNC, the Democratic Socialist Party.  In the spring of 2009, nearly 3 (three) years since TDP v. RPT was decided; several months after President Obama took the oath of office; Ms. Adams and RNC Chairman Michael Steele were interviewed by Neil Cavuto from FOX.  Obviously straining to keep a straight face, Mr. Cavuto asked whether the Committeewoman’s crusade to rename the DNC detracted from real efforts at problem solving.

Ya think?


* Here are the attorneys representing the parties, and the interested parties (other candidates, for example, not directly involved in the case but whose interests the court wanted to hear by granting their requests to introduce briefs in amici curiae, or friends of the court.) Chad Wilson Dunn (argued), Brazil & Dunn, Martin Jonathan Siegel (argued), Watts Law Firm, Houston, TX, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Law Firm, Corpus Christi, TX, Richard A. Grigg, Law Offices of Dicky Grigg, Cristen D. Feldman, Crews & Elliott, Austin, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.  (That’s Boyd Richie as Chair of the TDP.)

James Bopp, Jr. (argued), Raeanna Sue Moore, Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom, Terre Haute, IN, for Benkiser.  (Defendants-Appellants.)

R. Ted Cruz, Office of Sol. Gen., TX, Austin, TX, Amici Curiae for Williams.

Andrius R. Kontrimas, Jenkins & Gilchrist, Houston, TX, Amicus Curiae for Wallace for Congress.

Susan L. Hays, Curran Tomko Tarski, Dallas, TX, Amicus Curiae for 68th Texas Legislature.


Freedom costs.

15 Responses to CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (2 of 2)

  1. Michelle says:

    Just finished listening to you and drkate, so interesting-5 minutes-just flew by. You sounded good and strong-not like someone who has been beating back flood waters. Hope the weather is improving there.
    Thank you for everything. Will send lots of information around tomorrow.

    Michelle: You are welcome. And the water is subsiding; haven’t bailed for the whole show! (But then again, as you say, that was only 5 (five) minutes! ADMINISTRATOR

  2. TeakWoodKite says:

    Using much of that same evidence, I can argue persuasively to the court that official public documents conclusively establish Barack Obama is ineligible to hold the office of President.

    So the hinge is not directed at BO,the scoffer in chief, but the publically available evidence as to the validity of certification for placing the name on the Texas ballot?

    Just so I get my string around it;

    The evidence you refer to has already been admitted in to evidence and used in court proceedings? If so, can a court decide to bar it if it was part of another proceeding?

    Second would any of the previous court cases had standing if considered in the context you describe?

    Much respect.

    TWK: Thank you. And by now I think you know the answers. No Plaintiff filing a case that has reached the court has survived a Motion to Dismiss that argues 1) s/he has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted; and 2) s/he has failed to establish the court has jurisdiction to hear this case. But the issue of ineligibility is no barrier to election, anyway. Remember, the Electors elected the POTUS according to the Constitution, which does not require them to elect only someone Constitutionally eligible for the job. However, if BO is Constitutionally ineligible for the job then this means he conspired to commit election fraud to get his name on the ballot in those applicable states that only allow the names of eligible candidates to be printed on the ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. William says:


    Having listened to your interview, I continue to find your work and analysis outstanding. Kudo’s to you. I am left with a question however. Can an Attorney using a Presidential Candidate such as Alan Key’s file a lawsuit in Texas now, or is it simply too late for that? Secondly, although I am not a resident of Texas I believe it would be worth the time of some of your readers from Texas attempt to get the Texas Tea Party members involved. I am aware that most Tea Party members represent small government and lower taxes and generally not on board with the NBC legal challenges, however, your work does not address this issue and would be an excellent educational piece for such members. Your link on their website for such educational reasoning would be a excellent start to gain more supportive members filing with the AG office, in my opinion of course..

    William: Welcome. And thanks for the compliment about the work. Of course, people who identify with the Texas Tea Party need to know as much about the real functioning of their government / political system as those whose superior knowledge of that functioning has been used to usurp their real power as sovereigns of that government. For that reason alone, people who require assistance in figuring these things out, could find reading my blog worthwhile. And, presumably, when they come to realize their frustrations with what went wrong during the 2008 election cycle can be redressed by laws they already passed (through their representatives); and public officials they already elected into office, well, I would assume, at that point, they would use these tools they identify on my blog, to redress those wrongs. And to ensure these are not repeated in 2012.

    So, by all means, post the link to my blog everywhere, along with your editorial opinion of the work that goes on here!

    As for whether Mr. Keyes is in a position to proceed with a colorable claim at this point, the answer is no. First of all, until the 2012 Presidential preference primary has been held, no one can say who will be the candidate representing the political party on the Presidential (Elector) ballot. As this article explains, in the TDP v. RPT case, the court made clear, the reason both the party AND the D candidate who had won the primary (but who did not participate in this suit) would have satisfied the requirements of standing to bring the suit, was this. Both the TDP and that candidate had identical interests. That is, each wanted that D candidate to win the election over the R candidate. Do you see how this interest does not ripen until the person running in the primary IS the candidate in the subsequent election?

    However, the interest of the R party to file suit IS ripe at this point. Because it must be assumed, they will nominate a candidate to appear on the Presidential primary ballot; and need to know who will run strongest against the presumptive D candidate, BO, so as to manage their electoral strategy. This concept is also explained in the TDP v. RPT case.

    But filing BEFORE PERFECTING THE LEGAL CASE makes no sense. That is, anyone bringing a case under the rubric I have outlined must be able to show, the record conclusively establishes BO is ineligible for office. I assure you, it does; but that proof has to be spelled out, by someone who knows both the extensive facts in this case; and how to assemble those facts to meet the requirements of law.

    As the court in TDP v. RPT made clear, the authority, that is, the party Chair, must declare the candidate ineligible when the record conclusively establishes such ineligibility. BUT THE AUTHORITY IS NOT THE FACT FINDER; THESE FACTS MUST ESTABLISH THE INELIGIBILITY ON THEIR FACE. I maintain, by law, they do. But the persuasive legal argument has yet to be spelled out. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. TeakWoodKite says:

    Hey jbjd, thought I posted a comment last night, didn’t post for some reason.
    you say;

    “Using much of that same evidence, I can argue persuasively to the court that official public documents conclusively establish Barack Obama is ineligible to hold the office of President.”

    Just so I can get may string wrapped around this, a few questions.

    Has this evidence already been admitted in other court proceedings and would that fact, if so make, the validity beyond refute?

    If you can make use of the same evidence (standing is not required in this context), why would the word “shall” as a legal requirement, actually have the force of law? I am not being snarky when I suggest that many a shall has fallen by the way side.

    Is it a part of your line of pursuit, that it is time sensitive and because of that, the court would be required to act in the affirmative, while any appeals are secondary?

    I hope these questions are relevant and do so appreciate your writings and insights / perspectives.

    TWK: This comment inadvertently got hung up in SPAM. That’s the bad news; but the good news is, all of these questions are answered in “IDIOMS!ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Sandy says:

    I believe,as you do that BHO is ineligible to be POTUS, no matter what people say. It is so frustrating to think that he has fooled so many people, or is it possible they just don’t care? With all the messes he has created as president, I would think any outside chance to remove him from office would be welcomed. Keep up the great work, sooner or later things will work out.

    Sandy: Welcome; and thank you. I just watched a program on Bernie Madoff. I was reminded that Harry Markopolos had reported to the SEC his concerns Mr. Madoffwas running a giant ponzi scheme; a full 10 (ten) years before Mr. Madoff confessed his theft, on his own. Mr. Obama’s ineligibility would be bad enough. But what really puzzles me is this. For those people who do care whether he is eligible AND are convinced he is not and want to do something about it, the options for redress are all right here. I keep saying, if we cannot exercise existing laws enforced by present officials; why on earth would any officials be more apt to comply with these laws, that is, to take us seriously? And why on earth would people propose to write NEW laws (which can be ignored) and elect NEW officials (who can ignore them)?

    My belief BO is ineligible is personal. But I can prove that no one has established his eligibility. Further, applying the ‘best evidence’ rule, I can show that his lawyer, Bob Bauer, has admitted to federal court Judge Robertson he is ineligible. And applying facts to Texas case law on fraud, I can prove Boyd Richie admitted he is ineligible, by refusing to disclose evidence of his eligibility. I am writing up a legal brief spelling out the argument. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. Sandy says:

    Good luck with your brief. Any glimmer of hope in removing Obama from office before he destroys the entire country is welcome. I will be checking back. I am fairly new to blogging, I just wish I had known about your site long ago. Thank you.

    Sandy: I want to make sure you understand, my dedication to ‘outing’ BO has absolutely nothing to do with my objecting strenuously to his conduct while in office, although I abhor his conduct in office. Indeed, alone, he could not have done nearly as much damage. For example, passing the ‘mandatory purchase of private health insurance’ bill took more than 250 Congressional votes. Besides, as I have often said, my fellow citizens have every right to elect someone I believe is incompetent for the job. However, they cannot foist upon me through fraud, someone Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

    The primary purposes of composing this brief are 1) to show the Republican Party of Texas (and the RNC), nothing is stopping them from disqualifying BO from appearing on the ballot, either; and 2) to show anyone else out there who still thinks the R’s are qualitatively different from the D’s, they are not. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Sandy says:

    I agree. Neither party is our friend,but what is the answer? They continue to do as they please, with no regard to the constitution or the will of the people.

    Sandy: Either party can be our ‘friend’; when we know as much as they do about how our government works, and demand they comport their operations to these standards of appropriate conduct. But remember, the overwhelming majority of voters in this country appear to be unaware even of the laws they passed, in their states, regarding getting the name of the party candidate on the ballot, let alone that the Founders and Drafters carved out no role to political parties, in this Constitutional Republic. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. Michelle says:

    jbjd-here in Palm Beach the Bernie Madoff scam hit like a ton of bricks, then this happened. Don’t know if stress got to Mr. Picower.
    No one benefited more from the Madoff scheme that Picower, according to bankruptcy lawyers who sued him and alleged he had taken out $7 billion more than he had put in.
    Jeffry Picower, was found dead in his Palm Beach, Fla., swimming pool Sunday.
    In the meantime Mr. Picard gets to straigten out the mess-from what I understand he is an honest person who will do his level best to recoup what he can for the people.
    Jan. 21 (Bloomberg) — Irving Picard, the lawyer seeking to recover money invested with alleged swindler Bernard Madoff, may take more than five years to pay all customers of the man accused of a $50 billion Ponzi scheme.
    The 67-year-old Picard is tackling the most complex fraud in the four-decade history of the Securities Investor Protection Corp., the government-backed corporation that hired him, SIPC President Stephen Harbeck said.
    My opinion is: Listen to people like jbjd and Harry Markopolos in the first place-they are telling the truth, avoid disasters and horrendous clean-ups. Honesty will always be the best policy. So much grief and heartache could have been avoided.

    Michelle: The reason I mentioned the Bernie Madoff case is to remind people, just because ‘everyone else must be right’ does not mean, you are wrong. (Recall that in the Madoff case, even the SEC gave the man and his operation a clean bill of health, in 2006, just 2 (two) years before the walls came tumbling down on his giant 30+-year ponzi scheme.) ADMINISTRATOR

  9. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I agree with you competely-the SEC-vacant in the old head-and we are supposed to blindly trust in our government or their entities, worse they were advised by Mr. Markopolos. Somewhat like jbjd in early 08 advising on upcoming election fraud issues. Canary in a coal mine that’s for sure. I know you are 100 per cent correct in all your assessments and have the documentation to prove it. Hopefully the walls on the Obama mishigoss will tumble soon too-I am citing your blog all over the place.
    “I love the definition: mishigoss
    annoying, stressful problem, made all the more frustrating in that it could have been prevented if certain people had simply used their brains beforehand.”

    Michelle: OMG, of course you use urban dictionary! I have a story about how my knowledge of urban dictionary prevented my son from being wrongfully expelled from school. (But who knew yiddish words were part of the urban lexicon?)

    Can you imagine what would happen if all of the ‘names’ involved in ‘outing’ BO prefaced every appearance on line or in the media with these words, ‘On what documentary basis did Nancy Pelosi ascertain Presidential candidate Barack Obama was a Natural Born Citizen before August 27, 2008, the date she signed the Official DNC Certification of Nomination for HI, swearing he was Constitutionally eligible for the job and delivering this to state election officials to get them to print his name on the ballot? ADMINISTRATOR

  10. Michelle says:

    jbjd-you now have a starring role on Oil for Immigration. I can’t wait til you see it.
    You are directly beneath Pastor Manning.

  11. […] was a legal resident of that state.  (CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (1 of 2) and (2 of 2); and […]

  12. Wow your blog is beutifull, may I know what theme did you use ?

    Hosting Anak Bangsa: Thank you. This is a WordPress template, Contempt, by Michael Heilemann. The header design is mine. (I see you are making your way through the blog. Please, make sure to read the Comments. These are arguably as instructive as the articles.) ADMINISTRATOR


  14. […] CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (2 of 2), I construct the legal case that will enable those Plaintiffs with standing in Texas to establish, […]


Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: