© 2010 jbjd
This is a copyright warning and consumer alert to the owners and readers of any of the following internet sites: americangrandjury; americanthinker; butterdezillion; canadafreepress; citizensagainstproobamamediabias; citizenwells; devvykidd; fellowshipofminds; freerepublic; logisticsmonster; obamareleaseyourrecords; oilforimmigration; sodahead; theconservativemonster; thedametruth; theobamafile; thepostemail; therightsideoflife; washingtontimes; and westernjournalism and and wnd (both Bob Unruh’s bloviating babies).
You have been made accessories after the fact to the theft by JB Williams of original work produced by and copyrighted to me, “jbjd” and posted on the “jbjd” blog but which work he stole without my prior notice or approval and has been illegally distributing under his name ever since. Adding insult to injury, having only stolen the work but not bothered to learn what it meant, Mr. Williams misrepresented to his audience what it meant. As a consequence of his subterfuge, dozens of blog owners ostensibly motivated by their heartfelt desire to teach others about our electoral process; and hundreds of thousands of citizens ostensibly trying to learn about our electoral process by reading these blogs, have been distributing and consuming false information Mr. Williams wrongly extrapolated from my work.
Worse, crediting this narrative knock-off, citizens have been traveling up blind alleys trying to figure out the fraud that tainted the 2008 election cycle when collectively, they could have been taking positive steps I already laid out to redress the illegal fraud I had previously identified, years ago now, which action would help to prevent its recurrence. In wasting their time and effort in this way, they have been paying for his crime ever since.
Evidence of the Theft
On August 13, 2009 I posted IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO on my blog, “jbjd.” This article was inspired by comments from the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, to USA Today, describing boisterous dissent at town hall meetings leading up to the vote on Obamacare as “un-American.” (“Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.”) The article focused on the contradiction between 1) Ms. Pelosi’s Certification that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen, and Obama’s statement on “Fight the Smears” that he is only a “native”; and between 2) communications from members of Congress to their constituents claiming that Obama is eligible to be President because Annenberg Political Fact Check says he is, and the fact I exposed that APFC does not check facts, which I documented in RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’ posted 4 (four) days earlier, on August 9, 2009.
As background, I parenthetically reminded readers, saying Obama was “duly nominated” or was “Constitutionally eligible for the job” was a distinction without a difference.
(In some states, like TX and GA, the law requires that the party candidate must be Constitutionally eligible for the job. But even in these states, no provision of law requires anyone in government to check. DNC rules dictate that the candidate for the Democratic nomination for President “shall meet those requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States.” http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf (p.14, K.1 and 2). Thus, identifying under oath that BO was the D party nominee was tantamount to swearing, he is a NBC, anyway.)
To show this difference, I posted images of 2 (two) DNC Certifications of Obama’s Nomination submitted to election officials in SC and HI, both of which had been available individually on the internet for more than 8 (eight) months by that time, since 2008. And, consistent with my writings on the 2008 election cycle since before the August 2008 DNC nominating convention, in which I emphasized that elections are a state by state affair conducted according to individual state laws; I repeated that the difference in wording found in these 2 Certifications was only attributable to the individual requirements of election laws passed in each state. I pointed out according to the election laws in HI, the party must explicitly write this Constitutional eligibility into their Certification. But again, this difference in the wording of the Certifications was not the point of the article. Signing two different Certifications was not a problematic ‘fact’ because as I explained, saying either “duly nominated” or “Constitutionally eligible” meant, he is a Natural Born Citizen.
But introducing the side-by-side images of these Certifications in this August 2009 article, I wrote this line: “In HI, just identifying the name of the nominee does not guarantee his name will be placed on the ballot. No; in order to get BO’s name on the ballot in just that state, NP also had to swear he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.” Unfortunately, JB Williams misconstrued that throwaway line to mean, ‘NP failed to Certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for President in 49 states but did Certify his eligibility in HI because HI law required the Party to swear the nominee was Constitutionally qualified.’ Of course, he got it all wrong. As you know, saying “duly nominated” by the DNC means, saying he is a NBC. Because DNC rules require the nominee to be a NBC. (Maybe I should have said, “in just that state, NP also had to explicitly swear he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.” In other words, under HI election law, just swearing he was “duly nominated” without explicitly writing he was “qualified” under the “Constitution” would not have been enough to get election officials to print his name on the ballot even though Certifying he was “duly nominated” still meant, he was “Constitutionally eligible for the job.”)
And as I was to learn from ongoing research only several days later, that additional explanation still would have been wrong. Anyone who reads my blog regularly knows, just a couple of weeks after I posted the August article containing the images of the HI and SC Certifications, I posted UP to HERE in ELECTION FRAUD in SC, FROM the CHAIR of the 2008 DNC CONVENTION to the CHAIR of the DNC, the article that explained election law in SC also requires explicit eligibility language to accompany the submission of candidate names to election officials to print on the ballot. In other words, HI is not the only state whose election law requires an explicit statement that the candidate is qualified for the job before election officials will print the candidate’s name on the ballot. So, why wasn’t this explicit language in the SC Certification of Nomination? Well, as I pointed out in the SC article, this specific eligibility certification in SC was accomplished even before the nominating convention in August 2008, way back in November 2007, in time for the Presidential preference primary. Because under SC law, candidates who want their names to appear on the party’s primary ballot must register directly with the party! This meant, in SC, Obama’s Constitutional eligibility had to be sworn to by the party, back in November 2007 in time to have election officials print his name on the D Presidential preference primary ballot. So, in SC, Kathy Hensley, Treasurer of the SC Democratic Party, explicitly swore Obama (and Biden and Clinton…) was Constitutionally eligible for the job, in 2007. (I obtained these primary documents working with a reader of my blog from SC, who spoke with an official from the SC Election Commission to answer ‘my’ questions.)
On September 11, 2009, playing on the words of the titles of my preceding 2 articles, JB Williams published, “The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don’t Lie,” in Canada Free Press, the neo-Nazi rag which lists him as a “Partner” (along with Douglas Hagmann of Northeast Intelligence Network (“NEIN” for “No” in German, get the ‘joke’?)). Evidently seeing these dual HI and SC Certifications for the first time, Mr. Williams now hyperbolically announced to the world:
…They snuck it past fifty state election commissions, congress, the US Supreme Court and Justice Department, the Federal Elections Commission and countless members of the Electoral College nationwide. Not a single member of the, as Limbaugh says, “drive-by media” caught it either, or if they did, they decided to become complicit for their own political reasons.
But as is always the case with liars, cheats and thieves, they slip up Ð make a silly mistake Ð overplay their hand Ð leave evidence lying around that they had forgotten about. And as with all chronic liars, they eventually get caught in their own web of lies.
Then, one day, someone stumbles into that evidence, and the house of cards comes crashing down around them. It’s almost poetic…
…Last, the fact that TWO DNC Certifications exist, both signed, dated and notarized by the same individuals on the same day, means that a very real conspiracy to commit election fraud was underway, and since it took until six months after the election to uncover it, the conspiracy was indeed successful.
(How many mistakes of fact were you able to count in just these quoted lines?)
(Note to JB Williams: The Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) is only legally authorized to oversee campaign finance and not candidate eligibility for office. http://www.fec.gov/)
Immediately, the thief was confronted with the facts, readers detected his theft from my blog and opposed his wrong interpretation of the meaning and significance of these dual Certifications. How do we know? Because they told him, in writing, and urged him to refer his readers to my blog, reporting I had been working on these issues for some time, and could accurately explain their meaning in context.
Please give credit where it is obviously belongs: https://jbjd.wordpress.com/
for the correct meaning and interpretation that he has studied for almost a year now and also how to act on it.Posted by markcon on 09/10 at 08:51 PM | #
Please follow the enclosed link. There is a movement just
started to file complaints with State Attorney Generals
about this very problem. A model complaint, prepared by an attorney, has been prepared which can be used in every state, with corrections that will apply to your state of filing. Please take a look, and it could be the subject of a future article. Here is the link:
Thanks for the article, great work.Posted by Paralegal on 09/12 at 02:52 PM | #
More from markcon:
people pay attention. the site where these 2 files were borrowed with no credit given is https://jbjd.wordpress.com/ Please give credit where it is obviously belongs: https://jbjd.wordpress.com/
for the correct meaning and interpretation. jbjd has studied for almost a year now and also how to act on it.Posted by markcon on 09/12 at 08:14 PM | #
Again from markcon:
You stated “I had NO knowledge of the site you reference until AFTER the release of your column. NO knowledge of this site whatsoever.”
I was not implying that you did!
I was referring to the anonymous reader that sent them to you, and the possible idea of fraud that came with it, if any. I commend you on being able to take the initiative and investigate. I am sure your readers understood that point and I thought you did too because you so generously let me post the site https://jbjd.wordpress.com/ where people can take advantage of research that has been done in this area for almost a year now.
I am in no way part of that blog- just a fan.
And as a fan I wanted to point to a blog where I think in my opinion is more detailed and corrects some wrong conclusions on your part and others new come to the issue.
I hope you take advantage of well thought out research and possibly report on https://jbjd.wordpress.com/ work especially in the states of Hi and TX. since the report would be on jbjd there would be no issues and would be a great follow up to your column because I am sure you would agree that there are others like you concerned about fraud.
The NH investigation is a red herring and will give msm a chance to say the issue has been settled even though NH has no such law.
Thanks again for posting my comment about https://jbjd.wordpress.com/ and I am sorry if there was any misunderstanding.columns like yours that are concerned about fraud only want the truth and by posting my comment you showed that you cared enough to show the path to that truth.Posted by markcon on 09/14 at 05:04 PM | #
Go here, jbjd has been diligently working on this and other things for quite some time. See “MODEL COMPLAINT OF ELECTION FRAUD TO STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL”. Please read the other posts by jbjd.
(Note – The bold lettering may show and somehow got messed up today in the model letter to the Texas Attorney General. jbjd is working on fixing this.)
The Texas chair of the Texas Democratic Party used his letterhead on practically the same letter and as jbjd has noted in the model letter to the Texas Attorney General. Texas election code requires the state political party chair to certify the names of the nominees for POTUS and “the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law”. Please note that the notary’s date of the “27 day of August, 2008”.
Posted by azgo on 09/10 at 04:09 PM | #
Obviously, given azgo’s information that only Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) signed the Certifications that went to election officials in TX, and not Nancy Pelosi, he was wrong when he told readers, Nancy Pelosi signed Certifications in all 50 states! And he could have easily checked, because azgo also informed him, those TX documents were the basis for the citizen complaint of election fraud to TX AG Abbott I had posted on my blog and made available to readers for download and sending, free of charge. But by this time, Mr. Williams was too invested in the notoriety he had begun receiving for posting my work, to admit culpability for his crime. So, he never corrected the mistakes he had incorporated into his faulty analysis of the work I had created which he re-posted under his name. He couldn’t now post these corrections, or direct readers of his plagiarized column to my blog and the TX complaint I had posted there specifically for their use and which could prove effective against the state party chair; without giving away he had stolen his column from me!
So, how did Mr. Williams respond to these numerous charges, he had stolen my work? He now claimed he had just received the two differently worded Certifications “anonymously.” (Later on, he claimed, he still had not found the time to authenticate the HI document. Thus, he posted these documents from an ‘anonymous source’ without authentication, and then based his conclusions on these images. Some researcher!)
Fallout From the Theft
Meanwhile, all of those other sites that had posted JB Williams’ work and, like him, failed to credit me or, follow my blog, not only missed out on the truth FOR ONE WHOLE YEAR but also wasted their time and energy on a wild goose chase dependent on the differences in Certifications, instead of pursuing the mechanism I had created on my blog that would allow citizens to go after those members of the D Party who committed election fraud in applicable states.
Especially hard hit was butterdezillion. In September 2010, she credited JB Williams with writing the definitive article in CFP on the 2 different Certifications of Obama’s Nomination; and she, too, repeated the lie, HI is the only state that requires explicit Certification of Constitutionality to get on the ballot. Just like the response triggered when JB Williams stole my work, now, one year later, when butterdezillion credited his theft of that same work, she, too, was bombarded with writers informing her, this was my work all along. And it didn’t mean what JB Williams said it meant. Additionally, I contacted her and demanded a retraction. Now, unlike Mr. Williams, she did alter her credits to reflect, the research that produced these Certifications was mine. (In fact, I had not originally obtained either document. The SC Certification was on the internet. The HI Certification came from Justin Riggs. I only put them side by side to visually demonstrate the differences.) (More on my collaboration with Justin later…) However, like JB Williams, as she had failed to study my work, she now incorrectly told her readers what this research means.
You have to see how far behind the curve she – and her readers – remain in September 2010. (Note the added ‘mention’ of the election law in SC.)
Outstanding research by blogger jbjd here, here, here, and here, with summary here, showed that Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond , as representatives of the Democratic National Committee, had signed one Certificate of Nomination for Obama and Biden that was sent to 49 states, and another that was sent only to Hawaii. Only the certificate sent to Hawaii included a statement that Obama and Biden were Constitutionally qualified to serve as President and Vice-President.
That certificate of nomination for Hawaii is the ONLY statement in this nation signed by somebody besides Obama which claims that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President. (Note: I am currently checking into whether the South Carolina Democratic Party also signed a statement of Constitutional eligibility. Will update later if this paragraph needs to be edited.) Contrary to arguments that Congress certified Obama’s eligibility when they certified the results of the electoral vote, neither representatives of Congress nor any Secretary of State has signed a legal document saying that Obama is eligible. This one oath by Pelosi and Germond is the only legal claim that Obama’s eligibility was verified.
And responding to a reader comment, she writes,
I also saw something about the SC Democratic Party certifying eligibility; I think I’ve seen jbjd write about that. I need to check that out and update the post to reflect that the SCDP also certified eligibility…
But not surprisingly, as of now, despite her ‘conscienscious’ words, she has failed to “check that out and update the post to reflect that the SCDP also certified eligibility…” Because just like the alternative confronting Mr. Williams, if she corrects her work in 2010 based on work previously processed on my blog beginning in 2008; what does this say about the caliber of her work? Better to leave her readers in the dark…
Not understanding my work or the context of these Certifications, she, too, invented a cottage conspiracy industry related to the mistaken uniqueness of the HI Certification of Nomination, with a twist. See, she uses the fact the DNC Certification of Nomination contains the line that Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job; to support her argument, the HI D Party refused to put that line in their state Certification because they knew Obama is not a NBC. How does she know this? Well, she retrieved both the DNC and the HI D Party Certifications for 2000, 2004, and 2008. In 2000, the DNC document began without the eligibility line, which was obviously typed in after the original document was completed. The HDP document in 2000 contained the same eligibility line. In 2004, the DNC document did not contain the eligibility line; the HDP document did. In 2008, the DNC document did; the HDP document did not.
butterdezillion points out all of the variables were the same – the election law was the same, Brian Schatz was the HI D Party Chair; and Joseph Sandler was the General Counsel to the DNC – and argues, on this basis, one would expect that the Certifications would have been processed in the same manner. Since they were not, she concludes, Mr. Schatz “refused” to swear to Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for President because he knew the man was not a NBC.
Only, she is wrong. For one thing, all of the material variables were not the same. But that fact has not stopped the ‘usual suspects’ from piggy-backing on her mistakes. Even worse, her work now specifically contains a reference to research done by “jbjd,” thus arguably giving the false impression, again, my work is the basis for her soon-to-be-exposed-as-discredited findings.
Basically, here is her argument. Looking at the dates of these Certifications, she found, in 2000, the DNC Certification was dated 08.17.00; HDP 09.08.00. In 2004, DNC 07.29.04; HDP 08.31.2004. In 2008, DNC 08.28.08; HDP 08.27.08. Following is her invented rationale as to what happened in 2008:
So instead of acting independently a month after the National Convention and confirming Constitutional eligibility as in the past, the HDP acted before the Convention to take out the eligibility language from their standard certificate, signed it, and gave it to Joe Sandler before Pelosi had signed anything – signaling to the DNC that they were not going to certify eligibility. They coordinated their efforts with Joe Sandler, who sent both documents together to the HI Elections Office. Apparently Sandler, Pelosi, and Germond all knew that Hawaii’s special certification was necessary because the HDP refused to certify Obama’s eligibility.
Let me just point out one of butterdezillion’s most glaring mistaken presumptions. Joseph Sandler did not submit both the DNC and the HDP documents “together” to the HI Elections Office. (This probably explains why his cover letter only references the DNC Certification and not the HDP Certification, and why he uses the word “Certification,” in the singular.) And how do I know this? Because way back in January 2009, I asked the HI Election Office. That is, I asked Justin Riggs to ask them.
See, in December 2008 I learned that Justin Riggs had been corresponding with elections officials in various states asking them to provide the paperwork submitted by the D and R parties to get their respective Presidential nominees on the general election ballot. Justin posted his paperwork. I looked at the HI documents – these are now posted on my web site, along with Justin’s correspondence – and had questions. So, I asked Justin to ask HI election officials, since he had already established a rapport. Especially I was interested in learning when they had received these Certification documents. Because among those documents I got from him were just the DNC Certification; the HDP Certification; and the HDP cover letter. Joseph Sandler’s cover letter was missing. And as you can see from the documents posted on butterdezillion, his cover letter is the only one with a ‘date received’ stamp.
(Actually, the 2008 documents butterdezillion posted on her blog in September 2010 are linked to this blog, http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hawaii-response.pdf, where they were first posted almost 2 (two) years ago. The date, January 06, 2009 01:17p in the upper left corner, designates a FAX transmission.)
Mr. Sandler’s cover letter, dated August 28, was stamped received by the HI Elections Office on September 03. And that cover letter was the only one of those DNC/HDP Certification documents received by the HI Election Commission for Obama that received a Date Stamp. Consequently, as the documents I received from Justin did not contain Mr. Sandler’s cover letter, none of his documents had a stamp evidencing it had even been received by the HI Elections Office! But obviously, the documents were received, as election officials did print Obama’s name on HI’s general election ballot. (The date these documents were received didn’t matter, for the same reason, that is, I knew they had been received in time.) Just to satisfy my curiosity, I asked Justin to ask officials how they received these DNC and HDP documents. Here is his reply to me.
jbjd,Here you go… it looks like the HI Democratic party forwarded both documents to the Elections Office.Hope that helps. Keep me posted on your progress.Justin—From: Carolyn.L.Roldan@hawaii.gov <Carolyn.L.Roldan@hawaii.gov>
Subject: Re: Response to December 12, 2008 Request
To: “Justin Riggs” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Friday, March 6, 2009, 1:44 PMDear Mr. Riggs,Both documents were forwarded by the Democratic Party of Hawaii.
Kevin B. Cronin
Now that I see Mr. Sandler’s cover letter, Mr. Cronin’s answer makes even more sense. That is, between his use of the singular “Certification”; and the delay between the date his letter was written and the date this was received by the HI Election Office’ it would make sense that the DNC gave the documents to the HDP who then forwarded these to the HI Elections Office.
When butterdezillion wrote her ‘seminal’ Certification article on September 10, 2010, she knew none of this. Thus, based on her faulty assumptions about how the DNC and HDP letters of Certification reached the HI Election Office, she asks, “The question that begs an answer is: Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama’s eligibility as they had always done to successfully place presidential candidates on the ballots before?” And answered it with that contrived story.
A more plausible answer as to why the HDP did not add the line about Constitutional eligibility in 2008 like they had in 2004 and 2000 likely could come from anyone reading the work produced on my blog. Here’s a hint: what information highlighted in COUP (2 of 3) and (3 of 3) led to my conclusion, Obama and the DNC had identified which Clinton pledged delegates were from vote binding states? Yep; it’s those state Delegate Selection Plans. As I told you, provisions in the DNC Model Delegate Selection Plan for 2006 required, in order to obtain final approval from the RBC for state delegate selection plans for use in the 2008 election cycle, state parties were required to submit those plans to the RBC accompanied by all state statutes reasonably related to the delegate selection process. (Emphasis added by jbjd.) http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/e824f455b24c7782dc_jjm6ib44l.pdf In this way, the DNC could monitor any idiosyncratic requirements in individual states so as to ensure Obama’s name would qualify to get onto every general election ballot.
I assumed this provision was not included in the 2002 DNC model delegate selection rules to be used in the 2004 election, and that’s why the HI state party (and, presumably, state parties in other states) handled their special Certifications on their own. Finally, I had time to check my hypothesis; and I was right.
In other words, where changes would be required in the language of the Certification of Nomination to satisfy the law of individual states, in 2006, the DNC began assuming responsibility for all such changes.
And that would explain why in 2008 the HDP did not certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for office but the DNC did.
Just because I believe no documentary evidence available in the public record can establish Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen, let alone natural born; does not mean, I buy into every speculative conspiracy theory on the subject polluting the blogosphere. No; I still want back-up material that would tend to support any such claims. And claims once supported by such material which are later de-bunked with newer information, I want to be tweaked or rescinded altogether. But that’s just me. Sure, I make mistakes; but I never try to bolster my popularity to the detriment of my readers! (Word to the wise: if a particular blog continues to post uncorroborated and unsubstantiated conclusions as fact, consider whether you would be better off going elsewhere for your ‘news.’)
To everyone who steals my work, listen: I have already outed the illegal fraud related to Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for office which occurred during the 2008 election cycle, and prescribed remedies that can produce results now. But first, people have to pursue those remedies, which requires understanding our electoral process. The ‘nuts-and-bolts’ information provided on my blog tells you everything you need to know to file citizen complaints of election fraud, in applicable states. Of course, if you have questions, ask me! (fellowshipofminds picked up on butterdezillion’s now discredited conspiracy theory in HI. Eventually, s/he notified readers, s/he received an email pointing out, I have already conducted extensive research on these issues and posted citizen complaints of election fraud for applicable states, in the sidebar on my blog. But in an incredibly blatant act of hubris, now that this new correspondence has effectively established, the work produced on fellowshipofminds is fatally misinformed; s/he advises readers, ‘Visit jbjd’s blog to get those complaints in the sidebar and if you have any questions, come back here to ask me!’)
My blog competes with these several sites preoccupied with self-notoriety through posting glitzy salacious ‘discoveries’ about anything remotely connected to that election, even re-casting issues already de-constructed on my blog, years ago. If only these other sites would at long last shift their focus toward learning the ins and outs of our electoral process by actually reading my blog, including the Comments – some of the best work is carried out in interactions between my readers and me – instead of re-inventing the wheel. Then, when they understand that process, they could demonstrate a bona fide commitment to fixing our electoral system by spearheading massive citizen action in just one state, say, TX, aimed to persuade AG Abbott to follow through on the more than 100 citizen complaints of election fraud filed against Boyd Richie, the D state chair who signed and submitted to state election officials the sole Certification of Obama’s Nomination, which got them to print his name on the general election ballot…
P.S. What does arouse my suspicion in HI is the ‘coincidence’ that Mr. Schatz, Chair of the HDP, taught in Kenya and went to school there, in the early ’90’s… What are the odds?