©2011 jbjd

DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) provided a more sophisticated legal analysis of simple charges I first raised on this blog in 2008 when I advised people investigating Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS to ignore information posted on the web site “Fight the Smears” (“FTS”), which is just a paid political advertisement.  Now, by taking the facts available in the public record, including that FTS was copyrighted in 2007, and correlating these public facts to specific provisions of the U.S. Code; I spelled out that FTS was devised to promote and support the candidacy of Barack Obama, first, as the Presidential nominee wannabe of the D Party and then as its nominee; and is now used by the DNC Corporation to sustain the image of its current President (and, perhaps to promote and support his future run for office).   But the legal analysis offered in that article still left this question unanswered. Even assuming the COLB posted on FTS was only created as a feature of that on-line advertising campaign; is its appearance on that site proscribed by law?

DECODER-RINGS (2 of 2) addresses this last critical concern.

Here is just a partial index for TITLE 18 > PART I (CRIMES) > CHAPTER 47, FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS.  (We will only use Part 1 for this analysis but here is a link to Part II, FYI.  PART II—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (§§ 3001—3771).)

  • § 1001. Statements or entries generally
  • § 1002. Possession of false papers to defraud United States
  • § 1003. Demands against the United States
  • § 1004. Certification of checks
  • § 1005. Bank entries, reports and transactions
  • § 1006. Federal credit institution entries, reports and transactions
  • § 1007. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation transactions
  • § 1010. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Federal Housing Administration transactions
  • § 1011. Federal land bank mortgage transactions
  • § 1012. Department of Housing and Urban Development transactions
  • § 1013. Farm loan bonds and credit bank debentures
  • § 1014. Loan and credit applications generally; renewals and discounts; crop insurance
  • § 1015. Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry
  • § 1016. Acknowledgment of appearance or oath
  • § 1017. Government seals wrongfully used and instruments wrongfully sealed
  • § 1018. Official certificates or writings
  • § 1019. Certificates by consular officers
  • § 1020. Highway projects
  • § 1021. Title records
  • § 1022. Delivery of certificate, voucher, receipt for military or naval property
  • § 1023. Insufficient delivery of money or property for military or naval service
  • § 1024. Purchase or receipt of military, naval, or veteran’s facilities property
  • § 1025. False pretenses on high seas and other waters
  • § 1026. Compromise, adjustment, or cancellation of farm indebtedness
  • § 1027. False statements and concealment of facts in relation to documents required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
  • § 1028. Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information
  • § 1028A. Aggravated identity theft
  • § 1029. Fraud and related activity in connection with access devices
  • § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
  • § 1031. Major fraud against the United States
  • § 1032. Concealment of assets from conservator, receiver, or liquidating agent of financial institution
  • § 1033. Crimes by or affecting persons engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce
  • § 1034. Civil penalties and injunctions for violations of section 1033
  • § 1035. False statements relating to health care matters
  • § 1036. Entry by false pretenses to any real property, vessel, or aircraft of the United States or secure area of any airport or seaport
  • § 1037. Fraud and related activity in connection with electronic mail
  • § 1038. False information and hoaxes
  • § 1039. Fraud and related activity in connection with obtaining confidential phone records information of a covered entity
  • § 1040. Fraud in connection with major disaster or emergency benefits

But to answer the question concerning the legality of the  FTS COLB under the U.S. Code, we will be concentrating primarily on section 1028.

§ 1028. Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information

(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section—

(1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document;

(2) knowingly transfers an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority;

(4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States;

(7) knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(c) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that—

(1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document is or appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance or the document-making implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document;

(2) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) of this section; or

(3) either—

(A) the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce, including the transfer of a document by electronic means; or

(B) the means of identification, identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement is transported in the mail in the course of the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section.

(d) In this section and section 1028A

(1) the term “authentication feature” means any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code, image, sequence of numbers or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination with another feature is used by the issuing authority on an identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified;

(2) the term “document-making implement” means any implement, impression, template, computer file, computer disc, electronic device, or computer hardware or software, that is specifically configured or primarily used for making an identification document, a false identification document, or another document-making implement;

(3) the term “identification document” means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, political subdivision of a foreign government, an international governmental or an international quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals

(4) the term “false identification document” means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that—

(A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and

(B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization;

(5) the term “false authentication feature” means an authentication feature that—

(A) is genuine in origin, but, without the authorization of the issuing authority, has been tampered with or altered for purposes of deceit;

(B) is genuine, but has been distributed, or is intended for distribution, without the authorization of the issuing authority and not in connection with a lawfully made identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to which such authentication feature is intended to be affixed or embedded by the respective issuing authority; or

(C) appears to be genuine, but is not;

(6) the term “issuing authority”—

(A) means any governmental entity or agency that is authorized to issue identification documents, means of identification, or authentication features; and

(B) includes the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international government or quasi-governmental organization;

(7) the term “means of identification” means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any—

(A) name, social security number, date of birth, official State or government issued driver’s license or identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number;

(C) unique electronic identification number, address, or routing code; or

(D) telecommunication identifying information or access device (as defined in section 1029 (e));

(9) the term “produce” includes alter, authenticate, or assemble;

(10) the term “transfer” includes selecting an identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement and placing or directing the placement of such identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement on an online location where it is available to others;

(11) the term “State” includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other commonwealth, possession, or territory of the United States; and

(12) the term “traffic” means—

(A) to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value; or

(B) to make or obtain control of with intent to so transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of.

(f) Attempt and Conspiracy.— Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.

Phew!  To re-cap, it’s a crime to undertake the conduct described in (a) under circumstances spelled out in (c)Attempting or conspiring to commit the crimes spelled out in (a) under circumstances spelled out in (c) becomes a crime according to (f).  In (d), we find definitions for some of the terms in (a) and (c).  But many of the “terms of art” used in 1028, such as “produce,” “transfer,” or “possess” are either defined only in a limited manner or not defined directly in the law.  So, we will look at the U.S. Attorneys Criminal Resource Manual.  (Note:  In the past, I have indicated that when seeking the true meaning of prominent terms within the text of a law, look to the “Definitions” section in that law.  Indeed, finding a word in this section tells the reader, this word is important.   However, §1028 contains only a limited ‘definitions’ section.  So, go to the manual that tells U.S. Attorneys how to practice (investigating and prosecuting) cases brought under this section of the Code.)

US Attorneys > USAM > Title 9 > Criminal Resource Manual 1511
1509 Operative Terms—18 U.S.C. § 1028

Section 1028 of Title 18 has three basic operative offenses. They are to “produce,” “transfer,” or “possess.” With the exception of simple possession of a United States identification document which was stolen or produced without lawful authority, which is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(6), possession is always coupled with the purpose to “use unlawfully,” “transfer unlawfully” or “use to defraud the United States.” Hence, it is necessary to understand the scope of the words “produce,” “transfer,” “possess,” “use,” and “defraud the United States.”

A.    “Produce” is defined in section 1028(d)(2) to include “alter, authenticate, or assemble.” Obviously, since the word “include” is used in the definition, the term is not limited to these three concepts but also encompasses all forms of counterfeiting, forging, making, manufacturing, issuing, and publishing. A government employee whose duty is to simply issue identification documents (i.e., he does not manufacture or assemble the documents) is, by issuing the document, authenticating it. If such an employee were to authenticate such documents without lawful authority, it would constitute an offense under section 1028(a)(1).

B.    “Transfer” is not defined in section 1028, but is intended to reach those persons who “traffic” in stolen and false identification. It includes the acts of selling, pledging, distributing, giving, loaning or otherwise transferring. It does not require any exchange of consideration (anything of value) for the transfer. To transfer “unlawfully” means the transfer of an identification document in a manner forbidden by federal, state, or local law.

C.    “Possess” is not defined in section 1028 but is to be construed broadly. It includes the concept of “receipt” but is not limited thereto. Constructive possession would also be included.

D.    “Use” is not defined in section 1028 but is to be broadly construed and includes presenting, displaying, certifying, or otherwise giving currency to an identification document so that it would be accepted as an identification document in any manner. To use “unlawfully” means that the document was used in a manner that violates a federal, state or local law, or is part of a misrepresentation that violates a law. For example, section 1028(a)(3) would be violated if the possessor intended to use five or more documents to make representations in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

E.     “Defraud the United States” is not defined in section 1028 but is not intended to be limited to misrepresentations related to financial fraud. It would also include the misrepresentative use of false identification to obstruct functions of the government (e.g., display to a government investigator a false pilot’s license or someone else’s driver’s license for the purpose of trying to deceive or mislead the investigator).

[cited in USAM 9-64.400]

Okay, so assuming the COLB displayed on FTS, the political advertising web site, was knowingly produced, transferred, possessed, and used in relation to the FTS political ad campaign to fool people into believing the state of HI issued a document recording the birth of Barack Obama, is its display on FTS legal under the U.S. Code?  Absolutely.

Both the plain language of the statute – under (d)(3), this image of a COLB cannot be considered to be an “identification document” where it was not “made or issued by or under the authority of” “a State, or political subdivision of a State”; but by a candidate seeking public office and then, his political party – and the SCOTUS’ reverence to political speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, recently renewed in Citizens United – “The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether” – should convince you why.

But why bother to conduct this extended legal analysis as to the legitimacy of any ‘information’ visible on the image of the COLB posted on the  FTS site, when the language therein already plainly warns, (under the laws in the state of HI) “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE“?

In sum, between the clear accreditation in the footer of the FTS internet web site identifying under the U.S. Code, this is a paid political advertisement; recent holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court protecting false political speech; and the obvious redactions on the face of the image of the FTS COLB rendering it invalid as a matter of (HI) law; its appearance as a so-called ‘identification document’ on that site is not illegal, precisely because as a matter of law, it identifies nothing.  Indeed, given the patently obvious worthlessness of the posted COLB, it’s as if the site owners have announced to those voters who have expressed concern as to whether Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be the President of the United States: ‘We are banking the political future of the Democratic Party on the fact you are too ignorant to grasp when we insist the “birth certificate” posted on FTS proves, he is, we are not telling the truth.’


Freedom costs.

18 Responses to DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2)

  1. Michelle says:

    jbjd-Phew!is right-this was a massive amount of research on your part, many thanks again.
    ‘We are banking the political future of the Democratic Party on the fact you are too ignorant to grasp when we insist the “birth certificate” posted on FTS proves, he is, we are not telling the truth.’
    No wonder 65 per cent or more of us went Tea Party, what a risky horrible bet. I believe they lost that bet, but time will tell, at least I know when I have had my intelligence and many other issues insulted. This is so much worse than Nixon/Watergate and how the Democrats howled re: the Constitution what a bunch of hypocrites.

    Michelle: When FTS first went up in June 2008 – remember, this was at least 6 (six) months after its 2007 copyright date – the copy specifically read, ‘We know many of you question whether Obama is a NBC… well, here’s proof he’s a “native”!’ This shows, the D’s clearly knew, they were in trouble. So, they gambled on telling a lie that would get them past the nomination. And it worked. But this still meant, they had to trick state election officials into printing his name on the ballot. Since even in those states that required candidate eligibility for office to get on the ballot, no law required anyone to prove eligibility; they just had to swear he was qualified for office. But they didn’t count on people asking them, ‘On what basis did you ascertain eligibility before swearing such eligibility to our state election officials’? Now, they could not possibly claim, ‘We based eligibility on a campaign advertisement.’ And, they could not ‘discover’ a hard copy of the COLB (image) that appears on FTS because this would have implicated them in a crime under the U.S. Code.

    I wish people would ‘get’ this, and stop wasting so much time and energy focusing on a campaign ad to ‘prove’ Obama is Constitutionally ineligible for office. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Rlqretired says:

    jbjd – More excellent work that is going to make my effort to convince our Florida Legislature that new legislation must be enacted this year that will prevent this con job from occurring again in 2012.

    The simple suggestion I have been pushing is that the political parties be required to provide a certified copy of the candidates authentic original birth record in order to get their name printed on the ballot.

    Quoting from your comment on 1/9/11 concerning this issue a possible solution may be, “1 ONLY THE NAMES OF CANDIDATES QUALIFIED FOR OFFICE MAY BE PRINTED ON BALLOTS; and 2 ELECTORS MAY ONLY ELECT A PRISIDENT CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB. You mentioned you would clarify this soon.

    Are you actually going to prepare a copy of a bill that will be applicable for all states like Florida that depend solely upon the political parties to vet their candidates, just as you did for complaints to the AG’s. It will be a great help to us if we are able to present this along with parts 1 and 2 in our appeal for new legislation.

    Thanks again for all your excellent work, there is none better.

    Rlqretired: You are welcome.

    Some time ago, I explained that the first goal of my work was to redress the wrongs that tainted the 2008 general election cycle. Then, I promised to think about how to prevent such wrongs from recurring in 2012. Well, since then, I have stressed that before any states need to enact legislation or, promulgate rules and regulations to ensure that the candidate for POTUS from the major political party is Constitutionally eligible for the job; they need to enact laws requiring such Constitutional eligibility to appear on the ballot or to be elected by Electors. Then, they can worry about how to carry out the law. But at the same time, they need to prevent their legislatures from adopting the National Popular Vote Initiative (“NPVI”), which could compel Electors to elect a President who won the popular vote in compact states, notwithstanding s/he may never even have appeared on the ballot or established Constitutional eligibility. HOW ADOPTING the “NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE INITIATIVE” CAN STEAL an ELECTION ‘BY HOOK’ and ‘BY CROOK’

    As I mentioned recently, both you and azgo, independently, have surmised similar mechanisms that could ensure candidate eligibility. And I intend to devote an article to fleshing out the logistics of these suggestions. Soon.

    As for drafting model legislation, well, I am not sure how to proceed in this regard. I cannot continue to donate my intellectual property (and time and energy) to this endeavor, when the return on this investment is only psychic benefits, which do not pay my rent. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. azgo says:

    jbjd, …Wonderful research and analysis!

    Your article does need to be understood by all.

    The campaign threw up an eye-catching wizardry of a political advertisement displaying graphics for visual impression, displaying statements of impression such as ‘native born’ and the candidate’s status as a ‘citizen by the 14th Amendment’ and solicitations of impressions to ‘donate now’ and tell others, all for the truth about the candidate.

    The campaign actually displayed a political communication informing the general public of the candidates status. Our problem was, in regard to free speech, commercial speech, and certainly political speech, that we did not realize that the Supreme Court has stated this:

    “The commercial marketplace, like other spheres of our social and cultural life, provides a forum where ideas and information flourish. Some of the ideas and information are vital, some of slight worth. But the general rule is that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value of the information presented. Thus, even a communication that does no more than propose a commercial transaction is entitled to the coverage of the First Amendment.”

    Edenfield v. Fane (91-1594), 507 U.S. 761 (1993).

    The emphasis is on this;

    “But the general rule is that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value of the information presented.”

    What more can be said, we may have been caught off guard by the campaign, but we were undoubtedly duped by our own need to be informed.

    azgo: Thank you for all of your help on this. Yes; as you can attest, no matter how much we may sometimes wish we could construe the statutes so as to capture as unlawful some of the conduct coming from the D’s during the 2008 election cycle, anything they did in relation to FTS appears to conform to the law. Now, assuming our elected officials genuinely believed FTS was more than just campaign advertising when they rejected our pleas to compel disclosure of eligibility on that basis; we can go back to these same public servants and make sure they know, they were duped. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. I had no such “need to be informed.” I said in June 2008, FTS means nothing. And I did not care whether I could conclude definitively Obama was a NBC but only whether he and the D’s could establish what was his legal status. As long as they did not then, I determined not to hire him (or them) for the job.

  4. toto says:

    SO, the FTS graphic does not pose any criminal consequence to The Won, and nobody has said they used it to certify his eligibility (except Chris Matthews)…so that escapes 2 felonies.

    So fundamentally he has just sworn in Arizona, and Pelosi swore for him in HI, and Texas and SC just “said so” without a scrap of documentation used anywhere by anyone at any time.

    The question is, can you become president just cuz you say you’re eligible but without any proof? Apparently so.

    What needs to change is the REQUIREMENT OF PROOF.

    toto: Almost. Let me fine tune.

    I have warned people for more than 2 (two) years now, when anyone claims s/he knows Obama is qualified for office because of the COLB on FTS; concede the truth of that statement. But then ask, ‘Okay, you base your certainty he is a NBC on that image; but on what basis did Nancy Pelosi or Alice Germond or Boyd Richie ascertain he is Constitutionally qualified for the job?’ Implicit in this question is the assumption, if any of those people had similarly used that on-line image as the basis for their Certification to state election officials, Obama is qualified for office (to get them to print his name on the ballot); then they would have said that when we asked them. Instead, they said either nothing; or that, they didn’t have to tell us. OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF BABES and THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE

    You are right; it makes no difference to the truth of the issue, whether MSM pundits or anyone else says FTS is more than just a paid political advertisement. And it seems like you realize, the only person(s) whose revealed credit for authentication matters, is the person(s) who swore to state election officials this or that was the basis for the statement, Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS. And this authentication statement only counts where the state has a law requiring candidates who appear on the ballot must be qualified for office. For example, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has claimed to the press, the FTS image is Obama’s “birth certificate.” Big deal. But you never heard Nancy Pelosi, Alice Germond, Boyd Richie, or Kathy Hensley, all of whom swore Obama’s eligibility for office, claim that FTS image was real, did you.

    Assuming Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS, he was nonetheless lawfully elected President. Because no provision of any state or federal law, including the Constitution, requires Electors to elect only a President who meets the Article II, section 1 eligibility requirements. No law requires Congress to only Certify the Electors’ vote when their choice for President meets Constitutional eligibility. Nor is the CJ of the SCOTUS similarly required to refrain from swearing in to office, a man who is Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

    Again, assuming Obama is not a NBC, I am certain had people generally known, he is not Constitutionally eligible for the job, the D’s would not have installed him as their nominee, for this simple reason: people would not vote for (Electors for) an ineligible candidate. And they knew this. That’s why they advertised the lie, the mock-up COLB they posted on the advertising platform, FTS, really means ‘something.’ Not because Electors could not elect him – remember, no law says they cannot – but because you would not stand for that.

    Want to increase the likelihood Electors chosen by whichever party, only elect eligible candidates? Enact a law telling them they have to.

    This does not mean, Obama gets off the hook for swearing he is eligible, in applicable states. Again, assuming he is Constitutionally ineligible to be President, I do believe he will be Impeached for committing the criminal act of swearing he is eligible in those states with ballot eligibility laws. Of course, I have consistently recommended not ‘going after’ him for breaking the law – he knows whether he is eligible – but instead, going after those other people who swore he was eligible. Because how on earth did they know? So, the chain of prosecution would be, state AG in ballot eligibility state goes after person who swore to state election officials Obama was eligible; and then, based on this prosecution for criminal election fraud (false swearing to get the state to print the candidate’s name on the ballot), U.S. Congress (House) introduces Articles of Impeachment and (Senate) commences trial.

    This would have already happened, if only people had stopped concentrating on ‘outing’ Obama’s ineligibility via such useless mechanisms as conspiratorial theories about HI Certifications of Nomination; filing lawsuits based on convoluted legal theories with no cognizable cause of action; or calls to organize citizen grand juries or the like, and focused, instead, on just enforcing existing ballot eligibility laws.

    And then, drafting new laws requiring Electors to only elect Constitutionally eligible Presidents, for example. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Rlqretired says:

    Jb – Some where in your decoder ring series you mentioned you/we are letting the Democrat Party Leadership know we are on to the crimes they committed in 2008 and exactly what and how they did it in reference to Obama’s certification of eligibility and nomination.

    What do you think of the idea that we officially inform them of this by certified mail to the appropriate authorities at both national and state level, including their attorneys?

    The letters we write could be very short, briefly explaining what we have learned from your 2 part series. Naturally, your address would be listed as the place where this excellent research is found.

    Typical letters could also be sent to the State AG, Gov., SOS and the Senate and House Leaders.

    I’m thinking of doing this here in Florida as undeniable proof of the urgent need for corrective legislation prior to the next election. Also to make them aware the DNC and Obama played them all for suckers in 2008 and they are officially being made aware of these crimes by receipt this letter.

    Rlqretired: Wow, I am not sure how this Comment was ignored for so long; sorry about that! Anyway, I always think it is a good idea to let people know when we are ‘on to them.’ I have never viewed government malfeasance as a game of ‘cat and mouse.’ At some point, I expect people to stop acting inappropriately; accept responsibility for the wrong they have done, and change. Besides, we have no idea how much of the subterfuge that occurred throughout the 2008 election cycle resulted from the certain knowledge, we would have no idea what they were doing or how to stop them. Maybe most of what they did, they did because they knew they would not get ‘discovered.’ If that is so then, letting them know ‘we are on to them’ could forestall a repeat of these shenanigans (now de-constructed on the “jbjd” blog) in 2012! ADMINISTRATOR

  6. bob strauss says:

    Brought over from citizen wells.

    bob strauss | January 16, 2011 at 1:08 pm |

    jbjd | January 16, 2011 at 4:37 am |

    bob strauss | January 15, 2011 at 8:04 pm |

    Mike | January 15, 2011 at 7:35 pm |

    Does anyone know if The National Archives contains personal documents of our Nations leaders past and present. I know Presidents have their libraries which contain their documents etc…
    Mike the Obama library will be very small, a forged COLB, and a letter of resignation.

    There is no “forged” COLB. There is only an image of something advertising copy labeled a COLB posted on the electronic political ad campaign platform entitled FTS. (DE-CODER RINGS 1 and 2
    jbjd, does this include the Factcheck article, showing, and authenticating, the “Obama birth certificate”, and the photographs, of the “COLB” or were they part of a political advertisement as well?

    bob strauss: I am so glad you raised that question! Because azgo had already gathered the research that will now provide the answer.

    [Footnote 1] The following web site postings are the only sources verifying where the identification document came from.

    – The Daiy Kos reported that the online birth identification image came from the candidate’s political campaign organization.

    June 12, 2008:

    I asked the campaign (59+ / 0-)

    This “journamalism” thing actually works sometimes.

    by kos on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:46:03 AM

    See footnote [1] for a further explanation.

    – Annenberg Political FactCheck reported that the online birth identification image came from the candidate’s political campaign organization.

    June 16, 2008:

    We asked for and received a copy from the Obama campaign.

    -The Los Angeles Times reported that the online birth identification image came from the candidate’s political campaign organization.

    June 16, 2008:

    (UPDATE: In reaction to some of the comments left below challenging the veracity of the document, Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, sent the following reaction to The Ticket: “I can confirm that that is Sen. Obama’s birth certificate.”)

    – Annenberg Political FactCheck again reported that the online birth identification image came from the candidate’s political campaign organization.

    August 21, 2008:

    In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen.

    In other words, FTS, the highlight of which was that COLB image, was copyrighted to Barack Obama, Presidential nominee wannabe, in 2007. In June 2008, increasing rumors he was not Constitutionally eligible for POTUS triggered the decision by the campaign to launch the advertisement on line and then to distribute the ad to other venues. Of course, as you now know, regardless of how many outlets validate the ad, it’s still an ad. ADMINISTRATOR

    • azgo says:


      We cannot leave out Politifact!

      – PolitiFact again reported that the online birth identification image came from the candidate’s political campaign organization.

      June 27, 2008:

      When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it.

      bob strauss – The writers/photographer credited with the article ‘Born in the U.S.A.’ are not public officials of lawful authority to verify the document as authentic or not. You should read’s disclaimer and it’s written in ‘ALL CAPS’ font. Besides, the writers/photographer were at the campaign headquarters, so the photographed document came from the campaign, like everyone else in the list above.

      azgo: Even analyzing the credentials of APFC staffers to determine their competence to ‘verify’ the Obama campaign’s COLB lends too much credibility to the COLB! At best, any hard copy could only be a mock-up used to create the image posted on line. Remember, it wasn’t only its use in political advertising that made it useless as a mechanism for establishing the ‘facts’ alleged therein; but it was also the redacting coupled with the clear disclaimer, “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE.“

      See, going after the status of the verifiers presumes a sample worth verifying. And all the time that people were going after APFC; or making arguments as to whether a COLB is a Birth Certificate; or arguing whether a COLB can be used for official identification; we were missing the material issue that the COLB is only part of a political advertising campaign, according to the U.S. Code! If this wasn’t so nasty of the D’s to have pulled this stunt on the American people, I could almost admire the base brilliance of their con.

      (We will get to the issue of “official” validation soon, in another context of candidate qualification for office.) ADMINISTRATOR

  7. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, could it be said that Obama has not showed anyone his birth certificate at any time?

    This legal trickery by the Obama camp is disgusting, and didn’t Obama’s attorney ask the court to take notice of the “campaign’s online document”?

    bob strauss: When I answer this question you will perhaps appreciate even more, my constant admonitions to read my blog, carefully, because I have amassed all of the answers to the material questions that will enable you to set out on your own to de-construct Obama-speak, even without my assistance.

    No; in Hollister,Attorney Bauer did not ask Judge Robertson to take notice of the “campaign’s online document.” Rather, he asked the court to take notice his client, Barack Obama, had “publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii.” COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3 CARD MONTE* for FEDERAL COURT

    This is a giant con, carried out by the D Corporation. And they got busted. But unless each of us who ‘gets’ it spreads the word, sans hyperbole, we will not reach a critical mass of informed voters that will prevent the perpetrators from ‘stinging’ the rest of us again.

    Above all, in applicable states, we must carry out massive citizen action to persuade our chief law enforcement officials, the A’sG, to address our complaints of election fraud viz a viz getting Obama’s name on the ballot. Keep in mind, Bauer swore to a federal judge in January 2009 the strongest evidence his client is a NBC can be found in his publicly released birth certificate, meaning, that advertising COLB. So, what did the other D’s use in August 2008 when they swore to election officials, Obama was Constitutionally eligible for the job? (And why won’t these D’s tell us when we ask?) ADMINISTRATOR

  8. Al says:

    Hi jbjd!

    Yet another excellent read–Cheers! Am also encouraged to read about the efforts of “Rlqretired” and “Azgo” and wish them both well with their efforts to ensure that future elections aren’t tainted with doubt about the legitimacy of any candidate(s)seeking office. H/T to them both, and I look forward to your future posts where you weigh in on the logistics/projected effectiveness of their heroic efforts. Back next week to lurk and learn some more. Have a great week!

    Al: I know; “jbjd” readers are contributors here, too. I welcome this opportunity to remind people to read the Comments! My next article, which will post shortly, begins this focus on actual remedies to the problems that plagued the 2008 election cycle, with a focus on eligibility issues.

    BTW, thank you for appreciating the work, and for “Liking” my posts. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. azgo says:


    I’m posting here but this is in part a response to your reply to my last comment above at January 17, 2011 at 03:43.

    “Mock-up” is a much better term and you have mentioned this term before. I was trying to think of a better term than “document” and all that I could come up with was ‘that piece of paper’ but then I thought, I would be bold and use the term “document”.

    I wanted ‘bob strauss’ and other readers to understand the campaign was again involved as the source of the mock-up ‘COLB” image as it was photographed.

    We all enjoy our First Amendment right to freedom of speech. This constitutional right comes in various forms such as our right to express our opinions, our protests, our frustrations and angers, our religious views and even our political expressions. These political expressions are known as political speech.

    I just want to say one more thing about Annenberg Political FactCheck (APFC) as I have documented a time line of when their articles occurred regarding the candidate’s citizenship. APFC actually knew a little bit about the right of political speech as they wrote their articles. (Hint: Be sure to read the last entry in the time line.)

    All APFC articles mentioned in the time line below can be found at;

    – June 12, 2008 – 7 days after…
    the superdelegate decision of support was due as requested by the DNC and with the 2008 primaries complete, the BO campaign launched the FTS web site with the birth certificate image at a time when further delegate support to the national convention was needed by both Democratic candidates for nomination as the party candidate for the general election. (

    – June 16, 2008 – 4 days after…
    the BO campaign launched the FTS web site with birth certificate image, APFC wrote “Q: Has Obama’s birth certificate been disclosed?” using their right to express their freedom of political speech.

    – August 21, 2008 – 4 days before…
    the start of the Democratic national convention when delegate support was essential for nomination, APFC wrote “Born in the U.S.A.”, again using their right to express their freedom of political speech.

    – August 29, 2008 – 4 days after…
    the start of the of the Democratic national convention and on the last day of the national convention, APFC wrote “Q: Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?” again using their right to express their freedom of political speech.

    – November 1, 2008 – 3 days before…
    the national election for presidential Electors representing the Democratic nominee of the United States, APFC wrote an update to their original article, “Born in the U.S.A.” once again using their right to express their freedom of political speech.

    – June 3, 2004 – 4 YEARS before and…
    Updated on May 10, 2007 – about 1 YEAR before…
    the BO campaign launched the FTS web site, APFC wrote “False Ads: There Oughta Be A Law! – Or Maybe Not” …and said this;

    “This article was originally posted June 3, 2004. We are reissuing it now, updated only to fix bad links and such. Politicians still can lie legally, and the high volume of ads expected in 2008 campaigns makes it likely that voters will be exposed to more deception than ever.”

    “Politicians still can lie legally,” …and I say, how politically (speech) correct!

    azgo: You have represented the facts in a way I trust helps other readers to put things in their proper perspective. ” and the high volume of ads expected in 2008 campaigns makes it likely that voters will be exposed to more deception than ever.” Ha, prescient or, self-protective? ADMINISTRATOR

  10. […] transfer, possession, and use of identification documents – DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2) – should be incorporated into state law, for this reason.  Breaches of federal law must be […]

  11. […] – “Certificate” versus “Certification,” for example, or “issuing authority” – but also simultaneously has ‘outed’ the complicity of the press in […]

  12. […] aspect of the legality of conduct related to political speech will be covered in DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2). U.S. Code, Title 2, Congress; Chapter 14, Federal Election Campaigns; Subchapter I, – Disclosure […]

  13. […] under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. See, for example, DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2); and be sure to read the […]

  14. […] posting DE-CODER RING (1 of 2) and DE-CODER RING (2 of 2), I had hoped to forever dispel for the benefit of my readers the notion that the image of a birth […]

  15. […] time now, I have determined, that’s what it is. See, for example, DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2) and WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA WAITED until APRIL 27, 2011 to RELEASE a FACSIMILE of his LONG FORM […]

  16. […] was followed on January 12 by DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2), which discussed the criminal implications of producing and distributing electronic images, such as […]

  17. […] a bona fide identification document generated by the issuing authority (DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and (2 of 2)) and a paid political announcement; and explained this difference so as to inform the voters (to […]

Leave a Reply to azgo Cancel 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: