©2011 jbjd

No good deed goes unpunished.

Two years ago, back in March 2009, I posted this remark at the opening of a Reply to a Comment left on this blog by David A:  “Welcome to the site that both supports critical thinking and offers answers to questions you might not want to hear.” March 24, 2009 at 01:42 Judging just by the information printed on “jbjd” since that time, I would say, it is a good thing I have not allowed the constant onslaught of personalized criticism to silence my work ever since.

As you will see from the following exchange, not everyone would agree with me.

FL is not an applicable state for a citizen complaint of election fraud based on the fact pattern, officials of the D party Certified to state election officials candidate Obama was qualified for office notwithstanding no documentary evidence available in the public record evidences he is Constitutionally eligible for the job.  Because FL has no law requiring candidates must be qualified for the job to get the state to print their names on the ballot.  Consequently, in the absence of such ballot eligibility laws, loyal “jbjd” reader Rlqretired, from FL, has lobbied legislators in that state to adopt such laws.  In the past, he has used various arguments to sway these elected officials, which are spelled out on this blog and others.  However, each time he asked me to review his correspondence, I rejected as frivolous his attempts in these petitions to link whether Obama is Constitutionally eligible for office; to the ‘illegitimacy’ of the on-line COLB based on an examination of its physical attributes (notwithstanding he maintains such analysis is a useful tool in his lobbying efforts).  Recently, he composed this lengthy Comment, apparently intending, once and for all, to put to rest my objections to continued focus on the physical characteristics of that FTS COLB in any campaign the stated goal of which is to pinpoint documentary evidence establishing whether Obama is Constitutionally eligibile for office.
Rlqretired says:

jbjd – I think the reason you and I don’t see the value of the visual photographic truth that the Hawaiian State Seal placed upon the online birth certificate candidate Obama placed on the Internet is fake is because our goals are different. Your efforts deal with a bunch of lawyers and your goal, as I understand it, has been to get the AG’s in those states that already have statutes requiring independent eligibility certification to investigate the person that signed their state level certification without having adequate proof available to them to make such certification. If they did so, as I understand it, it would be an alleged crime based upon your hard work.

Florida has no statute requiring independent verification by the political parties and depends strictly upon nominee certification by the political parties to be correct. My, goal for a year now, has been to convenience the Florida Legislature to pass a statute requiring an independent state level certification and the submission of the documents used to make that certification. At the general public level, as well as many in the Florida Legislature, I am dealing with average citizens who do not understand legalese nor will they take the time to study the issue for themselves. Willful ignorance abounds and this is where the photographic evidence that the Hawaiian State Seal placed upon Obama’s birth certificate is an irrefutable fake, is absolutely essential. These photo’s my not convince them to snap completely out of their willful ignorant bliss but it does blow away their argument that the online image of the Obama’s COLB could be a real copy of a real birth certificate and just transferred over into the advertisement in which it is located. Basically, that is what most people in our state and national governments still believe even today.

I can easily accept and understand your point of view and I really wish you could see mine. For your information, the photographic evidence has, at my level and with some legislators, has been very effective and taken them to your web site for additional study.

If I did not make it clear to you in my previous comment above, that the statute I was referring to was Hawaiian Statute 338-18 (g), I certainly apologize as I mistakenly assumed you had received and read my off blog email of 2/8 in which I stated; “My question deals with the authority the Criminal Justice Subcommittee the Florida House has under the Hawaiian Statute 338-18 (g). It appears to this country boy Florida Cracker that it does (apply), possibly on several counts……Your legal opinion of 338-18 (g) in this regard will be greatly appreciated.

A link to that statute is

You have previously made clear that you have debunked the claim made by another blog that (g) of this statute can be used to the advantage of a lawyer in a criminal case to obtain verification relative to their lawsuits. However, it appears to this layman that under the circumstances I laid out in my previous comment, an authorized legislative committee assigned to investigate the authenticity of the only proof Obama has ever provided that he is even a citizen or either the Department of State whose director is the Chief Election Officer of the State and responsible for reporting possible fraudulent election activities would very likely qualify to receive verification of certain information displayed on the online image or the hard copy FTS made available to FC for examination and taking photographs of the Hawaiian State Seal.

If either of these folks are eligible to obtain verification I can think of a dozen or so questions that I believe will produce answers that will not only be helpful to me in my goals but would help you in your goals as well.

I look forward to your opinion of (g) and I surely hope you can tolerate me and my differing view on that one item.

Before I had completed my reply to this ‘first’ Comment, Rlqretired submitted another lengthy Comment, more caustic than the first.  I will print that second Comment as well.  But first, here is the response I was in the process of perfecting to his ‘first’ comment.

rlqretired: What a great comment. Now, I understand that my remarks about the work of ‘misstickly,’ whom you reference in your correspondence to state officials, mistakenly gave you the impression, I rejected focusing on that COLB qua image only because this took time away from my preferred focus, which is redressing past illegal conduct viz a viz the ballot.  I thought I had stated quite succinctly in my last email to you that, my real objection is this.

“Also, please, trust when I say, continuing to reference whether a ‘seal’ apparent on any particular vision of a document or copy of a document or copy of a mock-up for an ad campaign on the internet, is real or fake, diminishes the credibility of your other well-formulated criticism of that same document or image.”

So, now, I will expand upon that previous statement, with the hope that once and for all, my previously stated explanations become unambiguously clear. The primary reason I continuously advised you to stop referencing in the same correspondence to public officials, both my work and the work produced by “misstickly” is this:  such reference to her work undermines your credibility and, therefore, negates the value of my work.  Because basing a conclusion that Obama is not Constitutionally eligible for office on the physical attributes of a paid political advertising campaign is absurd on its face. Yes, absurd. Ridiculous. Nonsense.  It would be like concluding a physician committed malpractice for endorsing an antacid in a commercial containing a rudimentary drawing of the human digestive system.  Let me see if I can find an artist rendering of what I have in mind. Be right back…

There.  See what I mean?

You ask about HRS ch. 338.  Here are a couple of exchanges that appeared on this blog in April 2009, almost 2 (two) years ago now, discounting the value of 338 in obtaining Obama’s birth documentation from HI DoH.  (I found this merely by searching for “jbjd” and “338”!)

bob strauss says:

jbjd,Was reading a blog @ paraleagalnm and someone published Hawaii statute 0338-14 and 0338-18 (g). If I read it correctly Hawaii will verify what is on the colb or long form BC if you just ask for the information. They will not release the document but they will tell you what is on it. Thanks for answering my questions. Bob

bob: There’s a line in that law you cite which reads in part, “The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:…” I can envision that, unless those Republicans paralegalnm envisions could request such verification, actually comprise an impeachment panel, the State of HI will not be satisfied that such request meets the exceptions to HI’s confidentiality laws.

Of course, this procedure proposed by paralegalnm is backwards, anyway. If these Republicans wonder whether he is an NBC, they should begin impeachment proceedings based on BO’s failure to establish, he is a NBC; and, if he wants to fight the charges, let him produce his long firm birth certificate. ADMINISTRATOR

Like you, bob strauss, too, could not accept the fact that my opinion did not support his.

bob strauss says:

April 3, 2009 at 01:49

jbjd,338-18 (g), it says, “shall not issue verification UNLESS”! the applicant seeking verification meets one, of 5 definitions, to qualify as a person allowed to obtain verification of what is on the docs. PLEASE read the definitions, 1 through 5, where it describes the people, who ARE ALLOWED to obtain verification. Sorry to keep bugging you about this but, it looks like Hawaii will verify records if you fit the description listed at 338-18g. 1-5.

bob strauss: No, you are not bugging me! I did read the law, completely, although the only part I thought mattered was that line I quoted, saying, “The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:…”. I understood this language to mean that, the discretion of the HI Health Department would rule; and this meant, they would exercise their discretion to maintain privacy. Because HI does not want the world to know that, for several decades, they were giving U.S. identities to foreign born babies. Remember, before it will place the name of the nominee for POTUS from the the major political party onto its general election ballot, HI is the only state that requires the party to not only Certify the name of its candidate but also Certify he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. (jbjd note 02.13.11:  Of course, we now know, at least one other state, SC, also requires this explicit language of eligibility on its ballot application. IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK…) I assume Hawaiians enacted this law because of that earlier law allowing foreign births. That is, they of all people know how easily someone who is not a NBC could be nominated for the job.

Anyway, when I got your follow-up question, I looked up the law again, and found the court ruling in Martin v. Lingle. Not surprisingly, the court had denied Andy Martin’s efforts to obtain BO’s records based on a finding that HRS 338-18 bestows “discretion” and “judgment” to the Health Department, on whether to release such records.

Obama has never offered up to any state official or to the courts, the electronic image of the FTS COLB , as proof of a HI birth. So please, stop saying he has!  Even in Hollister, Attorney Bauer did not say, this image (or its mock-up) was proof of anything!  He only wanted the court to take judicial notice Obama had publicly released his birth certificate!  COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3 CARD MONTE* for FEDERAL COURT (How many times have I advised people, when confronted with claims, this FTS COLB evidences to the person making the claim, Obama is a NBC; respond by conceding, ‘Yes, I accept this image provides your basis for believing, he is a NBC.  But on what basis did Nancy Pelosi or Boyd Richie or Alice Germond or Kathy Hensley, for example, determine he is a NBC?  Because they refuse to tell us, when we ask them!’)  

Finally, I want to respond to this statement:

“At the general public level, as well as many in the Florida Legislature, I am dealing with average citizens who do not understand legalese nor will they take the time to study the issue for themselves. Willful ignorance abounds and this is where the photographic evidence that the Hawaiian State Seal placed upon Obama’s birth certificate is an irrefutable fake, is absolutely essential.”

I agree that educating public officials is essential to getting passed the legislation that will clean up the electoral process (if electing officials already up to speed is not accomplished) and have always lauded your efforts in this regard.  But even if you are correct in your base opinions that fellow citizens are loath to become knowledgeable in all things electoral; this still does not mean, in the absence of such civic zeal, you (or WND, or CFP, or P&E, among dozens of others) are justified in filling their heads with factually baseless tripe, just because they will pay attention.  ADMINISTRATOR

But before I could post this Reply to Rlqretired’s ‘first’ Comment, he sent along this ‘second’ Comment.  This time, my response, in orange, is inserted amidst his remarks.

Rlqretired says:

February 12, 2011 at 05:35

This comment is submitted while my previous comment is still in moderation along with your insult.

jbjd – I really wish the bad feelings you currently have for some other bloggers that apparently prevents you from understanding the value of at least some of their work, specifically this irrefutable evidence the Hawaiian State Seal on Obama’s birth certificate is a fake could be moderated. We live in layman land and easily understand such things.  “[B]ad feelings” which “prevents (sic) [me] from understanding the value of at least some of their work”?  If I reject the work product of another blogger as being irrelevant to the stated goal of establishing whether Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job, then this rejection is based on my reasoned belief, it fails to add value to such pursuit.  Worse, it detracts from the real work of citizen education which must occur before real change will happen.  How many posts (and reads) over how many months were wasted on trying to refute my admonition, there exist no contemporaneous newspaper birth announcements of Obama’s birth?  Common sense said these did not exist, as any claim they did exist failed to reference any evidence of such publication which could be independently verified! RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’

Now, finally, one of these practitioners whose work I rejected, has posited that, perhaps the wild goose chase she sent her readers on, was based on a contrived premise.  (That is, she suggests any ‘evidence’ of such announcements was intentionally ‘planted.’) Yet, judging by the references to her nom-de-plume throughout the blogosphere, thousands of people still follow her work.

I gather from your insult that you are unwilling to accept my proposal that we simply agree to disagree on the value of the photographic evidence the Hawaiian State Seal on Obama’s one and only birth certificate is a fake.  I reject your characterization that pointing you away from frivolous pursuits when pursuing the issue of candidate eligibility is an “insult.”  These entreaties to get me to ascribe some value to work I deem valueless is all a waste of time.  So, too, it would seem, were the years I spent showing people what went wrong in 2008 and trying to get them to focus on remediating what went wrong and then, on how to correct the system so as to prevent these wrongs from recurring in 2012.  Sure, now, in 2011, some eligibility charlatans have begun to shift their focus away from judicial ‘Hail Mary’ filings and begun to focus on fixing the ‘system.’  However, efforts up to this point have left states no better positioned to avoid electoral disaster in 2012 than they were in 2008.

It is a considerable disappointment that you completely ignore the primary point of my comment which was my request for you to explain if Hawaiian Statute 338-18 (g) can be used by either a legislative committee investigating the authenticity of the one and only birth certificate ever produced by Obama in pursuit of the need for corrective legislation or possibly the Director of the Department of State (SOS) here in Florida who serves as the Chief Election Officer for the same reason.  As was implied in the response above, Obama never produced a “birth certificate.”

In your response to an off blog email from me that mentioned another bloggers post on the use of 338-18 (g) about how lawyers in legal proceedings could use this part of the statute to obtain verification of specific questions about the birth certificate you wrote “ And, as usual, I completely disagree with her ‘legal’ analysis. I have previously de-bunked this specific ploy, and will gladly repeat my objections, on the blog.”  If you insist on taking the legal advice of a self-described Graphic Artist/Designer then, why bother seeking advice from a self-described lawyer?  Anyone, it seems, will do, as long as you share the opinion offered.

If you will not look at 338-18 (g) and give me your opinion, which I desperately need, if (g) can be used as I have suggested, please fulfill your offer to debunk the idea as you said you would be glad to do.

The last thing in the world I wish to do is to get into a senseless argument with you. I am only seeking a legal opinion for what I, as a lawman, see as a possible beneficial thing to do to get at the legally recognized truth about Obama’s and the DNC collusion.  I have provided that opinion previously, as I stated.  You just had to look for it.

You might also remember that your efforts nor any other legal expert’s efforts have been successful as yet and if (g) can be used as I have suggested, it could possibly be a help to all of our efforts.  Ah, the canard, ‘You have been unsuccessful, too.’  But I have not.  Way back in the summer of 2008, I successfully identified the methodology that must be used to approach issues of Presidential eligibility.  In short, almost 3 (three) years ago now, I pointed everyone to the states.  But unlike almost every other blogger pursuing this topic, I never held myself out as a savior of the Republic.  Rather, understanding that fixing our electoral process was the work of the citizens of the states, I merely provided the tools necessary for the citizenry to carry out their work (sans the hysteria and hyperbole).  Ignoring the voluminous exchanges with readers via email, one need only peruse this blog to find ample evidence of my tangible contributions to my fellow citizens in this regard.  Yet, having sacrificed my life to this endeavor and, endured unceasing slings and arrows on that account; I am still attacked for their failure to finish the job.

And you are not the only loyal “jbjd” reader who, having obtained countless hours of private consultation and advice via email, and more through the blog, still deigns to dismiss my contributions to his endeavors because of a perceived personal slight.  azgo, until recently a stalwart supporter and contributor here at “jbjd,” also determined my ongoing consultation – this time, the proposed AZ ‘eligibility’ legislation – fell short.  He wrote, “Are you working with your state in doing anything, have you met with your state lawmakers or are you just talk like so many bloggers?”

Fortunately, I do not gauge the value of my work perfecting our electoral system, on the number of hits to the “jbjd” blog; or to the PayPal buttons; or to my psyche.


  1. Rlqretired says:

    jbjd – I sincerely regret that you have taken my comments to be an attack on you and your excellent work. I have praised your work on many occasions, particularly the part 1 and 2 series in January and also the summary of the needs for improvement in the various state eligibility laws published on the 24th. These are the specific posts I refer to in all of my correspondence relating to acquiring a state eligibility law for Florida. If an apology from me will help get us back on peaceful terms, I give you my most sincere apology here and now. I come to your blog to gain knowledge but that should not mean that I must agree with you 100% of the time on every detail. You are pushing some AG’s to investigate while I am pushing to get a new state eligibility law.

    However, they’re a couple of items in your post that I want to clarify for you in the order published;
    Your administrative comments had already been posted on your blog before I posted my second comment. They were somewhat shorter but just as insulting along with the funny video. I copied these comments and will forward if you wish.
    The direct quote that I have used in all of my correspondence concerning what Obama’s lawyer, Bauer, swore to the judge is a direct quote from your work and I have used it continuously ever since I first came across it. On 1/16/11 in a comment you made to someone named Bob Strauss you said,” 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.” All I have ever added to that is “with fake state seal on it.”
    Much of the writing in red referrs to people and events that I have absolutely no knowledge of but you apparently now considered me to be in that group.
    One final point – In the last paragraph I stated,”You might also remember that your efforts nor any other legal expert’s efforts have been successful as yet and if (g) can be used as I have suggested, it could possibly be a help to all of our efforts.” This was not intended to belittle anyone’s work. I was merely pointing out that no court case has ever been accepted by the Supreme Court nor has any AG positively responded to your excellent efforts.

    I don’t know the details of the lawsuit you referenced but under today’s circumstances which is that the only evidence ever produced in the entire country that Obama is even a citizen of this country is that COLB Obama placed on the Internet with that fake seal on it, is circumstances that the HDOH, or the next higher authority the Office of Information Practices, or even the Hawaiian Courts can recklessly deny the requested verification, particularly if the requester is an authorized agent of a state government seeking information to determine if additional state legislation is required.

    If you would like to revise the Bauer quote that I have been using from your work all you have to do is let me know. I deeply regret that you have taken offence by my quest for knowledge and sincerely hope you can accept my apology. Nobody is perfect and we all make mistakes.

    Rlqretired: When you quote a comment I made in reference to Bob Bauer (asking Judge Robertson to take “judicial notice” of an alleged fact with relation to a document not produced in court) and I am not using quotes in the passage you repeat; this means, you are not quoting Bob Bauer but me. And when I write the words best evidence in the context of a civil lawsuit, I mean this “term of art” to be defined according to the Federal Rules of Evidence.

    The best evidence rule applies when a party wants to admit as evidence the contents of a document at trial, but that the original document is not available. In this case, the party must provide an acceptable excuse for its absence. If the document itself is not available, and the court finds the excuse provided acceptable, then the party is allowed to use secondary evidence to prove the contents of the document and have it as admissible evidence. The best evidence rule only applies when a party seeks to prove the contents of the document sought to be admitted as evidence.

    Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

    A rule of evidence that demands that the original of any document, photograph, or recording be used as evidence at trial, rather than a copy. A copy will be allowed into evidence only if the original is unavailable.

    Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

    In short, Bob Bauer did not explicitly say to the federal court, “My best evidence that my client, Barack Obama was born in HI consists of my statement in this Motion to Dismiss that he publicly released a birth certificate. And, based only on this, I want you to take judicial notice he publicly released his birth certificate (evidencing he was born in HI).” However, according to the Federal Rules of Evidence, the implicit presumption must be, he did. Does this make things clearer?

    As to your statement, “I was merely pointing out that no court case has ever been accepted by the Supreme Court nor has any AG positively responded to your excellent efforts,” well, cases reached the SCOTUS because practitioners brought these there, ostensibly on behalf of their clients who, sometimes, were the lawyers bringing the cases. But all of these cases were infirm on their faces. The citizen complaints of election fraud are being sent by individual citizens to their state A’sG who have the discretion to ignore these. I only conceived and drafted them. Persuading public officials to carry out their official function can be accomplished when citizens require such conduct. And they do this with their ‘feet’ and their vote.

    I have complete confidence that you value both the volume and the caliber of my work. I repeat, co-mingling my work with the work of less scrupulous practitioners diminishes not only your credibility but also the perception of the caliber of my work. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. I have responded to so many comments, I might have confused the order in which they were received.

    P.P.S. Please, do not mention misstickly’s work in any correspondence in which you also mention mine. At least not when you are corresponding with any state or federal official in a position to make necessary changes to shore up the electoral process. In other words, do not link the two of us, when doing so matters.

    misstickly’s blog does not allow comment and so, I am posting this comment here, hoping any of you who read her blog will notice. This time, she has not only compared applies to oranges to reach her conclusion; but she has also stolen a legal ploy I proposed, more than 2 (two) years ago now.

    I only viewed her blog because I saw a comment on drkate referring people to read her latest blockbuster expose. (I looked at drkate because I was getting hits from that blog.) Only, the description of the work attributed to misstickly sounded very much like my work. So, I looked. Then, I left this comment on drkate’s.

    Look at this, from “jbjd,” 2 (two) years ago now, in March 2009 (referencing an email sent to Andy Martin in the summer of 2008, when he first brought a case seeking to obtain Obama’s official birth records, in HI state court)

    bob strauss says:
    March 22, 2009 at 21:56 (Edit)

    jbjd, since we are not allowed to see, what is on file,in Hawaii, as far as a birth certificate goes,can Hawaii be forced to authenticate the certificate Barry put on the internet? Does Hawaii have a duty, to report as fraudulent, the certificate that Barry posted on line, or are they breaking the law? It would seem to me, if they know it’s a fake, they have a duty to say so, and expose any fraud.

    bob: Hello, again. You are on the right track. Months ago, I contacted Andy Martin, then on his first round in HI courts to get access to BO’s HI records. His argument to breach the confidentiality in HI records law was that, BO was now a public citizen and those records were more like historical documents, anyway. I urged him to argue, instead, a kind of ‘unjust enrichment’ estoppel claim. That is, BO should not get to benefit from using those ‘records’ on line to ‘prove’ he is a NBC, even mis-labeling his HI Certification of Live Birth as his “Official Birth Certificate” and then be shielded from revealing the hard copies in the HI files by claims of privilege afforded under HI law. I will include this in the fraud complaint I am working on to submit to the HI AG (by residents of HI). Thanks! ADMINISTRATOR

    Well, misstickly said, she would begin reading my blog…

    Plus, she reaches (for) the wrong legal conclusion, again, when she insists a HI DoH official waived Obama’s privilege by publicly saying, he is a NBC. (Join the crowd, misstickly. WND already endorsed their man’s attempts to save the day with this rubbish, back in May 2009. And Godlikeproductions reports this garbage championing Leo Donofrio, in cahoots with Justin Riggs, in October 2009.

    How many times do I have to explain, saying Obama is a NBC, when one is not a federal appellate court and so, not lawfully authorized to make such determination, is perfectly understandable given that one can point to a document signed by Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd in line of Presidential succession, stating Presidential nominee Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job. Of course, we know this signed Certification does not actually mean he is really a NBC (whatever that means).

    P.P.P.S. Again, misstickly buys into her own press, thanking a commenter for lauding her work. I left this.

    misstickly, as I have pointed out previously several times, the courts (Judicial Branch) will always uphold the exercise of discretion by a state agency (Executive Branch) authorized to exercise discretion (Legislative Branch) when such discretion is not exercised capriciously and arbitrarily; or contrary to law. Martin v. Lingle,

    I contacted Andy in the summer of 2008, when I learned he would file suit in HI. But I always advised citizens to use their power as citizens to keep Obama’s name off the ballot if they believed he should not become POTUS because he is not a NBC.

    Finally, as to your analogizing the facts laid out in the case involving publication of the contract between UH, a publicly funded university; and the Coach, a member of a government bargaining unit, elements of which contract both parties to the contract had voluntarily made public; versus publication of the birth records of private citizen Obama held by the DoH, well, apples and oranges.

    Next, she ‘hints’ she has been holding on to information that would ‘prove’ and birth documents in the files resulted from a verification by a family member that Obama was born, and not a hospital birth certificate. “Meemaw Dunham testified for the filing of his BC. Not a Doctor.=) And, I intend to prove this through the responses I received to my UIPA requests.=)”

    Again, been there, done that (in August, 2009). jbjd, BIRTHER

    • misstickly says:

      “How many times do I have to explain, saying Obama is a NBC, when one is not a federal appellate court and so, not lawfully authorized to make such determination”

      So what? That has nothing to do with the privacy that was waived. NOTHING.

      Fortunately, the UIPA provision authorizing disclosure of the information collected by Dr. Fukino, in order for her to make her statement, does NOT hinge on whether Fukino’s statement is true/accurate or not, legal or not, nor whether she had the legal authority to make that determination or not.

      Ҥ92F-12 Disclosure required. (a) Any other provision in this chapter to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall make available for public inspection and duplication during regular business hours:

      (15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public”

      Fukino said she saw “vital records” that verified Obama was a “natural-born American citizen” and “born in Hawaii.”

      It doesn’t matter if she’s right or wrong, she made a public statement based on information she said she viewed. In fact, it’s even MORE important that the public see what Dr. Fukino looked at given the fact that she is NOT in any way authorized or qualified to make such a determination, yet she made this ‘announcement’ to the general public as if she had some authority.

      Do you really think I believe that Fukino’s statement has any legal relevance to Obama’s natural-born citizenship status?

      Uh, no.

      (BTW, the OIP has determined the word “and” to be disjunctive in this provision. So, the information need not be maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public.)

      Oh, and by the way:

      “but she has also stolen a legal ploy I proposed, more than 2 (two) years ago now.”

      Get over yourself, jbjd. In your mind, I did. And that is all.

      misstickly: The latest epiphany you have posted on your blog, pertains to obtaining records on the basis of the legal principle called “estoppel.” I wrote about that years ago.

      You are misinterpreting laws, and regulations, and agency decisions left and right. And then selectively quoting support for your flawed analysis. But you refuse to post comments on your blog, which opportunity I would utilize to correct these mistakes as they issue. Instead, I clarify your errors on other blogs, when these come up. (Until recently, the biggest doozy was your attempts to recruit lawyers to file cases in HI, maintaining that under HI law, this would then entitle them to obtain Obama’s birth records. Here, see for yourself how much work I have to do to correct your bogus pronouncements on the law!

      Carlyle | January 10, 2011 at 8:45 pm |

      Important new information from TerriK aka MissTickly:

      HRS§338-18 Disclosure of records.

      (g)(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings


      Read the whole thing and the context at:

      And my response.

      jbjd | January 11, 2011 at 1:26 pm |

      Following on that blog is the reasoning of the author, who has self-identified as a graphic designer but not as a lawyer, that, any lawyer involved in a legal case in any way related to Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS is entitled to obtain verification from the HI DoH that the COLB represents an official document on file; just by downloading the on-line image on the advertising web site, FTS, and submitting this printout of the ad, into the court record. This interpretation of the law is bizarre. In fact, this law is intended to allow counsel to confirm, without resort to document analysis experts, the reliability of ‘facts’ identified in documents submitted into the record, such as the birth of a child in, say, a divorce case where the payment of child support is an issue.

      Carlyle balked at my correction.

      Carlyle | January 11, 2011 at 1:37 pm |

      jbjd | January 11, 2011 at 1:26 pm |


      Obviously neither I not TerriK have any “legal credentials”. In particular, neither of us can drill into arcana nor parse “terms of art”. But in this specific instance, the law/regulation is written in plain English and is quite clear.

      A lawyer working on a legitimate case, wherein data from vital records is an integral part of his case, can ask for verification. There appear to be no conditions or exclusions. And, in fact, this is how a normal person would want the law to work.

      What exactly is your beef?

      So, again, I explained.

      jbjd | January 11, 2011 at 3:02 pm |

      Recently, I have corrected 2 (two) gross misstatements of the law littering several blogs, both of which errors, unfortunately, left the reader with the false impression, but for the poor practice of the attorneys in question, the issue of Obama’s Constitutional ineligibility for POTUS would have been resolved. I could not care less about what negative impact these misstatements may have on the reputations of the lawyers in these cases. But what really bothers me is that, while I am working furiously to disseminate accurate information about these issues affecting the integrity of our electoral process and our control over that process; charlatans abound who are (intentionally?) obscuring the issues and worse, sidetracking citizens from carrying out the hard work necessary to fix this mess.

      FTS is a political ad campaign. Micro-analyzing it ad nauseum only detracts from the real ‘fixes’ such as enacting laws requiring Electors to elect only Presidents Constitutionally eligible for the job; or better yet, compelling state A’sG to enforce current ballot laws regarding candidate qualification for office by investigating and prosecuting reported cases of criminal election fraud.

      (As a theoretical aside, had the Hollister case been brought in a court in HI, at the point at which Attorney Bauer asked the court to take judicial notice his client had publicly released his birth certificate (thus arguably, converting this into an “acquired” document); Mr. Berg could have submitted a request to HI for verification their files reflected they had issued an original birth document on the date claimed, which request would have been honored.)


      Hopefully, people have begun to realize your information is only as credible as their imaginations. Because at this point, devoting my time and energy to correcting your tripe on other blogs is too much work, when my goal is to encourage citizens to take control of their state governments so as to make the necessary fixes to our electoral process. ADMINISTRATION

      • misstickly says:

        Yeah, looks like we are all a bunch of dumbass know-nothings. You sure showed us with your self-importance, jbjd. *woot*

        Now, let’s hear what the OIP has to say on this issue – you know, the administrators of the UIPA. Or are they a bunch of dumbass know-nothings, too? *rolls her eyes* We all stand in awe of your grasp of every law, federal, state…UNIVERSAL!

        I mean, denied requesters are owed an appeal opinion under the law. Or did I imagine that, too, Coolio?

        Obama sure could use someone that peschaws the stupid, worthless, non-lawyerly public, like you do, on his TEAM!=)

      • misstickly says:

        “What exactly is your beef?”

        Thank you Carlyle, I SECOND & THIRD that.

        I mean, WTF?

        Forget about Obama’s eligibilty and the American people, this issue is about jbjd, her intellect, her discoveries, her reasoning, her conclusions, and her, her, her ALONE. Hallelujah. Amen.

        Jbjd, you need to copyright everything in the GD world before someone stumbles onto something that happens to coincide or overlap with one of your brilliant thoughts. And hurry, your ego is deflating and FAST!

        I could have sworn we were all busting our butts with LITTLE thanks and plenty of insult thanks to ‘ole, jbjd.

        BTW, jbjd (not that it is ANY of your business or concern) I don’t allow comments at my blog so that I don’t have to deal with crazy Obama supporters. If you wanted to contact me, there is a link at the top of my blog. Other more *d’errr-d’uhhhh* ‘stupider’ folks than you have found it, time and again. I would have thought that with all your superior brilliance, you saw it long before I even figured out how to post the link.

      • misstickly says:

        “Hopefully, people have begun to realize your information is only as credible as their imaginations.”

        Well, now that you told them what to think, surely they do.

  2. bob strauss says:

    rlqretired, jbjd is like the anchor that holds everyone’s opinion in check in accordance with the law. Sometimes she says things that brings people back to the reality of what can be accomplished in the courts, versus what we would like to see happen if we had our own way.

    I too believe the seal on Obama’s COLB represents fraud, but the courts are not listening to the people, and the courts are saying only congress should deal with Obama’s eligibility.

    I wish the states attorney generals would prosecute Obama based on what jbjd has shown, but the courts are just passing the buck.

    bob strauss: What a coincidence! I just posted another old comment from you, to make the point, there is virtually nothing new under the sun when it comes to uncovering the legal theory that could succeed in advancing the eligibility conundrum. And if you think it is new; check out the “jbjd” blog before you get excited. Because it probably appeared here first.

    Yes, I am trying to remain focused on what is real, that is, legal. I am unnerved by the seeming willingness of so many people to advocate lawlessness, as long as it benefits them. Look at what happened when I pointed out, Allen West and Barack Obama had a lot of personal traits, in common. My evidence was never exposed as faulty; indeed, very few people even mentioned the substantive argument when they called me names for comparing the two men. This confirmed to me, at least given the criteria mentioned in my article, the objections to Obama which are absent from West, are personal.

    As for the courts, well, I wish people exhibited a level of respect for the governmental separation of powers practiced by the courts. This system of checks and balances was not intended to allow one branch of government to second-guess the others or, to substitute its opinion. Breaching the authority of a co-equal branch of government should be taken seriously! Insisting the court (Judicial) should order a SoS (Executive) to investigate whether a candidate for office is qualified for the job based on a claim, swearing allegiance to the U.S. Constitution mandates such conduct, is stupid. Plain stupid. Where in the Constitution does it say, the S’soS must vet all candidates appearing on state ballots for Constitutional eligibility for the job? GEESH! ‘Mandamus’ says, if the law (Legislative) says, the Chief of Police (Executive) must grant hackney licenses to the first 20 applicants who pass the test; and you are indisputably the 20th applicant to pass the test but the CoP withholds the license then, you can go into court under Mandamus and ask the court to order the CoP to grant you the hackney license.

    The courts are not passing the buck; we are. Wanna guess how many blogs now refuse to post my articles, because of personal animus but never factual objections? I will bet you have seen the same ‘headline’ on more than one of the better known ‘rags’ over a period of days; but have you ever seen my work featured on these blogs, in concert, urging residents of applicable states to petition their A’sG to respond to citizen complaints of election fraud? Or organized rallies to these state capitals? (Or run a money bomb for “jbjd,” who unraveled the election fraud of the 2008 election and not only prescribed how to redress that fraud, offering up free citizens complaints; but also explained how to prevent its recurrence in 2012, offering up model provisions for ballot eligibility legislation?) Nope.

    The ‘seal’ on the electronic image is an advertisement. PRESS BILL PRESS to EARN his PRESS CREDENTIALS DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) ; and DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2) End of discussion. ADMINISTRATOR

    • bob strauss says:

      jbjd, I like many refuse to think we have been outsmarted by criminals, when it comes to Obama’s eligibility. I refuse to believe that the Citizens have no way of righting this wrong, legally.

      ps. I read all of your articles, and those of many posters, looking for that silver bullet, that will right the wrongness of this usurpation, and this breach of our National Security.

      bob strauss: There is no “silver bullet.” We were “outsmarted by criminals.” We can “right[] this wrong, legally.” If the ‘wrong’ is to redress the actual crime, first, identify the crime. The crime I have identified is ballot fraud. To redress this crime, we must persuade A’sG to investigate and prosecute. (To make their jobs easier, I have drafted the citizen complaints of election fraud in applicable states.) ADMINISTRATOR

      P.S. I appreciate that you also share links to this blog, throughout the blogosphere.

  3. Rlqretired says:

    jbjd – I have told you on numerous occasions I am not trained in legalese but I have had so much appreciation for your work that I have literally believed everything you have said in your postings as well as your comments with the exception that I, as a layman, see much value in the work of another blogger who has produced the evidence that the seal on the only document or image ever produced by Obama to prove he is even a citizen of this country has a fake seal upon it. I believe this work is accurate and irrefutable evidence and please remember, I have not read nor am I following her legal advice.

    Now you know full well that practically all government officials, members of the mainstream media and most of the people in this country believe the image Obama placed on the Internet is truly a copy or image of his real COLB. My objective, contrary to yours, is to alert the people and my state legislators that it is a fake, not real, and convince them blocking legislation is necessary to prevent this continuing into the 2012 election.

    I am not a student sitting in the class of a professor teaching a law course to which I must agree in order to get a passing grade. You don’t seem to be able to accept that fact. You mistakenly believe that the excellent way you have developed through the state AG’s is the one and only way to solve this problem. It’s a good one and probably the very best but we in the states that have no independent eligibility statutes can not participate in your efforts but there are ways we can prevent Obama from being on the 2012 ballot by successfully having an eligibility law passed. Various states are working on that already and some are going to pass.

    The reference I have made in my correspondence dealing with Bauer is to a cut and paste directly from your administrators comment back to a Bob Strauss as follows, “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.” I don’t talk legalese. I am not preparing to go into a court of law. If you would like to revise this statement as I have asked, please do so now.

    Jb, you are the one that intentionally caused this whole confrontation to come about because instead of answering a simple question I ask off blog on Tue, Feb 8, 2011 8:44 am. The direct question being ask, ”My question deals with the authority the Criminal Justice Subcommittee of the Florida House has under the Hawaiian Statute 338-18 (g). It appears to this country boy Florida Cracker that it does, possibly on several counts.”

    To which you responded
    Thu, Feb 10, 2011 4:45 pm
    …to have caused you such distress with my untimely response!
    I will answer your specific question on the blog (omitting the first part, of course)
    rlq, you and I go way back. We are fine…

    You and I both know the reason you chose not to provide me the simple direction to where you had previously addressed this question or a new direct comment was so that you could vent your disrespect for the credibility of the other blogger which you despise and insult me as well. Just sit back and look at this monstrous effort you have gone to in order to vent your built up frustration on how the world does not give you the proper respect you believe you are entitled to while all you had to do was answer a simple question or direct me to where the information was located.

    And finally, if you don’t want people to use and depend upon the direct wording found on your blog, or refer any person to it, take it off your blog or change it.

    I am tired of being your whipping boy.

    Thank you for finally providing the information as to where you had previously addressed this question and it is as I suspected, not an agent of the government making the request.

    Rlqretired: I am posting your comment, unedited (except that you misspelled my name).

    Now, I repeat, if I omit quotation marks then, I am not quoting anyone, even if I use the word told or conveyed toor hinted at or the like. If you say I said someone else said something then, use quotes around my words and make sure people know, you are quoting me.

    If you refer people to my work because you anticipate this could teach them something then, do not include references to misstickly’s work.

    Posting a campaign advertisement is not illegal; rigging a caucus is not illegal; ignoring party rules is not illegal; lying to the public (in general) is not illegal; and electing a President not Constitutionally eligible for the job is not illegal. But swearing a Presidential candidate is eligible for the job in order to get state officials to print his name on the ballot; in a state that requires eligibility to get on the ballot; before ascertaining whether he is, is a crime.

    If these simple lay statements cannot be comprehended by most citizens then, Hamilton was right, and we are too stupid to govern ourselves. If they cannot be understood by our elected officials then… ADMINISTRATOR

    • misstickly says:

      “If you refer people to my work because you anticipate this could teach them something then, do not include references to misstickly’s work. ”


      misstickly: I am not the HI DoH. They had to pass a law in order to get rid of you (and your various guises). I can just block your messages. ADMINISTRATOR

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: