TESTING, 1, 2, 3

©2011 jbjd

Here is part of a Comment submitted by long time loyal “jbjd” reader, Al, on the previous post:

Submitted on 2011/06/23 at 07:05

To date, jbjd–am drawing upon your sharp legal prowess here, Have you developed any specific language that State representatives around the country may chooose to use in introducing legislation in their respective States to enact/pass candidate eligibility laws?

In fact, having first focused the ‘eligibility’ debate on the states back in 2008; I have subsequently posited in several places on this blog, various solutions to the Constitutional eligibility conundrum.  But I want to see if I have made my point.  So, I am asking all of you to please, write in with answers to Al’s question, even if you can only come up with some good guesses.  Because for me, figuring out solutions to this dilemma and, posting these on the pages of this blog; is not enough.  I am greedy; that is, I want to communicate these solutions in a manner that educates my fellow citizens, who cannot read my mind.

If you don’t want me to post your response, just say so; all comments are in moderation.

Thank you.

Advertisements

24 Responses to TESTING, 1, 2, 3

  1. bob strauss says:

    I would treat the candidates as if they are signing up for little league, and demand a certified copy of their birth certificate before anything else.

  2. Al says:

    Good Morning, jbjd!

    While acknowledging Bob Strauss’ sensible comments as an ideal starting point to ensure candidates clear the eligibility-bar when submitting their names to appear on an election ballot, I would like to add my own thoughts as we all look forward to your own “solutions to the Constitutional eligibility conundrum”. As we tackle this dilemma, I’d like to first clarify my stance once again on Mr. Obama’s eligibility to hold his present office. Whatwith the State of Hawaii being in the Union before his birth of record, and, the fact that his biological Mother was in fact a natural born US citizen, he, too, by virtue of where he was born and to whom, shares that same status. If I’m incorrect in my thinking here, I’m certainly open to any follow up information that may run counter to my simple interpretation of the law as I understand it.

    Now, after reading your well-written “Out of the Mouth of Babes” link you shared on the previous thread, have to applaud your engaging teaching style, jbjd, and the logical thinking of your bright students. Where I understand why and how a majority of them deduced/reached their conclusion–given the perception that a simple question asking the leadership of the DNC what specific documentation was used to qualify/ascertain Mr. Obama’s name on the state ballots as the D’s choice for president somehow went unanswered and finally fell into the lap of a legal representative of the DNC, who noted their “private entity is not subject to state or federal document disclosure laws”– would raise suspicions, red flags, etc., I’m wondering if all of this seemingly stonewalling has less to do with Mr. Obama’s eligibility as much as his right to protect his privacy? From who and what, jbjd, I do not know.

    For all of the divisiveness that this controversial topic/issue, surrounding his birth, eligibility, etc. has created within our country, I’m hopeful that longterm history will record that he was in fact eligible, but cared a great deal about protecting his sense of privacy, which naturally can, and maybe should in some cases, raise some suspicions, but when all is said and done about this man, hopefully history will suggest he took his Oath of Office seriously and discharged his presidential duties as faithfully as any other leader before him.

    Now, with your permission, jbjd, since you are the Teacher, and I’m learning along with everyone else, may I ask you a couple of questions? How do we in future elections satisfy the right of the people to know without a shadow of doubt that their leaders are without question eligible? Do we hold the DNC and/or RNC to a higher-standard? Do we hold the Secretary of State in the respective 50 states to a higher standard when they ascertain the eligibility of candidates seeking political office? Do we revist Article 2 and Section 1 of the US Constitution, and glean a clear, better understanding of precisely what the framers of this nation meant when they declared “No person except a natural born Citizen” truly implies/means. Personally, in terms of the presidency, it means to me someone who fulfills the age, and residency requirements and was born on American soil to American lineage, and obviously someone entrusted with protecting our sacred freedoms/principles and way of life.

    Again, thanks for sharing the “Out of the Mouth of Babes” link, an interesting and informative read into the keen, perceptive minds of America’s next generation, and how a simple unanswered question can resonate such a unified response all across the board regardless of age, essentially asking, why all the seemingly hush secrecy if everything is above board? Mr. Spock would be proud, but I have to wonder if we have an eligibility issue here, or someone protecting their sense of privacy from the general public? I do not know, jbjd, but thank G-d our future generation is entrusted into the capable hands of dedicated teachers like yourself. There’s hope for us all.

    Al: Again, thank you for taking the time and effort to contribute comments to the blog. This time, perhaps unknowingly, you have pointed to one of the most salient elements of our citizen complaints of election fraud viz a viz the issue of Constitutional eligibility for POTUS. Here is the ‘money’ line: “…I have to wonder if we have an eligibility issue here, or someone protecting their (sic) sense of privacy from the general public…” My opinions as to the propriety of the man who would be President, withholding personal information, is inapposite to this endeavor of determining eligibility. Because I am not the arbiter of what validation my fellow citizens justifiably require in order to determine for themselves whether the man is for real. I would never have ‘hired’ any applicant for the position who refused to establish his eligibility for the job; but that’s just me. Obviously, for others, this was not such a problem.

    I have only weighed in peripherally on the issue of mechanisms for obtaining this ‘missing’ documentation. For example, when Andy Martin tried to obtain HI documents through the court, I discounted his legal argument – historical value – and suggested, instead, estoppel was the way to go. (Obama should not unjustly benefit from posting a ‘document’ he claimed was his bc by prohibiting anyone else from piercing his right to privacy.) But, I never suggested people try to obtain his bc as evidence of a HI birth. Or, I pointed out, Occidental College is private and so, the public has no legal right to access. But, I never suggested, people should go after those records as evidence of attendance.

    In short, it’s not the ‘records’ per se which will eventually establish, a fraudulent election. Rather, it will be the inability of people who swore to Obama’s eligibility, to produce a documentary basis to that Certification. Do you understand? ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Al says:

    You’re welcome, jbjd…actually my pleasure to venture here and ponder your latest thoughts, but truth be told I’ll have to invest in a small pocket dictionary if I want to keep up with your timely message. When I saw your usage of the word “estoppel”, I actually had to stop reading, and open a new window to reference an online dictionary. Good thing I did, otherwise I’d incorrectly think it meant something vaguely similar to what a hockey goaltender does when the opposition shoots the puck…

    Now, in response to your last question, “Do you understand?”, yes, I do understand that the main thrust/core of your important message here has more to do with stamping out fraudulent elections, than with consuming yourself with chasing down vital records. However, In fairness to you though, you did state that if you were in charge of hiring that no applicant would recieve a pass on producing his/her legitimate documentation/credentials.

    And as far as your following statement: “Obama should not unjustly benefit from posting a ‘document’ he claimed was his bc by prohibiting anyone else from piercing his right to privacy.”–hat-tip!
    Do you feel this way from a legal training perspective, or deep within your value system of fairness? Also, even if fraudulent behavior by senior DNC officials are proven in the 2008 pesidential election– let’s say in say 8-10 years from now, Are there laws currently on the respective State’s books that will hold them accountable after so much time has passed?

    Al: Ah, Al, Al, Al. Don’t you ‘know’ me by now? I would not have used the word “estoppel” without defining this (or providing a link to such definition) for my readers. This is why, right after I used the word, I explained it meant ‘that [legal] principles which says, the person who benefits from an act – in this case, having Obama publish what he claimed was his otherwise official bc in order to quell rumors he is not a NBC – cannot then claim his opponent may not use that act, that is, accessing his otherwise confidential official bc, to prove, or example, no such document exists.’

    Obama is not the only person making the decisions here, indeed, if he participates in this decision-making at all. He is not that smart. Attorneys at Perkins Coie, who represent him and are paid by him and his other clients, the DNC, (former) Speaker Pelosi, (former) Majority Leader Reid, etc. But the estoppel argument inures to his opponents, who are those people who want access to the bc. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Al says:

    Yes, you are true to your word, jbjd, having a natural tendency to highlight your main points with infallible reference points or clarifications to help enlighten your readers experience here. It’s akin to your “signature”, and I quickly noted you were still true to form after looking “estoppel” up to confirm that I understood it as you wrote it, essentially that in this case Mr. Obama cannot be inconsistent in his actions (either the door is open fully or closed altogether).

    Admire and respect your obvious command of legal doctrines, principles and procedures, and fully understand given the stakes here that some influential people are doing all they can to present Mr. Obama as legitimate without offering much detail. In the final analysis, jbjd, I believe he is; but, just so you know I’m paying attention to your core message here, that’s not the issue one way or the other, ’cause your contention is, and has been from the very beginning, is on what basis did the aforementioned Speaker Pelosi, the senior DNC officials, etc. ascertain his constitutional eligibility.

    Should our electronic paths not cross again until next week, Happy 4th of July, jbjd!

    Al: The focus of my analysis began at this point: assuming Obama is ineligible, by what means can this best be addressed within the current legal and political framework? Because, hearing the foot-stomping crescendo of millions of frustrated citizens posting on the internet; I sought to solve their ‘problem’ by other means. And, because I hate bullies, who in this case are those people who use superior knowledge of how the political system works to steal power from the rest of us and, adding insult to injury, who tell me, I am not being *ed. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Al says:

    Hi jbjd!

    No one will deny that your involvement in all of this isn’t akin to the voice of reason, seeking to resolve this matter in a respectful and responsible manner amid “the foot-stomping crescendo of millions of fustrated citizens…” The challenge here seems to be how best to channel the fustration you spoke of into addressing “the current legal and political framework”. On one hand, It’s not easy to reason with the status-quo if they tune the legitimate concerns of the American people out, essentially rendering their vital input useless as if it has fallen upon deaf ears; however, anarchy certainly isn’t the answer either. It’s this type of stalemate that seems to pit each side against one another while the central antagonist goes unchecked. In order to impact any significant changes within the current legal and political framework, the focus would seem to have to be upon the political system and the powerbrokers more than upon the differences that shape how each respective group wishes to restore order and integrity back into the political process. I recall your rather interesting civilian quizzes last year, where you drafted up a series of “test” to determine how much we as citizens actually knew about civics, government, etc. (hopefully you burned my results–good grief, Charlie Brown). The point I’m making is where the citizens are actively involved within the process, the more they seem to know, and the less chance others may use their mis-directed knowledge to “steal” power from the rest of us.

    Say, jbjd, in the spirit of revisiting your voice of reason in reshaping the “current legal and political frame work”, Should we–the people–in spite of their respective private entity status–seek to hold the DNC and RNC to a higher-standard? If so, what are some key measures average citizens may suggest to put into place that serves the best interest of the people? Or, given their private entity status, Are these folks simply untouchable? akin to Pepsi or Coke, where the cola candidates win either way?

    Al: This is a great question about the authority of citizens over the functioning of political parties inasmuch as they ‘play’ in our electoral ‘game.’ I have already touched on this issue especially with reference to TX. That said, I think it’s time to revisit this issue in a new post. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. Al says:

    Good Morning, jbjd!

    Lookind forward to your new post covering this vital issue, where the good people of this nation may influence the outcome of elections in the manner the Founding Fathers envisioned, rather than allow a monopoly of sorts potentially render their votes meaningless. Meanwhile, am scrambling out to get ahead of the holiday traffic rush, and will return after the 4th of July to search your “Where Is It” search-button along the right column here to find/read over your “reference to TX”. Safe travels/Happy 4th of July!

    Quick shout out to all the brave men and women in uniform, standing on the frontlines of freedom around the world–Hat tip…

  7. Al says:

    Hi jbjd!

    Hope this message finds you well and in great spirits today. Was hoping to find your new post up relative to your follow-up on revisiting the roles/influence of the general public and the nature of political-parties during the voting process. Looks like I’ll have to venture back later, but, meanwhile, will spend some time searching your “Where Is It” search-button ====> along the lower right column here to find/read your prior post referencing the dynamics of both entities from a Texas perspective. Thanks for all you do to promote free, clean, fair and open elections in our great democracy–cheers!

    Do you have a link pointing to your prior work? (Thanks in advance)

    Al: I assume, you mean, my prior work on TX… Have a ball! ADMINISTRATOR

    REMEMBER the ALAMO

    TEXAS TWO-STEP

    CLUBS RULE

    A ROADMAP to ELECTION FRAUD in TEXAS in the 2008 PRESIDENTIAL (ELECTORS) ELECTION

    OPEN LETTER to GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL of TEXAS

    CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (1 of 2)

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

    JUDGE ABBOTT WOULD ORDER TDP CHAIR BOYD RICHIE to DECLARE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA is INELIGIBLE for the JOB

    IDIOMS!

  8. Al says:

    Oh, My! Thought maybe you had a post, or two, but looks like I’ve found some Summer reading–thanks, jbjd! Listen, I’ll read over the material, and leave a follow up comment upon completing each post/thread. This way whatever I share, your feedback will determine if I’m understanding the points, concepts, etc. you are sharing correctly. Have a great week.

    Al: Once you begin reading, you will see that some of the materials are repeated. That said; I am glad you characterized your mission in these terms because this ‘brings home’ to me, I expect people to master a large volume of materials. Yes; I do ask a lot. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. Al says:

    Good Morning, jbjd!

    Am here reading over your well-written “Remember The Alamo” post/thread, and where I admire so far what I see is the State of Texas’ high regard for ensuring that their private citizens wield significant influence over the election process, given the following Texas law:

    “Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

    Sec. 141.036. PRESERVATION OF APPLICATION. The authority with whom an application for a place on the ballot is required to be filed shall preserve each application filed with the authority for two years after the date of the election for which the application is made.”

    isn’t it reasonable to believe that this matter of pressing/questioning Boyd Richie and/or Greg Abbott has run its course as per the language requiring preservation of appilication for only two years? Here we are at the midway point of 2011, so essentially those records could possibly have been destroyed (legally) last November. With that said, and I may not be right here (that’s where you come in with your sharp legal prowess and set me/other readers, etc. straight), why would the focus be upon ferreting out records that may now be non-existent?

    Off to fetch my dancing shoes, so I can read over your “Texas Two-Step” post. Have a great day!

    Al: What a great comment, evidencing you are learning about existing laws and figuring out how to make these laws do what they were supposed to do, which is, codify those standards desired by the society they govern. And, the question you ask provides me with another opportunity to clarify the nature and purpose of these citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG.

    To the extent that I have included in these complaints facts relating to actual filings; my purpose was to present a ready-made ‘case’ to the AG that would spell out the fraud alleged in easily understood terms. I did this because I wanted to maximize the chances the AG would exercise official discretion to investigate the charges. The reason I asked a citizen in any applicable state to obtain whatever documents were filed with that state’s election official was to know whom to charge with the fraud, as different D’s submitted the documents in different states.

    Having a law that requires public officials to maintain documents is not the same as alleging fraud based on a fact pattern that no documents exist in the public record that would establish Barack Obama is a NBC and so, the D representative who swore he was, lied. But actually prosecuting a case requires the state to meet burdens of proof and production spelled out in the law. For example, we know the TX ballot requires candidates whose names appear on the ballot must be qualified for the job; that the TDP submitted Obama’s name to the TX ballot; and that Boyd Richie refused to disclose the basis for his Certification notwithstanding he (arguably) had a duty to disclose. Maybe in TX, a charge of criminal election fraud can be sustained on this fact pattern.

    Or maybe, in TX, it is against the law for a political party to refuse to cooperate with the AG’s questions in a criminal investigation. In that case, AG Abbott would only have to ask Boyd Richie what he used to authenticate Obama’s Constitutional eligibility… ADMINISTRATOR

  10. Al says:

    Good Evening, jbjd!

    Your keen understanding of all things legalese is continues to shine, but rather than confuse me or your readers with overwhelming jardon you choose to use “plain talk”, so lay people like myself may better understand legal dynamics, the maneuvering, wrangling etc,.–so, thanks/hat tip. Without question, the well thought out strategy/guidance you chose to employ/draft up in helping move any potential citizen compliants–in the applicable states–along as smoothly as possible, is indicative of your sharp legal prowess.

    Now, just so you know, I understand your clarification above highlighting the distinction between the difference between where “Having a law that requires public officials to maintain documents is not the same as alleging fraud….” I only brought this into play simply to underscore that the way the original preservation-statute was written, it may leave the door open for “creative thinking”, potentially an assertion that bona fide credentials were submitted and then–using the convenient language written within the statute–was simply destroyed in the prescribed manner set forth by law before they were deemed otherwise.

    Please let me be clear here: I’m NOT suggesting that Boyd Richie is guilty of such tactics, nor do I believe Mr. Obama would allow such dubious shenanigans play out on his behalf, but the language within the present statute may need to be shored up to prevent future “creative thinking”. Off to finish reading your well written “Texas Two Step”…

    Just curious, and you don’t have to answer, but what are your feelings/thoughts about the recent verdict in the Casey Anthony case?

    Al: The good news about the law in TX is, the duty to disclose, where such duty can be shown to exist; is time sensitive. That is, the requestor’s right to know exists when s/he wants to know; and the solicited party has a time certain to response. As you can imagine, information can help or hurt depending on when it is disclosed.

    As for the Anthony case, well, I support the 6th Amendment. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Al says:

    Hi jbjd!

    Just completed your timely and informative piece entitled “Texas Two-Step” a few minutes ago. As I read the post from beginning to end, you seem to leave no stone uncovered, and displayed some sharp wits, and remembering also to “dot your i’s and cross your t’s” so to speak. Top-notch professionalism is still alive and well I see. Hat tip to you, redhank and Erica Thunderpaws.

    Am sitting here stunned, speechless and numb over the unsettling treatment, in essence–stonewalling, some decent, hardworking and patriotic Americans had to endure for simply asserting their rights under the law. Who makes a law to ensure that the people are entitled to reviewing the election process in the manner of a free and open society, only to stonewall them and/or intimidate them altogether away from that process?!

    Wanted to point out that I share your sentiments that this isn’t about Mr. Obama’s eligibility as much as about ensuring that elections are genuinely open, clean and fair–not just in fancy words mounted upon a hollow sounding board, but legitimately etched in the minds, hearts and souls of a free people. Have we lost our way somehow?

    Thanks for weighing in with your thoughts/feelings about the Casey Anthony case. Will pick up my reading again first thing tomorrow morning with your “Clubs Rule” post.

    Al: Yes, you see, it’s not the eligibility issue per se that upsets me the most. After all, no legally binding definition of NBC exists; no state election law requires Electors to elect only a Constitutionally eligible candidate; and no mechanism is in place that would establish even that a candidate is a “C,” let alone “NB.” Besides, sufficient doubts existed in 2008 as to his Constitutional eligibility for office – he said so, on FTS! – that even an Obama supporter could have justifiably refused to vote for the D Electors given the paucity of evidence that would establish his credentials. But, these people voted for him, anyway. Rather, I wish we could codify in each state a mechanism that would ensure, the majority of voters could look to the ‘system’ and say, ‘well, regardless of my personal feelings about the candidate; the fact that s/he failed to satisfy the requirements of ballot eligibility means, I cannot in good conscience give Electors for that person, my vote.’ (And, in that same good conscience, begin to question what kind of political party would front a candidate who failed to establish s/he is Constitutionally qualified for the job?) ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Al says:

    Good Morning, jbjd!

    Given the key issues that you have brought to light(“no legally binding definition of NBC exists”; “no state election law requires Electors to elect only a Constitutionally eligible candidate; and, “no mechanism is in place that would establish even that a candidate is a ‘C’, let alone ‘NB'”), seems the main focus of any future legitimate campaign/election reform strategies may want to address these concerns/matters head on, so the electoral process isn’t tainted with doubt, suspicions and a flood of unsubstantiated/invalid conspiracies.

    Off to finish reading your riveting “Clubs Rule” post, and back later with some feedback…have a great day. Wondering aloud how the Casey Anthony sentencing process will play out…

    Al: Close… Actually, the answers are in HOW to WRITE SMART CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY LAWS in your STATE (and make applying to get on the ballot harder than applying to get into Harvard) ADMINISTRATOR

  13. Al says:

    Hi jbjd!

    After reading your post “Clubs Rule”, have to admit it’s becoming crystal clear that some crafty individuals have found a pretty nifty way to shape and bend the political-process toward their own will/desired outcome. Where decent, honest folks like yourself and a great many other moral minded Americans have a conscience, caring to cast your vote(s) in the letter and spirit of all things beholden to a free democracy, there are others–akin to “powerbrokers” behind the scenes in smoked filled rooms–who seem to know how to play “the game”. The more I read along here, there also seems to be an element of mystery surrounding some of the key players (Boyd Richie certainly seems to have mastered the art of dodging simple questions, seemingly leaning upon a primer/playbook of his own to deflect questions into a recycle bin of redundancy–akin to chasing one’s own tail, instead of getting to the heart of the issue). How could one simple question create such a pass the “hot potato” epidemic?

    Thanks for sharing the helpful link ====> “HOW to WRITE SMART CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY LAWS in your STATE (and make applying to get on the ballot harder than applying to get into Harvard)”, which should make for some more good reading. Thanks for having me this week, and for the patience you have maintained while I play catch up (it cannot be easy being as bright as you are and having to accomodate someone more interested in what numbers Tom Brady will put up on Sunday afternoon, or if Derek Jeter will surpass 3,000 career hits before the end of July). I’ll pick up with your next post–“A ROADMAP to ELECTION FRAUD in TEXAS in the 2008 PRESIDENTIAL (ELECTORS) ELECTION” early next Tuesday morning. Safe travels.

    Al: This is the whole point of my endeavor, in the proverbial ‘nutshell’: “it’s becoming crystal clear that some crafty individuals have found a pretty nifty way to shape and bend the political-process toward their own will/desired outcome.” I figured, if I didn’t understand ‘how things worked’ in the political arena then, my fellow Americans likely shared my ignorance. I was also certain that those of us who were able to pull off what, in my opinion, looked like primary/caucus and election fraud; were no smarter than me. Finally, I was confident in my ability to ferret out the facts from the fiction, even with my ‘outsider’ hands tied behind my back. Then, I recruited ‘help’ in the form of the “jbjd” blog, which attracted like-minded readers, that is, people interested in learning how our government works and, where it does not, in figuring out how to fix it. We found out that, the best way to prevent those among us with superior knowledge from usurping our power; was to stop giving it away. That is, we had to increase our knowledge. Simple as that. (We still spend far too much time sidetracked on issues which cannot contribute directly to our purported goal…)

    And now that you ‘get’ the valuable information here on this blog for the ‘taking’ (notwithstanding the several PayPal buttons posted in the sidebar); please, pass on the news that we are here, to your circle of family and ‘friends.’ ADMINISTRATOR

  14. Al says:

    Good Morning, jbjd!

    I’ll be around today, poking my nose into your “How to write smart candidate eligibility laws…”, and a “Road Map To Election Fraud in Texas…”. Should make for some interesting reading.

    Al: I am here all day, if you have any questions. But I think the “How to…” article should answer several questions you have raised concerning what concrete steps citizens in each state can take with respect to shoring up ‘local’ election standards. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. See how labor intensive is this ‘start-up’ process? But once you ‘get’ how our system works, that is, once you know as much about our system as those of us who used superior knowledge to undermine our power; they can no longer undermine our power.

  15. Al says:

    Good Evening, jbjd!

    Yes, have to agree with your spot on assessment of the initial strain to catch up, and become well-acquainted with the “start-up”, but as you have said it becomes much easier to comprehend once adequate time is spent understanding the process.

    Yes, as you said, the well-written “How to…” thread certainly addressed my initial questions about shoring up the standards on the local level to ensure open, clean and fair elections. Moreover, any respective State legislator seeking to draft future legislation in the spirit of promoting open and fair elections would be better served to refrain from attacking Mr. Obama’s eligibility, but draft clear and concise language to ensure open, clean and fair elections are the norm rather than the exception.

    In respect to the 2nd thread, your well-written “A Roadmap to Election Fraud In Texas…”, I’ve about had my fill of Mr. Richie, and as I’ve shared earlier(in spite of your alert catch to Texas law allowing prospective “requestors” to be afforded the “duty to disclose” at the actual time of their request)this gentleman seems adept at stonewall tactics. Having private citizens chase their own tails isn’t exactly what I have in mind when I think of open and fair elections, so I say (and, due to your sharp legal prowess, you may disagree)let his own conscience impell him to do the right thing, ’cause decent hardworking Texans have better things to do with their time than deal with cumbersome legal wrangling.

    Appreciate the interesting and informative threads, and will sink my teeth so to speak in your “Open Letter to Greg Abbott…” early tomorrow morning. Thanks for your continued patience, and though I haven’t read Azgo’s comments, it was encouraging to see someone of her zest in for a visit…hat tip to her for promoting and advocating for open and fair elections.

    There’s nothing ever wrong with decent, hardworking Americans who genuinely love their country, who care to ask questions; however, asking legitimate questions doesn’t have to resort to unfairly tearing down a decent man(Obama), husband (to First Lady Michelle)and father (to two young children–two future responsible and respectful taxpayers). Have a good evening, jbjd…appreciate the good reading.

    Al: This line jumped out at me: “Having private citizens chase their own tails isn’t exactly what I have in mind when I think of open and fair elections, so I say (and, due to your sharp legal prowess, you may disagree)let his own conscience impell him to do the right thing, ’cause decent hardworking Texans have better things to do with their time than deal with cumbersome legal wrangling.” I absolutely agree with you, which explains why I did not advise people to file court cases to go after Mr. Richie for failing to disclose under the TX open records law. And why I contacted the TX FOIFT seeking help for TX citizens to obtain documents from Mr. Richie. Because we – citizens who want our elections to be fair and legal – should not have to give up our regular lives in order to make this happen. And Mr. Richie, while having played a seminal role in the election in TX, is not above the law only if Texans can get AG Abbott to exercise the lawful discretion that comes with his office, to enforce the law!

    And, his position as a husband and father notwithstanding, based only on his public conduct both in office and campaigning; I completely disagree that President Obama is a decent man. However, my feelings about his particular character defects obviously do not translate into my denigrating him as a human being. ADMINISTRATOR

  16. Al says:

    Good Morning, jbjd!

    Well said @ your follow up response above…hat tip for focusing your energies upon being part of the solution rather than adding more legal wrangling to an exhaustive process, which seems to deter decent people from entangling themselves into a confusing mess, especially when all they wanted in the first place was a clear answer to a simple question. So, on behalf of our fellow Americans in Texas, thanks for not wasting their time by encouraging them to use their own valuable time/energy to focus upon Mr. Richie themselves, but channeling their genuine concerns to a seemingly reputable organization (the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas)to dare hold him to task in the performance of his duties. However, if I understood my reading here, it seems the FOIFT may say one thing, and do another, akin to that old saying “When All Is Said and Done, More is Said than Done”…history will be their judge.

    Am off to read your thread “Open Letter to Greg Abbott…”, and then weigh in with my thoughts/feelings later this evening. Cheers for judging Mr. Obama on his record/content of his character as oppose to anything less than that–Hat tip.

    Al: I am so glad you understand the focus here was not specifically whether Mr. Richie violated the TX open records law. Rather, I wanted more ammunition to forward to AG Abbott that could inspire him to exercise his discretion to investigate the charges of election fraud filed with his office by citizens of TX. In other words, Mr. Richie’s refusal to provide citizens with the documents they requested, showing the basis for his Certification Obama is a NBC; along with similar refusals by Nancy Pelosi, Alice Germond, and Joseph Sandler, for example; was intended to get Mr. Abbott to exercise his official discretion to ask Mr. Richie the same question.

    The FOIFT’s reaction was interesting to me, for several reasons, but I was particularly focusing in this. Their Board of Directors includes many high profile media outlets/personalities. I thought perhaps Texans could contact these people to report that their organization, the FOIFT, is intentionally ignoring its stated mission to ensure public accountability through open records (seemingly) because of politics. And I thought these media influences could get the FOIFT to provide assistance to those Texans who had struck out with Mr. Richie. Again, this would not be directly related to ‘outing’ Richie, or Obama; but perhaps it would help to persuade AG Abbott to look into the citizen complaints of election fraud. ADMINISTRATOR

  17. Al says:

    Good Evening, jbjd!

    First, before weighing in on your thread entitled “Open Letter to Greg Abbott…”, just wanted to say thanks for your acknowledgement that I’m beginning to understand your intentions correctly, where your main mission here seems to be holding our representatives to the high standards they should endeavor to practice as representives of a free people in an open democracy, essentially following the letter and spirit of the laws that ensure/solidify government for, of and by the people. That’s a good thing.

    Now, after reading your post “Open Letter to Greg Abbott…”, the first thing I noted was the date stamp and time of your initial letter/post dated last year, so I googled “Texas Attorney General” to determine if Mr. Abbott was still serving in that capacity. Well, according to the following website https://www.oag.state.tx.us/–seems he is still serving in that capacity; otherwise, as you folks in the legal community may say his involvement at this point in time would be a “moot” point, right? Where would the relevancy be if he was now a private citizen, instead of still serving as Texas Attorney General?

    Another question that comes to mind is, depending upon his allegiance to a specific political party–say the Republican Party, Would any action on Mr. Abbott’s part to further investigate the claims of the citizens directed against Mr. Richie be conducted in good faith, on behalf of the good citizens of Texas, or be politically motivated? Is there a legitimate conflict of interest here?

    Will begin to read your Part 1 of “Clowns to the Left of Me…” two part series early tomorrow morning. Appreciate the good reading you are providing here. Safe travels.

    Al: Great work! FYI, before I addressed that letter to AG Abbott, I already knew he was still AG because he had joined the A’sG of other states to protest ‘Obamacare.’ But none of the documents originating on this blog, which are addressed to ‘him,’ implicates the ‘person’ but rather, the office (of the AG). As such, none of this correspondence, including the citizen complaints of election fraud, becomes moot with a change of officeholder.

    Also, we elect people into office who may or may not hold affiliation to a particular political club. BUT THE OFFICE IS NOT A CLUB POSITION BUT, IN THE CASE OF THE AG, FOR EXAMPLE, A STATUTORY AND, OFTEN, A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICE! The person filling that role ‘works’ for and on the behalf of all citizens of the state, voter and non-voter alike!
    ADMINISTRATOR

  18. Al says:

    Good Morning, jbjd!

    Hmmm…score one for the good guys (Team jbjd)–as it seems you were sharp/adept at drafting/writing correspondence that addresses the office of Attorney General as oppose to Mr. Abbott himself–Bravo! That’s a good thing, so rather than becoming a moot point, the legitimate concerns of the citizens remain relevant regardless of a change of leadership at the Attorney General’s office–well done.

    Thanks also for the clarification/distinction of “Constitutional Office” holders, who by implication should be working “for and on behalf of all citizens of the state, voter and non-voter alike”. Of course, mere words would mean so much more if there was genuine action behind them.

    Now, in respect to the 1st Part of your well written series entitled “Clowns to the Left of Me…”, the foot-stomping music atop the page gets double thumbs up. However, my next question is leaning upon your legal prowess for a clear/definitive answer. Where I follow your logic in citing the legal wrangling between the respective Democratic and Republican parties’ tussle over determining if Mr. Delay fit the residency requirements in Texas, Mr. Obama is seeking reelection to a loftier office, where residency in Texas is not a prerequisite, right? Or, am I to understand that given the findings/precedent set in the Delay case an individual State could impose its findings upon candidates seeking the vice-presidency and presidency where no residency is required? Or, were you making another point and I missed it altogether?

    Back next Tuesday to begin reading Part 2 of your “Clowns to the Left of Me…” series. Admire you for your tireless energy, devotion and resolve. Thanks for your continued efforts here, educating others about the electoral process, and for, above all, promoting open, clean and fair elections indicative of a democracy. Safe travels.

    Al: The sole purpose in citing to the DeLay case was to show that the R’s, at least in TX, are as culpable in ignoring the Obama eligibility dilemma, as the D’s. Because they know, based on what the D’s did to them in that case, that is, compelling them to keep DeLay’s name on the ballot notwithstanding he had left the state (for now); how to use those same TX laws to compel the D’s to take Obama’s name off the ballot. Sure, the underlying eligibility issues are different; but the laws used to effect the names on the ballot are the same.

    Also, my addressing correspondence to the office of the state official is not so clever. Any citizen writing to a state official in his or her official capacity is writing to the office; and the office in receipt remains the intended ‘party’ regardless of which named official holds that office. (When people want to sue a public official in his or her official capacity, the suit is filed against whoever is in office at the time, regardless of the named official filling the job at the time the alleged harm occurred.) ADMINISTRATOR

  19. Al says:

    Good Morning, jbjd!

    Your sole purpose in citing the Delay case is now crystal clear–thank you! Where I understand the “underlying eligibility issues are different”, your focus wasn’t/isn’t so much on the candidates and or the respective offices they seek as much as upon the laws–in this case–Texas–that leave some wiggling room to maneuver under the radar (but within the framework of the language as it is presently written).

    Given your clarification/distinction above in respect to filing suit against an “office”, as oppose to a specific named “office-holder”, surely something of this nature should be conducted in a timely manner, right? At some point, people have to move on, right? Will begin reading your next post in this interesting series ====> CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (2 of 2)today, and will weigh in later this evening. Hope all is well. Have a great day!

    Sidebar: You don’t have to answer this, but who do you think is most at fault in the present debt divide, the “D’s” or the “R’s”? Which side do you think will blink first? Whatever happened to doing what’s in the best interest of the American people regardless of party labels?!

    Al: Just to be sure you understand, in TX, both the party chair and the candidate have standing at different times throughout the process of forming the ballot; to contest the printing on that ballot the name of a candidate suspected to be unqualified for office. The seminal consideration is, the ‘interest’ in eliminating the opposition. A party always has the interest in eliminating the opposition; but a candidate in a primary has no interest, yet, as s/he wants even fellow members of the same club to lose, too. Once the primary winner is chosen; then, that person’s interest in eliminating the opposition is now the same as the party.

    As for the debt debacle, well, in short, apportioning responsibility between the R’s and the D’s, is comparing and contrasting apples to… apples. ADMINISTRATOR

  20. Al says:

    Good Evening, jbjd!

    After reading your final segment of “Clowns to the Left of Me…”, the language is clear as outlined in the Texas Election Code (§145.003
    ) what is incumbent upon the respective political-party Chairperson(s) to do once they’ve determined through the application process, and or additional public records that a specific candidate is ineligible; however, I’m having a hard time grasping/understanding where precisely Mr. Richie may have been privy to such information that may have suggested ineligibility regarding Mr. Obama’s candidacy. Is the glitch here, where he simply took then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s word that the “D’s'” candidate was in fact eligible, the real issue here? –was he somehow negligent in the performance of his duties on behalf of the good people of Texas by taking her word as oppose to seeking/requesting specifically how she ascertained that eligibility?

    Please forgive me for use of a Godfather analogy here, but a good sports analogy escapes me at the moment. If Don Vito summons a few top lieutenants within his trusted inner-circle to a sitdown in his private office, and declares that “such and such” will now head the Bronx crew to ward off the advances of a rival faction in a disputed turf war, his word alone should suffice (otherwise, there’s that whole thing about being made an offer you cannot refuse, which doesn’t quite sound like a pleasant day spent at the beach). Where I’m not saying Mr. Richie deserves a full pass here, considering he was entrusted and charged with preserving and protecting the integrity of election ballots in Texas, maybe the real “powerbroker” in all of this is former House Speaker Pelosi. In fairness to her though, maybe the information she was privy to meant eligible, and that was good enough for her, and if Mr. Richie or anyone else with future/loftier political ambitions for that matter, dared to raise any issues/concerns, they ran the political risk of locking horns with then the third most powerful person on the planet (following of course, then President Bush and Vice-President Cheney). So much for integrity…today’s “public”-servants may want to wipe the dust off of JFK’s “Profiles In Courage”.

    Thanks for providing another good read…back early tomorrow morning to begin reading your post “Judge Abbott Would Order…”
    Safe travels.

    Al: This is the beauty of the TX law. That is, in TX, a legal argument can be made that, when a public official – and keep in mind, when he performs certain ‘public’ functions, Boyd Richie is a public official – is required to produce records (in this instance, which would establish the documentary basis for a Certification of Obama’s Nomination) but refuses to do so; this can be legally construed as having lied about the underlying premise. Thus, we have no idea on what basis Boyd determined Obama is qualified for office to get on the ballot. Because when we asked, he refused to say. We only know, he did Certify Obama; but a suit here would allege, such Certification can be said to be a lie given that, Boyd had a duty to disclose the basis for that Certification but refuses to make such disclosure. ADMINISTRATOR

  21. Al says:

    Good Morning, jbjd!

    I share your healthy respect for the “beauty of Texas law”, and agree that Mr. Richie, in his capacity as a public official, is/should be held to a high standard of integrity. Also follow your logic that should a suit be brought forth, Mr. Richie has a “duty to disclose” on what basis he–in his capacity as TDP Chair–ascertained eligibility. Why he refuses to do so seems to be the tilting point, but that’s none of my business. I’ve seen former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and some folks who may have to encounter her may rather listen to the screeching sounds upon a chalkboard, or fight off pesky mosquitoes down by their favorite fishing hole than clash with her.

    To your knowledge, jbjd, has anyone within Texas Republican Party circles intimated they may legally challenge Mr. Obama’s name appearing on the ballot in 2012? At this point, whatwith all the legal wrangling potentially tying things up into a virtual standstill/stalemate of sorts, what’s the point? I say my fellow Republicans should simply run a campaign that resonates with the American people, and regain the White House the old-fashioned way–earn it. In my opinion, Mr. Obama is as legitimate as American currency in our banks.

    Off to read your post entitled “Judge Abbott Would Order…”, and will weigh in later this evening with a comment. Have a great day, jbjd. Wondering aloud if Judge Abbott is any relation to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott? <=== talk about a conflict of interest.

    Al: Yes, TX has some interesting laws; but so what. No one is compelling the chief law enforcement official in the state to go after Mr. Richie (using the additional tools available through TX law) to compel him to admit, either directly or through omission; what documentary evidence supported his oath to state election officials that Obama was Constitutionally qualified for office?

    As to Mr. Abbott’s dual roles, well, there is no conflict of interest. When he was a judge, he knew that silence when there was a duty to speak was constructively an admission of deceit. Did he forget, as AG, the chief law enforcement official in the state, what he ruled as a judge?

    As for Ms. Pelosi, well, her refusal to answer the same question, in those ballot eligibility states in which she signed the Certification submitted to election officials; should ring equally loudly and clearly to the A’sG in those states, too.

    Finally, you write, “I say my fellow Republicans should simply run a campaign that resonates with the American people, and regain the White House the old-fashioned way–earn it. In my opinion, Mr. Obama is as legitimate as American currency in our banks.” Sentiment has absolutely no bearing on this issue of Presidential eligibility. Of course, people are entitled to personal opinions. But one voter, or two, or several million; have absolutely no right to steal a national election state by state by state, through circumventing ballot eligibility laws (or any other laws). I reject any argument that implies, tyranny is less oppressive when it is carried out by the many as opposed to the few. And, as you can see from the latest articles you have devoured, insofar as issues related to ballot eligibility are concerned; I view D’s and R’s in the same light. ADMINISTRATOR

  22. Anonymous says:

    Good Evening, jbjd!

    After reading your well written “JUDGE ABBOTT WOULD ORDER TDP CHAIR BOYD RICHIE to DECLARE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA is INELIGIBLE for the JOB”, it goes without question that once again you have managed to write an in-depth piece/analysis which logically makes sense. However, the proverbial “but” you may be anticipating from me is this: where I understand then Justice of the Texas Supreme Court Greg Abbott’s prior ruling in the Bradford vs. Vento finding further buttresses/supports/reinforces your key points, Is it possible he has made a decision to remove himself from any proceedings pertaining to this matter as testament to “good faith” and fair play? After all, he seems to be a brilliant man, surely recognizing his affliation with the Republican Party, and his prior ruling alone in the Bradford vs. Vento case certainly would deem him already partial/biased in any subsequent judicial proceedings, right? Certainly there would seem to be some conflict of interest here, don’t you think? Would Mr. Abbott’s involvement in any potential proceedings be percieved as conducted less with the good people of Texas in mind, and seemingly more to a witch hunt against the opposing political party?

    If Mr. Richie would just answer the simple question posed to him, this matter would be be closed one way or the other. The good people of Texas deserve his undivided attention, but the ball remains–for whatever reason–in his court. Back early tomorrow morning to read your post entitled “Idioms”…safe travels, jbjd.

  23. Al says:

    Good Morning, jbjd!

    Your post entitled “Idioms” was another gem indicative of the extensive work you seem to pour into your passion (promoting and advocating for open, clean and fair elections). With the idioms/common sayings you shared in your post in mind, my favorite was “A Spoon Full of Honey will catch More Flies than a Gallon of Vinegar”. Though I’ve heard it a few times, not quite sure what the exact meaning of the idiom “Don’t Put All of Your Eggs In One Basket” means/implies…Is that like “Why pay for the cow if the Milk is free”? Close, or not even close?

    Now, in respect to your post, our old friend Mr. Richie seems to always emerge as a leading character yet again. If a Hollywood movie ever comes out of all of this, just wondering aloud who would be cast as Boyd Richie? How could a single question left unanswered by the “man of the hour”–Mr. Richie–spawn so many other questions?!

    A note of “Thanks” to you for sharing these series of posts with me, absolutely enjoyed reading them. Now that I’ve gotten a sense of the surroundings and the key players embroiled within this fascinating storyline in our nation’s history, back next Tuesday morning to immerse myself further. Safe travels…

    Given that I’m playing catch up here, what former posts/threads would you suggest I read next?

    Al: Oliver Platt could play Richie. And you know what? This would make a great fact-based movie. ADMINISTRATOR

  24. Al says:

    Good Morning, jbjd!

    Thanks for sharing Oliver Platt’s name as a potential choice to play Mr. Richie should this storyline ever make it to the big screen. He seems like a logical choice, and what versatility and range he has demonstrated over the years during a remarkable acting career on stage and in film. Took a few minutes to read his bio, and to say the least he has lived an interesting life. Quite the world traveler, given his father’s diplomatic career. The only issue I took from my reading was his love for the Boston Red Sox–grrr. How ironic that he was once cast in the role of the late George Steinbrenner (RIP), the love him or hate him owner of my hometown favorites–the NY Yankees! My reading also suggested Mr. Platt was a cousin to Diana, Princess of Wales (RIP). Even Mr. Richie himself may find some satisfaction in your choice to play him. Who would your choices be to fill out the remaining cast: then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; then presidential candidate Barack Obama; and, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott?

    Now, getting back to your main focus here, jbjd, in respect to my initial question, which spawned this thread bout a month ago, asking you if there was any specific language you would recommend to a State legislator in their respective home state seeking to draft a bill to ensure open and fair elections, Is it reasonable at this point–given my understanding of what I’ve read over the last month here–that the focus should be less upon drafting any new legislation as much as shoring up the language of the existing laws and simply enforcing them?

    Al: Each state is different. Once a law is in place, for example, if candidates on the ballot must be eligible for the job; then, no new laws are required to ensure such eligibility. Because the state has already enacted laws determining who is in charge of elections; and that person is already required to promulgate any rules or regulations required to carry out the law! So, all that is required to carry out the ballot eligibility law is to put in place any standard the state desires. For example, if NBC means to the state, born here of 2 U.S. parents then, write that into the law! Because absent a legally binding definition, ‘your guess is as good as mine’ as to what the words mean. And, in this way, that is, by writing definitions ‘all over the place,’ the party will challenge such ballot requirements, in court; and we will end up with a legally binding definition of NBC. (I have written this out elsewhere; that’s why I kept avoiding re-answering the question!) ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: