RIPOFF

©2012 jbjd

A frantic fundraising effort launched by several groups evidently acting in concert with each other, has infected the blogosphere, proclaiming in hyperbolic headlines, in red, the magic key has been found to unseating President Obama from both the CA and FL ballots. And, with the sum certain contribution of $25,000 to the joint “legal defense fund” set up by the several ad sponsors; a ballot challenge can be initiated which, at long last, will succeed. (Why $25,000?) But note, this $25,000 “must be raised in the next 96 hours.” Because, according to them, that’s the deadline for these ballot challenges in these 2 states. (Does this mean the ads will come down in 5 days? Will they be removed sooner, if $25,000 is donated before that time?)

THIS IS A SCAM.

No ballot challenges championed by these groups and targeting CA and FL has any chance to succeed inasmuch as the citizens of CA and FL have enacted no laws that require the candidate whose name appears on the ballot to be eligible for the job. Further, in those states with such candidate eligibility laws, ballot challenges may be filed for the next several months, until some time after the DNC Services Corporation holds its Presidential nominating convention in Charlotte, NC, the first week in September. http://www.demconvention.com/

You are as competent to file a valid ballot challenge in your state as anyone else seeking to rip you off. And you can do this at no charge. If you need help, as always, just ask. I have been here all along answering your questions, again, at no charge. Just remember, even if your state requires candidates whose names appear on the ballot must be qualified for the job and allows ballot challenges; no ballot challenge can succeed which requires the Complainant to prove, Respondent (President Obama) is not qualified for the job. However, in these states, ballot challenges can succeed where the burden can be shifted to Respondent to prove he is qualified. In addition, a challenge can also succeed where the named Respondent is the member of the state or national political party who swore the candidate was qualified to get on the ballot, whether the burden is on you to establish, this person cannot have verified such eligibility; or on Respondent to prove eligibility verification.

As I have been saying now, for years; if you don’t know your government as well as those who would use superior knowledge of government to steal your power; then, these people will continue to steal your power.

And, rip you off.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Freedom costs.

Advertisements

8 Responses to RIPOFF

  1. jbjd, as always, you speaketh the truth! The “EYES OF TEXAS” are all over this! With your help, we will succeed, where the others will surely fail. The groups you refer to in this post are absolutely “doing it wrong”, and it sickens me to no end. No one can make the states “define” what a natural born citizen means, and yet these sites continue to press this as the “end all, be all” way to challenge the ballots in their states. It just won’t work, and we’ve learned this (albeit slowly!) over the last 3+ years, through your very wise teachings on this blog. I “get it” now. And many others do, as well. Stay tuned for good news, here in Texas!

    And now a note to all of your readers: If I donate my hard-earned money to anyone’s site, it will be (and has ALWAYS been) THIS site! I hope others will follow suit with this! I hereby challenge ANYONE reading this blog to donate what you can to support the REAL ballot challenger, bar NONE — jbjd! Put your money where your mouth is! jbjd’s blog has spoken the truth the entire time, where other sites have miserably failed us. Wake up, people! We have ONE SHOT at this! Let’s not screw this up by following the so-called “false prophets”! (or more to the point, “false PROFITS”!) GAME ON! And DONATE NOW!

    • jbjd says:

      kjcanon (TEXAS): Thank you for your support, and your cheerleading. (I liked your play on words.)

      I think people are missing the damage that can be done by the ‘throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks’ approach to candidate eligibility. States have individual ballot laws and, bringing a complaint in a state without a ballot eligibility law, which fails; could jeopardize the same complaint brought in a state with such laws, which otherwise would have had a chance to succeed. Here’s the example.

      The laws of several states including GA, HI, MD, SC, TX, and VA require candidate eligibility to be on the ballot. NH does not. More than 500 citizens from across these 6 states filed complaints of (criminal) election fraud to their state AG, the state’s chief law enforcement official, claiming a member of the D party swore to the SoS that President Obama was Constitutionally eligible for office without verifying he was actually eligible for the job. While these were pending, a group descended on NH, a state without ballot eligibility laws; and filed a ballot challenge with the SoS, claiming President Obama had committed ballot “fraud” by swearing he was Constitutionally eligible for office. (They also involved the state legislature, again, blurring the doctrine of governmental separation of powers.) The NH SoS rightfully rejected the challenge.

      It would have been bad enough if the only damage done with regard to efforts to settle the eligibility issue was that countless citizens who believed President Obama was not Constitutionally qualified for office now believed, the state government in NH was ‘in on the fix’; or abandoned valid complaints in their own states believing these had no chance of success. But what could have happened as the result of this one reckless challenge, could have been much worse.

      The A’sG in those ballot eligibility states could have piggy-backed on the decision of the SoS in NH and refused on that basis to initiate an investigation, knowing most citizens would fail to understand this was a case of ‘apples and oranges.’ Then, it would be the job of people like me to try to explain to everyone, a ballot challenge to the SoS in NH, which has no ballot eligibility law; is not the same thing as a complaint of election fraud viz a viz the ballot, to the state AG, in a state like TX. And that putting pressure on the AG to exercise lawful discretion to initiate an investigation; was the only way to get an investigation. Indeed, by gathering together, citizens also demonstrate to the A’sG they are asking to go out on this ‘eligibility limb,’ you have their backs

      As you can attest, even citizens like you who actively participate in blogging, can misunderstand the differences among state, federal, and local laws; and in defining which candidates can get their names printed on state ballots versus which candidates can occupy the Oval Office. And you have a leg up on those people who have only relied on others to fight their battles for these past 4 years! ADMINISTRATOR

      • ksdb says:

        Just an FYI. NH’s laws do require Constitutional eligibility to be on the ballots.

        655:14 Filing: General Provisions. The name of any person shall not be printed upon the ballot of any party for
        a primary unless he or she is a registered member of that party, he or she shall have met the age and domicile
        qualifications for the office he or she seeks at the time of the general election, he or she meets all the other qualifications
        at the time of filing, and he or she shall file with the appropriate official between the first Wednesday in June and the
        Friday of the following week a declaration of candidacy as provided in RSA 655:17.

        655:17-b Declaration of Intent; Presidential Candidates Who File Nomination Papers. I. Declarations of intent for each candidate for president who seeks nomination by nomination papers shall be in the form provided in paragraph II. Declarations of intent required by this section shall be filed with the secretary of state, signed by the candidate, and notarized by a notary public. II. I, _________, swear under penalties of perjury that I am qualified to be a candidate for president of the United States pursuant to article II, section 1, clause 4 of the United States Constitution, which states, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” I further declare that I am domiciled in the city (or town or unincorporated place) of _____, county of ____, state of ____, and am a qualified voter therein; that I intend to be a candidate for the office of president to be chosen at the general election to be held on the ____ day of ____; and I intend to file nomination papers by the deadline established under RSA 655:43. I further declare that, if qualified as a candidate for said office, I shall not withdraw; and that, if elected, I shall be qualified for and shall assume the duties of said office.

        • jbjd says:

          ksdb: Again, you appear and, as always, cravenly attempt to mislead your fellow citizens into buying the proverbial pig in a poke. This time, you claim I am wrong by predicting that, filing a ballot challenge in NH in an attempt to keep President Obama off of that state’s ballot in 2012 will fail inasmuch as NH law does not require candidate eligibility to be on the ballot. Why do you say I am wrong? Because NH ballot law does require candidate eligibility. Here is the official .gov link to that section of the NH Statutes, so that my readers can see for themselves what you are up to. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxiii/655/655-mrg.htm

          The first inapposite law you dumped onto this blog – 655:14 – clearly only refers to those candidates who are chosen via the primary election, to represent the party on the ballot in the general election. As you know, Presidential nominees are chosen at the party’s Presidential nominating convention. The second bad law – 655:17(b) – only requires the Presidential candidate to swear s/he is qualified for the office in order to appear on the primary ballot. And, as you know (and as I have explained so many times already); in order to prevail in any proceeding based on charges that Barack Obama lied in a ballot filing, for example, swearing he is Constitutionally eligible for office, like he did in, say, AZ; then, you must meet your burden of proof, he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job. Of course, as you know, this is impossible, given the fact no documentary evidence exists in the public domain that sustains your accusation.

          I am now convinced your primary purpose in commenting on this blog is to mislead your fellow citizens who come here to learn how our government functions and, when it malfunctions; how to fix it. These conscientious citizens are picking up the slack for freeloaders who refuse to do the hard work required to maintain our Constitutional republic.ADMINISTRATOR

  2. coldwarvet says:

    Hi jbjd…
    Do you remember Coldwarvet from Wells?
    Well, I think I have now been banned.
    I referenced the financial problems Klayman has had, and is having and POW! I get Sam Sewell in my face big time. What a hoot, you would have loved it. He threatened to sue….if I didn’t donate…
    I mentioned your site and recommended they go there and get educated…after all, you have been 100% right so far.
    Maybe you should get the 25k entry fee. I have a problem with that…the 25k that is…why that amount? Then I start to do a little digging on Klayman…
    I caught your interview on Dr kate…everyone should listen to that, it was great. A Mass. Accent?
    Sewell and Wells are buddies so it didn’t go over well. That’s too bad because I like Wells. I think he has a good site, is a good guy, and publishes some really good info. Oh well blood is thicker than water I guess.
    I think you are more aware than anyone that there are some inconvenient truths involved here.
    Well, just wanted to stop by, say hello and wish you well.

    • jbjd says:

      coldwarvet: I am so glad you found your way here. I had read a bit about that dust-up and actually commented to you and GORDO that I was happy you are recommending those radio interviews. You are not the first person who has found those helpful in understanding how our political system works. (And yes, that is a Boston accent!)

      Even ignoring for a moment the propriety of supporting efforts of one person versus another based on character (or lack thereof); the cause of action being brought in FL, even if not based strictly on an eligibility of candidate to be on the ballot cause of action; is still doomed to fail. CW asked me whether I thought a challenge would fail, based on the FL law he cited. Unfortunately, the law he cited does not apply to candidates who are chosen at party nominating conventions but only on primary contests. (This would include, for example, the R nominee for U.S. Senate; or the D nominee for State Representative from that district.) I explained this in my response. In other words, even disregarding for the moment, the efficacy of donating to a legal action brought by someone with the particular background you exposed; I maintain unequivocally, donating to any legal practitioner with such a demonstrated ignorance of the law is just plain foolish.

      When did you start reading my blog? (Just curious.) ADMINISTRATOR

  3. coldwarvet says:

    Hi again
    Gee, let me think. How long have you been going to Wells’ blog? You weren’t there often so I really didn’t think to go here.
    In the beginning, there was so much action that I don’t believe anyone knew who to hitch their star to. It was tremendously frustrating.
    Over time, and I did read all your comments,it began to appear, judging by the number of predicted defeats, that you were indeed right. It appeared at first as a gloat, akin to Obot behavior which are just uneducated guesses. I, for one, just had a hard time
    understanding WHY you were right. I don’t know whether or not you have read some of my posts today on Wells, but, due to things in my background, I have spent a LOT of time in courtrooms. Sometimes the judge even made me stay after school when everybody left…not funny…lol Just sayin’, I have had some experience working directly with attorneys, when preparing cases, doing investigative work, etc. So I know a competent attorney when I see one.
    I should have gone here earlier on a regular basis. You have done an outstanding job of researching an area that should make an excellent term paper at any law school, or for law review, and so necessary.
    As you have already witnessed, the Joe on the street hasn’t got a clue…and apparently a lot of attorneys don’t either. I guess it just didn’t seem important until now.
    Anyway, that is my experience with jbjd to date, I apologize for not having more faith originally and you are more than welcome for the “atta boy” over at Wells.
    By the way, I guess I’m back in the grace so will definitely see you there…and here. Just an intuitive observation, but I think it is beginning to sink in.
    Thanks for all you do…

    • jbjd says:

      coldwarvet: You are welcome. Interestingly, I began posting at CW a long time ago to exchange ideas with people who appeared to be earnestly involved in understanding our political system and improving its function. For a long time I found that, for the most part, although my general political bent is perhaps outside of the majority who visit that blog; I was treated with respect. At some point, that changed, and exchanging ideas became less productive than dodging the slings and arrows of some posters. (I also objected to the treatment of some fellow commenters.) So, I left. You must have begun posting during that prolonged absence.

      I know what I say sinks in. That’s why so many people (try to) copy my work. Sadly, too often they don’t take the time required to read and understand what they copied; so they keep screwing it up. Even worse, their trail of failure gives some people the wrong impression, we are powerless to control our government. Nothing could be further from the truth. 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: