© 2012 jbjd

I have been saying for years now that, in those states which by law only allow on the ballot the names of candidates qualified to fill the offices they seek; political party officers certified to election officials that Barack Obama’s name should be placed on the ballot notwithstanding no documentary evidence available in the public domain established he was Constitutionally eligible for the job and, therefore, such certification was made without verification.

Not everyone agreed.

I first posted OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES in January 2010; it has remained one of the most popular posts on the “jbjd” blog. It describes my exchange with 9th graders in a U.S. History I class, during a lecture in which I detailed the interplay between the requirements for President found in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution; and real life, as played out with respect to the 2008 general election. Basically, I told the students that the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and Chairperson of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential nominating convention; ignored public requests to disclose the documentary basis for her certification that Barack Obama met the Constitutional qualifications for the job. And DNC Corporation’s general counsel, Joseph Sandler, responded to such inquiries by reminding petitioners, his was not a public agency and so, did not have to disclose the basis for that certification. The students concluded in the first instance, no one checked. In the second instance, they assumed, someone had but, did not like the results.

Others have based their interminable claims that Mr. Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for President is a ‘given’ on such nebulous evidence as contemporaneous newspaper birth announcements (supposedly) available on microfilm or microfiche; or a birth certificate or certification (presumably) indexed in a government record. My response has always been to acknowledge that, I hear what others think establishes the man’s eligibility; but I want answers from party officials who are legally responsible for placing his name on my state ballot. Further, I insisted that if these often cited ‘alternative’ sources actually provided a standard of authentication; then when they were asked, those same officials would have asserted these sources as the basis for their certification.

Indeed, all along I have maintained that none of those party officials who swore to election officials in a ballot eligibility state, Barack Obama was eligible to have his name placed on the ballot since he met the federal requirements of the job; had verified the truth of that certification. I have finally obtained the evidence that proves, all along, I was right.

I will post this evidence in a few days, after all the ‘i’s’ are dotted and the ‘t’s’ crossed on the document for which such evidence was an integral component.


Freedom costs.

15 Responses to PAYDIRT

  1. Julius Ceasar says:

    beware the ides of Brietbart. BACK UP AND HAVE A FAILSAFE THAT WILL RELEASE said info. if anything happens to thou. never announce a pending release that may have been Brets undoing.

    • jbjd says:

      Julius Ceasar: I wanted to warn people what was coming for 2 reasons: 1) I wanted them to understand what the news would mean, by boning up on the issues beforehand; and 2) I have been lying relatively low and wanted to remind people, I am still hard at work on cleaning up the electoral process.

      I just had a physical and, unlike Mr. Brietbart in the years before his early death, am as healthy as a horse. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. teakwoodkite says:

    arrrg!!!! I spent an hour posting a comment only to have it zapped…(my fat fingers) ah well … LOL

    I can appreciatte the fine forensic work you’ve have done in exposing the consistent and intentional pattern of creating a furtile ground of “criminal deniability” on Obama’s behalf. In documenting how the interplay and manipulation between utterances of “public officialdom” and private political operations, along with the interplay of state vs federal law, which are being used to frustrate anyone achieving standing and forcing discovery. You do a great job of exposing differences between a pdf versus a jpeg, which are accurate. That said, I do not see how they are, in themselves, of any import as evidence in any legal proceedings. Except one.

    I can’t reconsile, to any satisifaction, the disparity that is created by the White House council Baer having the “Fight the Smears” image admitted as “authentic” evidence and misrepresented in the court record as authentic and the Final-Decision-of-SOS-in-Purpura-Moran-Ballot-Objection in which the judge accepted Obama’s attorney’s argument that the evidence presented “lacked authenticity”. What happens when the same piece of evidence is declared to be both authentic and not? In my mind, i am not sure it isn’t a false flag to begin with…

    At some point, Obama can’t argue both ways, as he is presently on a tactical level. At somepoint, prior to him running out the clock one more time, these two memes of “the public uttereances of private wispers” will be legally conflicted and not require standing.I find it difficult to conceive that this consistent MO of seeding a legal framework of “criminal deniability” is not being directed by some very smart individuals rather than a collection of unrelated events.

    • jbjd says:

      teakwoodkite: I am so sorry you lost your original work. How many times has that happened to so many of us! Each time, I resolve to draft my comments in Word, first; but then, I forget, until the next time I lose my ‘masterpiece’!

      I am confused about your ‘point’; but I will attempt a clear response.

      In order to ‘get’ what I have been talking about viz a viz the nature of political advertising; you need to ‘get’ why it matters that the images released are not real forms of identification but only campaign advertising covered by provisions of the U.S. Code. And nothing uttered as advertising is illegal; the old adage, ‘buyer beware,’ applies.

      So, if you are concerned as to whether the President has met Constitutional eligibility; don’t bother focusing an inquiry on these campaign ads. Instead, seek out the person who swore to the President’s eligibility, in a forum in which swearing takes on an official act. For example, go after the party officials who submitted Certifications of his eligibility to S’soS in states requiring candidate eligibility to appear on the ballot.

      The other reason I posted this series is that I want people to stop taking these political ad campaigns literally. Otherwise, we will continue to be duped by those of us who know more about how our political system works.

      As for Bob Bauer, well, he never submitted any of this tripe to a court of law. Rather, he asked the federal court to take judicial notice – technically, he wrote, the court ‘could’ take judicial notice without directly asking it to – of the fact, APFC said his client’s birth certificate was real. And, they – APFC – did say that! Of course, this doesn’t mean it is real. So far, we who are not directly involved in the campaign appear to be the only ones who conflate what is real and what is fake; the Obama team are expert at straddling the line.

      The NJ administrative case you reference was always a loser. Mr. Obama’s Constitutional eligibility is not an issue in a state that does not require eligibility to appear on the ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

      • teakwoodkite says:

        Thanks for the clarity on Bauer… I wasn’t attempting to say that the New Jersey case was a constitutional “wiener” 🙂 …just that Obama’s attorney argued the BC that Obama released was “not authentic”, when White House political operatives have said it was. Leaving aside the verbal gymnastics and legalese being used as you have noted before…since these individuals that “certified” Bo’s status as “qualified” are private, how does one get them out in the open then?

        The clocks ticking and Obama is playing to run the clock out again with distractions.

        • jbjd says:

          teakwoodkite: You wrote, “…these individuals that “certified” Bo’s status as “qualified” are private…” But that isn’t true. As I have said, under TX law, Boyd Richie, Chair of the TDP, is a public official for the purpose of providing the names of federally qualified candidates to the TX ballot, making TX is a ballot eligibility state. ADMINISTRATOR

          • teakwoodkite says:

            I am confusing the DNC individuals and the state employess. I recall that Boyd Richie refused to comply with requests made of him…so what will compel him to act? I know you’ve covered this ….

          • jbjd says:

            teakwoodkite: Yes, I have always insisted, under TX law, TDP Chair Richie – he’s an attorney, too – is a public official for the purpose of certifying names to the ballot and, as such, is subject to the TX Public Information Act (formerly known as the TX Open Records Act). Additionally, like any other public official with a ministerial duty; if Mr. Richie refuses to hand over documents requested under that act; he is subject to mandamus. (Simply, mandamus asks the court – judicial branch – to breach the doctrine of governmental separation of powers to order the election official – executive branch – to perform a ministerial act, that is, a function required by legislation. And, as I said in this article, I was right. We didn’t bother to initiate mandamus in 2010 because the goal wasn’t to obtain documents – we knew there were none – but to expose this fact so as to establish (likely) ballot fraud viz a viz his eligibility certification. And, by refusing to produce documents, Mr. Richie confirmed our suspicions. (Recall the principle in TX is, where there is a duty to disclose coupled with no disclosure, this can be construed as a lie.) JUDGE ABBOTT WOULD ORDER TDP CHAIR BOYD RICHIE TO DECLARE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA IS INELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB

            You ask, “…what will compel [Boyd Richie] to act?” Watch for the next article, to be posted at any minute now. (And, pass it on…) ADMINISTRATOR

  3. teakwoodkite says:

    the principle in TX is, where there is a duty to disclose coupled with no disclosure, this can be construed as a lie

    I take it there settled case state law in Texas for this as grounds for standing re: voter fraud and it being construed as a lie with a consistant remedy?

    The reason I am asking is ,as you pointed out, the folks running this op have “walked a fine line” and are expert at speaking the language of “WORM”. (Karl Rove was given 5 opportunities to correct his testimony)…I would expect Holders DOJ to intervene, if the weak link gets caught “holding he bag”. Given Holders DOJ’s track record on investigating voter fraud, where would they inject themselves? You need not answer if I am blowing smoke or if what I ask has merit and would tip your hand. I know it’s speculation on my part as to the possibilities…but a cornered rat will bite.

  4. kjcanon says:

    Here’s what I keep going back to, knowing NOW that “no documents existed” in 2008, which kind of brings it all home for me: If Obama didn’t launch his ad campaign “fight the smears” (which included the bogus “image” of a Hawaiian COLB) until JUNE of 2008, then what, pray-tell, did Boyd Richie have in JANUARY of 2008 that he could have used to determine the eligibility of this candidate? Nothing. Nada. Zip. But good ol’ Mr Richie certified Obama anyway for the primary election that year, and then again for the General election! Hello! ELECTION FRAUD. Pure and simple. And NOW we know that all Mr Richie used as the “basis for his certification” in 2012 was just an ‘application for candidacy’! Nothing else! I find this to be a very troubling turn of events. I don’t know about anyone in any other state, but here in Texas, is where the “BUCK STOPS”! To put this in more of a Texas accented flare – There ain’t NOTHIN’ worse than an angry Texan! Our country has been duped, and it’s time to show them who is really in charge! WE THE PEOPLE. God Bless the Lone Star State! GREAT WORK, jbjd! The Eyes of Texas are definitely upon you!

    • jbjd says:

      kjcanon: I know; readers are still focusing just on TX but, you called it: people in other states, especially those ballot eligibility states, need to consider the implications of what we have found here! And not just how these events impact individual state ballots; but rather, how the national political party manipulated this whole thing so as to mask the problem with Barack Obama’s vital documents, whatever that problem is, whether just an issue with an unpleasant personal detail or, a problem with his Constitutional eligibility for POTUS!

      And, in the hierarchy of wrongs; ignoring a citizen request for documents pales in comparison to perpetrating election fraud so as to put into the WH a President who has admitted to doubts whether he is Constitutionally eligible for the job!

      I hope that after reading this article, people at last will stop claiming, any of those supposed birth documents produced by the Obama campaign means anything (except they ran an effective political ad campaign). ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply to teakwoodkite Cancel reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: