© 2012 jbjd

ART2SUPERPAC ran a full-page ad on February 10, 2012, soliciting funds to file the next best ballot challenge to keep the name Barack Obama off the ballot in Florida. Predicting that, this ballot eligibility suit had “an excellent opportunity to succeed”; ART2 proudly proclaimed, “The Obama Defense Team has Finally Met Its Match.” And, according to them; they had cause to be confident after a perfect record of defeat. Because as they explained, this time, “we are putting together an unbeatable legal team.” So, who were these stellar legal minds contributing to the ’cause’? Well, they invoked the “expertise” of crowd favorites Donofrio, Apuzzo, and Taitz. Heading up this legal ‘dream team,’ “We have a time-sensitive opportunity to hire a top-flight, nationally known, dream attorney, Larry Klayman.” The ad touted Mr. Klayman was the founder of both Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch. He writes for WND. And, in case we still failed to grasp the profound possibilities triggered by his participation, there was this: “He has very high visibility, key contacts, presence, visibility, reputation, experience, track record. He is a “heavy hitter.””(Yes; apparently he possesses both “high visibility” and ordinary “visibility.”)

But they needed $25,000, which “must be raised in the next 96 hours,” to pull this off.

Please, read the ad, pictured below. (Note: Several other sites, including ObamaBallotChallenge and ConstitutionActionFund also solicited funds ostensibly for this same purpose, incorporating much of the same language that appears in ART2’s ad.)

I read this ad on February 15 and immediately caution people not to waste your money or your time.

jbjd | February 15, 2012 at 7:07 pm|

GORDO and coldwarvet, although I have been very busy lately and cannot check in as often as before; I want to thank you for mentioning those radio interviews on Revolution Radio. People have told me, they were able to learn more about ‘how things work’ by hearing me, than by reading me. And they have assured me, the 1 1/2 hours fly by. (At first, I was concerned that I would be unable to fill the whole time myself but, as I discovered, there was never enough time to discuss everything, anyway!)

I have been posting here since 2008. That some of you would still question my motives, which are to empower citizens to control our government; speaks ill of you, and not me.

As for funding anyone mounting a ballot challenge in a state whose citizens have not yet enacted a law requiring candidate eligibility for office to be on the ballot; well, that’s just throwing good money after bad. Whoever you are.

cw suggests, maybe my analysis is wrong.

citizenwells | February 15, 2012 at 7:18 pm|

Are you referring to challenges in the state of FL?

102.168 Contest of election.–

(1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

(2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

(3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:

(a) Misconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of any election official or any member of the canvassing board sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.

(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.

(c) Receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.

(4) The county canvassing board is an indispensable and proper party defendant in county and local elections; the Elections Canvassing Commission is an indispensable and proper party defendant in federal, state, and multicounty races; and the successful candidate is an indispensable party to any action brought to contest the election or nomination of a candidate.

(5) A statement of the grounds of contest may not be rejected, nor the proceedings dismissed, by the court for any want of form if the grounds of contest provided in the statement are sufficient to clearly inform the defendant of the particular proceeding or cause for which the nomination or election is contested.

(6) A copy of the complaint shall be served upon the defendant and any other person named therein in the same manner as in other civil cases under the laws of this state. Within 10 days after the complaint has been served, the defendant must file an answer admitting or denying the allegations on which the contestant relies or stating that the defendant has no knowledge or information concerning the allegations, which shall be deemed a denial of the allegations, and must state any other defenses, in law or fact, on which the defendant relies. If an answer is not filed within the time prescribed, the defendant may not be granted a hearing in court to assert any claim or objection that is required by this subsection to be stated in an answer.

(7) Any candidate, qualified elector, or taxpayer presenting such a contest to a circuit judge is entitled to an immediate hearing. However, the court in its discretion may limit the time to be consumed in taking testimony, with a view therein to the circumstances of the matter and to the proximity of any succeeding election

Bill G seems to agree, I must be wrong.

Bill G | February 15, 2012 at 7:20 pm|

Florida filing delivered. Well done. Supported by arguments we have seen from many others including Leo and Mario. On the merits this looks very strong. How FL will weasel out of it will be interesting to see.

But, I am right. (I have bolded the first paragraph.)

jbjd | February 15, 2012 at 7:45 pm|

CW, any challenge the basis of which is this law involves only the candidate chosen by primary based on the certification of the votes. The Presidential candidate is not chosen by primary but by nominating convention.

If these people are basing their challenge on this law then, they have no idea what they are doing.

I couldn’t say which is worse; basing a challenge on the wrong law or the wrong facts. I suppose, if the challenge is brought by an attorney, I would have to say, it is worse to launch a baseless challenge using the wrong law.

On June 29, 2012, the court issued its decision on the FL Ballot Challenge filed by “dream” “heavy hitter” Attorney Klayman. (I have bolded a couple of lines.)

Because I find that the plaintiff has not and cannot state a cause of action for the relief requested under Section 102.168, Florida Statutes, I grant the motions to dismiss with prejudice.There are several deficiencies in the complaint, but the biggest problem, and one which cannot be overcome by amending the complaint, is that Section 102.168, Florida Statutes, is not applicable to the nomination of a candidate for Office of President of the United States.

That’s right. Just as I warned back in February; Klayman et. al were using the wrong law.

By the way, know what the words “with prejudice” mean?

In civil procedure, when a court dismisses a case “with prejudice,” it means that the court intends for that dismissal to be final in all courts, and that res judicata should bar that claim from being reasserted in another court. A dismissal “without prejudice” means the plaintiff is free to refile the claim in a different court.

In other words; he cannot file this case, in this court or any other court, again. But, not surprisingly, he is not going to let this fact stop him. ObamaBallotChallenge posted his reaction to the adverse ruling.

Larry Klayman’s initial comments:

“The decision issued today by Judge Terry Lewis was poorly reasoned and written. It goes against prior Florida Supreme Court precedent in particular, thus making our chances on appeal great. The judge also equated being a citizen with a natural born citizen and cited no authority to conclude the two terms are the same. In any event, Plaintiff Michael Voeltz filed a new complaint today for declaratory relief which will, in addition to his appeal, now proceed forward. In short, we remain confident that if the Florida courts ultimately decide to obey their own election law, we will prevail in the end.”

Hopefully; at this point, you recognize that, the promises made here cannot be fulfilled.

I began advising people on August 2, 2008, weeks before the Presidential nominating conventions, when I knew far less about our elections process than I do now; if you think a candidate is ineligible for office then, the only way to keep him out of office is to keep his name off the general election ballot. CHALLENGING BO’S ELIGIBILITY TO GET ONTO THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT AS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR POTUS  “In fact, throughout the entire election process, only one opportunity is prescribed in writing to confirm the candidate’s eligibility: when the state in which the candidate seeks to get onto the general election ballot has enacted both a law that says any candidate seeking to get onto the ballot in that state has to satisfy the requirements of the office sought; AND a law that provides for challenging the candidate’s eligibility under state law.” FIND OUT WHETHER BARACK OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE II OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND STOP THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FROM VOTING FOR HIM, IF HE IS NOT!

A few years and countless hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted on dozens of frivolous court and administrative law cases later, the better marketed birther attorneys – Donofrio, Apuzzo, Taitz, and now, Klayman – finally focused their crusade against Barack Obama, on ballot challenges. Only, they don’t know what they are doing. As I just proved. (Either that or, they keep messing up because there is money in doing it wrong.)

For years, I have been advising that Texas has the best laws for carrying out a viable ballot challenge. But, as I have done in every state with applicable ballot eligibility laws; I required the citizens of Texas to spearhead the ballot challenge in their state. (And in states without such laws, it’s up to those citizens to enact them.) I have done so primarily on the basis, I actually believe in state sovereignty. (And, I am no one’s savior. It’s your ballot; you fix it. I can show you how.) Finally, in January 2012, Texas citizen/activist Kelly Canon contacted me. Kelly had read my work beginning 4 years ago, even before I began this blog. But as I was the only birther lawyer advocating ballot challenges; she (like so many others) shifted her focus to the gambits of those other attorneys, getting lost in the quagmire that is the minutia of eligibility. She had even begun dissecting the amicus tome Leo submitted to the Administrative Law Judge in GA, engaged in the futile exercise of trying to fix on a definition of NBC! (It isn’t over until the federal appellate court justices sing!) She also read my prediction that GA’s ballot challenge would fail, and my detailed explanation as to why. That’s when, as she describes it, something ‘clicked.’ And she ‘knew’ in order to make sure the Texas ballot only contained the names of federally qualified candidates; she needed my help. And, she convinced me, she was ready to commit her time and energies to seeing this through.

For the next several months, we worked to assemble the record required to launch a viable ballot challenge. And we exposed that both the Republicans and Democrats have failed to federally qualify to appear on the general election ballot. Our efforts are loosely chronicled in TEXAS BALLOT CHALLENGE CHALLENGE (You can also listen to our last show on LoneStarRadio, On the Radio 06.30.12.) And we pulled all this off, on our ‘dime.’ Because we had to. Until we could no longer afford to.

Having accurately and with specificity predicted in February the court’s rejection of the FL ballot challenge; when the decision issued at the end of June, I was so frustrated, I felt like screaming, ‘I told you so!’ But, I never (ever) say, ‘I told you so.’ On the other hand; Kelly, having dedicated her life to our work for the past 6 months; on seeing the resources that, for the past 4 years have been squandered on “charlatans”; insists, it needs to be said.

So, in honor of her Herculean efforts to assemble the Texas Ballot Challenge case we now have no money to present, anyway; and, on her instructions; let me say this one time: I TOLD YOU SO!



15 Responses to INELIGIBLE to MERIT your SUPPORT

  1. kjcanon says:

    I’m posting this from my android phone, so let’s see if this works…..

    jbjd has been right ALL ALONG!!!! It amazes me that more people (especially Texans!) haven’t started to “see the light”!!! You should hav been flooded with more from my state! By now (after the Florida hearings) they WILL.

    Thank you jbjd!!!!

    • jbjd says:

      kjcanon: If not for you, people across the country still would not know ‘how it’s done.’ Just for example; assuming state political parties fulfill traditionally public functions like submitting candidates names which are entitled to appear on the ballot 1) enact laws that say, when they act like public officials, they are subject to all laws with respect to public officials; and 2) make sure these laws are enforced with respect to political parties.

      I cannot tell you how proud I am that, when we ‘discovered’ the R’s being proposed for VP cannot be said to have federally qualified for the TX general election ballot; you concluded their names should not appear, either. Fair is fair. And you didn’t even yet realize, voters could still elect Electors for both the R Presidential and VP candidate, anyway! (But I would bet you were relieved when I explained, just because the name did not appear on the ballot did not mean, they would not win the Electoral College election!) ADMINISTRATOR

  2. dualer says:

    And of course you are wrong again (as usual) jbjd. Florida law allows a contest of “election or nomination” of “ANY CANDIDATE”. Florida statutes have supplied an avenue to contest “ANY CANDIDATE” (there is no exclusion of POTUS candidates) even if there is no Primary election. SS. 101.252 says that ANY CANDIDATE who qualifies in “as precscribed by law” and is the only one qualified for a primary ballot SHALL be considered nominated, and no primary will be held. Therefore Obama was nominated (and which Federal Election Law 100.2(c)(5) says he was “considered to be” elected). The “as prescribed by law” would account for the differing way POTUS candidates qualify. DUH!

    Judge Lewis’ decision doesn’t comport to Law 101 Statutory Construction principles, that say 1) he can’t read into the statutes that which is not there (there is NOTHING in the statutes saying a POTUS Primary is any different w/ regard to 102.168, or 101.252). 2) the plain words of the statute say Obama was nominated. 3) the statutes should be read as a harmonious whole (when read together it is obvious that 102.168(1), 101.252(1), and 103.101(4) are read separately and complimentary) 4) the construction of a statute cannot make inoperable or moot another (to say that 101.252 does not apply to Obama would make 102.168 inoperable, and political parties could evade eligibility challenges simpy by only qualifying 1 candidate).

    Lewis has attempted to create a prarallel statutory configuration for POTUS Primaries that is simply not in the statutes, and I will destroy his silly decision on appeal (but I have no illusions that the judiciary is not on lockdown, and will find some gymnastics of logic to say no). Of course your silly circular logic will not allow you to even comprehend Law 101. This is Mick, by the way. I have embarrassed you at your “law blog” many times, even though you purport to be a “lawyer”. By the way how are those ballot challenges you propose coming? — The ones that seek to force SOSs to verify what you say doesn’t exist.

    • kjcanon says:

      Dualer, you know NOT what you speak. And that’s the nicest think I can say on a public forum. Do us all a favor, and brush-up on your reading comprehension skills. jbjd has predicted (correctly) each and every ballot challenge thus far. Prey tell (based on your warped logic) how you can conclude she is wrong? Wait… Scratch that. I could really not care less. Here in Texas, what we like to say in response to your innane conclusion that jbjd is ‘wrong as usual’ we like say the following: “That dog don’t hunt.”. ‘Nuff said.

      • jbjd says:

        kjcanon: Dualer’s unsubstantiated unceasing claims that I have no idea what I am talking about; stem principally from this fact. There is no legally binding definition of NBC. And, of course, my repetition of this fact. He maintains, if what I say is true then, no ballot eligibility law can be sustained to remove an ostensibly ineligible Presidential candidate from the ballot. But, as your comment indicates, he doesn’t understand the law (inasmuch as he doesn’t actually read the blog). Otherwise, he would know that, where a state has enacted a candidate ballot eligibility law (Legislative branch); the SoS (Executive branch) must implement rules and regulations to carry this out. And, in TX, which has such a law, SoS Andrade said, this federal eligibility can be satisfied through a ballot application.

        Only, no D’s filed this ballot application. ADMINISTRATOR

        • A.P. says:

          Re: There is no legally binding definition of NBC. And, of course, my repetition of this fact. ”

          (link to ART2 deleted by jbjd)

          • jbjd says:

            A.P.: You actually direct people reading the “jbjd” blog, to ART2, to find a legally binding definition of NBC? HA HA HA HA HA! ADMINISTRATOR

      • A.P. says:

        When did jbjd or canon become experts on Florida law? jbjd made sweeping statements generalizing laws in the states, which have pronounced differences. Please read and understand the statutes before bloviating.

        Do you honestly believe that all the attorneys and plaintiffs were totally wrong? I have been through the NH, NJ, GA, AL, FL cases, which were legitimate, but denied on bogus grounds. Did you know that even Mickey Mouse could run for President on the NJ ballot? Those were Obama’s lawyer’s words in court, embraced by the judge (she was removed from the case that week for her brutal frankness). Total nonsense, of course, but this is what passes for jurisprudence in 2012 America.

        By the way, what ever happened to your TX administrative complaint? For various reasons, the power structure does not want Obama stopped. It will affect your new case(s), too. The solution is to mobilize public opinion– even take it to the streets if necessary. that will not happen until the pain level is high enough. Unfortunately, that may not happen before the election.

        In the meantime, stop deluding yourself and stop badmouthing fellow patriots.

        • jbjd says:

          A.P.: The judge issued an adverse ruling in the FL ballot challenge, a case grounded in FL law, in which he paraphrased the language I had used to predict this same outcome, almost 5 months earlier.

          No Petitioner will prevail in a ballot eligibility case, in whatever state forum; when that state has no law requiring that any candidate whose name appears on the ballot must be eligible for the job.

          (Just to clarify your point that Mickey Mouse could appear on the NJ ballot, under the laws of that state. Yes, he could. Given that the citizens of that state have failed to enact laws that would bar such farce. However; notwithstanding there are no ballot eligibility laws to prevent this; the SoS, as the head of elections, may lawfully exercise the discretion of her office to keep off the ballot the name of someone she already knows is Constitutionally unqualified for the job.)

          And, a correction. You write, “…stop badmouthing fellow patriots.” Of course, I don’t ‘badmouth fellow patriots’ in the first place. ADMINISTRATOR

          • A.P. says:

            You are sounding more and more like an obot. Dualer showed you the exact statutes and relevant wording, which you choose to ignore.

            Try reading the complaints and motions, instead of just a ruling riddled with errors and omissions of fact and law.

            I have not seen the results of your previous complaint. Since Obama is still on the Texas ballot, I’ll hazard a guess that it was denied or ignored.

          • jbjd says:

            A.P.: I am not relitigating the case. The judge said, Plaintiffs used the wrong law. (Please, if you believe the word “nominate” in FL law, applies equally to both 1) party candidates who are nominated to represent the party on the November ballot, as the result of votes cast by voters in the primary election; and 2) party candidates who are nominated by votes cast by pledged delegates at national party nominating conventions; say that.)

            In the 4 years since the last general election; too bad more self-described patriots did not encourage voters in FL to shore up their election laws, rather than to just give them money, and more money, for the righteous battles purportedly fought on others’ behalf. Even now, your comments indicate you fail to grasp; election laws which were unable to guarantee the federal qualifications of candidates for office in 2008; are the same laws which will prevent unqualified candidates from appearing on the ballot in 2012. And all the diatribes against me will not change this fact: I am not the reason, citizens have failed to fix their laws.

            Under TX law; no candidate who is not federally qualified is entitled to appear on the general election ballot. But until we could obtain the documents used by the D state party; we could not prove what I had only theorized since 2008: no one who certified Barack Obama to the state ballot could have ascertained he was federally qualified for the job. Until that time; we could only hope to establish, under TX law; not producing documents was tantamount to saying, there are none.

            But either way; that is, even if no legal mechanism existed to verify a party candidate had been federally qualified; once this fact was established, back in 2010, when people first requested and the party refused to produce their documents; why would citizens put up with that, when federal qualification was a prerequisite to getting on the ballot? In other words; why didn’t they insist that the SoS had to verify those party candidates had been federally qualified to appear on the ballot or that she couldn’t certify their names to the ballot without evidence of such validation? I don’t know. ADMINISTRATOR

          • A.P. says:

            You obviously can’t//won’t read or understand the statutes shown you by dualer. Mere repetition of your misinterpretion won’t make it so.

          • jbjd says:

            A.P.: The FL legislature is not in session – it finished its work in May 2012 – but, it can be called into special session, to pass any laws with respect to getting on the 2012 general election ballot. But to all of you D’s in FL who crave better ballot eligibility laws and are upset with the recent adverse ruling in the FL ballot challenge; take heart in knowing you would likely not succeed in petitioning your legislature to act, anyway, given that the R’s have controlled both the FL House and Senate for the past 14 years. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. dualer says:

    You speak exactly like the typical Obot Internet operative– “the law doesn’t say what you think”, “poor reading comprehension skills”, etc. The SOS doesn’t implement rules– the legislature does– the SOS carries out the rules made by the legislature. Every ballot challenge has been dismissed by the “standing” principle– not on the merits of the case. The judiciary is compromised— so it’s not hard to predict. I have perfect standing, but Lewis is making up nonsense to say I don’t, just so they don’t have to reach the merits. The plain words of the ss. 101.252 says that Obama was “nominated” to the DNC Convention by the Dem. party Florida delegation:

    “101.252 Candidates entitled to have names printed on certain ballots; exception.—(1) Any candidate for nomination who has qualified as prescribed by law is entitled to have his or her name printed on the official primary election ballot. However, when there is only one candidate of any political party qualified for an office, the name of the candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot, and such candidate shall be declared nominated for the office”.

    Notice it says “Any candidate for nomination”, and “who has qualified as prescribed by law”. Obama is a candidate for nomination AND he is the only candidate qualified to be on the ballot in Fla., thus he was “nominated”. You are outing yourself as an Obama internet operative– I see you’re getting “help” from another OBOT (kjcanon)– you better get reinforcements, because neither of you are smart enuf.— I knew all along that you work for the other side.

    I have perfect standing, and Fla Siupreme Court says “eligibility is a judicial determination, upon any contest properly brought.” I presented evidence that Obama is not eligible, and the other side presented NOTHING but an argument that he wasn’t “nominated” (he was). Go ahead show us all more about how brilliant you are in suggesting that SOSs be sued for not determining that which you say doesn’t exist.

    • jbjd says:

      dualer: I learned long ago, repeating the law in a good faith attempt to respond to your comments, is a total waste of time. That’s why I stopped responding. However, I will take this welcome opportunity to correct your mischaracterization that Kelly Canon blindly supports any particular candidate, of any party. 1) Kelly is a registered Republican. 2) She was a delegate at the TX R state senate precinct caucus, and even managed to correct the resolution on eligibility which they proposed to put in the national party plank at the Presidential nominating convention. They wanted the candidates to provide birth certificates; Kelly explained, no identification document is official which has not been generated by the “issuing authority” and conveyed directly from them to the government recipient. The amended resolution passed but was somehow omitted for the R state convention. How do we know? Because 3) Kelly attended the R state convention, as a delegate. 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: