August 19, 2009

© 2009 jbjd

Ever since I came out as a Birther, people who euphemistically stood shoulder to shoulder with me to support Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama during  the Democratic  Presidential primary process have banished me to the status of ‘other,’ discounting completely the caliber of work I produced throughout those months I devoted to the Herculean task of getting her  name called in the roll at the 2008 Democratic Nation Convention.  Because every time they ridicule the Birthers, they make fun of me.

Ricki Lieberman, the Democratic fundraiser and staunch party loyalist in NY, once heralded my work on behalf of her ‘girl.’  For example, she got wind of the investigation I conducted just before the DNC Convention involving vote binding states.  Voters in these vote binding states enacted laws that require delegates pledged to a candidate as the result of votes cast in the primary, must follow that candidate onto the floor of the Convention.  Through my research of all 50 states, I uncovered 13 such vote-binding states.  Further, I detected that BO and his troops were harassing HRC pledged delegates in vote binding states, trying to coerce them into changing their votes to him, in advance of the Convention.   In other words, by pressuring these pledged HRC delegates in vote binding states to change their minds, BO and his supporters were enticing them to break the law.   And I said so, in letters I drafted to the A’sG in all 13 vote binding states, which letters  I arranged to be sent by state residents.  Ricki was so impressed with my find, she featured my work in the famous email newsletter she distributes via email to party activists throughout the country.

But here is the cartoon Ricki put in the latest edition.

Nick Anderson, Houston Chronicle.

As a Birther, I am now banned from posting on self-identifying PUMA blogs that once featured my work on behalf of their candidate.  Here’s what riverdaughter wrote on the Confluence:

We’re not birthers.  Sorry, birthers, we don’t care about the birth certificate.  In fact, the birth certificate issue works brilliantly for both parties.  For the GOP, whipping up a frenzy about it helps them establish a new base of supporters.  For the Obama administration, keeping the issue alive makes its detractors look like irrational nutjobs.  Take this as a warning, former PUMAs: drop the birther thing before you lose all credibility.  You are not going to dislodge Obama with the birth certificate question.  For good or ill, he’s the president for the next four years. http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/08/08/when-fooling-enough-of-the-people-most-of-the-time-stops-working/

And this, spoken during a tirade directed at the Democratic Senate Fundraising Committee, after being contacted by a fundraiser on their behalf:

Get a clue, guys.  You took our votes and forced Obama down our throats in your primary rape fantasy and we’re not ever going to forget it. ..You’ll never get a penny from me.  And you may never get my vote again.  You don’t have to be a crazy nutcase birther to know the devils by the look in  their eyes. http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/thursday-morning-news-and-note-to-the-dscc/

And this, linking to another article berating us in the NYT:

The Birthers are back. Birther prophylactic: we are not nor ever have been associated with the birther movement.  It’s a pointless distraction.  I figure that the Clinton Campaign would have been perfectly within its rights to have Obama disqualified if he were not a natural born citizen.  It wouldn’t have been character assassination.  It would have been a constittuional issue.  But Bill Clinton himself said that Obama met the minimum requirements for being president, which I interpret to mean that they looked into it and there’s no THERE there.  I don’t know why Obama needs to produce the exact original of his birth certificate to satisfy the birther crowd but I can think of a really good reason why he wouldn’t: it makes the birthers look like a bunch of complete loonies if he occasionally stirs up the issue.  Birthers, please don’t try to defend yourselves on this blog.  We’re really not interested.  http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/thursday-morning-breakfast/

The issue that appears to have united people who supported either BO or HRC during the D primary is their mutual contempt for the Birthers.  Look at what Annenberg Political Fact Check wrote on their web site, referencing those Birthers who would throw out even the image they posted of a “contemporaneous” newspaper birth announcement to discredit his HI birth:

Of course, it’s distantly possible that Obama’s grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat.  http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

For your information, that I identify as a Birther does not mean, there is no more value to hearing anything I have to say.  Here is just a hint of work I have done for the ’cause,’  lately.

My investigation revealed, that  image of the ‘newspaper announcement’ APFC had been touting as proof of BO’s HI birth had been boosted from another blog, posted there by an anonymous blogger.  APFC posted the phantom image on their blog and then,  without authenticating that image any further, claimed this “contemperaneous birth announcement” meant the “evidence is clear” BO was born in the U.S.  I also demonstrated that in January 2009, BO finessed APFC’s reference to that phantom announcement to try to trick the federal court in Hollister to take “notice” he was an American citizen!  And backtracking from those admissions in BO’s written pleadings to the judge, I established that, Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, had no documentary proof Barack Obama is as a Natural Born Citizen when she Certified to state elections officials 4 (four) months earlier, he was Constitutionally eligible for the job of President.   (See on this blog, RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’; and IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS un-AMERICAN THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO.)  Indeed, as I explained in my posts, that photocopy of the COLB BO put on his FTS web site in June 2008 must have been the best evidence he produced to prove he is a NBC at the time NP signed those Certifications in August 2008, which went to state elections officials so they would print his name on the general election ballot.  Because that’s the same ‘evidence’ he later used to try to authenticate himself (as a U.S. citizen), before a federal court judge.  (Of course, the best evidence he could have submitted to the court in January 2009 to prove his Constitutional eligibility for POTUS would have been NP’s August 2008 Certification.)

Citizens in some states have enacted laws saying, THE CANDIDATE FOR POTUS FROM THE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY MUST BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB.  If NP and the DNC  swore to elections officials in those states that BO was a NBC to get those elections officials to print his name on the general election ballot, before they actually determined whether he was Constitutionally eligible for the job, then they perpetrated election fraud.  Again, I am asking citizens in those states to call for their A’sG to begin investigation.

See, just because you make fun of Birthers does not mean, we have nothing worthwhile to say.  Nor does stifling dissent through ridicule validate anything you have to say, once you are exposed as a hack organization.

Old Clinton Hands Line Up Behind Gillibrand


August 9, 2009

UPDATE 04.22.10:  I have replaced the link to the APFC web site containing the image of the unattributed ‘contemporaneous birth announcement,’ with a screen capture of that ‘now you see it; now you don’t’ facsimile.

(Update 08.11.09:  After you have read this article, make sure to read the readers’ comments, along with my (sometimes lengthy) replies.  “Miri” took the lessons learned from my post one step further, offering up a classic example of the de-construction of BO-speak, in her Comment submitted on 08.11.09 at 1:45 PM.)



Last night, I  received this brief comment from jan C.

jbjd: I have been told that the Honolulu Observer states that the birth information published comes from hospitals.  Is that confirmed anywhere?  What is your explanation for the existence of the newspaper birth announcements if he was not born in the hospital?

I conducted some research to prepare my response, and stumbled across  information that blunts another arrow of authenticity in BO’s quiver.

jan C: Welcome.

I generally stay out of discussions as to whether photocopied or scanned documents posted on the web are real.  (Your guess is as good as mine.)  Instead, I try to find out where the image came from.

I remember BO did not post that newspaper birth announcement image on his FTS web site.   (I don’t mean now that the site belongs to the DNC; I mean even before the switch, back when it  was still paid for by Obama for America.)  I always thought this was odd.  He posted the COLB, and the admission that he was a British subject at birth whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.  And I can picture the official logo of Annenberg Political FactCheck.org, which linked to APFC’s web site, where more testimonials were printed as to BO’s Constitutional legitimacy.  I recall how incredulous I was at the time, that he would publicly tout Annenberg as an “independent” arbiter of his eligibility to be POTUS, since that was his boss when he was Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.  (Doesn’t everyone know that?)  I did remember seeing that birth announcement posted on APFC’s web site; so that’s where I went first.

The image of that newspaper birth announcement is  still there.

I clicked on the image to trace its origin.  But wherever I clicked, I kept getting back to the blog named td, or texas darlin.  That is, I got to a screen with a td header and message saying ‘what you want is no longer here.’  Well, I post on td’s blog; in fact, she calls me their “resident lawyer.”  (She is on my blog roll.)  So the first time this happened, I figured, too many windows open, too many thumbs.  Then, it happened again. And now  it dawned on me, could it be that td’s site is the source of the picture of the newspaper announcement APFC posts on their site and uses to prove BO is a NBC; and APFC  merely copied it?

Just below the image, I found my answer: The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded Obama “likely” was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu. Say what?   But APFC must have conducted their own investigation, right?  Surely, they contacted the Honolulu Advertiser to check the facts surrounding this birth announcement publication.  Of course they viewed the archives and located that same image from microfiche or other medium.  Reading just a little further, I was bound to find the record of such comprehensive investigation.  But here was APFC’s last word on the subject.

Of course, it’s distantly possible that Obama’s grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday.  We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat.  The evidence is clear:  Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.


In sum, the image of that announcement of BO’s birth in the Honolulu Advertiser posted on APFC came from an anonymous poster on the td blog.  APFC usurped that image, posted this on its site, and with no further evidence of authentication declared, “The evidence is clear:  Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.”

Yet, despite this overwhelming evidence the image of BO’s birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser posted on APFC and all over the internet,  is fake; BO tried to fool a federal judge into finding this was real, too.

Hollister v. Soetoro et. al is only one of the many unsuccessful lawsuits filed against BO in a frantic attempt to ascertain whether he is a NBC.  As in every other case, BO submitted a Motion to Dismiss.  (Defendants’ Motion in Hollister argued Plaintiff had failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted; and failed to establish the court had jurisdiction.  This was all procedural; the court had not yet reached the substantive merits of the case.)  I had read Plaintiff’s Complaint when it was first filed; I knew it was infirm, and the reasons why.  So, I would not have read BO’s Motion to Dismiss if someone hadn’t asked my opinion.  And there, in footnote 1 on the front page of the Memorandum in support of his Motion, I found this sneaky little gem of propaganda, arguably placed there to reap maximum attention from the public as much as the court.  Written quite cleverly so as to disguise its real meaning, the footnote is more easily understood with translation.

1 President Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii. (BO left out that by “publicly produced” he meant, he posted the image of a COLB on the internet.) ( You already know the difference between a certification and a certificate, at least before October 2008, when HI began using the terms interchangeably.) See, e.g., (this means, to back up the point I just made, I am going to use a reference that is not directly on point and only kind of related.) Factcheck.org, (He leaves out the Annenberg Political…) “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections 2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper). (Now, this is a double slight of hand.  First, BO says (AP)FC “conclud[ed]” that the BC is real, so as to reaffirm for the court, the statement he made above that he produced a birth certificate must be true.  Notice he fails to draw any nexus between his producing the BC and, APFC “concluding” it is real, only implying such nexus exists.)  (Look at how cleverly he slipped in a reference to the meaningless newspaper announcement of his birth.  He says, APFC “not[ed] a contemporaneous birth announcement.”  But he does not say they only made this note of it:  “The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded Obama “likely” was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu.”) (By formatting his cite in this way, he maximizes the likelihood that a quick read would bamboozle a clerk into mistaking this to be a holding of law from a court case instead of merely a reference to the opinion of his former employer expressed in a blog posting.) Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” (He is clearly trying to put one over on the court.  As I explained in detail in a prior post, ” jbjd BIRTHER,” HI officials did not say that the “original birth certificate” “on record”  they are referring to, confirms BO was born in HI; nor did they confirm the COLB he posted saying he was born in HI, is authentic; or that the information contained in that on-line COLB matches the information in their files.) See (This means, the next reference is not directly on point but is kind of related.) “Certified,” Honolulu Star Bulletin, Oct. 31, 2008. This Court can take judicial notice of these public news reports. (Whoever wrote this is playing fast and loose with the canons of ethics.  Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, judicial notice means, the court accepts as true that fact not subject to reasonable dispute because it is generally known as true, or it is capable of accurate and ready determination.  The process of judicial notice is the easiest way for the parties to get evidence into the record.  TECHNICALLY, everything BO alleges here is easily verified as true.  Of course, nothing he says here can be understood to mean what he intends the Court to hear.  But if the Court took judicial notice of the fact, APFC said, he’s for real, he would spin this into the narrative, the federal court has ruled he is a NBC, much in the same way APFC insists, an image of a newspaper birth announcement stolen from a blogger is “clear” “evidence”  BO is a NBC.) See The Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Agee v. Muskie, 629 F.2d 80, 81 n.1, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1980). (Presumably, these are cites to cases that contain some vague indication that judicial notice could possibly be taken under the set of facts alleged here; and in light of the fact, the case hasn’t even progressed past the Motion to Dismiss stage.)


Thankfully, the only thing the court granted BO in Hollister was a Dismissal.

Hollister was filed in January 2009.  But beginning back in July 2008, I surmised, the strongest piece of evidence BO could produce to verify his Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, is that COLB he posted on FTS, which means nothing.  By placing that footnote in his Motion to Dismiss in Hollister, he validated my suspicions.  If he had ‘evidence’ of eligibility with more gravitas than a photocopied COLB; or a phantom image of a newspaper birth announcement, he would have asked the federal judge to take judicial notice of that.  And surely, if that announcement of birth in the Honolulu Advertiser meant anything, he would have posted this on FTS.  (So, on what basis did NP and the DNC Certify BO is a NBC?)

In sum, the newspaper announcement of BO’s birth is a sham, making the rest of your questions moot.

UPDATE 08.14.09: Based on his submission of this footnote to the federal court in January, I am surmising that the strongest evidence BO could have provided to NP to verify his Constitutional status before she Certified his eligibility for POTUS on August 27; was this same APFC characterization of authenticity.  BUT THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE HE HAD TO PROVE TO THE COURT HE WAS A NBC; WAS THAT CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION NP SIGNED AND FORWARDED TO STATE ELECTIONS OFFICIALS SO THAT HIS NAME COULD BE PRINTED ON THE STATE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOTS!  This begs the question:  why did lawyers from PERKINS COIE ask the court to take judicial notice their client was for real by referencing a web site run by the organization APFC, given that they could have cited his authentication as a natural born citizen in any one of the 50 Official DNC Certifications of Nomination sworn to by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives?

UPDATE 01.31.10: For more de-construction of Bob Bauer’s infamous footnote in Hollister, see https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/bob-bauer-rumored-to-be-next-white-house-counsel-to-federal-court-f-you/; and https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/counsel-for-dnc-services-corporation-performs-3-card-monte-for-federal-court/(Also see any of the citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG.)



August 1, 2009


In response to a comment on a blog, I contacted one of the attorneys involved in a court case seeking to determine whether BO is a NBC.  I received a reply asking for help.  Here is my response.


I am glad you took me up on my offer to help.

I haven’t formalized my ideas, so I will just throw these out for now.

Okay, let’s talk Plaintiffs, first.  (FYI, I am the person who conceived using National Guard soon-to-be-deployed, as Plaintiffs to gain standing in federal court in a Declaratory Judgment case under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act – these Plaintiffs are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice until they are federalized – because they could be subject to becoming Defendants in a subsequent prosecution related to whether BO is a NBC…  I am the same person who began posting last summer that a “Certification” is not a “Certificate”; unfortunately, this was right after Berg had already filed his first Complaint, calling the document posted on BO’s “Fight the Smears” site, a “Certificate.”)

Pledged Delegates for HRC who switched to BO; or who were pledged to BO in the first place, and voted for him at the DNC Convention, but would not have voted for him had they known, he is not a NBC, would have standing as Plaintiffs in a civil action for (fraud, unjust enrichment…).  ESPECIALLY DESIRABLE ARE PLEDGED DELEGATES FROM THOSE STATES THAT HAVE ENACTED LAWS REQUIRING DELEGATES PLEDGED AS THE RESULT OF PRIMARY VOTING MUST FOLLOW THEIR CANDIDATES ONTO THE FLOOR OF THE CONVENTION.  (There are around 13 of these ‘binding vote’ states; I have the list.)  And some of these vote binding states also have laws about ballot access, that require the candidate for POTUS from the major political party must be eligible for the job.  (None of these states requires any government official to check.)  Off the top of my head, I know GA is both a vote binding state AND a state requiring the party candidate to be eligible for the job.

As for strategy… Months ago, when drafting the Declaratory Judgment case I mentioned above, I reasoned, it made no sense to try to support a claim, BO is not a NBC.   Instead, I argued, Plaintiffs had reasonable cause to believe, he might not be a NBC, based in large part on his own words and actions.  But since that time, things have changed, especially with regard to these 4 (four) events.  1) Several people have contacted Nancy Pelosi qua Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention to ask on what basis she Certified BO is a NBC.  She refused to respond.  2) HI officials have spoken in circles in a botched attempt to ‘confirm’ BO is a NBC.  3) BO, personally (before being sworn in) and through his spokespeople, continue to dodge the issue by lying that the Certification is a Certificate and proves he is a NBC.  4) In Berg’s Hollister case, BO Motion to Dismiss contained a footnote asking the court to take judicial notice that Annenberg Political Fact Check said he’s for real; and that an announcement of his birth had been published in a HI newspaper.  (Of course, if the judge had taken judicial notice, we lawyers would have known, this meant nothing; but everyone else would have interpreted this to mean, the court has ruled, he is a NBC.  Thank goodness, the court did no such thing.  However, this confirmed my suspicions, as spelled out in the earlier draft of the military Complaint, that the strongest ‘evidence’ BO could proffer to establish he is a NBC, is that stupid photocopied on-line Certification; which means nothing!) Taken together, this could form a good faith belief in a reasonable person that no evidence exists that would establish, BO is a NBC.  SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRODUCTION TO HIM!  And as for objections to this strategy, argue “unclean hands” (you blocked access to all documentation and now cannot argue, we cannot submit proof); or unjust enrichment (you distributed the COLB to Daily Kos and Annenberg Political Fact Check in order to refute “rumors” about your citizenship status – you said so, on your “Fight the Smears” site – and now, having banked on that COLB, it isn’t fair to raise privilege and confidentiality to block our access to those records that could verify whether your claims are true).

Finally, to overcome claims of sovereign immunity, I would drop all claims against conduct that occurred viz a viz the Congressional ratification of the EC vote; rather, go after NP as Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention.  Go after any other actors not as failed Congresspeople but as co-conspirators to the fraud.

I know this is a lot to digest; let me know what you think.  (I am not going to proof this because I want to get it out ASAP.)


%d bloggers like this: