June 25, 2012

UPDATED 06.26.12: See update at bottom of article.

© 2012 jbjd

Disagreeing with me on a point of legal interpretation doesn’t per se mean you don’t know what you are talking about. But when Assistant AG June Harden rejected Kelly Canon’s complaint that the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) had violated the Public Information Act (“PIA” or “the Act”) by refusing to produce certain election-related documents; explaining to Ms. Canon that, political parties are not covered by the Act, well, Ms. Harden had no idea what she was talking about.

For the past 12 years, Harden has been the Senior Managing Attorney for Public Outreach in the Open Records Division of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas. Before joining the OAG, she served as Special Counsel to Senator Gregory Luna of Bexar County.  Id. Ms. Harden received her undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University and her J.D. from Texas Tech University School of Law. Id. She has been working at the AG since December 1995; her current annual salary is $80,000.

Judging by her bona fides; by now, she should know her job in and out. But she doesn’t. And I can prove it. First, some background information, which has been covered in previous articles.

The legal standard for getting the name of the Presidential candidate from the major political party on the general election ballot in Texas is spelled out in §192.031 PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT.  The first of four prongs to entitlement is, the person must be “federally qualified” for the job. Id. But no law specifically designates whose responsibility it is to determine either in the first instance, whether the candidate is federally qualified; or, at some point after the political party has electronically submitted the name of the candidate to the Secretary of State (“SoS”) and before she certifies the name to the ballot, whether anyone has previously determined s/he is federally qualified for the job. However, we know that the Secretary does not verify Constitutional eligibility; and so, Ms. Canon determined to find out on what documentary basis both the RPT (Republican Party of TX) and TDP had determined their 2012 Presidential candidates’ federal qualifications. The RPT returned their candidate applications which, like those applications designed by the Secretary for Independent and Write-in candidates, contained the Constitutionally qualified self-affirmation. The TDP returned the candidates’ unauthenticated applications. (See BALLOT ENTITLEMENT LAWS should DISQUALIFY PRESIDENT OBAMA in TEXAS.)

But that’s not what Canon asked for; so she filed a complaint with the AG charging the TDP had violated the PIA. Pending receipt of the actual opinion letter; Ms. Harden telephoned her response.

According to Harden, the TDP is not covered by the PIA. Why? Because, as she told Ms. Canon; under Title 5 of 552.003, Definitions, political parties are not identified as government entities. And, technically she’s right. That is, the TDP is not a government entity. But this fact alone does not end the analysis as to whether the documents requested are covered under the Act. For example, had she read section 552.002; she would have seen this.

Sec. 552.002.  DEFINITION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION; MEDIA CONTAINING PUBLIC INFORMATION.  (a)  In this chapter, “public information” means information that is collected, assembled, or maintained under a law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business:

(1)  by a governmental body;  or

(2)  for a governmental body and the governmental body owns the information or has a right of access to it.

This means, even granting that sec. 552.003 of the TX Statutes, Government Code, Title 5, Open Government; Ethics, does not explicitly define the TDP as a government entity; one cannot rightly infer that the documents held by the TDP which were the subject of Ms. Canon’s request and subsequent complaint to the AG for non-compliance; are not public documents under other provisions of the Act. Or that, under another legal scheme, either the party or the documents are not covered by the Act. And they are. For example, look at the Elections Code.

Sec. 191.003: NOTICE OF CANDIDATES TO SECRETARY OF STATE. The state chair of each political party holding a presidential primary election shall certify the name of each presidential candidate who qualifies for a place on the presidential primary election ballot and deliver the certification to the secretary of state not later than the 57th day before presidential primary election day.

Thus, in TX, the Presidential candidates representing the major political parties do not apply directly to the Secretary of State (“SoS”) to get their names on the ballot. Instead, they must submit their ballot applications to the chair of the party; and s/he must submit the names of these candidates to the SoS. In other words, under Sec. 552.002, the information “collected, assembled, or maintained” with respect to these applications which are made pursuant to Sec. 191.003, requiring the delivery of the certification of qualified candidates to the SoS; is public information.

But just in case the logic of coverage under the PIA is still unclear; there’s this.

Sec. 141.035.  APPLICATION AS PUBLIC INFORMATION.  An application for a place on the ballot, including an accompanying petition, is public information immediately on its filing.

Indeed; like they had done to several requestors in 2010; the TDP ignored Canon’s first request for documents in 2012, in which she had failed to specify the applicable public records laws.

View this document on Scribd

No; she only received a response after she revised her letter and filed a second request for documents in which she specifically asserted the laws supporting the request.

And she knew if the TDP had any such documents related to the 2012 ballot; these documents would still be held by the TDP.

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.

However, the party failed to produce the specific documents she requested related to how it had ascertained the candidates’ federal qualification, which refusal had prompted her present complaint to the AG.

Presumably, before Ms. Harden issued her opinion; she researched past opinions issuing on this subject from the office of the AG. We looked; there are none. This means, this was a case of first impression. But this also means that, subsequent complaints as to the refusal of the parties to produce specific election-related information; will be rejected on the grounds of her opinion.

It would appear that AAG Harden repeated the mistakes others have made when interpreting the coverage of the PIA. That is, she was too narrowly focused on the definitions which ruled out political party chairs as ‘public officials,’ ignoring the fact  the section of the law immediately preceding those definitions makes unambiguously clear that documents held by these party officers may still be classified as public records.  Or the fact that other laws may define records as public, making them also subject to the PIA; and spell out that when party officers carry out traditional state functions associated with elections, covered by another section of the law; then, just like other public officials, they can still be ordered to hand over these public records, under an action in Mandamus initiated either by the aggrieved citizen or by the AG.

To say nothing of the fact that the opening provision of the PIA urges its provisions not to be narrowly construed so as to limit public access to records but, on the contrary; to be “liberally construed in favor of granting a request for information.”

But as of now; the erroneous opinion stands.  This means the TDP has the legal obligation to submit the name of a Presidential candidate to the ballot, which name the SoS, who presumes the candidates named by the parties are federally qualified for the job and thus entitled to appear on the ballot; must certify these names to the ballot.  Sec. 192.033. But neither the SoS nor a private citizen has the right of access to the party documents which were the basis for the TDP’s eligibility determination. And the TDP knows this, having been copied on both the complaint and the opinion letter.

Recall that, in the past, the TDP refused to produce documentary evidence of its candidate applications until the requester cited applicable public records and election laws. Until we can reverse Ms. Harden’s patently erroneous legal interpretation of the scope of PIA jurisdiction; how likely do you suppose will be the TDP to voluntarily disclose such eligibility documentation?

And why would the citizens of TX allow to remain intact, a system of elections that presently permits a political party to maintain access to the ballot notwithstanding it cannot produce any documentary evidence to the public or the Secretary, that its candidates satisfy the threshold to entitlement, of being “federally qualified” for the job?

UPDATE 06.26.12: Well, well, well. AAG Harden’s written response arrived; and it’s even ‘better’ in black and white.

View this document on Scribd

See, in addition to memorializing her illogical opinion that, the TDP is not covered under the PIA inasmuch as they are not identified as a “government entity” in the Definitions section of that law; she now preserves for the record her mistaken assertion that the only records covered are those held by entities explicitly defined as ‘government.’ This, of course, leaves out all of those “records” defined in the law as “collected, assembled, or maintained under a law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business … for a governmental body and the governmental body owns the information or has a right of access to it.” Id.

But there’s more. Ms. Canon pointed out to Ms. Harden over the phone; she had filed a PIA request with the SoS seeking all documents the TDP had submitted to that office with respect to the federal qualification of the Presidential candidates whose names they provided to appear on the ballot. The SoS complied with this request. That is, they returned a printout of the electronic spreadsheet that had been submitted by the party, containing the candidates’ names. Because that’s all they had gotten from the party.  But apparently, Harden somehow got the idea that, Canon was perhaps complaining, the SoS had received from the party, documents of federal qualification; but had refused to forward to her that documentation! Now, writing the obvious, Harden advised that the SoS is a government entity under the PIA, and suggested Canon could file a PIA complaint against them!


Please support the work going on here at “jbjd.”


January 24, 2012

©2012 jbjd

In yesterday’s post, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT to ORLY TAITZ I included a link to the home page of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings (“OSAH”) containing a video explaining the administrative hearing process. Please click on this link now, and watch the video. Pay attention to who is the Petitioner” (or “Plaintiff”)at these hearings, and who is the “Respondent” (or “Defendant”). Then, you will understand what I am about to say.

The ‘person’ on ‘trial’ on January 26 is the Office of the Secretary of State of Georgia, Brian P. Kemp, and not President Obama. Yes, the words “Plaintiffs” and “Defendants” appear on both the ‘pleadings’ and the rulings issued by Administrative Law Judge Michael M. Malihi. But, technically, Farrar is the Petitioner. And, technically, guess who is the Respondent? Yep; Secretary of State Kemp.

Thus, even though the question to be answered through this hearing process tangentially involves Mr. Obama; no question, but for Mr. Farrar’s subpoena, Mr. Obama would not be expected to attend. So, why did he have his attorney, Orly Taitz, issue that subpoena? You won’t believe this: she wants him there as a witness for her client, Petitioner Farrar!

I am not privy to what chain of events preceded this hearing or, to the documents previously presented to the Secretary; I have no idea how this case reached the administrative hearing level. But, obviously, Farrar must have failed to persuade Kemp to remove Obama’s name from the ballot in that state’s 2012 Democratic Presidential primary. Farrar disagreed with that decision. Under GA law, this led to the administrative hearing. Orly subpoenaed Obama to appear at the hearing in order to provide testimonial evidence which would support her client’s claim that by refusing to do as asked, that is, to remove Obama’s name from the primary ballot; the SoS had broken the law.

I cannot predict exactly what will happen at Thursday’s hearing before Georgia Administrative Law Judge Malihi. But I am absolutely certain what will  not: President Obama will not participate in this dog and pony show. For one thing, as I already explained in WITH ALL DUE RESPECT to ORLY TAITZ; he was not ordered to appear, despite the media circus triggered both by Orly’s ‘misinterpretation’ of ALJ Malihi’s refusal to grant Defendant’s motion to quash Plaintiff’s subpoena and the AP’s grossly incompetent reporting of her misinterpretation. In fact, as Orly surely must know, ALJ Malihi has no authority to compel him to appear. How do I know this, given the fact, this is not my case? Because, unfamiliar with the scope of authority vested in Administrative Law Judges in the state of Georgia; I looked this up.

First, a primer on the founding principle of governmental separation of powers or, checks and balances, which produced these 3 separate branches: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.

The ballot challenge case brought by Orly on behalf of her client, Farrar, originated in the Executive branch, with the Office of the Secretary of State based on that office’s statutory oversight of the function of elections. Basically, Farrar charged, exercising the lawful authority conferred by GA statutes (Legislative branch); the SoS should remove Obama’s name from the D primary ballot in that state on the basis that 1) under GA law, the state may only print on the ballot the names of those candidates qualified for office; and 2) Presidential candidate Barack Obama is not Constitutionally qualified for the job. The office of the SoS referred the matter to the Office of State Administrative Hearings (Executive branch).

Did you catch that? The GA Office of State Administrative Hearings is part of the Executive branch of government and not, as I suspect most of you assumed, the Judicial branch.

O.C.G.A. § 50-13-40

Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
O.C.G.A. § 50-13-40  (2011)

§ 50-13-40.  Office created; chief state administrative law judge

(a) There is created within the executive branch of state government the Office of State Administrative Hearings. The office shall be independent of state administrative agencies and shall be responsible for impartial administration of administrative hearings in accordance with this article. The office shall be assigned for administrative purposes only, as that term is defined in Code Section 50-4-3, to the Department of Administrative Services.

The authority of the OSAH is strictly limited to the administration of an office or agency of the Executive branch and does not extend to authority over the person, as spelled out in GA law.

O.C.G.A. §50-13-13

Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
O.C.G.A. § 50-13-13  (2011)

§ 50-13-13.  Opportunity for hearing in contested cases; notice; counsel; subpoenas; record; enforcement powers; revenue cases

(a) In addition to any other requirements imposed by common law, constitution, statutes, or regulations:

(1) In any contested case, all parties shall be afforded an opportunity for hearing after reasonable notice served personally or by mail;

(2) The notice shall include:

(A) A statement of the time, place, and nature of the hearing;

(B) A statement of the legal authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is to be held;

(C) A reference to the particular section of the statutes and rules involved;

(D) A short and plain statement of the matters asserted. If the agency or other party is unable to state the matters in detail at the time, the notice may be limited to a statement of the issues involved. Thereafter, upon application, a more definite and detailed statement shall be furnished; and

(E) A statement as to the right of any party to subpoena witnesses and documentary evidence through the agency;

(3) Opportunity shall be afforded all parties to be represented by legal counsel and to respond and present evidence on all issues involved;

(4) Unless precluded by law, informal disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order, or default;

(5) Unless specifically precluded by statute, in addition to the agency, any contested case may be held before any agency representative who has been selected and appointed by the agency for such purpose. Before appointing a hearing representative, the agency shall determine that the person under consideration is qualified by reason of training, experience, and competence;

(6) The agency, the hearing officer, or any representative of the agency authorized to hold a hearing shall have authority to do the following: administer oaths and affirmations; sign and issue subpoenas; rule upon offers of proof; regulate the course of the hearing, set the time and place for continued hearings, and fix the time for filing briefs; dispose of motions to dismiss for lack of agency jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties or for any other ground; dispose of motions to amend or to intervene; provide for the taking of testimony by deposition or interrogatory; and reprimand or exclude from the hearing any person for any indecorous or improper conduct committed in the presence of the agency or the hearing officer;

(7) Subpoenas shall be issued without discrimination between public and private parties. When a subpoena is disobeyed, any party may apply to the superior court of the county where the contested case is being heard for an order requiring obedience. (All emphasis added by jbjd.) Failure to comply with such order shall be cause for punishment as for contempt of court. The costs of securing the attendance of witnesses, including fees and mileage, shall be computed and assessed in the same manner as prescribed by law in civil cases in the superior court;

(8) A record shall be kept in each contested case and shall include:

(A) All pleadings, motions, and intermediate rulings;

(B) A summary of the oral testimony plus all other evidence received or considered except that oral proceedings or any part thereof shall be transcribed or recorded upon request of any party. Upon written request therefor, a transcript of the oral proceeding or any part thereof shall be furnished to any party of the proceeding. The agency shall set a uniform fee for such service;

(C) A statement of matters officially noticed;

(D) Questions and offers of proof and rulings thereon;

(E) Proposed findings and exceptions;

(F) Any decision (including any initial, recommended, or tentative decision), opinion, or report by the officer presiding at the hearing; and

(G) All staff memoranda or data submitted to the hearing officer or members of the agency in connection with their consideration of the case; and

(9) Findings of fact shall be based exclusively on the evidence and on matters officially noticed.

(b) In proceedings before the agency, the hearing officer, or any representative of the agency authorized to hold a hearing, if any party or an agent or employee of a party disobeys or resists any lawful order of process; or neglects to produce, after having been ordered to do so, any pertinent book, paper, or document; or refuses to appear after having been subpoenaed; or, upon appearing, refuses to take the oath or affirmation as a witness; or after taking the oath or affirmation, refuses to testify, the agency, hearing officer, or other representative shall have the same rights and powers given the court under Chapter 11 of Title 9, the “Georgia Civil Practice Act.” If any person or party refuses as specified in this subsection, the agency, hearing officer, or other representative may certify the facts to the superior court of the county where the offense is committed for appropriate action, including a finding of contempt. The agency, hearing officer, or other representative shall have the power to issue writs of fieri facias in order to collect fines imposed for violation of a lawful order of the agency, hearing officer, or other representative.

(c) Except in cases in which a hearing has been demanded under Code Section 50-13-12, subsection (a) of this Code section and the other provisions of this chapter concerning contested cases shall not apply to any case arising in the administration of the revenue laws, which case is subject to a subsequent de novo trial of the law and the facts in the superior court.

Thus, not only did ALJ Malihi not order Mr. Obama to obey Plaintiff’s subpoena to appear but, he could not issue such an order, anyway, lacking the authority to do so, under the law. Nope; his job is to decide whether the agency followed the law.  You want to compel the President’s attendance at an administrative hearing so that he can testify on behalf of your client that by not removing his name from the primary ballot; the Secretary of State had broken the law? Go ask the Superior Court. (And don’t hold your breath.)

Then, there’s this, express limitation on the weight of any ruling resulting from that administrative hearing.

O.C.G.A. § 50-13-41

Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
O.C.G.A. § 50-13-41  (2011)

§ 50-13-41.  Hearing procedures; powers of administrative law judge; issuance of decision; review

(a)(1) Whenever a state agency authorized by law to determine contested cases initiates or receives a request for a hearing in a contested case which is not presided over by the agency head or board or body which is the ultimate decision maker, the hearing shall be conducted by the Office of State Administrative Hearings, and such hearings shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and the rules and regulations promulgated under this article.

(2) An administrative law judge shall have the power to do all things specified in paragraph (6) of subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-13.

(b) An administrative law judge shall have all the powers of the referring agency with respect to a contested case. Subpoenas issued by an administrative law judge shall be enforced in the manner set forth in paragraph (7) of subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-13. Nothing in this article shall affect, alter, or change the ability of the parties to reach informal disposition of a contested case in accordance with paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-13.

(c) Within 30 days after the close of the record, an administrative law judge shall issue a decision to all parties in the case except when it is determined that the complexity of the issues and the length of the record require an extension of this period and an order is issued by an administrative law judge so providing. Every decision of an administrative law judge shall contain findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended disposition of the case.

(d) Except as otherwise provided in this article, in all cases every decision of an administrative law judge shall be treated as an initial decision as set forth in subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-17, including, but not limited to, the taking of additional testimony or remanding the case to the administrative law judge for such purpose. On review, the reviewing agency shall consider the whole record or such portions of it as may be cited by the parties. In reviewing initial decisions by the Office of State Administrative Hearings, the reviewing agency shall give due regard to the administrative law judge’s opportunity to observe witnesses. If the reviewing agency rejects or modifies a proposed finding of fact or a proposed decision, it shall give reasons for doing so in writing in the form of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
(e)(1) A reviewing agency shall have a period of 30 days following the entry of the decision of the administrative law judge in which to reject or modify such decision. If a reviewing agency fails to reject or modify the decision of the administrative law judge within such 30 day period, then the decision of the administrative law judge shall stand affirmed by the reviewing agency by operation of law. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

(2) A reviewing agency may prior to the expiration of the review period provided for in paragraph (1) of this subsection extend such review period by order of the reviewing agency in any case wherein unusual and compelling circumstances render it impracticable for the reviewing agency to complete its review within such period. Any such order shall recite with particularity the circumstances which render it impracticable for the reviewing agency to complete its review within such review period. Any such extension by the reviewing agency shall be for a period of time not to exceed 30 days. Prior to the expiration of the extended review period, the review period may be further extended by further order of the reviewing agency for one additional period not to exceed 30 days if unusual and compelling circumstances render it impracticable to complete the review within the extended review period. Such further order further extending the review period shall likewise recite with particularity the circumstances which render it impracticable for the reviewing agency to complete its review within the review period as previously extended. If a reviewing agency fails to reject or modify the decision of the administrative law judge within the extended review period, then the decision of the administrative law judge shall stand affirmed by the reviewing agency by operation of law.

(3) An agency may provide by rule that proposed decisions in all or in specified classes of cases before the Office of State Administrative Hearings will become final without further agency action and without expiration of the 30 day review period otherwise provided for in this subsection.

In other words, the Secretary need not adopt the recommendation of the ALJ, anyway!

Phew! That’s enough for now; let’s start with this and then tomorrow, I will spell out what I predict will happen on Thursday.


January 21, 2012

(UPDATED 01.22.12, in text)

(UPDATED 01.23.12, at bottom)

© 2012 jbjd

Sometimes during my forays onto other blogs, I am compelled either by request or necessity to clarify or explain misunderstandings making the internet rounds. But this pernicious misinterpretation merits its own post. First, the ‘chase’:

No judge has issued an Order requiring President Obama to appear, all reporting by the AP and web sites quoting the AP; and Orly’s cyberspace victory dance – “I won!!! I won!!!” – notwithstanding.

The comment that first got my attention, posted on CW, included what was ostensibly an email the writer had received from Orly. Having successfully managed to avoid wading into her site for the past several months, I now had to go there to find the ‘original.’ Here it is, in its entirety.

I won!!! I won!!! I won!!! Judge Malihi ruled in my favor. Obama’s motion to quash my subpoena is denied! He has to appear at trial and present all the documents that I demanded to produce in my subpoena! (Note from jbjd: THIS IS NOT A TRIAL! IT IS MERELY AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING! The narrow legal question to be answered here isn’t even whether candidate Obama is Constitutionally qualified for President and so may appear on the Georgia ballot; but whether Obama followed the rules set by election officials, to get on the ballot. Know your government. Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings)

Posted on | January 20, 2012 | 163 Comments

It has been 3 years of 24/7/365 fight. I was defamed, viciously maligned by so many Obots (Obama bots), pro-Obama media thugs, by a few corrupt officials and judges. Recently even people, who claimed to be on my side turned sides and viciously defamed me and attacked me. Among them were Arlen Williams, Dean Haskins, owner of a blog Birther Summit, Bob Nelson-owner of a blog Birther Report or ObamaReleaseYourRecords, Helen Tansey -owner of a blog art2superpac and even attorneys, who should’ve had some professional ethics. Attorneys Gary Kreep and Philip Berg filed insane pleadings, saying that I tried to hire a hit man to kill Lisa Liberi, legal assistant of attorney Berg and kidnap children of a web master Lisa Ostella. It has been 3 years of total nightmare, these people were like a pack of wild dogs attacking me and coming up with each and every accusation in the book. Now I am vindicated. My legal action is with merit. We are going to trial on January 26, 2012. I issued subpoenas.   Barack Obama through his attorney Michael Jablonski filed a motion to quash my subpoena and all the other subpoenas. I was attacked yet again in this motion. Judge Malihi just issued an order. Motion to quash my subpoena was denied. Barack Obama, President of the United States will have to appear in court on January 26 and comply with my subpoena and produce all the documents, that I demanded. Interesting, that two other attorneys are representing plaintiffs on similar matters: Van Irion and Mark Hatfield. They could have an opportunity to examine Obama with me, however either because I was maligned so badly or because they were scared to press the most explosive charges, these attorneys filed motions for their cases to be severed from my case. Their motions were granted. Irion’s case will be heard first. He stated on the record, that his case will take only 10 minutes and will be limited to ascertainment if Obama is legitimate based on the precedent of Minor v Happerset. Obama will not be answering any of his questions. Second will be a case presented by attorney Hatfield. He, also, severed his case and did not issue any subpoenas. In his motion to sever he stated that he did not want to be joined in the same complaint with me, because he did not want to be part of a  case, where I brought forward allegations of elections fraud and social security fraud committed by Barack Obama. Hatfield was saying that he was afraid that his clients will be prejudiced by such explosive allegations.  Yesterday, after I filed an opposition to motion to quash, attorney Hatfield tried to follow suit by filing a notice to appear, however notice does not have as much of a  force as a subpoena and I do not believe Obama will be complying with a notice, particularly since Hatfield’s complaint does not entail the same charges as mine. My case will be heard third.    My case will not be limited to definition of natural born based on a case Minor v Happersett. I will be also presenting a case, showing that elections fraud was committed by Barack Obama, that he is using a forged birth certificate, stolen or fraudulently obtained Social Security number and that there is no evidence to believe that the last name he is using is legally his, due to the fact, that in his mother’s passport he goes under the name Soebarkah and in his school registration in Indonesia he went by the last name Soetoro. There is no evidence of legal change of name.

I wanted to thank people who helped me along the way with donations, who did not stick a knife in my back, like the ones mentioned before. I am asking my supporters to donate to this work, as I am paying for  airfare and hotel of witnesses and a number of other expenses. Also, if you are a CA Republican please, download my nomination for the US Senate and sign and circulate it.

nomination papers (link omitted by jbjd)

Make no mistake about it. This is the beginning of Watergate2 or ObamaForgeryGate.  I believe this is the second time in the U.S. history a sitting President is ordered to comply with a subpoena, and produce documents, which might eventually bring criminal charges to the President and a number of high ranking individuals.

I feel extremely proud to be a part of this historic moment. I guess an American dream is still alive, as this subpoena was issued by an immigrant, who was raised in a communist dictatorship of the Soviet Union and came here with one suitcase with a couple of dresses, who had to study English, to study law at night, while working as a dentist  and raising a family with 3 children. Only in America is this possible.


Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

So many of her statements triggered automatic internal rebuttals that I could have written volumes before making the record clear.  But, even before creating “jbjd,” I had written numerous comments on others’ blogs explaining that if Obama becomes the D nominee for POTUS the only way to keep him out of the WH is to keep his name off the ballot. (I posted my epiphany on NoQuarter the first week in August 2008.) So, I knew what to write first.

Here is the response I posted on CW.

I set up my blog at the end of August 2008. One of the first posts instructed citizens, the only way to keep Obama’s name off the ballot if  he takes the D nomination; was to challenge his eligibility in those states that require candidate eligibility to appear on the ballot.

GA is one of those states.  And, I know that Orly has known since back in 2008 that GA is one of those states because, at that time, I told her.  That is, I published a memo in which I proposed there are 2 ways to keep Obama out of the WH. First, of course, was the ballot challenge; and I specifically mentioned GA.

For example, here is the requirement to get onto the general election ballot in the State of GA, under the Official Code of GA Annotated (O.C.G.A.), §21-2-5, Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications. “Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party … shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” (Note: President, U.S. Senator, or U.S. Representative are federal offices.) This means that, according to GA law, when the state Party chair submits the Party nominee to the Secretary of State (“S of S”) to be put onto the general election ballot, that nominee must be eligible for the office sought. But there is no corresponding GA law that says the S of S receiving this paperwork from the state Party chair must verify this eligibility. Under that same law, the State of GA set up a mechanism by which voters may file a challenge with the S of S questioning the eligibility of a candidate to appear on the ballot; and for the S of S to initiate such a challenge on her own. “The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate.” But again, the operative word here is “may.” In other words, even in a state like GA, one of the few states with laws that provide for a mechanism for voters to challenge a candidate’s eligibility to get onto the general election ballot, no law requires the state to investigate the candidate based on that challenge. (Notice that technically, even GA law does not confer power on the S of S to determine whether any candidate is eligible for the office sought but only to determine this: whether he is eligible by virtue of satisfying the requirements of the office sought to get onto the general election ballot.)

It was this memo, which also included the idea of a complaint filed under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, using National Guard Plaintiffs; which first attracted Orly’s attention to my work, and triggered our short-lived collaboration, during which time I drafted the military complaint; and intervened at the request of a soldier who had been trying unsuccessfully to get her to withdraw the waiver he signed to join that complaint. .

So, more than 3 wasted years and countless squandered dollars in contributions and who knows how many frequent flyer miles later; she decided to take my advice and challenge the qualifications of a candidate for office in a state that only allows to be printed on the ballot the names of those candidates qualified for the job. And, given this legal route of redress, she would have you believe, the court has endorsed her methodology.

Further, based on this demonstrated pattern of out-of-control spending and prolongued failure to heed sound legal advice; evidently, she now feels worthy of soliciting your support for the U.S. Senate.

“Humbly”? Yeah, right..

P.S. Of course, this in no way means, I agree with either the substantive case she has brought in GA or, her ‘take’ on the (seeming) success of her case. In the end, she will fail in this effort as always. Please, keep in mind, in real life logic, failing to quash Plaintiff’s requested subpoena for Defendant to appear is not the same as Ordering Defendant to Appear, especially in this case, where the judge specifically wrote, Defendant had merely failed to cite to any sound legal reason the subpoena should not be allowed.

Some readers required further clarification of the true meaning of the court’s latest action in GA.

The GA election code requires that only candidates qualified for the job may have the state print their names on the ballot. The law allows citizens to contest the eligibility of candidates to the SoS and then, to an administrative law judge. (In other words, the process addresses whether the administration of the ballot eligibility law has been followed.) The Plaintiffs, represented by Orly, filed a ballot challenge with an administrative law judge arguing Defendant Obama is ineligible to be POTUS. They issued a subpoena – remember, this is the document they downloaded off the GA court web site but then ‘indicated’ was actually issued by the court – to Defendant Obama, requiring him to appear and answer questions. Under normal circumstances, if a Defendant served by Plaintiff with a subpoena, refuses to comply with the request; the Plaintiff may then ask the court to sign an Order compelling whatever the subpoena requires. Obama’s local (GA) attorney received the subpoena and submitted to the court a Motion to Quash, thereby asking the court not to allow Plaintiff’s subpoena. If granted, this would mean, Orly could not in the future compel such compliance. Orly awaited the judge’s ruling on Defendant’s motion, taking no further action, such as filing an Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Quash; to advance her position. The judge ruled to reject Defendant’s motion on the narrow specific grounds that he had failed to provide sufficient (read, any) legal precedent or citations to support his motion. (Thus, in effect, by doing absolutely nothing, Orly succeeded for the first time in getting a ‘court’ ruling prolonging her case instead of ending it on the spot.) (UPDATE 01.22.12: I have now found an Opposition to Motion to Quash, dated January 19. However, I find no evidence this was either received or considered by the ALJ before he Denied Defendant’s Motion; and the Denial fails to mention or address Plaintiff’s Opposition.)

In other words, this administrative law procedure is several steps away from producing an Order to appear, Orly’s misrepresentations and cyberspace victory dance – “I won!!! I won!!!” – notwithstanding.

I pointed out to another commenter that considering both law and circumstances; a ballot challenge in SC likely would have had a far greater chance at success.

I absolutely agree, a correctly framed ballot challenge can be successful. But SC would have been the easiest state in which to launch such a challenge. As I have been writing for a couple of years now, primary candidates in that state are submitted to the election commission by the state party, which also certifies explicitly, in writing, the candidates are qualified for the job. In other words, there, the question to the court would have been, the party has failed to provide a basis for such certification. (Recall that, in 2008, the then party treasurer hand-delivered the primary names to the election commission, which refused to accept the list because it lacked that certification. So, she whipped out her pen and, on the spot, certified the candidates’ qualification!)

P.S. It’s still not too late to question the submission of his name as the D party nominee, to the general election ballot in that state!

But what really bothers me about Orly’s polemics is perhaps best represented by this comment from someone who I believe even at this point genuinely retains faith in her motives.
I am composing a special letter to all the VFW posts in our state, as well as other states making all of this known and the most recent progress of Orly. Hopefully some of them will see fit to make contributions. I have provided both her California postal address,and her website as well. Lets see what our vets think!

This intentional marketing of Orly’s defective work product, especially to veterans, prompted my more personalized response.

You just don’t get it.

The vet who contacted me had been trying to get Orly to destroy the representation agreement he had signed to become a Plaintiff in the military complaint she intended to file. Having re-read the language of her agreement, he realized, he opposed the extreme sentiments she had expressed and was quite concerned that by signing that agreement, he was exposing himself to serious legal (read, criminal) liability. Of course, he was absolutely right to be afraid. In fact, I had already objected to the wording in her release. Leo also urged her to recall that release on the grounds of this inflammatory language. Further, I had urged that only National Guard troops subject to recall, join any lawsuit, because until called up, they were not subject to the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and could not be disciplined for questioning Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. She chose to use other Plaintiffs. (She and I seldom agreed on anything.) Anyway, frustrated that he had been unable to get her to destroy his previous signed agreement; he asked for my help getting through to her. I contacted her; and she quite flippantly and, with an air of disgust, replied, ‘What does he want now?’ I hit the roof. He was the Plaintiff, not her; and he was the member of the military her words had placed in jeopardy. I got her to pull his release; and that’s the last time we collaborated on anything.

That you would solicit money for this charlatan evidences a blind faith not sustained by the record.

Perhaps not surprisingly, mimicking the response of so many of Orly’s acolytes, he became angry at reading the truth and then, directed his anger at me because I wrote it.

UPDATE 01.23.12: I found this comment posted 3 years ago, on another blog; supporting my claims that I assisted a veteran in withdrawing the problematic release he had signed to become a named Plaintiff in Orly’s version of my military complaint. 

daddynoz said…
I failed to previously identify the individual I have been conferring with regarding my concerns and intent to rectify the current constitutional crisis. The fellow’s name is “jbjd” (unfortunately I do not know his actual name). He has helped me as if he were my priest or bartender; he’s listened to my reservations regarding potentionally seditious or disloyal language found in a related complaint, addressed my questions of what the actual standing was (while considering what I thought it might be), and looked out for my welfare related to possible repercussions from military authorities.

Thank you.

January 30, 2009 11:38 PM


October 29, 2011

©2011 jbjd

(UPDATE 10.30.11, AT BOTTOM)

I make mistakes; but if, after several defenses of my work over time, I continue to insist I am right then, you likely waste your time betting against me that I am wrong.  Especially when the person insisting I am wrong is one of the usual ‘suspects.’

I received an email from PJRieke, the contents of which appeared to be a wholesale copy of a lengthy post from the site naturalborncitizen, authored by Leo Donofrio.  The crux of the email and the post was this.  Since 2006, either the on-line publisher, or, as Leo concedes, perhaps a hacker, ostensibly altered versions of the ‘legal’ cases appearing on the web site so as to eliminate all references to Minor v. Happersett, the case Leo (wrongly) insists points to the ‘fact,’ Barack Obama cannot be said to be a NBC.

Here was my email response.

From: jbjd
To: PJR…
Sent: 10/22/2011 7:45:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time

PJR, is a commercial web site and not the official publisher of court cases in any state or the federal bench.  Therefore, crying ‘the sky is falling’ even assuming they are intentionally doctoring the text of ‘actual’ court cases by editing out certain references to force their point of view  is like complaining Bayer is intentionally over-simplifying the human digestive system in the rudimentary diagrams featured in its commercials for Alka-Seltzer.

And I have been saying this about Justia, for months… Do a search for “jbjd” and “Justia”..


Well, this prompted an even lengthier email response from PJR, again, imported wholesale from Leo.  But this time, he defended against Leo’s baseless assertion that or the hacker did something wrong, by elevating their alleged manipulation of electronically posted court cases into a criminal act, citing a portion of the U.S. Code relating to false publication. (Please note, I am only leaving in these excerpts from Leo’s blog so as to show to what lengths both PJR and he have gone trying to prove the falsehood they are peddling, is true.  Clearly, I neither support not endorse this ‘research.’)

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:39 PM, <> wrote:

Just sayin’…,
and OH, BTW, it appears that “other” (than “most”) folks (that would be the lawyerly types – no offense intended) DO make use of it – also.
As for your comment
“… crying ‘the sky is falling’ even assuming they are intentionally doctoring the text of ‘actual’ court cases by editing out certain references to force their point of view  is like complaining Bayer is intentionally over-simplifying the human digestive system in the rudimentary diagrams featured in its commercials for Alka-Seltzer. “,
it’s considered a crime / felony to conceal, obfuscate or otherwise alter legal renderings…as I’m sure you’re well aware ofTAMPERING WITH OFFICIAL WRITINGS IS A CRIME UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1018.

§1018. Official certificates or writings

Whoever, being a public officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing, knowingly makes and delivers as true such a certificate or writing, containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not elsewhere expressly provided by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The statute covers a “person” authorized by any law of the US to make or give official writings. is authorized – according to the federal Public Domain laws – to re-publish US Supreme Court opinions.

Justia CEO Tim Stanley gave a 21 minute podcast interview to Ken Chan of “Law And Legal Research” in Jan. ’07 after Tim was awarded the Google Enterprise Search Superstar award.  In that interview, Stanley was asked who Justia was created to benefit.  Here is Stanley’s candid reply:

Stanley: The primary users of it tend to be lawyers or attorneys looking for legal information or looking for case-law, or looking for information from some of the legal blogs that are online. And the other sort of major group of users tends to be law students or other students in the college environment or high schools that are looking for information on the US Government and sort of how the court system works.

Chan: The homepage, if you will, mentions the indexing of all of the Supreme Court cases… What would you say is the primary piece of information that somebody is coming to your web site to find, or is there one?  Is it a wide basis of information or is there a particular type of information that somebody is coming to find?

Stanley:  In most cases they’re looking for a variety of types of legal information.There is a large percentage though that are looking for Supreme Court information, and looking at particular Supreme Court cases.  And one of the nice things we’ve done using the Google Mini is we’ve indexed all the Supreme Court cases, and we have a nice sort of inter-linking among the cases, so you can go from one case, you know, quickly link over to a previous case.  And the Google algorithm when it’s indexing the cases does a very good job in terms of prioritizing the cases based on those that sort of have more value to the legal community.

Stanley tells us that the primary users are lawyers, not lay people.  Also, keep in mind that when he gave this interview in ’07, none of the cases had been sabotaged yet.  The cases were in the database with full case names, citations, and no text had been removed.

Here is my response.


I am so glad you sent this email, which affords me the opportunity to 1) clarify the misconception you share with several others over the role of “official” publishers of state and federal court decisions versus commercial re-‘printers’; and 2) remind you about the uselessness of self-authentication.

Federal law (U.S. Code) governs that U.S. Reports is the official publisher of decisions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court. State laws which govern the operation of state courts, include language that mandates court decisions will be published. Official publishers of court decisions, such as Lexis/Nexis work under contract with the state. States may also contract with publishers such as West to print digests of cases.  While both Lexis/Nexis and West are commercial concerns, when publishing state court materials under state contracts, each is bound by strict protocols and standards imposed by the state, which may include allowing the state to retain rights to prior consultation and approval.

Remember, appellate decisions have precedential effect. That is, what happened in the past sets the standard for conduct in the future. Thus, in order for both judges and lawyers to determine how to present and rule on subsequent cases, they must be able to research prior cases.  Looking through court records is prohibitive and so, these cases are compiled in official publications intended to streamline the process.  In effect, by contracting with legal publishers, the state is actually providing services to state actors, including not only these judges and lawyers but also state legislators.

It is no exaggeration to say, misrepresenting the content of a case, whether by changing the words in the judge’s ruling or, omitting a comma; may mean the difference between life and death.  Ensuring the accurate reproduction of the original court ruling is, therefore, a solemn responsibility.  Only those publishers officially contracted with the state have been given that responsibility.  It is their work which can be trusted, and their work which, therefore, can be cited in subsequent submissions to the court. is not an official publisher of court cases in any state or issuing from the federal bench.  Therefore, the law you cite related to false publication of official documents, does not apply to them.

The second point I want to make seems to me would have been self-evident.  In the same way we urge people not to look to, say, Barack Obama for self-authentication – after all, he said he was Constitutionally eligible for the job of President but, we don’t just believe him – you are now urging me to believe Justia has some innate value because its owner says, the product his company offers is so good, even lawyers use it (along with high school students).

Again, I want to thank you for this second email insisting I was wrong to fob off hyperbolic charges against raised by you and Leo, among others. Because in the past, I had only supported my dismissal of these ridiculous charges against the company by saying, they are not official publishers of state or federal court decisions and so, can post anything they want.  Now, I have taken the time to explain myself more fully and thereby not only validated my position but also, undoubtedly, educated people as to how our government works.


Imagine, all of this time spent just to prove the fallacy that a legal definition exists as to what is a NBC; while, since 2008, no new state election laws mandating that the state may only print on the ballot the names of those candidates it determines are qualified for the job; or requiring that Electors may only elect a President whose name the state has printed on the ballot.

UPDATE 10.30.11:  Well, it would appear Leo read my post, which establishes that his hyperbolic campaign of moral outrage against Justia is misplaced.  Then, instead of honing his methodology, he sought to discredit my criticism.

I tried to assuage readers ostensibly outraged by the ‘conspiracy’ Leo has been championing involving Justia, namely, that various on-line versions of Justia cases appear to have edited out references or links which he claims support what I insist is his mistaken opinion, under the language of Minor v. Happersett, President Obama cannot be said to be a NBC. I said that, citations to Justia are not even allowed in legal submissions to the court, as Justia is not an “official” publisher of court cases in any state.  Following my post, Leo posted another article on the subject, vainly trying to shore up his baseless argument by artificially inflating Justia’s position within the legal community.  Specifically, in order to ‘prove’ that lawyers really do count on Justia, he cited to a reference he claims appeared on the web site operated by Perkins Coie, Bob Bauer’s firm, which Leo characterizes as first class legal practitioners. (Of course, notwithstanding the lawyers at PC might be bright, this does not mean, they are honest; or that, if Leo is correct, that is, if Justia is rigging its cases so as to benefit Obama, Perkins Coie would never have assisted such subterfuge by touting their services! (See, for example, COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3 CARD MONTE* for FEDERAL COURT; and COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3 CARD MONTE* for FEDERAL COURT)  It certainly does not mean, anyone from Perkins Coie would cite to a case published in Justia as legal precedent in a document prepared for submission to the court.)

Yes, Leo, lawyers tout whatever legal publication services they want.  Indeed, I have often steered readers to both cases and statutes which appear on the web site maintained by Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. But even cases and laws posted on Cornell’s site may not be cited (as precedent) in legal briefs.  Of course, if Attorney Courtney Minick, Product Manager at Justia has her way, states will one day abandon their rigid filing requirements and allow citations to their on-line product, abandoning the current practice of allowing into court only citations to those cases published officially by companies contracted with the state.

In his recent post, Fastcase CEO Ed Walters called on American states to tear down the copyright paywall for statutes. States that assert copyright over public laws limit their citizens’ access to such laws and impede a free and educated society. Convincing states (and publishers) to surrender these claims, however, is going to take some time.

A parallel problem involves The Bluebook and the courts that endorse it as a citation authority. By requiring parties to cite to an official published version of a statutory code, the courts are effectively restricting participants in the legal research market. Nowhere is this more evident than in those states where the government has delegated the publishing of the official code to a private publisher, as is the situation in more than half of the states.  Thus, even if the state itself or another company, such as Justia, publishes the law online for free, a brief cannot cite to these versions of the code.

See, even Attorney Minick isn’t saying, Justia’s work merits the award of such state contracts!

S o S

March 9, 2010

I have been asked to comment on efforts that are under way in several states to draft and enact into law new election statutes that would require candidates for President whose names appear on the ballot to undergo eligibility screening intended to establish whether these candidates satisfy the Constitutional eligibility for the job.  Here’s what I have to say about this.

Why bother?

The Secretary of State, who in most states is given the statutory job of overseeing elections; also has statutory authority to promulgate the rules and regulations required to carry out the job.  So, in those states that require the candidate whose name appears on the ballot, to be eligible for the job – AL,* GA, HI, MD, SC, TX, and VA have been identified so far – the SoS just needs to exercise the rule-making authority of that office to write new eligibility rules.  And these rules can be amended as time and technology require.  (I would imagine, it would be much easier to persuade a SoS to tighten up procedural requirements to get a name on the ballot than to lobby the legislature (and governor) to pass a brand new law.)

In states without such ballot eligibility laws, these laws need to be enacted.  (In some states, this also requires either amending existing laws that currently entitle the nominee for President from the major political parties to appear on the ballot; or drafting the new law to incorporate such existing entitlements.  Still, I would imagine it would be much easier to pass legislation requiring simply that, only the names of eligible candidates may be printed on the state election ballot AND to amend existing laws that apply to major political parties; than to labor on persuading legislators to adopt both the principle of candidate eligibility to appear on the ballot AND the detailed methodology drafters are attempting to construct so as to ensure such eligibility.)

* AL has been identified as an applicable state for citizen complaints of election fraud but, no Alabamans have volunteered to help me obtain the final piece of information required to draft a complaint.  (I only read the AL law when a non-Alabaman happened to look up the law in that state, for a ‘friend,’ and forwarded this to me for review.)

P.S. For those of you who are going about this the hard way; please keep in mind that targeting BO for coverage under any new regime can trigger challenges on the grounds, the new law constitutes a Constitutionally prohibited bill of attainder.  (This is the principle that sunk Congress’ attempt to de-fund ACORN, cited by the federal court in granting ACORN’s motion for a preliminary injunction.)  See this comment posted here back in January, and my response.

This should be some good news. A story from Arizona says a legislator wants to require proof of citizenship to put Obama’s name on the ballot in 2012.

“If President Obama wants to run for re-election he would need to produce proof of both his U.S. birth and citizenship to get on the ballot in Arizona, if one state lawmaker gets her way.

Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, is preparing a law to require anyone running for president or vice president to provide proof to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office that they are legally eligible to seek the office. The U.S. Constitution requires the president — and, by extension, the vice president — to be “a natural born citizen.”

Burges would require the secretary of state to verify that status independently.

“If it’s not certifiable, then that person’s name would not go on the ballot,” she said.

ksdb: Not so fast. I read the article you linked. Of course, I agree in principle with amending the requirements the candidates must meet before states agree to print their names on state ballots. This is what I have advocated all along. However, for several reasons, this proposed legislation is not what I had in mind.

For starters, notwithstanding her protestations to the contrary, Representative Burges sounds like she is proposing this legislation specifically to ‘get’ BO. That will kill the bill on challenge, for sure. ADMINISTRATOR


August 28, 2009

© 2009 jbjd

(UPDATED:  08.31.10: The link to the 2007 DNC notice that Chairman Dean appointed Nancy Pelosi to Chair the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention has been scrubbed.  Instead, I substituted the announcement of her appointment which appeared in the Denver Post.)

So, to continue, who is responsible for enabling BO to occupy the office of POTUS notwithstanding no evidence that was proffered could prove he is Constitutionally eligible for the job?  Here’s a list of the people eliminated thus far, in the order in which they were eliminated.  (Note:  After digesting the first half of this article,, a few readers objected to the scope of my exoneration. That is, they thought I was too generous in letting people off the hook.  Let me reassure everyone, I had already factored into consideration all of their stated objections.  Hopefully, these excerpts from my replies will allay any other concerns.)

1.  Barack Obama

Let me remind you, i) he did not force anyone to vote for him in the general election. ii) He never Certified to state elections officials he was the Official Nominee for POTUS of the DNC and met all Constitutional requirements of the job, to get them to print his name on the general election ballot. iii) Three months before he obtained the D nomination, he took out an ad on the internet called “Fight the Smears” – he spelled out quite plainly, this ad was “Paid for by Barack Obama” – proclaiming for everyone to see, he was only a “native citizen,” thus ‘outing’ himself as being Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

2.  Congress

This includes VP Cheney, acting in his role as President of the Senate.  Even assuming upon asking for a vote on Ratification, he failed to extend to the members an opportunity discernible to us, to register their objections, if any, to the EC process; any one of these 500+ legislators could have raised a “Point of Order” at any time, to get an objection heard.  As I said previously, Congress is off the hook because the Constitution does not require that they investigate whether the person who obtained the requisite votes for POTUS from members of the EC, is Constitutionally eligible for the job.

3. The Electoral College

For as long as general elections have provided the mechanism to appoint the state Electors; even in those states that require the Elector to vote for the nominee of the national party, no faithless Elector has ever faced legal retribution.  The reason I left the EC off the hook is simple:  the Constitution does not require the EC must determine whether the nominee of their political party is Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS even if they decided to elect him for the job.


We have reached the point where the responsibility for electing an ineligible POTUS must be found somewhere in a process directly related to his nomination.  But before we ferret out the source of that responsibility, memorize this fact:  The raison d’etre for awarding BO the national D party nomination  was to get elections officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to print his name next to the D on the general election ballot notwithstanding getting his name on the ballot would have nothing to do with his winning the election.

In July of 2007, Howard Dean, then Chair of the DNC, appointed  Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Chair the 2008 DNC Convention.   This put her in charge of the nomination.

Now, what do you think it means to “win” the “election”?  Remember, voters who went to the polls on November 4, only cast votes to appoint the (slate of) Electors who would then cast votes for President on December 15.  The person who gets the most votes at that time, wins the election.  And there is no provision in the Constitution, or any Federal law that requires Electors to vote for the person whose name, attached to theirs, received the most popular votes in the general election. In fact, the only Constitutional significance to receiving the most votes cast in a general election is this.  The names of the winning slate of electors thus appointed by the voters, once their appointment by means of this general election is Certified by the Governor of the state in a Certificate of Ascertainment, are then sent to the Archivist of the United States at the Office of the Federal Register, as directed by the Constitution.

Winning” the election simply means, receiving the most votes from the appointed Electors voting in the Electoral College. (Even if a ‘candidate’ concedes the race after November’s  general election, this has no bearing on whether the Electors can elect that loser  on December 15.)

So, why did the EC cast their votes for BO on December 15?  Neither federal law nor any provision of the Constitution says they had to vote for the person who holds the party nomination.  NONE.  Oh, sure, some states have enacted laws that require the Electors to vote for the party nominee.  However, as I previously pointed out, even in those states that have enacted laws requiring Electors to vote for the nominee of the party, no faithless Elector has even been sanctioned for disobeying that law. In fact, the party demands that its Electors swear an oath to support the nominee, before the party informs the state to print his or her name onto the general election ballot.  In other words, those Electors listed on the general election ballot as “for Barack Obama” are really for Barack Obama.  And, ultimately, that’s the reason these D Electors – the party activists, the movers and shakers, the fund raisers  who are chosen as party Electors – cast their votes for him.  Because they said they would. In fact, that’s the only reason they got to be Electors in the first place.

There.  We have established there is no correlation between the votes cast for BO by the Electors in the Electoral College; and the appearance of his name on the general election ballot.

Now, let’s examine the flip side of this process, that is, the primary/caucus campaign that led up to BO’s nomination at the DNC Convention to determine what correlation, if any, there is between the results of that process and his eventual nomination.

First, understand, the way the nomination is supposed to work.  Whichever candidate wins the most delegates from votes cast in the Democratic primary/caucus process will win the party’s nomination at the national Convention.  Well, sort of.  The candidate wins ONLY IF the number of those delegates reaches the threshold required by the party.  If not then, the nominee is chosen based on BOTH the number of votes cast by his or her delegates  on the call of the roll on the floor of the Convention PLUS the number of votes of what are called the “super delegates.”

So, who are these ‘super’ delegates?  Well, they are high profile members of the party, including federal legislators, chosen in advance by members of the DNC.  (Here is a pretty good history of SD’s; ignore the part of the article that refers to whether “pledged” delegates are actually “pledged.” The authors, one a Democratic strategist and the other, an attorney, obviously never heard of vote binding states.)

Take a look at how Ms. Pelosi tried to steer the votes of those Democratically appointed SD’s.  On March 16, when BO had just come off his lopsided caucus ‘wins,’ she told Politico the SD’s “should reflect the will of the voters.” (She never specified whether she meant, the will of the voters as expressed by the final delegate count in their districts; or by the total delegate count; or by the overall popular vote.)  But bombarded by cries of ‘foul’ at appearing to take sides in the battle for the nomination, by April 1, Ms. Pelosi had changed her mind.  Now she decided, these SD’s had the “right to vote their conscience.” And it’s a good thing she did.  Because according to the DNC Call, which contains the rules that governed the 2008 Convention she Chaired, even delegates “pledged” to their candidates as the result of votes cast in the primary/caucus election are not actually ‘pledged’ but only, “shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” (It’s about time they added a line reminding pledged delegates from vote binding states, “If you are from one of the 13 vote binding states then, in your state, voting for someone other than the candidate you pledged to the voters you would represent, is against the law.”)

Okay, back to the scenario facing both BO and HRC at the start of the Convention.  Recall that, neither of them had a sufficient number of delegates pledged to win the nomination at the time they entered the Convention.  So, whoever won more total delegate votes, combining both pledged and super, as the result of the floor vote than the opposition, would be the party nominee.  At least, this has been the tradition within the Democratic Party for as long as I can remember.  But not this time.  Nope; this time, BO was somehow able to take the nomination even though there was never a roll call vote on the floor! How do you suppose that happened?  Of course, without this vote, we can never know what would have been the actual count of delegate votes for either candidate. Furthermore, without a record, we will never know whether pledged delegates from the 13 (thirteen) vote binding states lived up to their obligation to vote for the candidate the voters from back home elected them to support at the Convention.

In fact, nothing in the record BEFORE the Convention indicated that in a full open vote at the Convention, his nomination rather than hers, was a foregone conclusion.  Not a thing.

For example, HRC won the popular vote.  (Did you already know that?) (Not at all surprising, since even on election day, polls taken of people who had just cast their votes showed she would have beaten John McCain by 11 percentage points, as opposed to BO’s 7.) Plus, even with all of the documented caucus fraud and the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee bait and switch with MI votes; best guesses, BO still only managed to ‘find’ less than 35 more pledged delegates as the result of votes cast for him, than for her.; (A federal court ruling in TX has allowed a lawsuit to proceed based on the under-allocation of delegates in heavily Hispanic districts, which could signal the beginning of the end to the D’s ‘complicated’ delegate allocation process in that state.)

Okay.  We previously established there is no correlation between the votes cast for BO by the Electors in the Electoral College; and the appearance of his name on the general election ballot. And we have just established there is NO correlation between winning the Democratic primary contest and garnering the Democratic nomination. Then why do you suppose Chairwoman Pelosi imposed measures that were guaranteed to gag the ‘fair reflection’ of the millions of voters who had dispatched delegates to the Convention, in order to guarantee BO the nomination?  Repeat after me:  The raison d’etre for awarding BO the national D party nomination  was to get elections officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to print his name next to the D on the general election ballot. And, according to state elections laws, only the candidate duly nominated by the national D party at the party Convention, as Certified to by the party, is entitled to have his or her name printed on state ballots for the general election.  But didn’t we just say, the actual election occurs within the EC, and not at the general election?  Then, why were Nancy Pelosi (and Howard Dean and Harry Reid) determined to get BO’s name on the ballot in the general election?  Because they could never have gotten away with stealing the election at the point of the EC vote, when most people think they are actually casting their votes for President in the general election.

As we’ve already said, in order to get the state to print the name of the nominee for POTUS from the major political party, onto the state’s general election ballot; appropriate party officials must Certify to state elections officials, the name of the nominee of the party.  But in some states, for example, TX and GA, just Certifying the name of the candidate is not enough to get his or name printed onto the ballot.  The law in those states says to get onto the ballot, the party nominee must also satisfy all of the qualifications of the job.  But, even in those states that mandate the nominee must be eligible, there’s no law that says, the party must Certify the nominee’s qualifications.  Of course, since DNC rules require the nominee must be eligible under the Constitution, (p.14, K.1 and 2), Certifying BO is the nominee is tantamount to verifying, he is Constitutionally eligible for the job.  Anyway, there’s no law in any state that says any state official has to check.

However, 1 (one) state in the union enacted a law that specifically says, the party must Certify the nominee for POTUS is eligible for the job:  HI.*

*(Correction:  After I posted this article, I learned that SC law also requires specific wording of eligibility to accompany the submission of candidate names that will appear on the ballot.  See

So, in her civilian role as Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, Nancy Pelosi, possessing all of the gravitas of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives signed the DNC’s Official Certification of Nomination relied upon by state elections officials to print the name of Barack Obama on the state general election ballots.  And on the Certification issued to the state of HI, Ms. Pelosi added this line:  he is “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

But as we now know, there is no evidence she determined beforehand whether he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.;

Which leads us to the final question:  In July of 2007, why do you suppose Howard Dean picked Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd in the line of Presidential succession, to Chair the 2008 DNC Convention?  Answer:  Perhaps to guarantee no matter the success achieved by other candidates seeking the D nomination, BO would still win the 2008 election.—-000-.html

(Editorial Assistance Provided by d2i)

%d bloggers like this: