On the Radio 06.30.12

June 29, 2012

UPDATE 06.30.12:  AT END

Join us on Saturday when TX citizen/activist Kelly Canon and I discuss alternative ways to keep off the 2012 general election ballot the name of the Presidential candidate who documentary evidence exposes was never federally qualified for the job.  Call in number is 714.242.5220. (If you cannot tune in tomorrow; you can listen to the archived show, by visiting the same link.)

Texas, We Have a Solution (Maybe)!

UPDATE 06.30.12:  We just finished the show and, having listened to the entire playback, I must say; it is absolutely fabulous. It offers a comprehensive synthesis of our work on ballot eligibility issues, from who determines whether a candidate is “federally qualified” to appear on the ballot; to how the executive branch carries out the express intention of the legislative branch for ballot entitlement; to how joining the National Popular Vote Initiative can subvert the strongest ballot eligibility laws.

(Or, as Kelly would say, we covered everything ‘from soup to nuts.’)


AG ABBOTT OPINES, TX PUBLIC RECORDS LAWS not WORTH the PAPER on which THEY’RE WRITTEN

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. http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/government-employee-salaries/state-of-texas/june-b-harden/1114680/

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.” http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.552.htm

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.”


WILL TX AG ABBOTT PROSECUTE the TDP for VIOLATING the TX PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT?

June 17, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

The Texas legislature enacted a law that directs the chairs of the major political parties to submit to the Secretary of State (“SoS”) the names of the party candidates who will appear on the ballots in both the Presidential preference primary as well as the general election.  It also passed a law that entitles candidates for President from the major political parties to appear on the general election ballot, only if they are “federally qualified” for the job. TX Election Code  §192.031

Unlike the Presidential candidates from the major political parties; Independent and Write-In candidates apply to appear on the general election ballot directly to the SoS. For this reason; consistent with the ‘federally qualified’ standard; the SoS designed ballot applications for use by both Independent and Write-in Presidential candidates which contain self-affirmations that, under the pains and penalties of perjury, the candidates are Constitutionally eligible for the job. (We found these by searching the SoS’s official web site, http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/index.shtml)

View this document on Scribd

True, a self-affirmation is arguably not as foolproof a method of establishing the candidate is federally qualified as, say, requiring the candidate to authorize a birth certificate to be generated by the issuing authority and delivered directly to the state official. HOW to WRITE SMART CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY LAWS in your STATE (and make applying to get on the ballot harder than applying to get into Harvard) But at least  one might expect that, like in the case of the witness testifying in open court under the pains and penalties of perjury; the self-declaring candidate is more likely than not to be telling the truth.

In TX, Presidential candidates from each of the two the major political parties must apply to the party chair to get onto the Presidential preference primary ballot, using the individualized application forms designed by each party. The chair determines which names to forward to the SoS, who merely prints the names thus supplied.

The forwarding of names of Presidential candidates from the major political parties, to the SoS; is done through an electronic submission of data, using Excel-like spread sheets the Secretary designed. This format limits the information the parties are able to transmit to little more than the candidate’s name, address, and date of birth. BALLOT ENTITLEMENT LAWS should DISQUALIFY PRESIDENT OBAMA in TEXAS. This means that, with respect to the names of the Presidential candidates which are submitted to the SoS by the major political parties; the Secretary never sees the candidates’ actual ballot applications. By thus limiting any opportunity for the political party to transmit documentation which might have resulted in a federal eligibility determination; the SoS is merely assuming the political party has determined their candidates are federally qualified for the job.  Indeed, whenever Texans asked the SoS on what documentary basis her office ascertained the Presidential candidates from the major political parties were federally qualified for office before she certified these names to the ballot; they were always referred back to the political party.

In other words, the SoS makes Independent and Write-In Presidential candidates ‘prove’ they are federally qualified for office before allowing their names to be printed on the general election ballot, consistent with the law. But when it comes to establishing that the Presidential candidates from the major political parties are federally qualified for office and thus have earned the statutory entitlement to appear on the ballot; the SoS takes the party chairs at their ‘implied’ word.

(Note that §192.031 refers to being “federally qualified” as necessary to achieve entitlement to appear on the general election ballot. There is no corresponding statute with respect to the primary ballot. However, as individual candidates must apply directly to state political party chairs to get on the primary ballot in TX; this represents the only opportunity for these chairs to establish whether the candidates are federally qualified for the job.)

TX has an extremely powerful public information law (“the Act”). Here is the opening section.

Sec. 552.001.  POLICY; CONSTRUCTION. (a) Under the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government that adheres to the principle that government is the servant and not the master of the people, it is the policy of this state that each person is entitled, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, at all times to complete information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed to implement this policy.

(b)  This chapter shall be liberally construed in favor of granting a request for information.

Using the Act; TX citizen activist Kelly Canon was able to obtain from the SoS documents such as the electronic transmittal forms they had received from the political parties. However, recall that neither the Republican Party of Texas (“RPT”) nor the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) is required to submit to the SoS either the actual primary ballot applications submitted to them by the Presidential candidates; or any other ‘evidence’ of the candidates’ federal qualifications. As a result, Ms. Canon could not obtain these documents by submitting a request under the Act, to the SoS. However, the Act equally applies to enumerated documents generated by political parties.  http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/pdf/EL.161.pdf Further, under §552.321 of the Act, production of documents requested can be compelled by the courts in an action in mandamus, initiated either by the AG or the aggrieved citizen. Id.  So, in order to obtain any documentation held by the political parties with respect to their candidates’ federal qualification; pursuant to the Act, Ms. Canon sent letters to both the RPT and the TDP specifically requesting “any and all documents which were the basis for your certification to the TXSoS that these candidates are federally qualified for the job.” (Identical letters were sent to both political .parties; here is the letter sent to the TDP.)

View this document on Scribd

Here’s what she got back from the RPT.

View this document on Scribd

As you can see; just like the SoS, the RPT also interpreted the TX ballot entitlement statute to mean, their Presidential candidate must be federally qualified in order to appear on the ballot. And, just like the SoS, they designed a primary ballot application which contains the same self-affirmation found in the SoS’s applications for Independent and Write-In candidates to appear on the general election ballot.

Recall that, ballot applications from both Independent and Write-In Presidential candidates, which contain the self-affirmation of federal eligibility; are submitted directly to the SoS. True, swearing to the chair of a major political party that you are a federally qualified Presidential candidate is technically not the same thing as swearing directly to the SoS. However, in TX, this represents a distinction without a seminal difference. Because when the political party chair is acting like a state official, for example, when s/he is determining which candidates’ names will be forwarded to the SoS to appear on the ballot; then, under TX perjury laws, the penalty for lying is the same! Id.

On the other hand; all Canon got from the TDP was a ballot application that contained neither any language of Constitutional eligibility nor any self-affirmation the candidate is federally qualified for the job!

Obviously, this is not at all what she asked for.

Thus, having refused (for whatever reason) to provide the requested documentation; the TDP violated the Act. And recall that, under §552.321 of the Act, production of documents requested can be compelled by the courts in an action in mandamus, initiated either by the AG or the aggrieved citizen. Id. Consequently, exercising the protocol spelled out in the Act, on June 13, Ms. Canon filed a complaint with AG Abbott against the TDP.

View this document on Scribd

AG Abbott published the Public Information 2012 Handbook. This letter to “Fellow Texans” appears on the first page:

Dear Fellow Texans:

James Madison once wrote, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” The best way for the people to arm themselves with that knowledge is for government to maintain openness in its dealings. Texas places a high priority on government openness, and the Public Information Act (PIA) is the primary law that requires it.

At the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), we are dedicated to helping citizens and public officials understand their rights and obligations under Texas open government laws. To that end, we publish the Public Information Handbook. This comprehensive resource explains the history of the PIA and includes such topics as how to make an open records request, what types of information are subject to such requests, and the consequences of a governmental body’s noncompliance. The 2012 edition also reflects PIA changes that were made by the 82nd Legislature.

Other open government resources are available on the OAG website at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov. These resources include frequently asked questions; a library of open records decisions dating back more than 30 years; and a public information cost estimate model, which assists governmental bodies in determining the cost of a public information request. Texans can also call our open government telephone hotline (877-OPEN-TEX) with their questions.

Thanks to Madison and the rest of America’s founders, this nation was established upon the principle of self-governance. We are heirs to that legacy. I hope this Public Information Handbook assists you in ensuring that Texas government remains accountable to the people it serves.

Sincerely,
Greg Abbott
Attorney General of Texas

Given the commitment memorialized in this handbook, to the principle that “government remains accountable to the people it serves”; will TX AG Abbott now prosecute the TDP for violating the TX Public Information Act?

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

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


BUYER BEWARE BIRTHER BALONEY (2 of 2)

June 15, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

(continued from BUYER BEWARE BIRTHER BALONEY (1 of 2))

When we left off, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett had received from HI the anonymous mailing he describes as his requested “verification in lieu of certified copy.” Now, he declared he was officially out of the business of 2012 Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s authentication – “They have complied with the request and I consider the matter closed.” – because the document proved Mr. Obama was born in HI, notwithstanding as many of us know, in fact, it did no such thing. Pulling defeat out of the mouth of victory, this declaration by a Republican Secretary of State arguably constitutes game, set, and match for the eligibility obstructionists.

Because now, despite the fact that we birthers know better; our detractors can rightly claim, the evidence is in: President Obama is a NBC. And they can justifiably dismiss as baseless any more challenges to his Constitutional eligibility by pointing to the fact, for the first time, a Secretary of State has proclaimed, based on word from HI; he is definitely a NBC. And, as a bonus, the SoS is a member in good standing of the Republican Party.

In general, any birther can be credited with this ignoble defeat who has focused on proving President Obama is Constitutionally ineligible for the job instead of either 1) challenging how anyone who swore he was eligible (in a state with ballot eligibility laws) knew he was a NBC; or 2) spreading the word, his campaign’s release of the COLB in June 2008 and the long form birth certificate in April 2011 were both part of a political ad campaign.

I have been warning you this could happen, ever since Orly Taitz corralled NH State Representative Rappaport into misapplying my ballot fraud principle; in this non-ballot eligibility state.

To: GregNH

Of course he dropped this. Because no NH law requires the candidate whose name appears on the ballot to be qualified for the job. When my work was stolen, the thieves joined together to apply my concept of election fraud to NH. Only, this was not an applicable state for the complaints of election fraud to the AG, filed in applicable states like HI, GA, MD, TX, SC, and VA. Plus, they took it to the SoS, a state constitutional officer with no jurisdiction into criminal matters but whose authority only extends to ruling on the validity of the ballot in NH according to NH law. Their charge? BO committed fraud when he signed the application to get his name printed on the Presidential primary ballot. Big mistake. Because charging him with fraud meant proving he lied. What I mean is, he knows whether he is a NBC. So, in order to go after him, you would have to prove, he lied. That’s why I went after anyone else who Certified he was a NBC, like Nancy Pelosi, or Boyd Richie. How did THEY know he was a NBC before Certifying he was, and sending that Certification to state election officials? By forging ahead with the concept they stole from me, these thieves almost blew our legitimate causes of action. What do you suppose would have happened if the NH SoS had ruled, there was no ballot fraud? (And there wasn’t, in NH.) The AG in TX, where there WAS fraud, could have said, ‘Well, the SoS in NH has determined there was no ballot fraud and so, as far as I am concerned, the case is closed.’ Thank goodness, all the NH SoS did was refer the complaint ostensibly lodged by the NH state Rep. – did you know he was a named Plaintiff in one of Orly’s cases? – to the AG, who would not touch it.

Stealing my work is not only wrong on its face; it is also subverting the mission of that work. My readers are (or are becoming) educated voters. They have read the articles on my blog and asked questions. They sent in their complaints understanding what they were signing their names to. There is no shortcut here. You have to put in the time to become an informed voter. At least, you have to know as much about the system as those who would use their superior knowledge to have power over your lives.

41 posted on November 24, 2009 13:01:39 by jbjd

Laurence Rappaportsays:

I am a State Representative in New Hampshire. On, I believe, November 20th, Representative Carol Vita, her husband and I spoke with Mr. Michael Delaney, the Attorney General of New Hampshire indicating our concerns regarding the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States. I had previously spoken with Mr. William Gardner, the Secretary of State of New Hampshire asking that he investigate. The contention with Mr. Delaney was that the Democratic National Party might have committed fraud upon the voters of New Hampshire. Both Mr. Delaney and Mr. Gardner declined. Mr. Delaney said he thought the matter was federal and that the complaint was a federal one. I would like to pursue this further, but while I certainly have the inclination, I have neither the financial resources nor the knowledge of how to do so. Consequently I would greatly appreciate advice of how to proceed. Thank you.

Laurence Rappaport: Welcome. I have advised anyone reading this blog, until you understand at least as much about this election process as those with superior knowledge who would subvert the process to gain power over you; you cannot make a difference.

I advise people who question BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS to shift their focus away from him. He knows whether he is a NBC; but how does anyone else without access to the requisite documentation but who nonetheless swore he is Constitutionally eligible, know he is a NBC?

NH is an inapplicable state for the purpose of filing a complaint of election fraud with the state AG, against various members of the D party, for swearing to state election officials BO is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS to get them to print his name on the ballot, before ascertaining whether he is a NBC. Only in states with laws requiring the candidates whose names are printed on the ballot, must be eligible for the job, can such conduct be construed as election fraud.

Please, read one of these complaints posted on the front of this blog. The applicable election law in each state is cited within the complaint. Note on the front of each complaint, the complainant makes clear, this complaint takes no stand on whether BO is a NBC. It only alleges members of the D party swore he was before ascertaining this was true as the prerequisite to getting his name printed on the state ballot. That’s election fraud. (In SC, this fraud also occurred in the primary. Because under SC law, unlike in NH, the party had to swear the candidates entering the Presidential preference primary were eligible for the job, too.)

Then read “THE END GAME” on this blog. See, those of us who are questioning the election of BO want a full vetting of his eligibility status, assuming that, if the facts establish he is not eligible then, Congress will move to impeach him. I had hoped these complaints would result in a ruling from a state AG that would be the impetus for Congress to act. Obviously, ‘educating’ even one member of Congress as to these issues could also work to spark such debate. But first, you have to know what you are talking about.

Come back with any questions about the materials. Good luck. ADMINISTRATOR

jbjd | November 19, 2011 at 3:40 pm |

… A long time ago now, with azgo’s help, I proved FTS and anything posted on that site legally constitute political advertising; and no identification document delivered by Obama (including by his lawyers) can be said to be “official.”; (See, for example, DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and (2 of 2).)

  1. Continuing to focus on such minutia with the hope that, even catching Obama in a contradiction will alter the outcome of the 2012 election, appears to me to signal an intentional campaign to avoid altering the results. The only way to make Obama’s birth credentials count, is to enforce ballot eligibility laws, where they exist; and to draft new laws, where there are none. Also, laws must be passed requiring state Electors to elect only eligible candidates. (Nothing I am saying here is new.) In other words, challenge those people who swear he is eligible to get on the ballot, to tell you how they know. (Read and repeat…)

    Stop blaming everyone else for allowing Obama into office. …If you want to change things, stop bullying people into agreeing with your opinion and start working within the law. In NH, Obama complied with state election law. Even if he was lying when he took the oath. …Because as I pointed out on another thread, in NH, the law as written requires the election commission “shall” assume that any candidate fulfilling the requirements spelled out in law, such as taking the oath written in the law, has satisfied the legal filing requirements.

  2. Under NH law, all voting rights complaints must be filed with the state AG. So, the particular NH election officials (ballot commission) who refused to allow Orly’s complaint, were only doing exactly what they were required to do, by law, all unbridled protestations from the onlookers notwithstanding.
    http://www.doj.nh.gov/election-law/complaints.htm
    In some cases, that is, where the matter is deemed not to be criminal, the AG can certify the complaint to be passed on to the ballot commission. But the first stop is the AG.

I had to bring my ongoing ballot eligibility work ‘underground,’ willing to limit its availability to the general public so as to protect its integrity. Because unscrupulous thieves misappropriated the work, in hopes of self-aggrandizement and, in so doing, invited defeats which reflected poorly on the quality of my work. But despite the necessity; restricting the publication of my current efforts necessarily reduced the efficacy of that work. Even so, as ‘evidenced’ by what happened in Arizona; unscrupulous charlatans have found another way to derail any sound ‘birther’ argumentation.

You cannot continue to support these swindlers who front for the eligibility industry but who (not surprisingly) don’t demand you understand how our government works; and, at the same time, insist, anyone who purports to be  working on these eligibility issues, deserves credit for supporting the “cause.”

P.S.  After months of intensive background work; we are about to launch another round of citizen complaints of election fraud, in one state. We might be too late to keep Mr. Obama’s name off the ballot; but we have plenty of time to get out the word, no documentary evidence available in the public record establishes he is Constitutionally eligible for the job.

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

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


BUYER BEWARE BIRTHER BALONEY (1 of 2)

June 9, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

As if providing the facts that would drive the discourse of the 2012 election cycle away from fatuous fiction with respect to President Obama’s origins wasn’t sufficiently challenging; now, when he is turning the corner to what could have been a virtually guaranteed rejection of his bid for re-election, Constitutional huckster Sheriff Joe Arpaio -‘I never met a due process right I couldn’t deny’ – beguiled a duplicitous AZ SoS Ken Bennett into helping steer Mr. Obama over the finish line, aided and abetted in his siren song by his WND handlers, including Dr. Jerome Corsi; and a supporting cast of crazies.

The stated story line sounds simple enough. In lieu of a bona fide identification document generated by the issuing authority and conveyed directly to the AZ SoS;  Ken Bennett asked HI officials to verify vital information related to Barack Obama’s birth ( “verification in lieu of a certified copy” ) pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statute section 338-18(g), which allows such confirmation under conditions specified in the law. (The official HI DoH web site carries a downloadable request form; however, I have been unable to locate an image of Bennett’s original request to HI, either in ‘form’ form or, as a written narrative.)

As Bennett rationalized to Mike Broomhead on KFYI radio; he requested a verification in lieu of a certified copy because, while he believes President Obama was born in Hawaii – “at least I hope he was” – his “responsibility as Secretary of State is to make sure that the ballots in Arizona are correct and that those people whose names are on the ballots have met the qualifications for the office that they’re seeking.” He explained that after the press conference held by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his posse, in which Arpaio stated, the long-form birth certificate posted on the WhiteHouse.gov web site “might” be fraudulent; people began contacting his office.  He had received about 1,200 emails from Arizona voters who are concerned about President Obama’s birth records, and felt it was his duty to follow up.

Or, maybe he asked HI to confirm Obama’s credentials, for the reason printed in the Arizona Republic. “I was just trying to put this thing to bed and agree to a constituent’s request, which I’m allowed to do” …”This is a constituent from Arizona, whom I work for.” Perhaps not surprisingly, he never named the constituent.

But neither explanation passes the ‘smell test.’ The only time that candidates for President are required to self-affirm their Constitutional qualifications is on the application to the SoS to appear on the Presidential preference primary ballot. (Most of us first saw this ballot application in 2008.) And the 2012 AZ Presidential preference primary went off without a hitch on February 28. As for the upcoming general election ballot, well, under AZ law; the Presidential nominee of the major political party is entitled to appear on the general election ballot. http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00804.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS

MOST IMPORTANTLY; NO LAW IN AZ REQUIRES THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB IN ORDER TO HAVE THEIR NAMES PRINTED ON EITHER THE PRIMARY OR GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT, ANYWAY! And no law in that state requires Electors to vote only for Presidential candidates who are Constitutionally eligible for the job. In other words, Bennett had no duty to determine Mr. Obama’s Constitutional eligibility!

Besides, people have been asking S’soS in all 50 states, including AZ, to verify Obama is a NBC, since 2008.  Why confront HI now? Rather, what makes sense is that Bennett is pandering to the fringe, believing this will help his presumed gubernatorial bid in 2014. In his present position as Secretary of State; he would have better served the citizens of AZ had he understood the difference between a bona fide identification document generated by the issuing authority (DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and (2 of 2)) and a paid political announcement; and explained this difference so as to inform the voters (to say nothing of the disservice to the state’s campaign for presumptive R Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, for whom he is co-chair).

Now, back to the dance of deception between state officials of both states…

Officials from the Offices of the HI AG and the Department of Health began corresponding with Mr. Bennett so as to establish whether he had a legal right under HI law to the verification requested. If so; then, they would provide the requested verification. TPM (Talking Points Memo) obtained this correspondence from HI through a public records request (based in HI law). Reading the exchange; it appears that HI asked SoS Bennett to prove it satisfied one of the exceptions listed in their law for breaching the confidentiality of vital records; and Bennett, try as he might, could not reach the level of exception. Indeed, the last letter from HI makes clear, he had not established to their satisfaction, his right to obtain such verification. Nevertheless, immediately thereafter, they transmitted that “verification in lieu of a certified copy,” a mere 8 (eight) weeks after he first asked HI – using whatever form – to provide this verification.

Even if you knew nothing else about the laws impacting the exchange – ballot eligibility; campaign expenditure (political advertising); what constitutes a bona fide identification document generated by the issuing authority – this providing such verification despite expressing these reservations, with no intervening ‘change of heart’ evidenced in their communication; should have signaled, ‘something fraudulent this way comes.’

But then there was this…

Obviously, requests to HI for information about Barack Obama have burdened their state agencies. HI Deputy AG Nagamine sent Bennett a “link is to the Department of Health’s website that was created in response to the high volume of inquiries about the President’s birth certificate. It includes the press releases issued by Dr. Fukino, the former Republican-appointed Director of Health. ttp://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.htmlId. Bennett acknowledges her claims of disruption. “I understand your client’s initial trepidation in responding to this request given the significant amount of email, fax and phone call traffic that this issue has spawned. My office too has received numerous constituent requests and I agree with Director Fuddy’s assertion in her letter of April 25, 2011 that the sheer volume of inquires has “been disruptive to staff operations and have strained State resources.”” Id. (Of course, readers of “jbjd” know better than to credit anything credited to Ms. Fukino concerning the so-called ‘facts’ of Obama’s life. They would likely notice, these links to Fukino’s statements contain the disclaimer, ‘no other documentary evidence supports these statements were  made.’

Also see, for example,  TRUMPED by TRUMP (Updated 04.10.11) and RECOGNIZING when the PEOPLE INVOLVED with the PRESS ROLLOUT of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2011 LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AD CAMPAIGN WORE a PUBLIC v. PRIVATE HAT)

So, given the notoriety of a request from a state SoS to verify President’s Obama’s bona fides; and, given the burden imposed on HI offices as the result of similar requests for such verification; and, given this opportunity to (perhaps) once and for all end all such Obama-related requests to HI for authentication; one could rationally expect to see the signature of an official employed by the HI DoH on the bottom of the issued documentation. If so then, one would be wrong. Because for reasons which can only be speculated; whoever actually signed that letter is anonymous, leaving behind only what appears to be his or her initials. (Maybe someone can submit another request to HI using the public records laws, to learn the signer’s real name.)

Nevertheless, notwithstanding these obvious fatal faults with the legitimacy of this ‘verification in lieu of a certified copy’ process; several media outlets have touted the production by the anonymous HI signatory as ‘proof’ of President Obama’s  Constitutional eligibility for office. That is, this confirms his HI birth. Oh, sure, it does no such thing. But that has not stopped such claims; and it serves Bennett and the bumbling Birthers who incited his quest, right.

(continued in BUYER BEWARE BIRTHER BALONEY (2 of 2)

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

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


GOOD THING the REPUBLICAN PARTY of TEXAS READS the “jbjd” BLOG

April 19, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

Thanks to the Republican Party of Texas (“RPT”) I am able to amend some misleading information I posted in the previous article, BALLOT ENTITLEMENT LAWS should DISQUALIFY PRESIDENT OBAMA in TEXAS. How they came to aid in this clarification, is a hoot!

On Wednesday, April 18, at around 5:30 PM EDT, I received a call from kjcanon, in TX. “Are you sitting down?” Needless to say, I was by the time I answered her question.

Seems she had just received a call from Mr. Jesse Lewis, who is the Executive Director of the RPT,  concerning her open records request. (She had listed her telephone number on that request.) According to Mr Lewis, the documents she asked for had already been forwarded to the email address she provided, and he wanted to know why she would claim otherwise. Immediately, she thought back to that complaint she had just filed 2 days earlier with AG Abbott, charging that Steve Munisteri, Chair of the TDP, a public official under the Public Information Act inasmuch as he certifies candidate names to the ballot; had refused to produce public records she requested, which were the basis of his certification. Could that office have possibly followed up so quickly? She asked Mr. Lewis what was the source of his information: “…I saw the JBJD (sic) blog…”

Turns out, the RPT had sent the materials on April 5, to the wrong address and then, seeing my blog, on Tuesday, re-sent the materials, again to the wrong address. Finally, after contacting kjc on Wednesday, they got it right. They also asked her to pass on this information to me, which she did. (They didn’t ask her to withdraw the public information complaint she had filed with AG Abbott but she did that immediately, too.)

Here are those RPT emails.

Notice that 2 documents were attached: one, designated “20120405091443653.pdf,” which contained multiple candidate applications to the ballot; and the other designated “order on party conventions.pdf.” This second attachment leads to the other subject raised by Mr. Lewis, which we will discuss first.

As the result of a settlement recently reached among the parties in the TX redistricting lawsuit, the dates were changed for several key party functions during the primary season, including the voting by party members during the actual primary contest and, the holding of the party state convention, which changes now conflicted with existing state statutes. Consequently, the federal district court ruling on redistricting matters (on remand from the SCOTUS) issued several orders with respect to these new dates, in which all such inconsistencies were addressed. (Four such orders were issued between February 28 and March 1!) Here is a snippet from an Order entered on February 28:

d. Sections 163.00, 191.007, and 191.008, Texas Election Code, are suspended for the
purposes of modfications (sic) to party rules made pursuant to this order.

Mr. Lewis, again obviously referencing the article he had read here on the “jbjd” blog, now informed kjc that, according to item “d” of this redistricting court order; the RPT wasn’t required to submit its rules to the SoS by January 5, the date which appears in the statute, in order to preserve the entitlement of their candidates to appear on the ballot, anyway! He would send along that court order for her reference.

Now, having not yet seen any of the documents to which kjc referred, I could only ‘guess’ at why Mr. Lewis was wrong. I reasoned that, obviously, a rule determining federal qualifications was not impacted by a court order necessitating changes in filing deadlines, which, without the court’s exception, would conflict with existing state laws. Then, I saw the order. The modifying language in section “d” makes clear, the only party rules exempted from the deadlines contained in those specific statutes, are those rules which must be modified pursuant to the changes imposed by the order, on the timetable for events occurring during the course of the primary season.  (Perhaps that’s why the RPT entitled that attachment, “order on party conventions.”) There is also this, from SoS Andrade:

All dates, deadlines or requirements not specifically adjusted by the federal court order remain as required under state or federal law. Calendar of Important Dates for Candidates for the 2012 Primary and General Elections

Before I complete the discussion of the rules, I want to focus on the other attachment which came in the mail, the Presidential candidate applications.  According to Mr. Lewis, the applications “are the only documents used to certify these candidates place on our ballot.” So, we looked for something in the form which confirms that the candidate has established meeting “federal” “qualifications.” Here is the form submitted by Charles “Buddy” Roemer.

Notice that this contains an oath or affirmation from the applicant swearing s/he satisfies the Constitutional requirements for the job.

Now, look at the TDP form submitted by Barack Obama (which also appeared on the previous post.)

No such self-authentication. (Had you already noticed that the application form supplied by the TDP contains no such oath or affirmation?)

Either way, neither the RPT nor the TDP can be said to ‘certify’ a Presidential candidate has met federal qualifications when the only basis for that certification is the candidate’s self-authentication.

Anyway, that was just the beginning of our work. On the RPT form, in the upper left corner, I noticed this blurb: Prescribed by the Republican Party of Texas, Rule #38, 10/2011. So, the RPT ostensibly has a rule with respect to establishing a candidate for President is federally qualified? How did we miss that? We searched through the RPT rules (and the TDP rules) for anything containing the numbers “191” or “192,” the sections of TX statutes dealing with Presidential candidates, and found nothing. Now, we looked at the RPT’s rule 38. Here is the section of that rule relating to the candidates’ applications:

Rule No. 38 – National Convention Delegates and Alternates – Amended February 29, 2012
Section 1. Presidential Primary, Application of Rule

Section 2. Method of Qualifying as Presidential Candidate
a. Filing: Any person eligible to hold the office of President of the United States may qualify to participate as a Presidential candidate in the presidential primary by filing with the State Chairman, not later than 6:00 p.m. the second Monday in December of an odd-numbered year preceding the presidential primary, a signed and acknowledged application for his or her name to be placed on the Presidential Primary ballot, accompanied by a supporting petition signed by a minimum of 300 registered voters of the state from each of a minimum of fifteen (15) Congressional Districts, or the payment of a filing fee of $5,000.

So, yes, both the TDP and the RPT filed ‘rules’ with the SoS by deadlines created either in the statute or through the court order(s). But neither party preserved its entitlement to the ballot by filing a rule that spelled out how it would determine conclusively so as to certify to the Sos; both the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are federally qualified for the job.

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

Freedom costs.


BALLOT ENTITLEMENT LAWS should DISQUALIFY PRESIDENT OBAMA in TEXAS

April 16, 2012

CRITICAL UPDATE 04.18.12, 17:59 EDT

at bottom of post

(CORRECTED 06.25.12)

©2012 jbjd

Under Texas law, by failing to file with Texas Secretary of State Hope Andrade the rules adopted by the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) to determine that the party’s nominees for President and Vice President are federally qualified for the job; Attorney Boyd Richie, Chair of the TDP, has forfeited the entitlement of the party to have the name of its nominees for those federal offices appear on the 2012 TX ballot. In fact, by failing to provide the candidate qualification rules of the Republican Party of Texas (“RPT”), Attorney Steve Munisteri, Chair of the RPT, has similarly forfeited the entitlement of his party’s nominees for President and Vice President to appear on the 2012 ballot, too.

It’s true; look at the law.

In TX, who determines whether the names of the nominees chosen by a political party, for President and Vice-President of the United States appear on the ballot?

A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for President and Vice President of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law. §192.031 PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT

But who determines whether the nominee for President is Constitutionally eligible for the job?

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. §191.003 NOTICE OF CANDIDATES TO SECRETARY OF STATE

How does the state chair determine whether the candidate has satisfied federal eligibility?

The state executive committee of each political party holding a Presidential primary election shall adopt the rules necessary to implement these laws. §191.008 IMPLEMENTATION BY PARTY

How does the SoS know that the party has adopted these rules necessary to verify the federal qualification of the  Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates submitted to that office?

For a political party to be entitled to have its nominees for President and Vice President of the United States placed on the general election ballot in an election year in which the party is holding a presidential primary election, the rules adopted under this section or the rules already in existence must be filed with the secretary of state not later than January 5 of the Presidential election year. Id.

Now, look at the facts.

In 2008, the SoS received from Mr. Richie the list of candidates the TDP wanted the state to print on the TX primary ballot. Here is Mr. Richie’s cover letter, and only the first page of that candidate submission.

(These 2008 records were obtained from the SoS in 2012 during a series of requests for public information, which was delayed due to court redistricting issues that in turn pushed back the date of the primary to May 29 and, therefore, the deadline for party submissions). (The mandatory retention schedule for such records is 2 years unless the records have been the subject of some kind of challenge. We have no idea why the SoS maintained these records for 4 years, but we are glad she did.)

In the cover letter, Mr. Richie explains he is sending this information to the SoS “in compliance with §172.028(a) of the Texas Election Code.” That section, STATE CHAIR’S CERTIFICATION OF NAMES FOR PLACEMENT ON GENERAL PRIMARY BALLOT, is found under TITLE 10, POLITICAL PARTIES, SUBTITLE B. PARTIES NOMINATING BY PRIMARY ELECTION, CHAPTER 172. PRIMARY ELECTIONS. Then, as you can see; in the page that followed, he listed together both the Presidential candidates and the down-ticket candidates, like U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative.

He shouldn’t have.

Title 10 only applies to party candidates chosen via a primary election. And even though the names of both the Presidential hopefuls and these down-ticket offices appear on the same primary ballot; the party nominees for U.S. Senate and U.S. Representative are chosen directly as the result of the primary contest, whereas the nominees for President and Vice President are not. Rather, these are chosen at the party’s Presidential nominating convention. (This is covered in Title 11, in §191.003.) This means, votes cast for the Presidential candidate during the party primary only count for the purpose of the assignment of pledged delegates who will then vote for that candidate at the party’s national convention.

So, is listing the Presidential candidates, covered under 191.003, on the same form as candidates covered by 172.028(a), as cited in Mr. Richie’s letter, just a legal technicality, in other words, a distinction without a difference? Hardly. Here is the text of 172.028(a): “Except as provided…the state chair shall certify in writing for placement on the general primary election ballot the name of each candidate who files with the chair an application…” In other words, to get on the ballot under this section, a candidate need only submit an application. And no law requires the party to adopt rules to carry out the laws in this section. On the other hand, 191.003, printed above, requires the chair to submit only the names of candidates federally qualified for the job. And 191.008 requires the party to adopt rules to ensure the section’s implementation.

Naturally, just because Mr. Richie wrote down the wrong law didn’t mean, he hadn’t carried out the mandate of the right law by verifying the candidates he submitted to the SoS for the 2008 Presidential preference primary ballot were federally qualified for the job. But we know he didn’t verify whether the Presidential nominee wannabes were federally qualified for the job. We also know that Mr. Munisteri, his counterpart in the RPT, didn’t verify Republican Presidential candidates were federally qualified for the job, too. Because we looked it up. That is, we searched the internal rules of the respective parties for references to 191.003.

TDP Rules, 2006-2008: http://txdems.3cdn.net/b365cb3e72bc521333_pom6vdrl3.pdf

TDP Rules, 2012: http://www.txdemocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/2010-2012-TDP-Rules.pdf

RPT Rules, 2008: http://www.1888932-2946.ws/TexasGOP/E-ContentStrategy/userfiles/2008_General_Rules.pdf

RPT Rules, 2011 (Amended for 2012): http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2011RPTRules_Amended.pdf

Lo and behold, we found no such rules. For either party. For the years 2008 – 2012. This means, neither party could possibly have submitted the rules required under 191.003 to the SoS. And, under 192.031, this means neither party is entitled to have the names of its Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees on the general election ballot. It’s as simple as that.

Of course, just because both the TDP and the RPT have lost entitlement to have the names of their nominees for President and Vice President on the general election ballot doesn’t mean that SoS Andrade cannot exercise her discretion to place those names on that ballot or, on the primary ballot, anyway. But she should not. And here’s why.

Notwithstanding neither party promulgated rules as required by law to preserve entitlement for the names of their Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to appear on the ballot; this does not mean, they didn’t somehow verify their candidates had satisfied federal qualifications for the job. So we submitted a request for the production of documents which were the basis for their ballot certification; to the Chairs of both parties, under the TX Public Information Act.

You might recall we attempted to retrieve documents from Mr. Richie and the TDP in 2010. But notwithstanding under the law the documents requested were pubic records; and the parties, as holders of these records, were public officials; those 2010 requests were ignored. TEXAS TWO-STEP. Maybe it was because we hadn’t spelled out in our request the legal framework which supported our rights to the documents requested. In other words, we hadn’t let him know, we know the law. So, this time, we did. (Citizens shouldn’t have to be lawyers to get their public officials to do their jobs, whether these are unelected officers of a private political club merely fulfilling a public function. Especially when those officials are lawyers, too. Id.) 1) §191.003.  NOTICE OF CANDIDATES TO SECRETARY OF STATE. This law established the Chair had a duty to certify the names of the party candidates to the SoS. 2) §192.031.  PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT. This restricts entitlement to be on the ballot to only those Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates meeting federal qualifications for the job. 3) §141.035.  APPLICATION AS PUBLIC INFORMATION. This establishes a candidate’s application for a place on the ballot is a public record on filing. 4) §161.004.  PARTY DOCUMENT AS PUBLIC INFORMATION. This states that any document required to be filed by the party is public information. 5. §161.009.  PARTY OFFICER SUBJECT TO MANDAMUS.  This spells out that when a party officer has a duty to act under the election code; the performance of that duty is enforceable by writ of mandamus in the same manner as if the party officer were a public officer.

Here is the Public Information request letter sent to the RPT.
How did the RPT respond to the request? Attorney Munisteri ignored it. (Kelly has already filed a complaint with AG Abbott.)

Presumably, the esteemed Chair of the RPT knows when it comes to submitting names to the TX ballot; he is a public official, required to respond to this request for public information. Because his brother in the law, Attorney Richie, Chair of the TDP, knows. When we sent this letter to him –

he gave us everything we wanted – (CORRECTION 06.24.12: He only appeared to give us what we wanted. Because as Kelly pointed out; this application was missing any language establishing the candidate was Constitutionally eligible for the job; and she had asked for documents which were the basis for his finding the candidates whose names he submitted to the SoS to appear on the ballot were “federally qualified.”) (See WILL TX AG ABBOTT PROSECUTE the TDP for VIOLATING the TX PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT?)

which consisted of nothing more than Mr. Obama’s ballot application. (Under §1.012, PUBLIC INSPECTION OF ELECTION RECORDS, you can view this public record by visiting the offices of the TDP.)

In other words, Mr. Richie put the name of Barack Obama on the TX ballot just because he asked him to. As if he was a down-ticket candidate under 172.028(a).

Wherefore, SoS Andrade should exercise her discretionary authority to keep the RPT candidates for President and Vice President off the ballot; not just because they ignored the law requiring rules adopted for candidate eligibility to be filed with her office but also because they ignored the law requiring production of records used for public elections. She should exercise her discretion to keep the TDP candidates off the ballot because they ignored the law on rules and then swore to the SoS, having filed an application to get on the ballot, the candidate was thereby federally qualified for the job

When it comes to exercising her discretion as to whether to allow the Presidential candidates of either of these parties, Republican or Democrat, to appear on the TX ballot; SoS Andrade should come down on the side of the citizens of Texas, and not the political parties.

(H/T to “jbjd” patron kjcanon for her Herculean assistance researching, editing, and thinking out loud.)

CRITICAL UPDATE 04.18.12, 17:59 EDT: I have just been informed of a change of status with regard to the documents requested from the RPT. The post which will print shortly will explain everything. jbjd

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

Freedom costs.


PAYDIRT

April 14, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

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

Not everyone agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom costs.


RECOGNIZING when the PEOPLE INVOLVED with the PRESS ROLLOUT of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2011 LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AD CAMPAIGN WORE a PUBLIC v. PRIVATE HAT

April 8, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

In the first 3 articles in this series, 1) WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA WAITED until APRIL 27, 2011 to RELEASE a FACSIMILE of his LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE; 2) WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA RELEASED the LONG-FORM IMAGE of his BIRTH CERTIFICATE in PDF versus JPEG; and 3) SHE SAID / HE SAID: SCRIPTING the 04.27.11 LAUNCH of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE we distinguished between the public versus private aspects of the 2011 launch of President Obama’s long form birth certificate advertising campaign, including peeking at the roles played by the various actors identified as participating in the rollout, recognizing when these ‘officials’ wore their public (official) versus private hats.

We left off with the press gaggle that was hastily convened in the WH Briefing Room early on the morning of April 27, 2011, to discuss the release of the image Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer explained at that time was a/the long form birth certificate. (This is not say, the gaggle was hastily planned. As I pointed out previously, Pfeiffer handed out these documents on the 27th as part of the official press launch of the long-form ad campaign, which was followed this same day with an interview on Oprah, in Chicago, with security laid out well in advance by the Secret Service; and culminating with evening fundraisers, by invitation only, in NY. ) (Notice I said, Pfeiffer referred to the document as a long form birth certificate. If you review the gaggle exchange, you will see, he never explicitly said this long form birth certificate was “the President’s long form birth certificate” or “his long form birth certificate.” On the other hand, he once refered to that COLB posted in 2008 as “his birth certificate.” Does this mean that certification posted on FTS in June 2008 really began as an actual vital record received by the campaign (in 2007) from the issuing authority, that is, the HI DoH, which was then doctored appropriately so as to conceal from the public the information they – the campaign – wanted to hide? Or did Pfeiffer just misspeak?)

Some aspects of this public/private dichotomy seemed more obvious than others. For example, recall that we were informed the (alleged) trip to HI to retrieve the document was made by Ms. Corley, the President’s private attorney, and not WH Counsel Bauer; and was paid for not by public funds (meaning, it was paid for by the campaign). Based on conduct on display at the gaggle, it was easy to see that Mr. Pfeiffer was ‘officially’ speaking on behalf of the President’s campaign, and not as a member of the staff of the Executive office. That is, when the conversation concerned questions directed specifically to the long form document purported to reflect the vital record of the President’s birth; it was deliberately steered to him, as opposed to Mr. Bauer or Mr. Carney. (Plus, as I further pointed out; the campaign communications person is often brought in-house to manage his client’s political message after the election. And I noted that his job required no Senate confirmation, implying he didn’t ‘owe’ the government anything, like fealty to the Constitution; rather, he served at the pleasure of the President.) On the other hand; as I noted, Mr. Bauer’s job as WH Counsel was to protect the (Office of the) President as well as members of the Executive staff, from legal liability, Otherwise, his presence at the press gaggle could not be rationally explained. (Spelling out to reporters the difference between a long form birth certificate and a certification does not require the expertise of a WH Counsel who wrote the book, literally, on campaign finance laws.)

But our previous analysis didn’t do justice to either Loretta Fuddy, Director, HI Department of Health; or President Barack Obama, without whose complicity the campaign never could have pulled this off. In this 4th article in the series, we will examine this public/private dichotomy focusing on Ms. Fuddy (and her immediate predecessor at the HI DoH, Ms. Fukino), honing in on when the conduct of a public official is ‘officially’ part of the job.

The correspondence between Mr. Obama and Ms. Fuddy was intended to add credibility to the sham that the President had really released his long form birth certificate. (Did you know that Ms. Fuddy’s nomination by Governor Abercrombie to the position of Director had only been confirmed on March 27, 2011, less than 2 weeks before Obama officially (publicly) announced his 2012 re-election campaign?) On April 27, 2011 Pfeiffer distributed copies of what he said were those letters, to the press; and he posted a link to these documents on WhiteHouse.gov. (But recall that the image of the long form birth certificate was fully displayed directly on the page.)

But even assuming the original version of Ms. Fuddy’s correspondence was ‘real’; did her statements therein constitute an official state proclamation of the President’s place of birth? For example, would her seal of approval posted on the internet per se mean to a court of law, for example, (or a state election official) he is who he says he is? Not hardly.

One way to determine whether an utterance by someone holding public office is ‘official,’ is to examine whether the statement is made pursuant to an official function of the job. For example, do Hawaii Revised Statutes authorize the Director of the HI DoH to personally inspect the contents of vital documents of an identified individual contained in files that office is required to maintain? Do they authorize her to publicly pronounce her opinion as to the authenticity of the information contained in a personal record preserved in her care? The answer emphatically is, no. And you can get to this result in any number of ways, including these: find the law that specifically authorizes her to carry out the act; or, in the alternative, the law that prohibits it.

First, here is the law establishing the Office of the DoH (enabling statute), headed by a single executive, the Director. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol01_Ch0001-0042F/HRS0026/HRS_0026-0013.htm Generally, this requires the department to “administer programs designed to protect, preserve, care for, and improve the physical and mental health of the people of the State.”  Nothing there about personally verifying those records as authentic or, publicizing that verification. But the privacy and confidentiality rights of the subjects of records kept by the Department, are covered by Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18  Disclosure of records. Know where I got this link? On the HI DoH web site, in a page entitled Frequently Asked Questions about Vital Records of President Barack Hussein Obama II. (Well, technically, I found only the citation to the law, which was not linked to the actual law.)

Yes, I linked to the HI DoH web site, to the section above and another entitled “About Vital Records.” All the information needed to establish that statements such as the ones attributed to Director Fuddy (and Fukino before her), mean absolutely nothing when it comes to confirming the facts of Mr. Obama’s place of birth, is right there in front of your eyes, like a neon sign flashing, FRAUD. Because even assuming those statements attributed to Ms. Fuddy were actually made by her; under HI law, only Mr. Obama, the supposed subject of those records, has the right to reveal those statements publicly. Ms. Fuddy not only isn’t authorized to make statements with respect to the accuracy of Obama’s personal records; but, she isn’t authorized to breach his privacy rights. And that’s probably why, if you look closely, you will see, she did not. Rather, Mr. Obama did. She only referenced his prior remarks.

Did you catch that opening line?

On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.

And, this is the truth. The ‘bullets’ underneath the main heading on the HI DoH site link to documents which, while stored on the HI DoH server; per the lead, were first posted by the Obama campaign, with the exception of the bullet linking to Mr. Obama’s purported long form birth certificate, which is linked directly to the WH.gov server. (This only makes sense, because under the HI UIPA, an image like that long form birth certificate appearing on the HI.gov site would be subject to mandatory disclosure under a public records request.) If you click on the links from either the HI.gov or the WH.gov web sites, this opens the actual PDF files into your browser window. If you then right-click your mouse within the PDF file (environment) and select “document properties” from the pull-down menu, you will see the time that these documents were created and subsequently posted to their respective websites. You will see, the documents were posted on WH.gov a little after noon, EDT, beating the HI links to those documents, posted at around 8:30 AM HST, by about 4 hours. (For those keeping track, D.C. on EDT is 6 hours ahead of HI on HST. http://www.pia.nrcs.usda.gov/contact/pia_timezone_standard_chart.html )

In other words, even assuming Director Fuddy wrote her letter to Obama on April 22; she didn’t post links to that letter (or to any other documents associated with that letter) on April 22, April 23, April 24, April 25, or April 26. Instead, she waited until April 27, after Pfeiffer handed out copies of that letter to the press; and after he posted links to those documents on the WH.gov web site, before she posted that letter on the HI DoH web site. And that only made sense, since she couldn’t have provided links to these documents on her web site before they were created on the WH.gov site.*

*Here’s something else funny I noticed. The letter from Judy Corley which is posted on the HI DoH site and appears on the HI DoH server; displays a code ostensibly reflecting the document billing and retrieval system of Perkins Coie. (It’s on the bottom left side.) Presumably, that code links to a file marked “Obama Campaign 2012.”

But here’s the thing. While this code can be seen quite clearly on the HI DoH site; the same letter posted on WH.gov, which appears on the WH.gov server, shows a code so fuzzy it cannot be deciphered. Notwithstanding my general reluctance to speculate absent any evidence; I did think about the underlying rationale for this distinction, and came up with this.

The Obama campaign provided the HI DoH with the PDF of Ms. Corley’s letter to be stored on the HI DoH site and linked directly back to their blog, so as to provide the documents posted on the HI DoH web site with the ‘appearance’ of official HI pronouncements on the subject. Then, at some point after these documents were sent to HI; I imagine someone on this end, that is, in D.C., figured the log code for Perkins Coie was too easily traced by, say, an over-zealous filing clerk or, even a hacker! So, on the WH.gov blog, they made sure to post an obliterated log code. But for some reason, the PDF which had already been uploaded onto the HI server, was not replaced.

In addition to visual clarity, there is also this difference in those Corley letters: the PDF of that letter stored on the HI server, shows no hole-punch at the top, whereas the PDF stored on the WH server contains the 2-hole horizontal marks indicative of stored legal correspondence. I couldn’t help thinking, when the WH team determined to obliterate the legal code at the bottom; in an attempt to maintain the ruse that this was a legal letter from Corley to Fuddy, they copied the legal correspondence physically fastened in the file. In this way, it retained the ‘look’ of a real legal document which it was, part of the Obama 2012 campaign; while maintaining the element of untraceability.

But if these facts don’t convince you that, except for certifying Obama posted statements attributed to the HI DoH with respect to his long form birth certificate, the HI DoH has certified nothing; just read the Disclaimer at the bottom of their web page!

Let me repeat part of the “Disclaimer of Warranties”:

This WEB SITE is provided “AS IS” and without warranties of any kind. To the fullest extent of the law, the State of Hawai‘i, including each agency, officer, or employee of the State of Hawai‘i, disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied…with respect to this WEB SITE…In addition, neither the State of Hawai‘i nor any agency, officer, or employee of the State of Hawai‘i makes any representations, guarantees, or warranties as to: (1) the accuracy, completeness, currency, or suitability of the information provided via this WEB SITE; (2) the use of or the results of the use of this WEB SITE; and (3) the accuracy, reliability, availability or completeness or usefulness of the content of web sites created and maintained by persons other than the State of Hawai‘i and linked to or from this WEB SITE.

In sum, just because something is posted or linked to on the HI DoH.gov web site does not mean, it is the truth.

And now, a note about Ms. Fuddy’s immediate predecessor, Ms. Fukino.  The present HI DoH web site also contains 2 links to “all past statements by the Health Director.” Both of these links lead to statements made by Ms. Fukino. Here is the statement she made in October 2008.

Again, I want to call your attention to 2 items. First, notice this release originates with the HI DoH and not the office of the Governor, notwithstanding Ms. Lingle’s name and title are mentioned in the header. Second, pay attention to Ms. Fukino’s disclaimer at the bottom:

“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”

In other words, she is assuming all legal liability for ‘talking out of school,’ that is, making a public statement about Mr. Obama’s records not otherwise allowed by law. So, why would she put herself in what might appear on its face to be a legally untenable position? Who knows. Paraphrasing the words attributed to her successor, maybe it’s because “inquiries [to the HI DoH for Obama’s birth documents] have been disruptive to staff operations and have strained State resources.” Or maybe it’s because, the only person with standing to contest her apparent breach of privacy is the subject of the record, Barack Obama. And, surely, he is not about to attack the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg, least of all one month before the 2008 general election.

(I have to stop here. But try this exercise yourself. As I said, Governor Abercrombie issued a press release on April 27 accompanying the press launch, announcing Ms. Fuddy had done the deed of authenticating HI’s native son, repeating the party line. Does this mean, he is officially verifying Ms. Fuddy’s prior verification? I will post the best responses.)

(I also want to thank kjcanon for her editing assistance, without which this article was too bogged down to post.)

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

Freedom costs.


SHE SAID / HE SAID: SCRIPTING the 04.27.11 LAUNCH of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

April 1, 2012

©2012 jbjd

This is third in the series of articles addressing the legal nature of that long form birth certificate purporting to establish President Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth, released on April 27, 2011 in the form of both electronic images which were posted on the WhiteHouse.gov blog and, hard copies (of those same images) which were distributed to reporters. (This is all spelled out in the first 2 articles in the series, WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA WAITED until APRIL 27, 2011 to RELEASE a FACSIMILE of his LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE and WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA RELEASED the LONG-FORM IMAGE of his BIRTH CERTIFICATE in PDF versus JPEG, which are meant to be read before tackling the present post,) But the article I originally had in mind to follow these 2 required re-thinking when I received an email from azgo suggesting that “by reading the ‘jbjd’ blog, [the Obama campaign] devised the [long-form birth certificate] scheme to make it look like the image came directly from HI; per our conversations [on this blog] about how state election officials should receive birth records directly from the state in which the candidate was born.” That got me to thinking. So, I looked for any articles referencing the distinction between a real identification document and a fake; which were posted here on “jbjd” before the 2012 re-election campaign launch in April 2011.

azgo could be right.

On January 3, 2011, I posted DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2), which confirms that under the U.S. Code, images such as Barack Obama’s COLB appearing on his web site “Fight the Smears,” satisfy the expenditure disclosure requirements of an electronic political advertising campaign. Here is an excerpt from that post.

Here is just a partial index for TITLE 2 > CHAPTER 14 > SUBCHAPTER I, dealing with federal campaign funds.

DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS

  • § 441d. Publication and distribution of statements and solicitations

(a) Identification of funding and authorizing sources

Whenever a political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing any communication through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising, or whenever any person makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or solicits any contribution through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising or makes a disbursement for an electioneering communication (as defined in section 434 (f)(3) of this title), such communication—
(1) if paid for and authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication has been paid for by such authorized political committee, or [1]
(2) if paid for by other persons but authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication is paid for by such other persons and authorized by such authorized political committee; [1]
(3) if not authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state the name and permanent street address, telephone number, or World Wide Web address of the person who paid for the communication and state that the communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

This was followed on January 12 by DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2), which discussed the criminal implications of producing and distributing electronic images, such as that COLB, on campaign sites; but pretending, these are ‘the real thing.’ Here is a snippet from that article.

Here is just a partial index for TITLE 18 > PART I (CRIMES) > CHAPTER 47, FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS.  (We will only use Part 1 for this analysis but here is a link to Part II, FYI.  PART II—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (§§ 3001—3771).)

But to answer the question concerning the legality of the  FTS COLB under the U.S. Code, we will be concentrating primarily on section 1028.

§ 1028. Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information

(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section—

(1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document;

(2) knowingly transfers an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority;

(4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States;

(7) knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(c) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that—

(1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document is or appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance or the document-making implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document;

(2) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) of this section; or

(3) either—

(A) the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce, including the transfer of a document by electronic means; or

(B) the means of identification, identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement is transported in the mail in the course of the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section.

(d) In this section and section 1028A

(1) the term “authentication feature” means any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code, image, sequence of numbers or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination with another feature is used by the issuing authority on an identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified;

(2) the term “document-making implement” means any implement, impression, template, computer file, computer disc, electronic device, or computer hardware or software, that is specifically configured or primarily used for making an identification document, a false identification document, or another document-making implement;

(3) the term “identification document” means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, political subdivision of a foreign government, an international governmental or an international quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals

(4) the term “false identification document” means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that—

(A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and

(B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization;

(5) the term “false authentication feature” means an authentication feature that—

(A) is genuine in origin, but, without the authorization of the issuing authority, has been tampered with or altered for purposes of deceit;

(B) is genuine, but has been distributed, or is intended for distribution, without the authorization of the issuing authority and not in connection with a lawfully made identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to which such authentication feature is intended to be affixed or embedded by the respective issuing authority; or

(C) appears to be genuine, but is not;

(6) the term “issuing authority”—

(A) means any governmental entity or agency that is authorized to issue identification documents, means of identification, or authentication features; and

(B) includes the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international government or quasi-governmental organization;

(7) the term “means of identification” means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any—

(A) name, social security number, date of birth, official State or government issued driver’s license or identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number;

(C) unique electronic identification number, address, or routing code; or

(D) telecommunication identifying information or access device (as defined in section 1029 (e));

(9) the term “produce” includes alter, authenticate, or assemble;

(10) the term “transfer” includes selecting an identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement and placing or directing the placement of such identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement on an online location where it is available to others;

(11) the term “State” includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other commonwealth, possession, or territory of the United States; and

(12) the term “traffic” means—

(A) to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value; or

(B) to make or obtain control of with intent to so transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of.

(f) Attempt and Conspiracy.— Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.

On January 24, I posted HOW to WRITE SMART CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY LAWS in your STATE (and make applying to get on the ballot harder than applying to get into Harvard). Here is an excerpt from that seminal article, in which I warn voters against accepting as true any candidate’s self-authentication to appear on the ballot. (This also contains a link to a comment in which I issued this same warning, more than 1 year earlier.)

5. NO MECHANISM INTENDED TO ESTABLISH ONLY ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES WILL BE ELECTED PRESIDENT WILL SUCCEED, WHICH RELIES ON CANDIDATE SELF-AUTHENTICATION. This has always seemed to me to be self-explanatory.

I refuse to focus on BO to establish HIS OWN eligibility. On FTS, the web site he started and for which he paid before becoming the D Corporation nominee for POTUS; he posted the COLB he said is an official document, which proves he is eligible for POTUS. ADMINISTRATOR

2010/01/05 at 20:33

In other words, stop asking Obama or anyone acting on his behalf but not in an official capacity; to get the man to produce anything! And do not under any circumstances accept as true, any document or facsimile any of these representatives not acting as the “issuing authority” introduces and claims is real! 

Apparently, the usual “jbjd” readers hoping to hone their civics educations were not the only ones listening.

To see how that April 27, 2011 launch of the long form image of President Obama’s birth certificate conformed to these requirements of the U.S. Code with respect to campaign advertising and, at this same time, skirted criminal sanctions for document fraud; you can start by looking at the press gaggle that was held that morning. As no cameras or recording devices were allowed, I relied on this press release by WH Press Secretary Jay Carney, issued at 8:48 that morning and posted on the WhiteHouse.gov blog; to memorialize the scene. (Since I will only reference Mr. Carney’s release; after you read my article, I urge you to follow up by reading his, to see for yourself how the fact pattern spelled out in the U.S. Code, fits.)

Attending the early morning press gaggle were Carney; WH Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer; and WH Counsel Bob Bauer. First, a note about Mr. Bauer, who would leave that job in June 2011, 1 month after the long form launch.

President Barack Obama’s top lawyer at the White House, Bob Bauer, is quitting to return to his political law practice and represent Obama as his personal attorney and counsel to his re-election campaign….Bauer, a specialist in campaign finance, election law and ethics, is returning to the role as campaign counsel that he held when Obama ran for the presidency in 2008….

Bauer has been part of Obama’s circle since Obama was a freshman senator in Washington. He has long been a go-to lawyer for Democrats and is married to Anita Dunn, a Democratic operative who formerly served as Obama’s communications director…. He will also serve as counsel to the Democratic National Committee.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/02/bob-bauer-resigns-white-house-counsel_n_870290.html

And this, from Perkins Coie.

Bob returned to the firm after a period of service to President Barack Obama as his White House Counsel from December of 2009 until June of 2011.  He is now General Counsel to the President’s re-election committee, to Obama for America, and General Counsel to the Democratic National Committee.

http://www.perkinscoie.com/rbauer/

Now, from the gaggle. (My editorial comments appear in orange. These are not intended to be exhaustive; I could have colored the whole exchange! Besides, once you get the hang of interpreting ‘Obama-speak’; you will be able to de-construct these remarks, on your own.)

MR. PFEIFFER:

In 2008 (the copyright date in the in the footer of FTS is 2007), in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign (in June 2008, U.S. Senator Barack Obama was only the D Party Presidential nominee wannabe; and the image posted on his FTS web site, which was clearly marked “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA, per campaign expenditure laws) requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii.  We (the nominee’s campaign) received that document; we (the campaign) posted it on the website (FTS). That document was then inspected by independent fact checkers (lay staffers employed by Annenberg Political Fact Check), who came to the campaign headquarters and inspected the document — independent fact checkers did, and declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii.

That essentially — for those of you who followed the campaign closely know that solved the issue.  We didn’t spend any time talking about this after that….There may have been some very fringe discussion out there, but as a campaign issue it was settled and it was —

Q    When you posted this did you post the other side of it where the signature is?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Yes.

Q    Because it is not here and that’s been an issue.

MR. PFEIFFER:  We posted both sides and when it was looked at it was looked at by — the fact checkers came to headquarters and actually examined the document we had.

That settled the issue.  In recent weeks, the issue has risen again as some folks have begun raising a question about the original — about the long-form birth certificate you now have in front of you.  And Bob will explain why — the extraordinary steps we (the President’s 2012 re-election campaign) had to take to receive that and the legal restraints that are in place there.

But it became an issue again.  …  And the President believed that it was becoming a distraction from the major issues we’re having in this country. …  And it was really a distraction. … That really struck the President, led him to ask his counsel to look into whether we could ask the state of Hawaii to release the long-form certificate, which is not something they generally do. (It’s not clear to me from Pfeiffer’s reference whom the President asked to look into this matter, since he uses no names. It’s not even clear whether by “counsel” he meant, lawyer or advisor. But, technically, WH Counsel Bauer represents the Office and not the man and so, is properly referred to as “WH Counsel.”)* And he did that despite the fact that it probably was not in his long-term — it would have been in his — probably in his long-term political interests to allow this birther debate to dominate discussion in the Republican Party for months to come.  But he thought even though it might have been good politics, he thought it was bad for the country.  And so he asked counsel (again, I don’t know to which counsel this refers) to look into this. *(Here’s a good article on the sometimes murky role of WH Counsel. White House Lawyer Role Faces Test.)

And now I’ll have Bob explain that, and then we’ll take your questions.

MR. CARNEY:  I just want to — sorry, I meant to mention at the top, as some of you may have seen, the President will be coming to the briefing room at 9:45 a.m., making a brief statement about this — not taking questions, but just wanted to let you know.

MR. PFEIFFER:  And he will use this as an opportunity to make a larger point about what this debate says about our politics.

Go ahead, Bob.

MR. BAUER:  Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the longstanding prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate.  And so we undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made that we had the grounds upon which to make that request. (Based on several descriptions of the job responsibilities of WH Counsel; it is totally appropriate for him to advise the President as to the legality of his conduct.)

And by Thursday of last week, I spoke to private counsel to the President and asked her to contact the State Department of Health and to have a conversation about any requirements, further requirements, that they thought we (meaning, anyone associated with this ploy) had to satisfy to lodge that waiver request (and simultaneously avoid breaking the law).  She had that conversation with the state Department of Health on Thursday — counsel in question is Judy Corley at the law firm of Perkins Coie, (the law firm in which I was a partner before coming here and to which I will return shortly) and you have a copy of the letter she subsequently sent to the department with the President’s written request.

The department outlined the requirements for the President to make this request.  He signed a letter making that request on Friday afternoon upon returning from the West Coast.  And private counsel (presumably, he mean Ms. Corley) forwarded his written request — written, signed request — along with a letter from counsel (okay, I give up, I have no idea whom he means here), to the state Department of Health on Friday.

The department, as I understood it (plausible deniability here), after reviewing the law and reviewing the grounds asserted in the request, came to the conclusion that a waiver could be appropriately granted.  We (those of us perpetrating this fraud, excluding the President) were advised that the long-form birth certificate (mock-up) could be copied and made available to us as early as Monday, April 25th — the day before yesterday.  And we made arrangements for counsel to travel to Honolulu to pick it up and it was returned to the White House yesterday afternoon. (He keeps referring to the document as “it” but, in the letter provided to reporters, the President requested and received 2 copies of his long-form birth certificate, both certified.) (According to HI DoH instructions posted below, only 1 vital record per request!)

Let me emphasize again, there is a specific statute that governs access to and inspection of vital records in the state of Hawaii (as there is in every state)**.  The birth certificate that we posted online is, in fact, and always has been, and remains, the (facsimile of a) legal birth certificate of the President (or anyone else) that would be used for all legal purposes that any resident of Hawaii would want to use a birth certificate for (and which could be used for that purpose if appropriately presented, for example, if displaying the official seal or, unaltered in any way).

However, there is legal authority in the department to make exceptions to the general policy on not releasing the long-form birth certificate.  The policy in question, by the way, on non-release has been in effect since the mid-1980s, I understand.  So while I cannot tell you what the entire history of exceptions has been, (for effect, I will nonetheless speculate) it is a limited one. This is one of very few that I understand have been granted for the reasons set out in private counsel’s letter (id.).

MR. PFEIFFER:  We’ll be happy to take some questions.

Q    I guess I just want to make sure that we’re clear on this.  Even though this one says “certificate of live birth” on here, this is different than the other certificate of live birth that we’ve seen?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Yes.  The second page there is the one that was posted on the Internet.

Q    Okay.

MR. PFEIFFER:  And that is a copy of the one that has been kept at the Hawaii Department of Health.

Q    Okay.  And this is the one that would be referred to — that people have been asking for that is the birth certificate?

MR. PFEIFFER:  They are both — the second one is the birth certificate.  The one on the top is what is referred to as the long-form birth certificate.  As you can see — and Bob can walk you through it (again, doesn’t take a lawyer to explain this obvious difference between a certificate and a certification but it does add an official imprimatur to the ruse) — it contains some additional information that is not on the second page, which was the birth certificate which was released during the campaign.

If you could just explain the difference.

MR. BAUER:  There’s a difference between a certificate and a certification.  The certification is simply a verification of certain information that’s in the original birth certificate.  The birth certificate, as you can see, has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, who essentially oversees the maintenance of the records.  It contains some additional information also — that is to say, the original birth certificate — it contains some additional information like the ages of the parents, birthplaces, residence, street address, the name of the hospital.

The core information that’s required for legal purposes and that is put into the actual certification that’s a computer-generated document, which we (the members of then U.S. Senator Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential preference primary campaign) posted in 2008, that information is abstracted, if you will, from the original birth certificate, put into the computerized short-form certification, and made available to Hawaiian residents at their request.

So the long form, which is a certificate, has more information, but the short form has the information that’s legally sufficient for all the relevant purposes.

Q    This first one has never been released publicly, correct?

MR. BAUER:  That’s correct.  It is in a bound volume in the records at the state Department of Health in Hawaii.

Q    Bob, can you explain why President Obama let this drag on for four years?  Was it Donald Trump that prompted you to issue this?

MR. BAUER:  I’ll let Dan —

MR. PFEIFFER:  Sure.

Q    I know you expected that question, right?  (Laughter.)
MR. PFEIFFER:  He even said you would be the one who would ask it.  (Laughter.)

I don’t think this dragged on for four years because this was a resolved — for those of you who remember the campaign, this issue was resolved in 2008.  And it has not been an issue, none of you have asked about it, called about it, reported on it until the last few weeks.

And as I said earlier, it probably would have been — a lot of the pundits out there have talked about the fact that this whole birther debate has been really bad for the Republican Party and would probably be good for the President politically.  But despite that, the President, as I said, was struck by how this was crowding out the debate, particularly around the budget, on important issues, and was an example of the sort of sideshows that our politics focuses on instead of the real challenges that we have to confront as a country.

And so that’s why he made this decision now, because it became an issue that transcended sort of this — it essentially was something that was talked about, as I said, from the nether regions of the Internet onto mainstream network newscasts.  In fact, Jay has been asked about this just yesterday in this room.

Q    So I guess the implication is that you did get political advantage by having not released this until today, over the course of the last four years?

MR. PFEIFFER:  There has been — no one that I can recall actually asked us to — we were asked to release the President’s birth certificate in 2008.  We did that.  And then no one — it never — up until a few weeks ago, there was never an issue about that that wasn’t the birth certificate from any credible individual or media outlet.  And it hasn’t been until — I mean, Jay was asked about this yesterday —

Q    When you say that, you mean certification — you released the certification?

MR. PFEIFFER:  When any Hawaiian wants — requests their birth certificate because they want to get a driver’s license, they want to get a passport, they do exactly what the President did in 2008.  And that’s what that is.  And we released that.  And that’s what any Hawaiian would do to release their birth certificate.  And that was good enough for everyone until very recently this became a question again.  And so the President made this decision.  He’ll talk to you more about his thinking on that.

Q    And this is going to sound — I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to — remain unconvinced.  They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper (since that is what this is), you could have typed anything in there.  Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any — (laughter.)

Q    Will the President be holding it?

MR. PFEIFFER:  He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so.  But it will — the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a — what they have on file.  As Bob said, it’s in a book in Hawaii.

MR. BAUER:  And you’ll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states (“that” here refers to the letter, as in, “the letter states” and not, “the director of the Health Department states…”) that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to —

Q    But do you understand that this could quiet the conspiracy theorists?

MR. PFEIFFER:  There will always be some selection of people who will believe something, and that’s not the issue.  The issue is that this is not a discussion that is just happening among conspiracy theorists.  It’s happening here in this room; it’s happening on all of the networks.  And it’s something that, as I said, every major political figure of both parties who’s actually out trying to talk about real issues is asked about this by the media.  And so the President decided to release this.  And I’ll leave it to others to decide whether there’s still — there will be some who still have a different — have a conspiracy about this.

Q    You’ve got two certified copies, according to this study.  You have these physical —

MR. PFEIFFER:  Yes.  I showed you one.  Just one.

Q    You showed us a photocopy of one.

MR. PFEIFFER:  No, I showed you —

Q    Does that have a stamp? (Apparently, the copy distributed to this reporter did not.)

MR. PFEIFFER:  It has a seal on it.

Q    Why does this rise to the level of a presidential statement?

MR. PFEIFFER:  The President — this in itself — when you hear the President I think you’ll understand the point he’s making.  That will be in not too long.

Q    Did the President change his own mind about this?  In other words, was he advocating during the campaign let’s just put it out there and get it over with, or was this an internal shift in thinking based — in other words, was it the President who steadfastly during the campaign said this is ridiculous, I don’t want to give this any more ground, and has now changed his mind? Or is this the —

MR. PFEIFFER:  Let’s be very clear.  You were there for the campaign.  There was never a question about the original birth certificate during the campaign.  It was a settled issue.  (HA HA HA HA HA) I was there (in 2007)  for the original decision to release the birth certificate (if we couldn’t steal the primary before people began asking questions about the candidate’s Constitutional eligibility for office). I was there (in June 2008) when we posted it online (because questions about his eligibility threatened to kill his chances at the nomination).  I’m not sure I even knew there was an original one that was different than the one we posted online because it wasn’t an issue.  (Liar liar, pants on fire.) So it wasn’t like — let’s be very clear.  We were asked for the President’s birth certificate in 2008; we released the President’s birth certificate; and it was done.  That was it.

And so there hasn’t been a discussion about this other document for years.  It’s only been in the last few weeks.  And so to your second question, the President decided to do this and he’ll talk about this when he gets here — decided to do it at the timeline that Bob (Bauer, the campaign law expert and WH Counsel) laid out (so as to protect everyone involved in this farce from criminal liability) because it was a — this was a sideshow that was distracting from the real challenges that we’re facing.

It’s not just a sideshow for him; it’s a sideshow for our entire politics (meaning, our re-election campaign) that have become focused on this.

Q    Not to give Donald Trump more publicity than he has, but is he the person who sort of — sort of that bridge between what you’re calling a fringe and the mainstream?  Do you think that he’s the reason why this tripped the switch to a level where you now have to deal with something you thought was dealt with?

MR. PFEIFFER:  It’s not for me to say why mainstream media organizations began to cover this debate.  They’ll have to answer that for themselves.

Q    Dan, was there a debate about whether or not this deserved being discussed by the White House, whether or not — and I’m going back to the birth certificate.  I lose points, I understand.  But was there debate about whether or not this was worthy of the White House?

MR. PFEIFFER:  The point I’d make is that we weren’t the ones who — we’re not the first ones to bring this up in this room.  Jay has been asked questions about this; the President has been asked about it in media interviews.  And so that wasn’t a decision that we made, and the President made the decision to do this and he made the decision to — and when he comes down here this morning he’ll talk to you about why he thinks there’s an important point to be made here.

Q    Is there a concern that more and more people were actually starting to believe its sideshow — I mean, people have been asking about —

MR. CARNEY:  I will let the President speak for himself, but what Dan was saying and I think is important is that the issue here is that the President feels that this was bad for the country; that it’s not healthy for our political debate, when we have so many important issues that Americans care about, that affect their lives, to be drawn into sideshows about fallacies that have been disproven with the full weight of a legal document for several years.

So, again, as Dan said, and a lot of political pundits have said, you could say that it would be good politics, smart politics, for the President to let this play out.  He cares more about what’s good for the country.  He wants the debate on the issues.  He wants the focus on the issues that Americans care about.

Q    Just quickly, back on the birth certificate, yesterday you said this was a settled issue.  So —

MR. CARNEY:  Well, as Dan said, again, it has been a settled issue.

MR. PFEIFFER:  From a factual point of view, it’s absolutely a settled issue.  But the fact that it was a settled issue did not keep it from becoming a major part of the political discussion in this town for the last several weeks here.  So there’s absolutely no question that what the President released in 2008 was his birth certificate and answered that question, and many of your organizations have done excellent reporting which proved that to be the case.  But it continued; the President thought it was a sideshow and chose to take this step today for the reasons Bob laid out.

Q    Aside from the policy distractions that was presented, did you have some concern because it was sort of reaching back into the mainstream news coverage that this could become a factor in the 2012 election with centrist voters?

MR. PFEIFFER:  No.

Q    Just to clarify what this document is —

MR. PFEIFFER:  This is the — the letter first and the two certified copies — this is one of those.  This is the same thing you have a copy of as the first page of your packet.

Q    How did it get here?

MR. PFEIFFER:  As Bob said, it arrived by plane — the President’s personal counsel went to Hawaii and brought it back and we got it last night.

Q    Last night?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Last night.

Q    What time?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Q    When did you decide to do this gaggle?

MR. PFEIFFER:  What’s that?

Q    When was this gaggle put on — when was this planned?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Whatever time you received your guidance suggesting that it would be “this time tomorrow morning.”

Q    Are these letters supposed to demonstrate the legal steps that were involved in releasing it to the White House counsel?

MR. BAUER:  The letters that you have, the personal request from the President, along with the accompanying letter from private counsel, is merely meant to document the legal path to getting the waiver of that policy so we could get the long-form certificate (as opposed to documenting an actual path undertaken to obtain a bona fide waiver from Director Fuddy on the date in the letter, resulting in her office’s production of a facsimile of a record on file with her office, evidencing Barack Obama was born in HI).

Q    The waiver of Hawaii state government policy?

MR. BAUER:  Right.  The non-release of the long-form certificate, which has been in effect since the 1980s — a natural question would have been, well, what did you do to obtain the waiver, and those letters represent the request.

Q    Well, isn’t it true that anybody who was born in Hawaii can write this letter?  (Yes; of course.) I mean, that’s all there is to the waiver process?

MR. BAUER:  No.  Let me just explain once again because I also noticed, by the way, in one report already the wrong certificate was actually posted on the website.  The certificate with the signatures at the bottom — and that’s a key difference between the short form and the long form — the long form has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, and the mother, is the original birth certificate, which sits in a bound volume in the State Department of Health.

The short from is a computerized abstract, and that’s the legal birth certificate we requested in 2008 and that Hawaiians are entitled to.  Since the mid-1980s, the State Department of Health, for administrative reasons, only provides to people who request their birth certificate the short form.  They do not provide the long form.

So in order for us to obtain the long form, we had to have a waiver (which, as you astutely pointed out, only required writing the letter requesting that waiver).  We had to actually determine that there was a legal basis for providing it, and then ask them to exercise their authority to provide us with the long form.  The steps required to accomplish that were a letter from the person with the direct and vital interest — the President — so you have a letter from the President (with no file reference code for document processing, archiving, or retrieval) , and then there was an accompanying letter from counsel basically formalizing the request.  (I cannot figure out the angle on that one. Obviously, unless the President, here, the Requestor of the Record, has been adjudged to be mentally incompetent and placed under the guardianship of Attorney Corley, he doesn’t need her to ‘formalize’ anything! Maybe Bauer is still trying to fool reporters into believing getting the waiver so as to obtain a certified copy of a long form birth certificate is a big deal. Ideas?) So the reason we included that is that those were legal steps we took to obtain the long form by way of this waiver.

Q    Do we have the letter from the President —

MR. BAUER:  It’s in the packet.

Q    And you went to Hawaii?

MR. BAUER:  I did not go to Hawaii.  The counsel, Judy Corley, who signed the — the President’s personal counsel at Perkins Coie, Judy Corley, whose letter — signed letter of request is in your packet, traveled to Honolulu and picked up the birth certificate. (Notice that now, he manages albeit awkwardly, to avoid saying either, ‘Ms. Corley signed the letter,’ or ‘Ms. Corley made this request to the HI DoH.’ Because saying that the President’s lawyer did these things is tantamount to saying, the President did these things. And as you just read, when it comes to the President and these long form shenanigans; the campaign, under the watchful eye of WH Counsel Bauer, is preserving a ‘hands off’ approach.) (434 (f)(3) of TITLE 2 > CHAPTER 14 > SUBCHAPTER I, DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS, is worth a read. While I didn’t use that section of campaign finance laws with respect to the FTS web site; it might apply here, to the cost of that campaign trip to HI to retrieve the campaign document. As for the gaggle being a “campaign communication,” well, since there is no record; and since otherwise ‘official’ topics were also discussed, by non-campaign staff; I am not sure what approach the DoJ would take for the purpose of determining whether illegal campaigning was going on from the WH.)

Thanks.END              9:18 A.M. EDT

** According to the web site of the HI DoH, here’s how to request certified copies of vital information.

How to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records

What Information You Should Be Prepared to Provide

An applicant/requestor must provide the information needed to 1) establish his/her direct and tangible interest in the record and 2) locate the desired record. This will normally include:

  • Applicant’s name, address, and telephone number(s);
  • Applicant’s relationship to the person named on the certificate;
  • Reason why you are requesting the certificate;
  • Full name(s) as listed on the certificate; (not provided)
  • The certificate’s file number (if known); (not provided)
  • Month, day, and year of the event; (not provided) and
  • City or town and the island where the event occurred. (not provided)
  • For birth certificates, also provide the full name of the father and the full maiden name of the mother. (not provided)
  • If you are applying for a certificate on behalf of someone else, you must provide an original letter signed by that person authorizing the release of their certificate to you and a photocopy of that person’s valid government-issued photo ID. (not provided)
  • Valid government-issued photo ID. (not provided)

(H/T azgo)

On the other hand, maybe all you want is a letter.

Letters of Verification

Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/civil union/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.

Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.

The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter.

Either way, you can download an application form directly from the site.

Application Forms

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html

Thus, summing up these first 3 articles in the series, by clearly identifying both orally and in writing, the ‘birth’ documents distributed at the press gaggle and displayed on the WhiteHouse.gov blog are part of the “campaign”; by explicitly stating no public funds were expended in obtaining these documents; by making sure that any ‘official (looking)’ seal from the HI DoH did not appear on copies of documents distributed to the public; by distributing the documents to the public but not to a government official under the guise, this was a bona fide representation of the ‘facts’ contained therein; and by separating the campaign function from the traditional function of the Executive branch; and by transporting the false document via airplane instead of the U.S. mail; President Obama’s team likely skirted criminal violations of both campaign expenditure and public records laws.

Or did they…

(The next article in the series focuses on President Obama’s remarks immediately following this press gaggle; and the nature of comments, both oral and written, with respect to the President’s vital records, attributed over time to state of HI employees.)

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

Freedom costs.


%d bloggers like this: