TRUMPED by TRUMP (Updated 04.10.11)

April 4, 2011

©2011 jbjd

(04.10.11):  See update at bottom.

Several well-read blogosphere pundits, among them Ben Smith at Politico, have been soundly outplayed by Donald Trump in the Obama birth certificate round robin; and for that, I have to give “The Donald” his props.

Donald Trump, a salesman in the mold of P.T. Barnum – “There’s a customer born every minute” – is selling himself once again by reprising the guise of a possible Presidential candidate.  Trump’s White House con began 24 years ago:  How The Donald discovered that pretending to run for president can be good for business

This time around, he fixes his faux pitch to head the Executive branch of government, on a new gimmick:  President Obama’s birth certificate.  At first, I scoffed at the tactic of focusing the campaign on producing a document he claims would establish Obama’s Constitutional eligibility.  Because in so doing, he only confirmed a craven compulsion to hog publicity, this time trivializing the otherwise somber issue of election fraud that corrupted the 2008 general election cycle.   In other words, I thought his antics undermined real attempts underway for some time now, to expose actual crimes committed by Mr. Obama and his sales and marketing team, during their bona fide con to occupying the Oval Office.

But even though I have identified and initiated many of these efforts to ‘out’ the crimes of Team Obama which, on first glance, I thought were being trivialized by his campaign; before I finalized the original version of this article, events occurred which caused me to change my mind.  Indeed, after closer inspection I am not at all angry at “The Donald” for potentially gumming up the works.  Because whether he intentioned, by engaging in this latest sales initiative, he not only has exposed some of the intricacies of document identification which have been the subject of many articles posted here on “jbjd” – “Certificate” versus “Certification,” for example, or “issuing authority” – but also simultaneously has ‘outed’ the complicity of the press in giving Obama’s deceit on this front, a blanket pass.  And I have to give props where these are due.

As I have stated all along, the main reason for going after those D’s who committed election fraud viz-a-viz swearing to state election officials in applicable states,which are those states with ballot eligibility laws; that Barack Obama was Constitutionally eligible for POTUS notwithstanding they had failed to ascertain whether he is a NBC, just to get these officials to print his name on the ballot, is this.  Get the attention of Congress.  Because  under the Constitution, the way to get rid of an ineligible President (for criminal acts related to his ineligibility) is through Impeachment, carried out by Congress.  But many legislators have reassured their frantic constituents, in writing, ‘don’t worry, Mr. Obama is eligible for the job.’  So, how do we get them to change their minds?  I anticipated that when confronted with the well-documented possibility, Obama’s eligibility has been a scam all along, (and no longer able to get away with insisting otherwise) the House would introduce Articles of Impeachment so as to enable the Senate to get on with eligibility hearings.

I hoped to trigger this ‘awareness’ through the citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG.  But if Trump’s shenanigans effect Impeachment hearings, more power to him.

So, what aspect of his birth certificate campaign will compel sufficient scrutiny of Obama’s election fraud so as to trigger Impeachment?  The fact that the press is giving Trump’s efforts in this regard more scrutiny even before any decision to run; than they did Mr. Obama’s, on his march all the way into the White House. The disparity is striking.  And, as a result, the only pundits who at this point cling to the laughable insistence, Obama has already proven, he is for real; expose themselves as paid shills of the O.D. party.

Take Ben Smith at Politico, whose attempts at satire hardly disguise the acknowledged impossibility of equating an on-line electronic image produced by the person whose name appears on that image; with an official hard copy document produced by the “issuing authority.”

Trump fails to produce birth certificate

Donald Trump made headlines earlier today when he provided what he said was a copy of his birth certificate — but a quick check reveals it’s actually not an official document.

The paper that Trump released says “Jamaica Hospital” on top and lists the date and time of what he says was his birth to “Mr. and Mrs. Fred C. Trump.” The piece of paper has a seal at the bottom.

But after several New York City-based readers contacted POLITICO’s Maggie Haberman, her call to city officials revealed that an actual birth certificate, which is issued by the Department of Health, would have the agency’s seal and also a signature of the city registrar – neither of which the Trump document has. Officials said the city Health Department is the “sole issuing authority” of official birth certificates in New York, and that the document would clearly say so, and “city officials said it’s not an official document.”

It appears instead to be a hospital “certificate of birth,” meaning the piece of paper the hospital gave to his family saying he was born. Such a document typically has the signature of the hospital administrator and the attending physician.

Trump lawyer and advisor Michael Cohen didn’t respond to Haberman’s question about the document.

Trump’s mother, it should be noted, was born in Scotland, which is not part of the United States. His plane is registered in the Bahamas, also a foreign country. This fact pattern — along with the wave of new questions surrounding what he claims is a birth certificate — raises serious doubts about his eligibility to serve as President of the United States.

UPDATE: On a second attempt, Trump produces what appears to be a real one.

After that analysis, why would anyone accept Mr. Smith’s apparent continued belief, the COLB image that is the centerpiece of Obama’s paid political electronic ad campaign is real?  And, by continuing to insist Obama is for real, why does he now definitively expose himself as a paid shill or, in the alternative, a fool?  Because if he admits he is wrong about Obama’s on-line COLB – and, according to the accreditation in the footer, this image is now the property of the DNC Services Corporation – then, he also admits he participated in efforts to throw the 2008 D Presidential primary to a candidate who was Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

Barack Obama’s Constitutional con hinged on the public’s buying into his “Fight the Smears” web site, the focal point of which electronic advertising platform was the photographed mockup of a redacted Hawaiian COLB, conceived and copyrighted in 2007, more than 6 (six) months before the launch date, in June 2008.

If only Hillary Clinton hadn’t been such a strong contender for the D Presidential nomination, the FTS roll-out could have been delayed forever.

Questions as to Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS likely would have  remained largely unasked and certainly, as a result, unanswered if the 2008 D Presidential nominee wannabe and his accomplices could have confiscated enough pledged delegate votes through the disproportionally weighted and then subsequently co-opted caucuses by February’s Super Tuesday, to make running away with the nomination a(n eventual) fait accompli.  Instead, even after March 4, when both TX and OH voters handily chose her over him, his agents were still fertilizing the false meme to D’s throughout the country, Hillary Clinton had no chance to win the nomination.  Including the press. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4385756&page=1

Like Ben Smith, at Politico.

In 2008, Ben Smith, Carrie Budoff, and Jonathan Martin were named in the byline of an article appearing on March 8, just after Clinton had taken the TX, OH, and RI primaries.  The article featured the individual opinions of each with regard to one of the 3 (three) candidates remaining in both the R and D primaries: Obama, Clinton, and McCain.  But the introduction to these individual pieces is not specifically attributed to any one of the 3 (three) authors.  This unattributed introduction contains the following line:

Sen. Barack Obama will need a new strategy to defend his narrow delegate margin.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8870.html

Then, in the segment on Hillary Clinton, under just Mr. Smith’s byline, comes this:

But Clinton also faces obstacles, and not just the daunting mathematics of overcoming Obama’s delegate lead.

Id.

Which is it, “narrow delegate margin” or “daunting mathematics of overcoming Obama’s delegate lead”?  Well, let’s look at the figures. Going into the contests she won on March 4, (even) the NYT reported Obama was only 86 pledged delegates ahead of her, or less than .04% of total delegates required at that time to win the nomination!

As I have said before, Obama’s financial backers knew if their agent was to secure the D Presidential nomination, the D primary had to end as early as possible.  Because the more time this flawed candidate remained in the national public eye, the more scrutiny he had to endure.  Including questions as to his Constitutional eligibility for the job.  Until finally, with the primary/caucus season finally ended and no clear winner in sight, the candidate was finally compelled to concede the rising wave of questions as to his Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, and do damage control.

The FTS ad was desperately released in June 2008 to stem the late spring ineligibility tide only because even the cadre of well compensated co-conspirators fixed to rig August’s nominating convention were unwilling to publicly endorse the man if the country still doubted he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.

Gambling that the obvious political ad would sufficiently distract the public from the facts, paid off.  Three years later, people were still claiming Obama’s birth certificate is posted on line.  Plus, when they were questioned by constituents as to Obama’s eligibility, the advertisement provided both ignorant and dishonest politicians alike, with plausible deniability.

But no more.  Because thanks to Donald Trump, everyone, including Ben Smith, now knows, which on-line ‘document’ at least appears to have all of the attributes of a real birth certificate.  And which does not.

(04.10.11):  Update.

My, my, my. It would appear that I was right to come down on the side of the birth certificate showing put on by Mr. Trump.  Cue the ‘MSM’ with  gift wrapped disinformation that confirms, he has hit his mark.

Michael Isikoff, posting today at MSNBC on-line under the moniker “National investigative correspondent,” apparently is among those reporters who continue to assume that anyone still reading the drivel produced under a purported ‘news’ banner like MSNBC; is either too stupid or too gullible, or both, to discern fact from hype.   How else to explain his latest article, Ex-Hawaii official denounces ‘ludicrous’ birther claims in which he now seemingly tries to redeem those same HI election officials who failed miserably in 2008 to parse their validation of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS sufficiently so as to assuage genuine concerns the man might not even be a U.S. citizen, let alone natural born.  jbjd, BIRTHER

Especially Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the ex-Director of the HI State Health Department.

Isikoff claims in his article, this time around, Dr. Fukino has clarified, via an admission, that before making those statements in 2008, she had unlawfully accessed the protected privileged confidential records of Barack Obama without first obtaining either a written waiver of liability from Mr. Obama (or his legal representatives) for such otherwise unlawful conduct or, written instructions permitting her to publicly advertise what she had learned from this unlawful breach.

(Mr. Isikoff did not actually refer to this peek at Obama’s birth records as illegal.  But, if what he wrote about Dr. Fukino’s conduct is true then, she did break the law.)

Here are just a couple of ‘facts’ Isikoff reported in this story which those of you regularly reading “jbjd” already know signal his information sounds fishy.

  • He says FactCheck confirmed 2 contemporaneous newspaper birth announcements.  (But see, for example, RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’)
  • He says when Dr. Fukino was Director of HI’s Department of Health, before making a public statement as to Obama’s HI birth,  “she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records.”  However, for some unknown reason, he fails to provide readers with the name of that state official.
  • He ‘reports’ Dr. Fukino claims she saw “the original so-called “long form” birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a “record of live birth” … located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health.”  The logical inference then, is that this bound Certificate is indexed in some fashion, by number or letter or a combination of both.  And that such index number can be verified at least as to the volume she describes.  However, the only document Isikoff links in his article, is that same COLB which is the centerpiece of the FTS paid political advertisement, the one with the identifying index number prominently redacted. DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2)
  • He reports that “Joshua Wisch, a spokesman for the Hawaii attorney general’s office, noted that a public index of vital records, available for inspection in a bound volume at the Health Department’s Office of Health Status Monitoring, lists a male child named “Obama II, Barack Hussein” as having been born in the state.”  Again, for some reason, Mr. Wisch fails to provide any identifying information that would aid retrieval.  And Mr. Isikoff fails to point out Mr. Wisch’s omission to his readers.

In sum, while I found very little basis for the descriptor “Investigative” before the moniker “reporter” in Mr. Isikoff’s byline; I was certainly entertained by his failed efforts to discredit the ever rising crescendo of non-believers now challenging the authenticity of anything closely associated with Obama.

Including Mr. Isikoff and MSNBC.

P.S.  Question to Mr. Isikoff:  Given that your article points to the lack of identifying information available in the public domain that would allow people to physically inspect any of the documents mentioned therein; how do you suppose all of those prominent members of the D party who Certified in 2008 that Obama was eligible for office, to state election officials in applicable states, that is, states requiring candidates to be eligible for the office sought in order to get their names printed on the ballot; were able to ascertain in advance, he is a NBC?  (We have asked all of them but they refuse to tell us. See, for example, MEMORANDUM of COMPLAINT of ELECTION FRAUD against LT. GOV. BRIAN E. SCHATZ, ACTING in a NON-GOVERNMENTAL ROLE as CHAIR, DEMOCRATIC PARTY of HAWAII; and REQUEST for INVESTIGATION by the ATTORNEY GENERAL of HAWAII, in ALOHA OBAMA and SHALOM.)


REVOLVING DOOR, REVOLUTION, or just PLAIN REVOLTING

February 23, 2011

©2011 jbjd

Ever since Electors elected Barack Obama President of the United States, many of those of you who are convinced he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job, unable to forestall his inauguration, alternatively determined to elect new public officials and enact new laws intending to forestall his election in 2012.  I have rejected this response as taking a sort of ‘revolving door’ approach.   That is, as I have reasoned many times, if we are impotent to get our current elected officials to enforce existing ballot eligibility laws then, we will not achieve a different outcome by electing new officials or writing new laws.

Instead, I have been pushing for citizens in applicable states, that is, states with existing ballot eligibility laws, to file with their A’sG the citizen complaints I drafted charging  various members of the D party committed election fraud by swearing to state election officials in 2008, Barack Obama was qualified for the office of President, without ascertaining beforehand he is a NBC; and, if necessary, to lobby these A’sG to exercise their discretion to investigate these complaints.  What I envision to be a true people’s ‘revolution.’

Now, the official conduct of Texas State Representative Leo Berman (R-Tyler) has necessitated a third description that could be applied to efforts to shore up our electoral process with respect to guaranteeing Presidential candidates are Constitutionally eligible for the job:  just plain revolting.

Rep. Berman recently introduced a bill specifying “the secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen.” http://lubbockonline.com/local-news/2010-11-17/birth-certificate-bill-filed-presidential-candidates

Yep; here’s the text of that bill.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/pdf/HB00295I.pdf#navpanes=0

Right off the top, this wording presents many obstacles to fulfilling the function for which it is ostensibly written. For example, how can a birth certificate identify whether a person is a NBC?  And then, there is this word, “entitled.” In the situation called to my attention in TX, wherein Bob Barr challenged the printing of the names of both the R and D nominees on the ballot, I pointed out, even if one is not entitled to something, this does not mean, one cannot get what he wants, anyway.

Submitted on 2009/09/11 at 22:45 | In reply to juriggs.

If you look at what I posted, I posted all the docs I received from the SoS with respect to the Certifications…5 docs. The Republicans actually used a “form” and I queried the SOS with respect to whether there was a specific “form” required and they responded “no”. The Deomcrats sent in two docs. One, the Official Certification, and the other more of a letter form. I believe the letter was in effect a cover sheet and as much as a form was not required, there was intent to comply with guidance from the State with respect to an “Official Certification”.
I am also reading some stuff into this as both Parties missed the filing deadline. The pre-certification on my site from the republicans is I believe a way of showing thier “intent” to comply with the law which required Official Notification 70 days prior to the election.

redhank: Yes; you are absolutely right. And Libertarian candidate Bob Barr filed a lawsuit arguing both the D’s and the R’s had missed the filing deadline. The court dismissed the case, noting that Barr had waited to file his suit until 2 or 3 days before the absentee ballots, already printed, were scheduled to be sent out. (cite omitted) (The suit would have failed, anyway, because the law merely says, the party is “entitled” to have its nominee on the ballot if it gets the name in on time. This does not mean, the state cannot exercise its discretion to include late names on the ballot, anyway.) ADMINISTRATOR

Again, just because a candidate is not entitled to be on the ballot does not prohibit the state from putting his name there anyway.

To say nothing of the conflict between this proposed change to Texas Election Code 192.033; with  192.031, which section entitles party nominees qualified for office to appear on the ballot.  http://law.onecle.com/texas/election/192.031.00.html And as we have already seen, in 2008, Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) swore Presidential nominee Obama was “duly nominated,” making him the qualified nominee.

And did you catch the last line?  ‘Effective date September 1, 2011.’ To paraphrase my Reply to a Comment submitted by gregnh, passing a bill that would alter the 2012 election assumes  the law survives any legal challenges and that regulations/rules instructing the SoS how to carry out this law; take effect in time for the 2012 general election (if not the primary/caucus contests).  (This still does not mean Electors will elect a President who is Constitutionally eligible for the job unless 1) the law (or a law) includes a provision, Electors may only elect a President whose name appeared on the ballot; and 2) the NPVI does not pass.)

But here’s the biggest overall problem I have with Mr. Berman’s ‘efforts’ to shore up the integrity of the election process in Texas:  Texas law already provides ample remedy to redress the fraud from 2008.

As I have detailed in several articles and accompanying Comments, as well as the citizen complaint of election fraud against Boyd Richie, Chair of the TDP:  current Texas state laws offer some of the strongest remedies to the election fraud related to candidate ballot eligibility, that tainted the 2008 election, from subjecting the TDP to the state’s Open Records law to subjecting Boyd Richie to Mandamus.  Just for example, see JUDGE ABBOTT WOULD ORDER TDP CHAIR BOYD RICHIE TO DECLARE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA IS INELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB; CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (1 of 2); CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (2 of 2); OPEN LETTER to GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL of TEXAS; A ROADMAP to ELECTION FRAUD in TEXAS in the 2008 PRESIDENTIAL (ELECTORS) ELECTION; TEXAS TWO-STEP; REMEMBER the ALAMO?; and IDIOMS!.

So, we have 3 approaches to fixing our electoral process so as to ensure the Constitutional eligibility of our Presidential nominee.  Let’s compare and contrast their success.

The revolving door policy has resulted in the election of several new state (and federal) officials.  But none of them has publicly raised the issue of election fraud viz a viz ballot eligibility.

Several hundred citizens from 6 (six) states have downloaded and filed my citizen complaints.  But their conduct can hardly be characterized as revolutionary when, ignored by their A’sG, they have not publicly petitioned for a fair hearing on the steps of their state seats of government.  Ha, I cannot even persuade citizens in all 50 states to examine their own laws so as to determine whether they are applicable states for my citizen complaints!  Worse, azgo looked up laws in some other states and was able to identify AL and MO are applicable states – this information first appeared on this blog months ago now – yet no one from MO or AL has contacted me to get the ball rolling in either of those states!

Then, there’s Mr. Berman’s flawed proposed legislation which, according to the article in Lubbock Online, likely won’t pass, anyway.

These are bills that Berman has unsuccessfully filed in previous sessions.

In the 2007 session, for example, then Rep. David Swinford, R-Dumas, chairman of the House State Affairs Committee, single-handedly killed all of Berman’s bills on the advice of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

Committee chairmen have the power to kill bills they consider harmful to the state. Swinford killed Berman’s bills because Abbott advised him that if the Legislature passed them, they would not survive court challenges and the state would spend millions of dollars on legal fees, like California did in the mid-1990s.

(So much for my idea of inviting suit by any candidate aggrieved as to the state’s definition of who is (Constitutionally) “qualified” for office and, therefore, may have his name printed on the ballot; so as to fix on a legally binding definition of NBC!)

Oh, and for your information, Representative Berman just became a member of the House Elections Committee!

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/member-page/?district=6

Revolting.

Given my extensive research into and knowledge of these issues in general and TX law in particular, perhaps citizens in Tyler, TX, the district represented by Mr. Berman, can suggest that if he is determined to propose new laws to address candidate eligibility, he should review the provisions in 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).

Or, Tyler residents could ‘vote with their feet.’  Because besides being the simplest and quickest means to the eligibility end, I am still convinced, carried out as I envision, it will work.

Here is the last paragraph in that Reply to gregnh I posted earlier:

On the other hand, if even one AG in a state with an existing ballot eligibility law, however flawed, acted to initiate an investigation pursuant to one citizen complaint of election fraud, then once the targeted D could not come up with a reasonable basis for swearing Obama was Constitutionally eligible for the job in 2008, this alone would signal the end to Obama’s candidacy, even without an ensuing prosecution for election fraud, or the enactment of any other laws. ADMINISTRATOR


TOO IGNORANT TO LEAD

February 20, 2011

©2011 jbjd

A brief article entitled, “Flake says:  “Get off this Kick”” appeared on the blog, Seeing Red AZ, whose byline reads, “political views from a red state.”  This blurb about Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) was taken from a longer article that appeared in The Hill, citing an interview conducted by CNN, who asked the candidate for U.S. Senate to comment on the results of a recent Public Policy Polling poll showing a majority of R primary voters do not believe Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.  His reply?  People need to “accept reality.”  (The article on The Hill goes on to say, “Flake said the notion that Obama isn’t a U.S. citizen needs to be put to rest.”  Now, I cannot tell whether this line I quoted came from Flake or, The Hill, or CNN but, I have to tell you, having become an expert purser of Obama-speak, hearing the word “notion” in relation to anything about the man signals to me, ‘be on the alert for incoming lies.’)

Anyway, I saw the article on SRA because I was getting hits on my blog from that site and checked it out.  Well, I should have guessed, azgo had posted a great comment that included a link to “jbjd.”  He agreed I could re-print it here (with my editorial revisions).

Memo to Rep. Flake:  ‘Fight the Smears’ is Paid Political Advertising

The “Fight the Smears” web page with the image of a birth document is a paid political advertisement and conforms with TITLE 2 > CHAPTER 14 > of the U.S. Code, § 441d. Publication and distribution of statements and solicitations. This section deals with campaign funding, reporting, and other parameters.  Nothing in this law requires the advertising content to be true. And that only makes sense.  Because as the Supreme Court has ruled, when it comes to the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, political advertising is legal even if the advertiser does not tell the truth. “…the general rule is that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value of the information presented.”  Edenfield v. Fane (91-1594), 507 U.S. 761 (1993).

The Obama campaign threw up an eye-catching wizardry of a political advertisement they named, “Fight the Smears,” on which they displayed graphics for visual impact, and ad copy with terms of art like ‘native born’ and ‘citizenship conferred by the 14th Amendment’ cleverly conflating these terms with the one they never mentioned, “natural born.” But this is the term emblazoned in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.  And, consistent with section 441d, they solicited the public to ‘donate now’ and tell others, all so as to spread their truth about the candidate. Even though it was all a lie.

In truth, the state of Hawaii has never claimed responsibility as the “issuing authority” – this term of art is defined right there in the Code – of that online image of a COLB on the advertising platform entitled FTS.  They never confirmed this was a genuine “identification document,” consistent with the Code.  Even the ad failed to claim, this ‘document’ came from the HI Department of Health, Vital Records.  Or to include any identifying information that would allow anyone to trace back the mock-up to its hinted origins.  And all of the venues reporting that, having seen the image, they could confirm its authenticity – L.A. Times, Daily Kos, Annenberg Political FactCheck, Politifact – also stated publicly, they had received this image directly from the Obama campaign.

In other words, when it comes to providing documentary evidence as to where Obama was born, the only thing available in the public record, that online image of the birth document, means absolutely nothing…

…except that many Americans, including not just the media but worse, our state and national public officials can be duped into believing an image is real which was only created as the focal point of an on-line political advertising campaign to combat rumors a Presidential candidate is Constitutionally ineligible for the job!

https://jbjd.org/2011/01/03/de-coder-rings-1of2/

(View a screen capture of the 14th Amendment on FTS at IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO)

Not surprisingly, in 2007, gearing up for the political campaign of Barack Obama, the circumstances of whose birth, if uncovered, they believed would derail his bid to lead the free world; APFC posted this homage to the First Amendment license to print paid political lies.

Seems to me, a sitting U.S. Representative who is a candidate for U.S. Senate should be at least as well informed about the difference between protected false speech in paid political advertising, and the truth; as ordinary citizens who collaborated via email in their spare time to put together this post on a blog.


STILL ATTACKING the MESSENGER

February 12, 2011

©2011 jbjd

No good deed goes unpunished.

Two years ago, back in March 2009, I posted this remark at the opening of a Reply to a Comment left on this blog by David A:  “Welcome to the site that both supports critical thinking and offers answers to questions you might not want to hear.” March 24, 2009 at 01:42 Judging just by the information printed on “jbjd” since that time, I would say, it is a good thing I have not allowed the constant onslaught of personalized criticism to silence my work ever since.

As you will see from the following exchange, not everyone would agree with me.

FL is not an applicable state for a citizen complaint of election fraud based on the fact pattern, officials of the D party Certified to state election officials candidate Obama was qualified for office notwithstanding no documentary evidence available in the public record evidences he is Constitutionally eligible for the job.  Because FL has no law requiring candidates must be qualified for the job to get the state to print their names on the ballot.  Consequently, in the absence of such ballot eligibility laws, loyal “jbjd” reader Rlqretired, from FL, has lobbied legislators in that state to adopt such laws.  In the past, he has used various arguments to sway these elected officials, which are spelled out on this blog and others.  However, each time he asked me to review his correspondence, I rejected as frivolous his attempts in these petitions to link whether Obama is Constitutionally eligible for office; to the ‘illegitimacy’ of the on-line COLB based on an examination of its physical attributes (notwithstanding he maintains such analysis is a useful tool in his lobbying efforts).  Recently, he composed this lengthy Comment, apparently intending, once and for all, to put to rest my objections to continued focus on the physical characteristics of that FTS COLB in any campaign the stated goal of which is to pinpoint documentary evidence establishing whether Obama is Constitutionally eligibile for office.
Rlqretired says:

jbjd – I think the reason you and I don’t see the value of the visual photographic truth that the Hawaiian State Seal placed upon the online birth certificate candidate Obama placed on the Internet is fake is because our goals are different. Your efforts deal with a bunch of lawyers and your goal, as I understand it, has been to get the AG’s in those states that already have statutes requiring independent eligibility certification to investigate the person that signed their state level certification without having adequate proof available to them to make such certification. If they did so, as I understand it, it would be an alleged crime based upon your hard work.

Florida has no statute requiring independent verification by the political parties and depends strictly upon nominee certification by the political parties to be correct. My, goal for a year now, has been to convenience the Florida Legislature to pass a statute requiring an independent state level certification and the submission of the documents used to make that certification. At the general public level, as well as many in the Florida Legislature, I am dealing with average citizens who do not understand legalese nor will they take the time to study the issue for themselves. Willful ignorance abounds and this is where the photographic evidence that the Hawaiian State Seal placed upon Obama’s birth certificate is an irrefutable fake, is absolutely essential. These photo’s my not convince them to snap completely out of their willful ignorant bliss but it does blow away their argument that the online image of the Obama’s COLB could be a real copy of a real birth certificate and just transferred over into the advertisement in which it is located. Basically, that is what most people in our state and national governments still believe even today.

I can easily accept and understand your point of view and I really wish you could see mine. For your information, the photographic evidence has, at my level and with some legislators, has been very effective and taken them to your web site for additional study.

If I did not make it clear to you in my previous comment above, that the statute I was referring to was Hawaiian Statute 338-18 (g), I certainly apologize as I mistakenly assumed you had received and read my off blog email of 2/8 in which I stated; “My question deals with the authority the Criminal Justice Subcommittee the Florida House has under the Hawaiian Statute 338-18 (g). It appears to this country boy Florida Cracker that it does (apply), possibly on several counts……Your legal opinion of 338-18 (g) in this regard will be greatly appreciated.

A link to that statute is http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm

You have previously made clear that you have debunked the claim made by another blog that (g) of this statute can be used to the advantage of a lawyer in a criminal case to obtain verification relative to their lawsuits. However, it appears to this layman that under the circumstances I laid out in my previous comment, an authorized legislative committee assigned to investigate the authenticity of the only proof Obama has ever provided that he is even a citizen or either the Department of State whose director is the Chief Election Officer of the State and responsible for reporting possible fraudulent election activities would very likely qualify to receive verification of certain information displayed on the online image or the hard copy FTS made available to FC for examination and taking photographs of the Hawaiian State Seal.

If either of these folks are eligible to obtain verification I can think of a dozen or so questions that I believe will produce answers that will not only be helpful to me in my goals but would help you in your goals as well.

I look forward to your opinion of (g) and I surely hope you can tolerate me and my differing view on that one item.

Before I had completed my reply to this ‘first’ Comment, Rlqretired submitted another lengthy Comment, more caustic than the first.  I will print that second Comment as well.  But first, here is the response I was in the process of perfecting to his ‘first’ comment.

rlqretired: What a great comment. Now, I understand that my remarks about the work of ‘misstickly,’ whom you reference in your correspondence to state officials, mistakenly gave you the impression, I rejected focusing on that COLB qua image only because this took time away from my preferred focus, which is redressing past illegal conduct viz a viz the ballot.  I thought I had stated quite succinctly in my last email to you that, my real objection is this.

“Also, please, trust when I say, continuing to reference whether a ‘seal’ apparent on any particular vision of a document or copy of a document or copy of a mock-up for an ad campaign on the internet, is real or fake, diminishes the credibility of your other well-formulated criticism of that same document or image.”

So, now, I will expand upon that previous statement, with the hope that once and for all, my previously stated explanations become unambiguously clear. The primary reason I continuously advised you to stop referencing in the same correspondence to public officials, both my work and the work produced by “misstickly” is this:  such reference to her work undermines your credibility and, therefore, negates the value of my work.  Because basing a conclusion that Obama is not Constitutionally eligible for office on the physical attributes of a paid political advertising campaign is absurd on its face. Yes, absurd. Ridiculous. Nonsense.  It would be like concluding a physician committed malpractice for endorsing an antacid in a commercial containing a rudimentary drawing of the human digestive system.  Let me see if I can find an artist rendering of what I have in mind. Be right back…

There.  See what I mean?

You ask about HRS ch. 338.  Here are a couple of exchanges that appeared on this blog in April 2009, almost 2 (two) years ago now, discounting the value of 338 in obtaining Obama’s birth documentation from HI DoH.  (I found this merely by searching for “jbjd” and “338”!)

bob strauss says:

jbjd,Was reading a blog @ paraleagalnm and someone published Hawaii statute 0338-14 and 0338-18 (g). If I read it correctly Hawaii will verify what is on the colb or long form BC if you just ask for the information. They will not release the document but they will tell you what is on it. Thanks for answering my questions. Bob

bob: There’s a line in that law you cite which reads in part, “The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:…” I can envision that, unless those Republicans paralegalnm envisions could request such verification, actually comprise an impeachment panel, the State of HI will not be satisfied that such request meets the exceptions to HI’s confidentiality laws.

Of course, this procedure proposed by paralegalnm is backwards, anyway. If these Republicans wonder whether he is an NBC, they should begin impeachment proceedings based on BO’s failure to establish, he is a NBC; and, if he wants to fight the charges, let him produce his long firm birth certificate. ADMINISTRATOR

Like you, bob strauss, too, could not accept the fact that my opinion did not support his.

bob strauss says:

April 3, 2009 at 01:49

jbjd,338-18 (g), it says, “shall not issue verification UNLESS”! the applicant seeking verification meets one, of 5 definitions, to qualify as a person allowed to obtain verification of what is on the docs. PLEASE read the definitions, 1 through 5, where it describes the people, who ARE ALLOWED to obtain verification. Sorry to keep bugging you about this but, it looks like Hawaii will verify records if you fit the description listed at 338-18g. 1-5.

bob strauss: No, you are not bugging me! I did read the law, completely, although the only part I thought mattered was that line I quoted, saying, “The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:…”. I understood this language to mean that, the discretion of the HI Health Department would rule; and this meant, they would exercise their discretion to maintain privacy. Because HI does not want the world to know that, for several decades, they were giving U.S. identities to foreign born babies. Remember, before it will place the name of the nominee for POTUS from the the major political party onto its general election ballot, HI is the only state that requires the party to not only Certify the name of its candidate but also Certify he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. (jbjd note 02.13.11:  Of course, we now know, at least one other state, SC, also requires this explicit language of eligibility on its ballot application. IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK…) I assume Hawaiians enacted this law because of that earlier law allowing foreign births. That is, they of all people know how easily someone who is not a NBC could be nominated for the job.

Anyway, when I got your follow-up question, I looked up the law again, and found the court ruling in Martin v. Lingle. Not surprisingly, the court had denied Andy Martin’s efforts to obtain BO’s records based on a finding that HRS 338-18 bestows “discretion” and “judgment” to the Health Department, on whether to release such records. http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2008/29414ord.htm
ADMINISTRATOR

Obama has never offered up to any state official or to the courts, the electronic image of the FTS COLB , as proof of a HI birth. So please, stop saying he has!  Even in Hollister, Attorney Bauer did not say, this image (or its mock-up) was proof of anything!  He only wanted the court to take judicial notice Obama had publicly released his birth certificate!  COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3 CARD MONTE* for FEDERAL COURT (How many times have I advised people, when confronted with claims, this FTS COLB evidences to the person making the claim, Obama is a NBC; respond by conceding, ‘Yes, I accept this image provides your basis for believing, he is a NBC.  But on what basis did Nancy Pelosi or Boyd Richie or Alice Germond or Kathy Hensley, for example, determine he is a NBC?  Because they refuse to tell us, when we ask them!’)  

Finally, I want to respond to this statement:

“At the general public level, as well as many in the Florida Legislature, I am dealing with average citizens who do not understand legalese nor will they take the time to study the issue for themselves. Willful ignorance abounds and this is where the photographic evidence that the Hawaiian State Seal placed upon Obama’s birth certificate is an irrefutable fake, is absolutely essential.”

I agree that educating public officials is essential to getting passed the legislation that will clean up the electoral process (if electing officials already up to speed is not accomplished) and have always lauded your efforts in this regard.  But even if you are correct in your base opinions that fellow citizens are loath to become knowledgeable in all things electoral; this still does not mean, in the absence of such civic zeal, you (or WND, or CFP, or P&E, among dozens of others) are justified in filling their heads with factually baseless tripe, just because they will pay attention.  ADMINISTRATOR

But before I could post this Reply to Rlqretired’s ‘first’ Comment, he sent along this ‘second’ Comment.  This time, my response, in orange, is inserted amidst his remarks.

Rlqretired says:

February 12, 2011 at 05:35

This comment is submitted while my previous comment is still in moderation along with your insult.

jbjd – I really wish the bad feelings you currently have for some other bloggers that apparently prevents you from understanding the value of at least some of their work, specifically this irrefutable evidence the Hawaiian State Seal on Obama’s birth certificate is a fake could be moderated. We live in layman land and easily understand such things.  “[B]ad feelings” which “prevents (sic) [me] from understanding the value of at least some of their work”?  If I reject the work product of another blogger as being irrelevant to the stated goal of establishing whether Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job, then this rejection is based on my reasoned belief, it fails to add value to such pursuit.  Worse, it detracts from the real work of citizen education which must occur before real change will happen.  How many posts (and reads) over how many months were wasted on trying to refute my admonition, there exist no contemporaneous newspaper birth announcements of Obama’s birth?  Common sense said these did not exist, as any claim they did exist failed to reference any evidence of such publication which could be independently verified! RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’

Now, finally, one of these practitioners whose work I rejected, has posited that, perhaps the wild goose chase she sent her readers on, was based on a contrived premise.  (That is, she suggests any ‘evidence’ of such announcements was intentionally ‘planted.’) Yet, judging by the references to her nom-de-plume throughout the blogosphere, thousands of people still follow her work.

I gather from your insult that you are unwilling to accept my proposal that we simply agree to disagree on the value of the photographic evidence the Hawaiian State Seal on Obama’s one and only birth certificate is a fake.  I reject your characterization that pointing you away from frivolous pursuits when pursuing the issue of candidate eligibility is an “insult.”  These entreaties to get me to ascribe some value to work I deem valueless is all a waste of time.  So, too, it would seem, were the years I spent showing people what went wrong in 2008 and trying to get them to focus on remediating what went wrong and then, on how to correct the system so as to prevent these wrongs from recurring in 2012.  Sure, now, in 2011, some eligibility charlatans have begun to shift their focus away from judicial ‘Hail Mary’ filings and begun to focus on fixing the ‘system.’  However, efforts up to this point have left states no better positioned to avoid electoral disaster in 2012 than they were in 2008.

It is a considerable disappointment that you completely ignore the primary point of my comment which was my request for you to explain if Hawaiian Statute 338-18 (g) can be used by either a legislative committee investigating the authenticity of the one and only birth certificate ever produced by Obama in pursuit of the need for corrective legislation or possibly the Director of the Department of State (SOS) here in Florida who serves as the Chief Election Officer for the same reason.  As was implied in the response above, Obama never produced a “birth certificate.”

In your response to an off blog email from me that mentioned another bloggers post on the use of 338-18 (g) about how lawyers in legal proceedings could use this part of the statute to obtain verification of specific questions about the birth certificate you wrote “ And, as usual, I completely disagree with her ‘legal’ analysis. I have previously de-bunked this specific ploy, and will gladly repeat my objections, on the blog.”  If you insist on taking the legal advice of a self-described Graphic Artist/Designer then, why bother seeking advice from a self-described lawyer?  Anyone, it seems, will do, as long as you share the opinion offered.

If you will not look at 338-18 (g) and give me your opinion, which I desperately need, if (g) can be used as I have suggested, please fulfill your offer to debunk the idea as you said you would be glad to do.

The last thing in the world I wish to do is to get into a senseless argument with you. I am only seeking a legal opinion for what I, as a lawman, see as a possible beneficial thing to do to get at the legally recognized truth about Obama’s and the DNC collusion.  I have provided that opinion previously, as I stated.  You just had to look for it.

You might also remember that your efforts nor any other legal expert’s efforts have been successful as yet and if (g) can be used as I have suggested, it could possibly be a help to all of our efforts.  Ah, the canard, ‘You have been unsuccessful, too.’  But I have not.  Way back in the summer of 2008, I successfully identified the methodology that must be used to approach issues of Presidential eligibility.  In short, almost 3 (three) years ago now, I pointed everyone to the states.  But unlike almost every other blogger pursuing this topic, I never held myself out as a savior of the Republic.  Rather, understanding that fixing our electoral process was the work of the citizens of the states, I merely provided the tools necessary for the citizenry to carry out their work (sans the hysteria and hyperbole).  Ignoring the voluminous exchanges with readers via email, one need only peruse this blog to find ample evidence of my tangible contributions to my fellow citizens in this regard.  Yet, having sacrificed my life to this endeavor and, endured unceasing slings and arrows on that account; I am still attacked for their failure to finish the job.

And you are not the only loyal “jbjd” reader who, having obtained countless hours of private consultation and advice via email, and more through the blog, still deigns to dismiss my contributions to his endeavors because of a perceived personal slight.  azgo, until recently a stalwart supporter and contributor here at “jbjd,” also determined my ongoing consultation – this time, the proposed AZ ‘eligibility’ legislation – fell short.  He wrote, “Are you working with your state in doing anything, have you met with your state lawmakers or are you just talk like so many bloggers?”

Fortunately, I do not gauge the value of my work perfecting our electoral system, on the number of hits to the “jbjd” blog; or to the PayPal buttons; or to my psyche.


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)

January 24, 2011

©2011 jbjd

In August 2009 I replied to a Comment here on the “jbjd” blog:

At some point, I will switch my primary focus to drafting model legislation for the several states, to include state verification of the parties’ nominees. For now, I want to use existing laws. After all, this is why we enacted them!

2009/08/08 at 20:37

Due to circumstances beyond my control, this is that “point.”

As you know, several blogosphere pundits have historically scurried to secure for themselves a spot at the head of the eligibility advocacy pack by hyperbolically focusing readers’ attention on one hair-brain epiphany or scheme after another;  alternately raising and quashing the hopes and expectations of millions of citizens desperate for a definitive resolution to the question of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS.  They  have managed to capture unearned credibility (and augment their financial coffers) by stealing bits and pieces of the sound solutions proposed here on the “jbjd” blog, recycled under their monikers, without proper accreditation and with mistakes.

For example, there is the tale referenced below, falsifying and exaggerating the significance of differences in Certifications of Nomination submitted to election officials in various states.  In the year-and-a-half since hatched, this one lie has polluted the blogosphere, effectively depriving millions of citizens from learning the facts about our electoral system, facts which could forestall the chance that those of us who know more about ‘how things work’ will ever again get away with using that superior knowledge to steal power from the rest of us.

Magna Carta says: The Canada Press story is also on Obama File blog. I was trying to figure out how to get to the guy running this blog to notify about your efforts over the last several months.If anyone knows…tell me where to click.

Magna Carta: Before I forget, I had inadvertently held one of your comments in Moderation, even though I had responded with quite a lengthy reply. Have you seen it?

Please, people, if you see my work repeated without attribution, tell the owners of the blog! The integrity of the information I post here can be destroyed by one bogus presentation. It’s like inadvertently buying a knock-off Gucci bag that falls apart after one use; luckily, the name Gucci has been well-established to mean quality, and can survive random usurpation. But these issues I am presenting represent first impressions, that is, situations that have not been examined before. As one commenter wrote, I discuss these issues “sans” the drama. Because once these issues become mired in hyperbolic rant, they lose their import and we who discuss these issues and seek explanations and solutions lose our credibility outright. For example, knowing the Certifications of Nomination presented by the D party to elections officials in SC and HI were different, could be explained by screaming words like conspiracy, or cover-up. Or, noticing the difference in the forms could lead to a discussion that each state legislates the process by which the political parties can get the name of their nominee for POTUS onto the state’s general election ballot. (This means, the people in that state determined how the party would submit the name of its nominee to state elections officials.)

You get what I mean. ADMINISTRATOR

2009/09/12 at 22:03

Or the selfish gambit by those unscrupulous attention junkies to usurp the  strategy we devised that could finally resolve the eligibility question by compelling state A’sG in those states that require candidate eligibility to appear on the ballot; to investigate citizen complaints of election fraud against various members of the D party.

Sheila says: jbjd I have been following your blog for a while now and have seen the work you and other people are putting into this effort and I wanted to inform that there is an article written in THE POST AND EMAIL out of New Hampshire about the NH SOS investigating election fraud by NP,BO and the DEMS. In article they were crediting the Canadian Free Press with all of your work. I sent them an e-mail to inform them they had it wrong. Thought you might be interested!!!

Sheila: Thank you so much. (Remember, Justin Riggs put in the work to obtain the HI documents; I merely noted the difference with other Certifications and ‘interpreted’ that difference to be required by state law.) Are you from NH? Does NH law require the candidate to be eligible to get onto the ballot? ADMINISTRATOR

09.13.09
OMG. This theft of my intellectual property could completely undermine all of our hard work.

CFP copied my blog, making a big deal about the ‘newly’ discovered difference in signatures on Certifications of Nomination, concluding these differences in Certifications meant, the party had committed fraud. They failed to mention, state law dictates what goes on each Certification; and whether the Certification must originate with the DNC or the state D party Chair. Of course, all of this information is on my blog. No; for CFP, the fraud was proven merely by the different versions of the Certification. Then, WND copied my work wholesale, and credited Mr. Williams from CFP but not me. Just like CFP, WND also omitted the fact, HI law required the extra line in the Certification. (This makes sense, since in the same way that CFP is the front for Douglas Hagmann; Center for Western Journalism is the front for WND and Farah. They can label their propaganda however they want; but essentially, they are in the business of shaping opinions and not investigating and analyzing hard ‘news.’)

Now, a state Rep. in NH – he is a Plaintiff in one of Orly’s cases – was given the information from CFP. He contacted the SoS in NH to look into fraud; evidently, she agreed. But no fraud occurred in NH. As I have been saying since last summer, no provision of any law, federal or state, requires any state official to check whether the nominee for POTUS from the major political party is Constitutionally eligible for the job. This is the reason that any lawsuit predicated on Mandamus was doomed to fail. That is, the court – judicial branch – will not order the SoS – executive branch – to perform a specific job function unless such function is spelled out in the law – legislative branch. Most state laws also fail to require the nominee to be Constitutionally eligible for the job. In fact, most laws entitle the name of the nominee to appear on the ballot. All the party is required to do is to Certify the name of its nominee, to appropriate state officials. And since NH law does not require the nominee to be a NBC, having legally Certified he is the nominee, no fraud occurred.

We have begun filing election fraud complaints with A’sG in those states with laws requiring the candidate must be eligible for office to appear on the ballot. The complaints make clear, the D party submitted the Certifications that were required for the SoS to place BO’s name on the ballot. And the SoS did exactly what she was supposed to do, by placing his name on the ballot. In fact, by law, the party nominee is entitled to be on the ballot. However, the law in this state also requires the candidate to be eligible for the job. Now, we have no idea whether BO is eligible for the job; but we have a pretty good idea that based on the documentation in the public domain, as well as admissions by both the candidate and the party, the person signing the Certification on behalf of the party could not have ascertained whether BO is a NBC before signing the Certification submitted to the state.

It is this false meaning underlying the true Certification that is the election fraud; and the job of the AG is to investigate that fraud.

But let’s say, the SoS of NH reports, no fraud occurred. A’sG in other states will hear this and figure, no fraud occurred. So, what are these people filing these 4-page complaints of election fraud talking about?

Does this mean, the D’s did not commit election fraud in states other than NH? Absolutely not. But, tragically, because of the malfeasance of people associated with CFP and WND, and Leo and the NH state Rep., only readers of my blog will ‘get’ that distinction.

Leo Donofrio also posted this stolen information about the NH Rep., AFTER I alerted him CFP had stolen this from me. Here are the first two lines of the comment I sent him today, which comment he refuses to post. No surprise there.

“I cannot believe you posted this after I alerted you that CFP had stolen my work.”

“By stealing my work, CFP and WND have jeopardized the success of the project.”

By the way, NH has no law requiring the nominee from the major political party to be eligible for the job in order to appear on the ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

2009/09/13 at 17:33

Well, these same charlatans are now fabricating equally faulty prescriptions for preventing the problems that plagued the 2008 election cycle from repeating themselves in 2012.  Again, 1) they are stealing from me; and, as usual, 2) they don’t know what they are talking about.  So, in the best interest of enabling a well informed electorate, I am compelled to shift the immediate focus of the work I have been pouring into the “jbjd” blog away from mitigating and remediating the problems I have identified which infected the 2008 election cycle, and toward preventing these same anomalies I originally identified here on this blog 2 1/2 years ago, in the summer of 2008, from infecting the electoral cycle again in 2012.

From now on, those readers who have been emailing proposed legislation in individual states for my comment and review, should now direct all such correspondence to the Comments section of the blog so that our collaboration can benefit everyone who visits “jbjd.”

Okay, here goes.

When it comes to crafting proposals affecting legislation with respect to the electoral process for  the 2012 general election cycle that are intended to ensure we elect a President who is Constitutionally eligible for the job, such proposals cannot achieve this desired outcome which contain provisions contradicting the broad tenets spelled out below, in no particular order.

1. IN STATES WHERE CITIZENS HAVE NOT ENACTED LAWS SPECIFICALLY MANDATING ONLY THE NAMES OF CANDIDATES ELIGIBLE* FOR THE OFFICES THEY SEEK TO FILL MAY APPEAR ON THE BALLOT, THEY NEED TO ENACT THESE LAWS.

*(The word “eligible” is used in Article II, section 1, with respect to the President; neither the word “eligible” nor the word “qualified” appears in Article I, sections 2 and 3 to define who may be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives or U.S. Senate.)

2. IN STATES WHERE CITIZENS HAVE ENACTED LAWS SPECIFICALLY MANDATING ONLY THE NAMES OF CANDIDATES ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICES THEY SEEK TO FILL MAY APPEAR ON THE BALLOT, THE NAMES OF INELIGIBLE CANDIDATES MUST BE KEPT OFF THE BALLOT. Such ballot eligibility laws must be expanded to include verification mechanisms, either by promulgating regulations to carry out existing laws, a state function allocated to the official in charge of elections or, by tweaking the original legislation so as to allow expedited challenges of ballot eligibility; along with stiff criminal and civil penalties for violations. (These solutions to the eligibility problem were first discussed on the “jbjd” blog way back in August 2008.  See CHALLENGING BO’S ELIGIBILITY TO GET ONTO THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT AS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR POTUS)

(Please note, objections raised that the state cannot interfere with the rights of political parties to choose their candidates can be countered with this rationale:  a decision by any state that, one candidate or another is not eligible under state law to have his or her name printed on the ballot does not mean that political parties are  not entitled to ‘run’ a candidate who fails to meet ballot eligibility. Not at all!  Failing to meet the state’s standard for ballot eligibility (or, refusing to subject party nominees to the scrutiny of vetting by the state) in no way implicates the right of the party to the nominee of its choice.  It only relieves the state of the burden to put that person’s name on the general election ballot. People who still want to vote for candidates who have failed to establish state confirmed ballot eligibility must be offered the option to write in the names of these candidates in a space provided!)

(Please note, the portion of the U.S. Code addressing criminal conduct associated with the production, transfer, possession, and use of identification documents – DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2) – should be incorporated into state law, for this reason.  Breaches of federal law must be investigated and prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney, whose discretion to proceed may be influenced by factors outside of the state; whereas violations of state law can be addressed by appropriate law enforcement officials within the state, and subject to the direct influences of its citizens.  Such legislation should in no way prevent federal prosecution of document related fraud.)  (Of course, if we are as lax about persuading our elected officials to exercise their discretion to enforce news laws as we have been when it comes to enforcing laws already on the books, well, scofflaws will have as little to worry about then as they do now.)

3. IN STATES WHERE CITIZENS HAVE ENACTED LAWS SPECIFICALLY MANDATING ONLY THE NAMES OF CANDIDATES ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICES THEY SEEK TO FILL MAY APPEAR ON THE BALLOT, THE WAY TO PREVENT ELECTORS FROM ELECTING AN INELIGIBLE PRESIDENT IS TO ENACT LAWS PROHIBITING THEM FROM ELECTING ANYONE WHOSE NAME DID NOT APPEAR ON THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT IN THEIR STATE. As we now know, laws mandating that Electors must vote for the Presidential nominee of the political party exist in several states.   NEVER LESS THAN a TREASON (2 of 2) Thus, we can also write laws mandating Electors only elect Presidents Constitutionally eligible for the job.  But Electors cannot be charged with determining eligibility, for several reasons.  As we have discussed, the names of Electors are proposed by the political parties, and are usually long-time party contributors and loyalists. But this innate bias on the part of Electors is only one barrier to requiring such scrutiny of the candidates.  More importantly, Electors are not public officials answerable to the electorate.  Thus, all mandates involving candidate eligibility must be implemented by state election officials.

(Please note, requiring Electors to elect only a President whose name appeared on that state’s ballot cures another problem I previously identified with the National Popular Vote Initiative (“NPVI”).  That is, as it stands now, in a ballot eligibility state whose legislature has already voted to join the NPVI compact, Electors could be compelled to vote for the Presidential candidate who amassed the most votes in the compact states, notwithstanding s/he failed to qualify to appear on the ballot in that eligibility state.  Under my proposal, Electors are prohibited from violating their state’s ballot eligibility law.) (Other arguments have been raised questioning the Constitutionality of the NPVI. Id.)

4. IN STATES WHERE VOTERS HAVE ENACTED LAWS SPECIFICALLY MANDATING ONLY THE NAMES OF CANDIDATES ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICES THEY SEEK TO FILL MAY APPEAR ON THE BALLOT, THEY MUST DEFINE THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR CANDIDATES TO APPEAR ON THE BALLOT. That’s right, ballot eligibility. Because this is the only eligibility issue which is justiciable, or capable of being addressed by the courts.  Hopefully, everyone even marginally familiar with the numerous futile attempts to foist the issue of candidate eligibility for office on the judicial branch of government has learned this lesson by now.  It makes sense, therefore, the only legally cognizable interest the public can protect viz a viz enforcing existing laws with respect to candidate eligibility derives from laws passed in several states demanding that only candidates qualified for office are entitled to have the state print their names on the ballot.

4a.  IN STATES WHERE VOTERS HAVE ENACTED LAWS SPECIFICALLY MANDATING ONLY THE NAMES OF CANDIDATES ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICES THEY SEEK TO FILL MAY APPEAR ON THE BALLOT AND DEFINED THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR CANDIDATES TO APPEAR ON THE BALLOT, SUCH BALLOT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS CANNOT CONFLICT WITH THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL OFFICE WHICH ARE FOUND IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. This only makes sense.  Because otherwise, that is, by insisting states get to pass laws defining the eligibility for office; citizens would be attempting to ‘amend’ through state legislation (or regulation) the eligibility found in the Constitution  notwithstanding the only legal way to change the Constitution is through the process of Constitutional amendments prescribed in the Constitution! (And this legal truism has previously been discussed several times on the “jbjd” blog.  See, for example, CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (1 of 2) and (2 of 2); and JUDGE ABBOTT WOULD ORDER TDP CHAIR BOYD RICHIE TO DECLARE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA IS INELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB.)

On the other hand, states get to decide (for the most part) the rational ways to spend their finite resources.  Thus, they can decide to print on the ballot (and tabulate the votes for) only the names of those candidates eligible for office   And to keep off the ballot the names of any candidates who are not.  Anyone aggrieved at being kept off the ballot for failing to meet the state definition of eligibility, can sue.  Defining NBC in any way we want, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, could likely result in a federal appellate court ruling that would establish a legally binding definition of NBC.

(Please note, anyone aggrieved that the definition of eligibility to appear on the ballot conflicts with the definition of eligibility found in the U.S. Constitution, resulting in the exclusion from the ballot a candidate presumed eligible, can file suit against the state in either state or federal court contesting such ballot exclusion.  Eventually, such case will be heard by a federal appeals court and, in this way, we could achieve a legally binding definition of the Constitutional terms of eligibility.)

Here are some prior Comments on the subject containing issues drafters should consider.

bob strauss:  Know what’s funny? When we set up eligibility panels in the states, we can define NBC any way we want. If the party wants to use our state ballots then, their candidate has to fulfill our definition of NBC. If they don’t like our definition, they can take us to court; or stay off our ballots. Because until the federal appeals court defines NBC then, one definition is as good as another. And we will do this by the next general election. But at a minimum, NBC certainly means, born in the U.S.A. ADMINISTRATOR

2009/09/23 at 19:42


Texas Voter:  Great questions.  I have addressed these issues tangentially throughout the blog, while not dedicating an entire article to the subject of vetting candidates for POTUS as to Constitutional eligibility for the job. In short, this discussion can be divided into 2 (two) categories: 1) the Constitutional qualifications for POTUS; and 2) qualifications to get on state ballots.

1) Does the Constitution set a floor or a ceiling on qualifications for POTUS? That is, can Congress pass a law requiring the Electors to vet as to, say, NBC status, where the Constitution does not compel this factor into their deliberations? If the document set a floor for qualifications then, we can expand on these. If it set a ceiling then, we cannot add to the requirements for deliberation.

2) Can states set whatever requirements they want to get on the ballot, notwithstanding requirements for the actual job are prescribed by the Constitution? That is, can states define ‘qualifications for POTUS’ to get on the ballot, such as, for example, saying, NBC means, born in the U.S. to 2 (two) citizen parents?

The good thing about having the states define NBC is that, we could envision, a party (person or political organization) thereby excluded from appearing on the ballot would file suit against the state for being wrongfully excluded from the political process. And through this process, we would achieve the federal court definition of NBC! ADMINISTRATOR

2010/02/18 at 16:49

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! azgo has provided this anecdote with respect to producing an original birth certificate that illustrates why.

If a state law requires a B/C as documentation for ballot access, the state should require the candidate to request from the lawful authority of the candidate’s ‘place of birth’ state to issue that identification document and in that request, the document must be sent directly to the state official (SoS, state election official) and this would be similar to applying for a passport.

I went to apply for a passport in 1979 at the county office (so much younger and not so much money). I brought my hospital issued birth paper with my little footprint on it which my mom kept for so many years. The clerk said that’s no good and you have to use the one from the the department agency in the state where were born. I wanted a copy of my birth certificate so I said to the county clerk, “I want a copy of my B/C so can I get the B/C from my state and make a copy for myself (being thrifty) and then send it to the them (Office of Passport Services/Customer Service).” She said, ” No, you can’t, the certified B/C must go directly to them from the state agency where you were born who keeps those records, they won’t accept one from you”. (I thought to myself, ‘What! don’t they trust me?’) So I had to send off another request of my own to get a certified copy (that blew my budget.) In other words the federal government who issues passports requires the certified B/C copy to go directly to them from the state agency who keeps the B/C record.

So the states with eligibility laws requiring documentation should do the same by requiring the candidate to request a certified original B/C copy from the candidate’s place of birth state agency and send it directly to the SoS or state election official. The SoS and/or state election officials would and should respect the candidate applicant’s personal information and not release any copies of the certified B/C copy to the public but the state could require the document to be available for public viewing only at the office of the SoS (no copies made). This would preserve the integrity of a genuine birth identification document. (I think once that the act of making a copy of the an official certified original or short form B/C copy, then that copy instantly becomes a false identification document, no embossed state seal, no original signature, -“altered”. There are only two types of identification documents, “genuine” and “false”, http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01507.htm ) Then it would be up to the candidate to choose whether he wants the public to see it or not, …and that answer may conclude whether or not he wants to be able to achieve ballot access.

The SoS and/or state election officials should not accept a certified B/C copy, original or not, from the candidate or anyone else except from “lawful authority” as defined in U.S. Code 1028.

Even Harvard advises applicants to its Freshman class, “Please note that in order for your application to be considered complete, your official test scores must (sic) submitted directly to Harvard by the testing agency on your behalf.”

http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/application_process/index.html

Finally, for those of you who would prefer to allow the political parties to authenticate the eligibility of their candidates, I recommend this additional caveat.

6. ANY MECHANISM INTENDED TO ESTABLISH ONLY THE NAMES OF ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT, WHICH RELIES ON A POLITICAL PARTY TO AUTHENTICATE ITS CANDIDATES MUST INCLUDE CORRESPONDING LEGISLATION THAT TREATS PARTY OFFICIALS AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS WITH RESPECT TO MANDAMUS AND PUBLIC RECORDS LAWS. This points to the reason I emphasize TX is the state in which prosecution for election fraud viz a viz Certifying Barack Obama was eligible to appear on the 2008 ballot, could succeed.  TX requires candidate eligibility for office in order to appear on the ballot; as Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”), Boyd Richie fulfilled a traditional state function when he determined candidate Barack Obama was eligible to appear on the ballot.  Under TX law, this makes Mr. Richie subject to both Mandamus and the Open Records Law.  See, for example, CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (1 of 2)CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (2 of 2)OPEN LETTER to GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL of TEXAS , JUDGE ABBOTT WOULD ORDER TDP CHAIR BOYD RICHIE TO DECLARE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA IS INELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB, IDIOMS! …..

There.  Any questions?  Ask “jbjd.”

P.S.  I still maintain we can prevent future problems simply by remediating past problems, for example, focusing our collective attention and efforts on enforcing existing ballot eligibility laws.



If a state law requires a B/C as documentation for ballot access, the state should require the candidate to request from the lawful authority of the candidate’s ‘place of birth’ state to issue that identification document and in that request, the document must be sent directly to the state official (SoS, state election official) and this would be similar to applying for a passport.I went to apply for a passport in 1979 at the county office (so much younger and not so much money). I brought my hospital issued birth paper with my little footprint on it which my mom kept for so many years. The clerk said that’s no good and you have to use the one from the the department agency in the state where were born.  I wanted a copy of my birth certificate so I said to the county clerk, “I want a copy of my B/C so can I get the B/C from my state and make a copy for myself (being thrifty) and then send it to the them (Office of Passport Services/Customer Service).”  She said, ” No, you can’t, the certified B/C must go directly to them from the state agency where you were born who keeps those records, they won’t accept one from you”.  (I thought to myself, ‘What! don’t they trust me?’)  So I had to send off another request of my own to get a certified copy (that blew my budget.)  In other words the federal government who issues passports requires the certified B/C copy to go directly to them from the state agency who keeps the B/C record.So the states with eligibility laws requiring documentation should do the same by requiring the candidate to request a certified original B/C copy from the candidate’s place of birth state agency and send it directly to the SoS or state election official.  The SoS and/or state election officials would and should respect the candidate applicant’s personal information and not release any copies of the certified B/C copy to the public but the state could require the document to be available for public viewing only at the office of the SoS (no copies made).  This would preserve the integrity of a genuine birth identification document. (I think once that the act of making a copy of the an official certified original or short form B/C copy, then that copy instantly becomes a false identification document, no embossed state seal, no original signature, -“altered”.  There are only two types of identification documents, “genuine” and “false”, http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01507.htm )  Then it would be up to the candidate to choose whether he wants the public to see it or not, …and that answer may conclude whether or not he wants to be able to achieve ballot access. The SoS and/or state election officials should not accept a certified B/C copy, original or not, from the candidate or anyone else except from “lawful authority” as defined in U.S. Code 1028.

DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2)

January 12, 2011

©2011 jbjd

DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) provided a more sophisticated legal analysis of simple charges I first raised on this blog in 2008 when I advised people investigating Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS to ignore information posted on the web site “Fight the Smears” (“FTS”), which is just a paid political advertisement.  Now, by taking the facts available in the public record, including that FTS was copyrighted in 2007, and correlating these public facts to specific provisions of the U.S. Code; I spelled out that FTS was devised to promote and support the candidacy of Barack Obama, first, as the Presidential nominee wannabe of the D Party and then as its nominee; and is now used by the DNC Corporation to sustain the image of its current President (and, perhaps to promote and support his future run for office).   But the legal analysis offered in that article still left this question unanswered. Even assuming the COLB posted on FTS was only created as a feature of that on-line advertising campaign; is its appearance on that site proscribed by law?

DECODER-RINGS (2 of 2) addresses this last critical concern.

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).)

  • § 1001. Statements or entries generally
  • § 1002. Possession of false papers to defraud United States
  • § 1003. Demands against the United States
  • § 1004. Certification of checks
  • § 1005. Bank entries, reports and transactions
  • § 1006. Federal credit institution entries, reports and transactions
  • § 1007. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation transactions
  • § 1010. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Federal Housing Administration transactions
  • § 1011. Federal land bank mortgage transactions
  • § 1012. Department of Housing and Urban Development transactions
  • § 1013. Farm loan bonds and credit bank debentures
  • § 1014. Loan and credit applications generally; renewals and discounts; crop insurance
  • § 1015. Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry
  • § 1016. Acknowledgment of appearance or oath
  • § 1017. Government seals wrongfully used and instruments wrongfully sealed
  • § 1018. Official certificates or writings
  • § 1019. Certificates by consular officers
  • § 1020. Highway projects
  • § 1021. Title records
  • § 1022. Delivery of certificate, voucher, receipt for military or naval property
  • § 1023. Insufficient delivery of money or property for military or naval service
  • § 1024. Purchase or receipt of military, naval, or veteran’s facilities property
  • § 1025. False pretenses on high seas and other waters
  • § 1026. Compromise, adjustment, or cancellation of farm indebtedness
  • § 1027. False statements and concealment of facts in relation to documents required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
  • § 1028. Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information
  • § 1028A. Aggravated identity theft
  • § 1029. Fraud and related activity in connection with access devices
  • § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
  • § 1031. Major fraud against the United States
  • § 1032. Concealment of assets from conservator, receiver, or liquidating agent of financial institution
  • § 1033. Crimes by or affecting persons engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce
  • § 1034. Civil penalties and injunctions for violations of section 1033
  • § 1035. False statements relating to health care matters
  • § 1036. Entry by false pretenses to any real property, vessel, or aircraft of the United States or secure area of any airport or seaport
  • § 1037. Fraud and related activity in connection with electronic mail
  • § 1038. False information and hoaxes
  • § 1039. Fraud and related activity in connection with obtaining confidential phone records information of a covered entity
  • § 1040. Fraud in connection with major disaster or emergency benefits

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.

Phew!  To re-cap, it’s a crime to undertake the conduct described in (a) under circumstances spelled out in (c)Attempting or conspiring to commit the crimes spelled out in (a) under circumstances spelled out in (c) becomes a crime according to (f).  In (d), we find definitions for some of the terms in (a) and (c).  But many of the “terms of art” used in 1028, such as “produce,” “transfer,” or “possess” are either defined only in a limited manner or not defined directly in the law.  So, we will look at the U.S. Attorneys Criminal Resource Manual.  (Note:  In the past, I have indicated that when seeking the true meaning of prominent terms within the text of a law, look to the “Definitions” section in that law.  Indeed, finding a word in this section tells the reader, this word is important.   However, §1028 contains only a limited ‘definitions’ section.  So, go to the manual that tells U.S. Attorneys how to practice (investigating and prosecuting) cases brought under this section of the Code.)

US Attorneys > USAM > Title 9 > Criminal Resource Manual 1511
1509 Operative Terms—18 U.S.C. § 1028

Section 1028 of Title 18 has three basic operative offenses. They are to “produce,” “transfer,” or “possess.” With the exception of simple possession of a United States identification document which was stolen or produced without lawful authority, which is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(6), possession is always coupled with the purpose to “use unlawfully,” “transfer unlawfully” or “use to defraud the United States.” Hence, it is necessary to understand the scope of the words “produce,” “transfer,” “possess,” “use,” and “defraud the United States.”

A.    “Produce” is defined in section 1028(d)(2) to include “alter, authenticate, or assemble.” Obviously, since the word “include” is used in the definition, the term is not limited to these three concepts but also encompasses all forms of counterfeiting, forging, making, manufacturing, issuing, and publishing. A government employee whose duty is to simply issue identification documents (i.e., he does not manufacture or assemble the documents) is, by issuing the document, authenticating it. If such an employee were to authenticate such documents without lawful authority, it would constitute an offense under section 1028(a)(1).

B.    “Transfer” is not defined in section 1028, but is intended to reach those persons who “traffic” in stolen and false identification. It includes the acts of selling, pledging, distributing, giving, loaning or otherwise transferring. It does not require any exchange of consideration (anything of value) for the transfer. To transfer “unlawfully” means the transfer of an identification document in a manner forbidden by federal, state, or local law.

C.    “Possess” is not defined in section 1028 but is to be construed broadly. It includes the concept of “receipt” but is not limited thereto. Constructive possession would also be included.

D.    “Use” is not defined in section 1028 but is to be broadly construed and includes presenting, displaying, certifying, or otherwise giving currency to an identification document so that it would be accepted as an identification document in any manner. To use “unlawfully” means that the document was used in a manner that violates a federal, state or local law, or is part of a misrepresentation that violates a law. For example, section 1028(a)(3) would be violated if the possessor intended to use five or more documents to make representations in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

E.     “Defraud the United States” is not defined in section 1028 but is not intended to be limited to misrepresentations related to financial fraud. It would also include the misrepresentative use of false identification to obstruct functions of the government (e.g., display to a government investigator a false pilot’s license or someone else’s driver’s license for the purpose of trying to deceive or mislead the investigator).

[cited in USAM 9-64.400]

Okay, so assuming the COLB displayed on FTS, the political advertising web site, was knowingly produced, transferred, possessed, and used in relation to the FTS political ad campaign to fool people into believing the state of HI issued a document recording the birth of Barack Obama, is its display on FTS legal under the U.S. Code?  Absolutely.

Both the plain language of the statute – under (d)(3), this image of a COLB cannot be considered to be an “identification document” where it was not “made or issued by or under the authority of” “a State, or political subdivision of a State”; but by a candidate seeking public office and then, his political party – and the SCOTUS’ reverence to political speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, recently renewed in Citizens United – “The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether” – should convince you why.

But why bother to conduct this extended legal analysis as to the legitimacy of any ‘information’ visible on the image of the COLB posted on the  FTS site, when the language therein already plainly warns, (under the laws in the state of HI) “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE“?

In sum, between the clear accreditation in the footer of the FTS internet web site identifying under the U.S. Code, this is a paid political advertisement; recent holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court protecting false political speech; and the obvious redactions on the face of the image of the FTS COLB rendering it invalid as a matter of (HI) law; its appearance as a so-called ‘identification document’ on that site is not illegal, precisely because as a matter of law, it identifies nothing.  Indeed, given the patently obvious worthlessness of the posted COLB, it’s as if the site owners have announced to those voters who have expressed concern as to whether Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be the President of the United States: ‘We are banking the political future of the Democratic Party on the fact you are too ignorant to grasp when we insist the “birth certificate” posted on FTS proves, he is, we are not telling the truth.’

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

Freedom costs.


DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2)

January 3, 2011

©2011 jbjd

Introduction

Businesses marketing their goods on television in the ’50s often included fun gimmicks in their advertising campaigns so as to disguise to impressionable consumers that what they were watching, whether broadcast as a feature program or as a word from the sponsor,  were essentially commercial vehicles designed to sell products.  For example, the children’s serial, “Captain Midnight and the Secret Squadron” promoted the sale of Ovaltine® through the introduction of secret de-coder rings, which could help the viewer to decipher the puzzle offered up weekly by Captain Midnight.  To obtain this de-coder ring, you just had to join the Secret Squadron.  And to do that, “First, get a jar of the official Secret Squadron drink, delicious chocolate flavored Ovaltine®, the food drink for rocket power.  Then cut out the wax paper disc that covers the Ovaltine® jar.  And send that disc with your name and your address to Captain Midnight.”

(For an interesting history in the chronology of the product and the companies that owned it, see http://www.google.com/search?q=ovaltine+history&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=ovaltine+history&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=ahq&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivns&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=HbQfTaDWD8H68AaM8ZHdDQ&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CHMQ5wIwCg&fp=bdddfab3d4d782f2.)

The bad news is, “DE-CODER RINGS” won’t be sending out any such costume baubles.  But the good news is, it provides you, instead, with a ‘gimmick’ that is genuinely priceless.  Because it will enable you to decipher the true nature of those familiar images which are part of the brilliantly conceived and phenomenally successful sales and advertising campaign that gave us Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, under various iterations including (in chronological order) “Barack Obama”; “Obama for America”; and “Organizing for America, a product of the Democratic National Committee” (“DNC”).  Plus, you won’t have to send me your personal information before obtaining this Rosetta Stone.  Nope; you just have to read some selected provisions of the U.S. Code.

So, what is the U.S. Code, anyway?  Here’s the definition on the web site of the Government Printing Office (“GPO”):  “The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States.”  http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/ In other words, the U.S. Code is the systematic compilation of all of the federal civil and criminal laws of the land.

DE-CODER RINGS is presented in two (2)  parts.  Part (1 of 2) addresses what the Code has to say about the legal nature of electronic political advertising campaigns like the one copyrighted and commonly known as “Fight the Smears,” and begins a discussion of the legality of posting on these political advertising sites images such as the Certification of Live Birth (“COLB”) which appears on various named internet sites carrying that ad campaign.  Part (2 of 2) completes the discussion of the criminal implications of producing and distributing the electronic image of that COLB and then compares and contrasts the legal implications of presenting such an electronic image, with the laws that would apply to any future production and/or transfer of hard copy images of either an officially released COLB or an actual Birth Certificate.

As you read DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and (2 of 2), notice that the key to unlocking the legitimacy of political advertising, whether in the form of electronic images or hard copy, cannot be found by micro-analyzing the minutia of its visual presentation, but in realizing that the production and transfer of either electronic images or hard copy documents by anyone, whether in conjunction with a political ad campaign is likely governed by and, therefore, inextricably linked to maintaining compliance with provisions of the U.S. Code.

Discussion of the Federal Laws Governing Paid Political Advertising

In June 2008, Barack Obama, then still struggling to bamboozle Democratic voters (and the rest of the country) into buying into the meme that with the primary/caucus contests ended, there was no way Hillary Clinton could possibly still win the D Presidential nomination; publicly launched “Fight the Smears” (“FTS”), the web site his supporters had prepared several months earlier.  Admittedly, part of the reason he and his marketing team were flailing miserably is that rumors had surfaced questioning whether he was even Constitutionally eligible to become the President.  So, on June 12, FTS was publicly launched, putting his name – literally – on this electronic platform containing an image imprinted with the title, “Certification of Live Birth,”  which image both the candidate and others associated with his quest for the nomination claimed was his “Certificate of Live Birth.”

(Here is an interesting side note.  When I posted COUP (1 of 3) way back in August 2010, I posited that while only publicly unveiled in June 2008, FTS had been conceived and concocted well in advance.

For months now, rumors had been swirling that Obama was not Constitutionally eligible for the job.  Specifically, he is not a “natural born” citizen, one of three requirements listed in Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  Then Communications Director Robert Gibbs (now WH Press Secretary) had come up with a seemingly brilliant on-line advertising campaign under the banner, “Fight the Smears,” designed to counter these mounting speculations.  The focal point of the ad campaign was an image of a mock-up “Certification of Live Birth,”  listing Obama’s place of birth as “Hawaii.”  (It was even appropriately redacted so as to give the appearance of protecting the candidate’s privacy.)  Ad copy accompanying the image reassured the public, this proves he is a “native” citizen.  At the bottom of the page, in the footer, appeared the sort of attribution required by the U.S. Code for all political advertising expenditures:  “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA.”

Designing a political ad campaign such as “Fight the Smears” ‘to be used only in case of emergency’ was one thing; but actually rolling it out was another.  Because its success gambled on the truth of this one contemptuous statement:  American voters are too stupid to know that there’s a difference between “natural born”  and “native”; and that “Fight the Smears” is nothing more than a PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT, anyway.  Understandably, the Obama team held back on the nuclear “Fight the Smears” option for as long as it could.

By obtaining the computer source code for that FTS page, loyal “jbjd” reader “azgo” proved I was right.  (“I use Firefox as my search window, I press down on the icon on the left side of the address bar at the top of the window. A box appears with a “More information…” button, then I click and get the “Page Info” window as you see below.”)   Pay special attention to lines 8 and 9.)

Advertising copy on the FTS campaign launch asserted once and for all, this electronic image of the COLB would “fight” the “smears” that the man who would be President of the United States was not a Natural Born Citizen by “prov[ing]” he is “native” born.  (I know, this made no sense on its face, as the Constitutional language in that one provision pertaining to eligibility – Article II, section 1 – does not state that being a “native” “citizen” confers eligibility but only being a “citizen” who it describes is “natural born.”)  I have been characterizing FTS as paid political advertising that was only designed to persuade consumers to buy (into) the product (candidate) Barack Obama.  As evidence of this claim the web site is nothing more than political advertising, I pointed out the ever-changing accreditations in the footer of the site, which changing credits correspond to Obama’s altered political status – nominee wannabe -> nominee -> President-elect/President – as required by the U.S. Code.

Let’s further examine the legality of what we already know about the contents of FTS, in light of that Code.

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

DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS

  • § 431. Definitions
  • § 432. Organization of political committees
  • § 433. Registration of political committees
  • § 434. Reporting requirements
  • § 437. Reports on convention financing
  • § 437c. Federal Election Commission
  • § 437d. Powers of Commission
  • § 437f. Advisory opinions
  • § 437g. Enforcement
  • § 437h. Judicial review
  • § 438. Administrative provisions
  • § 438a. Maintenance of website of election reports
  • § 439. Statements filed with State officers; “appropriate State” defined; duties of State officers; waiver of duplicate filing requirement for States with electronic access
  • § 439a. Use of contributed amounts for certain purposes
  • § 439c. Authorization of appropriations
  • § 441a. Limitations on contributions and expenditures
  • § 441a-1. Modification of certain limits for House candidates in response to personal fund expenditures of opponents
  • § 441b. Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations
  • § 441c. Contributions by government contractors
  • § 441d. Publication and distribution of statements and solicitations
  • § 441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
  • § 441f. Contributions in name of another prohibited
  • § 441g. Limitation on contribution of currency
  • § 441h. Fraudulent misrepresentation of campaign authority
  • § 441i. Soft money of political parties
  • § 441k. Prohibition of contributions by minors
  • § 442. Authority to procure technical support and other services and incur travel expenses; payment of such expenses

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sup_01_2_10_14_20_I.html

But trust me, by applying just the following select sections of the Code involving political advertising funding credits, to “FTS,” you will begin to develop an understanding as to the interplay between law and practice.

  • § 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.)

“azgo” volunteered this U.S. Code reference prototype to simplify your analysis.  (Just a word of caution.  By citing to particular provisions found in the Code, I am not claiming that these exclusively govern political campaign advertising.  I merely intend to illustrate the point that, an explanation underlying the advertising copy visible on the screen, can be found in the Code.) The quoted accreditations appeared in the footer of the FTS web page, evolving along with the corresponding political status of Barack Obama, in parentheses.  The provision of the Code satisfied by that wording follows.

  1. “Paid for by Barack Obama” (D Presidential nominee wannabe) = complies with § 441d. (a) (1).
  2. “Paid for by Obama for America” (nominee) = complies with § 441d. (a) (2).
  3. “Paid for by Organizing for America, A Project of the Democratic National Committee, 430 South Capital Street SE,Washington, D.C., 20003.  THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE’S COMMITTEE” (Emphasis added by jbjd) (President-elect and President) = complies with § 441d. (a) (3).

Okay, get that?  Based on this rudimentary analysis of the disclosure of its funding sources, the electronic political advertising platform called FTS meets the legal requirements spelled out in this section of the U.S. Code.  Yep; nothing in this section of the law requires that what is said in these publications or solicitations must be true.  It just says, you have to disclose who is paying for the words.

So, does this mean, the Code condones the “production,” “transfer,” or “possession” of any document incorporated into such political advertising, including a mock-up or image thereof of any documents advertisers variously claim is either an official “Certification” or  “Certificate” “of Live Birth”?  Hardly.  Only, that’s not dealt with in Title 2 of the Code but in Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Part I, Crimes, Chapter 47, Fraud and False Statements, §1028, Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information.

This aspect of the legality of conduct related to political speech will be covered in DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2).

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

Freedom costs.

U.S. Code, Title 2, Congress; Chapter 14, Federal Election Campaigns; Subchapter I, –
Disclosure of Federal Campaign Funds;
 

§ 441d. Publication and distribution of statements and solicitations(a) Identification of funding and authorizing sourcesWhenever 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 (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.”


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000441—d000-.html

The following credit communications on “’Fight the Smears” web page evolved from the time the candidate was a competing candidate to the present credit communication paid by the national political party.

1. Credit Communication: Barack Obama 2008

 

Paid for by Barack Obama 2008. All Rights Reserved


The communication credit from the candidate’s original campaign web site.
– Complies with U.S. Code § 441d. (a) (1).

2. Credit Communication: OBAMA FOR AMERICA 2008

PAID FOR BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA 2008.  All Rights Reserved


The credit communication evolved to a new name when the candidate became the presidential nominee of the national party.
– Complies with U.S. Code § 441d. (a) (2).

2. Credit Communication: ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA

PAID FOR BY ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA,
A PROJECT OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
COMMITTEE – – 430 SOUTH CAPITAL STREET SE,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20003. THIS COMMUNICATION
IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR
CANDIDATE’S COMMITTEE.


The credit communication evolved to a new name when he became the presidential nominee of the Democratic party.
– Complies with U.S. Code § 441d. (a) (3).

The ‘Fight the Smears’ web page with the birth document image, statements and solicitations has been and is presently a paid public political advertisement which conforms to Chapter 14, Federal Election Campaigns, § 441d.

(Note: The publications and distribution of statements and solicitations of this law are not required to be a geuine identification document or false identification document.  In other words, this law does not require the information on the web page to be factual.)

Therefore it is safe to say;

THE ‘FIGHT THE SMEARS’ WEB PAGE IS A LAWFUL PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT.


WERE YOU LYING THEN or ARE YOU LYING NOW?

July 17, 2010

© 2010 jbjd

“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” 5 USC §3331

Watch and listen carefully while John Dingell (D-MI), the Dean of the House administers this legally mandated Oath of Office on January 6, 2009, the opening day of the 1st session of the 111th Congress; to the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, just re-elected by her peers to be Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, marking the second year in a row she was 3rd in line of Presidential succession.  (The only votes she got came from fellow Democrats.)

“…without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion…”

Following, Speaker Pelosi administers the Oath to the other 433* members of the House.

*The seat of Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), set to become the Chief of Staff of the incoming President, Barack Obama, was vacant.  Id.

Now, watch the Oath in action on November 6, 2007, when Dennis Kucinich, (D-OH), taking to heart the words which make up that oath, rose up on the floor of the House during the 110th Congress to introduce Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Richard Cheney, charging Mr. Cheney had violated this same Oath of Office by deceptively promoting the weapons capabilities of Iraq so as to propel the U.S. into war against that sovereign nation.  (Note: As President of the Senate, Mr. Cheney  had sworn that same Oath “to bear full faith and allegiance” to the Constitution.)

On June 10, 2008 during the 2nd session of the 110th Congress, Mr. Kucinich stood up once again to introduce Articles of Impeachment, this time against President George W. Bush, charging he had deliberately lied to Congress by overstating the nuclear capability of Iran so as to propel the U.S. into war against that sovereign nation.

Little of the subterfuge which Mr. Kucinich charged both the President and Vice-President had  perpetrated on the American people (through their representatives in Congress)  was new.  And neither Resolution of Impeachment resulted in a Senate trial.  But significantly, his act gave life to the principle of governmental checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution, that document he had sworn an oath to “support and defend” “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Tragically, by Certifying votes of the Electors on January 8, 2009, two days after taking the Oath of Office; and by failing to exercise their Constitutional authority as to Impeachment since the January 20 Inauguration, Mr. Kucinich and other incumbent Representatives, along with their freshmen colleagues in the House have failed both individually and as a deliberative body to honor that Oath.  And that failure derives not just on the basis  they did not take affirmative steps to address the charges raised in the petitions submitted to them by their constituents that President (elect) Barack Obama appeared to be Constitutionally unqualified for the job; but also from the reasons they expressed to justify why taking such steps was not required.

Evidence is posted throughout the internet of the millions of correspondence and telephone calls sent to Congressional offices beginning before the November 2008 general election and continuing long after the President was sworn into office, pleading for help getting to the heart of the eligibility matter.  But whether originating with organized groups or individuals, the content was essentially the same:  Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen, the requisite birth status for President under Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. And the responses from federal elected officials, which is also easily accessible, were essentially the same:  yes, he is; he posted a scanned copy of his COLB on his campaign website in June 2008 proving he was born in Hawaii. (The only claim relative to Barack Obama’s citizenship which has been posted on that site since June 2008, was that this electronic image establishes he is a native but never that he is natural born, as required under the Constitution.) (Even White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, maintaining it was his idea as the Obama Campaign Communications Director to post this COLB on “Fight the Smears” in the first place; only claims it establishes his client was born in Hawaii.  PRESS BILL PRESS to EARN his PRESS CREDENTIALS)  (Letters to constituents generated by both the House and Senate, with accreditation, can be seen at IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS is “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS IS un-AMERICAN, TOO)

None of these legislators has cited as a reason to guarantee to constituents s/he knew Mr. Obama was Constitutionally qualified for office; the fact that Speaker Pelosi, acting in the non-governmental role of Chair, 2008 DNC Services Corporation Nominating Convention had signed the Corporations’ Official Certification of his Nomination swearing he was Constitutionally qualified for the job.  Why not?  Members of the Democratic Party had submitted this same Certification to state election officials to get them to print Mr. Obama’s name next to the “D” on the general election ballot even in those several states with laws that only allow the names on the ballot of those candidates who are qualified for the job. (See, for example, Citizens of South Carolina Complaint of Election Fraud to AG McMaster, in sidebar.)

(Members of the House are not alone in eschewing the use of the Speaker’s Certification of Mr. Obama’s Nomination as proof he is Constitutionally qualified for the office.  Even when provided with an opportunity to obtain judicial notice his client was ‘for real’ White House Counsel Bob Bauer, then Counsel to Mr. Obama’s Campaign (and the DNC Services Corporation), only asked the federal court to find Mr. Obama had ‘publicly released his “birth certificate,”‘ and not that Speaker Pelosi had sworn to state election officials he was legitimate or that her Certification alone was proof enough for those officials to print his name on the ballot.  COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3-CARD MONTE for FEDERAL COURT)

Did Representatives of the 1st session of the 111th Congress, including Speaker Pelosi, believe those words they swore when taking the Oath of Office back in January 2009, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion? Did they believe at that time an electronic image of a redacted document posted on the campaign website of a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President at the behest of the Communications Director of the candidate’s campaign, which image is only accessible with the aid of a computer screen; is tantamount to evidence that the  nominee wannabe is Constitutionally qualified for the job?  Or did they knowingly offer ‘bones’ just to fob off their desperate constituents, thus violating both the spirit and the letter of the laws that put them in office?

We might generously assume the 62 freshman legislators were so green when they took office that they didn’t know the difference between a paid political advertisement and a proffer of proof, notwithstanding 15 of them are lawyers.  But can they have reached the second half of the 2nd session of the 111th Congress and still think these two are the same?  Have they ignored ongoing correspondence from constituents documenting that members of the Democratic Party, including their Speaker, who signed these Certifications of Nomination in August 2008, have refused to identify  any documents that were the basis for their determination Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen?  Even in those several states in which the nominee for President of the major political party has to be qualified for that office before election officials are  legally authorized to print his name on the ballot?

Our Representatives told us in January 2009 according to ‘evidence’ they relied on, they believed Barack Obama was Constitutionally qualified for office.  Notwithstanding we have since torn that evidence apart, they have not exercised their authority to seek more.  In other words, they still believe the record establishes, he is a natural born citizen.  Assuming, that is, they still believe in their Oath of Office.  Because they still haven’t introduced Articles of Impeachment.

WERE THEY LYING THEN OR ARE THEY LYING NOW?

I want you to understand the solemnity this particular question holds.

The first time I heard that question, I was the state’s complaining witness in a criminal trial.  That is, I was the victim of the crime.  I managed to escape my attacker; he fled moments before police arrived.  The next day, he called to threaten me into silence.  I hung up the phone and called police. Two officers arrived immediately.  They said not to worry, clumsily trying to reassure me, he would be caught any minute.  ‘We’re not the only jurisdiction looking for him.’ Even drowning in trauma, I ‘got’ what that meant.  ‘Why are police in another jurisdiction looking for him?’  The men, unable to conceal they had let the proverbial cat out of the bag, only stared sheepishly at each other. ‘TELL ME WHAT HE DID!’

He had killed someone before he attacked me.  And that wasn’t all.  At the time, he was on parole from a multiple year sentence stemming from convictions on several counts of armed robbery.

Police in my jurisdiction caught him 3 1/2 months after my attack.  Having violated the terms of his parole, he would have to serve out the 6 or 7 years remaining on those prior convictions.  But apparently anxious to avoid prosecution for the attack against me, he voluntarily gave sworn statements to both police and prosecutors, concocting a whole narrative which could exonerate him in this crime.

Prosecutors in the other jurisdiction, charging 1st degree murder, were given first dibs.  They figured, if they got a conviction on that charge, he would be sentenced to life without parole; and my case would never have to go to court.  Only, he got a hung jury. In just a few years from now, he would be back out on the streets.  I agreed to testify but, always mindful of his threats, hoped for a plea.

We went to trial 1 1/2 years after the attack.

I was sequestered until closing arguments, meaning I wasn’t allowed inside the courtroom during the trial except during my testimony.  The District Attorney provided me with status reports during intermittent breaks in the proceedings. Then, it was my turn to testify.

I had told the Victim/Witness Advocate, I hoped more women were seated on the jury, explaining I thought they would be more sympathetic.  She said more men would be better because women tend to make themselves feel safe by rationalizing, ‘She must have done something to place herself in harm, which I would never do.’  Men would know this man was capable of doing harm.  The jury was mixed.

I took the stand to recount the attack  only yards away from this man who had threatened my life if I talked.  He cleaned up quite well.  Indeed, given the fact his prior convictions and even his present place of residence were unknown to the jury, he made a good first impression.

My testimony  proceeded for some time without interruption.  Several jurors – men and women – were crying.  Finally, I was reliving the moment I managed to separate myself from my attacker.  This was surreal; I stopped talking.  Now, the DA took over.  Q:  “What happened next?”  jbjd:  “I screamed (deep breath) and I screamed (breath) and I screamed.”  Silence.  Then, like a soap opera, the Judge leaned forward, declaring in hushed tones, ‘And now, the Court will recess for lunch.’

I completed my testimony after lunch, and the Defense Attorney briefly cross-examined.  As I was about to leave the courtroom I learned, the Defendant would exercise his option to take the stand.

The DA came out after finishing his cross-examination.  The Defendant, trying to manipulate my testimony, had played it all wrong.  The DA smiled.  ‘While he was lying under oath, I realized, he must have forgotten about his earlier statements, which were in one those boxes I brought into court.  So, as I began my cross-examination, I put a box up on the table.  I took the testimony he gave today which contradicted his earlier statements, and restated his words in the form of a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.  Then, after each answer,  I turned around, reached into the box, and whipped out one of the earlier statements.  ‘But I have here a sworn affidavit signed by you which contradicts what you just testified here under oath.’  “Were you lying then or are you lying now?”   That’s when I began to feel safe again, knowing no matter how charming and handsome, he had lost all credibility with the jury.  They were certain to convict and, no doubt, the judge would impose a multiple year sentence, to be served ‘on and after’ the terms of his present incarceration.

In other words, for me, this question, ‘were you lying then or are you lying now,’ has somber connotations.  Accordingly, I did not choose it casually for the title of this article; nor do I ask it lightly.  But it is the only question that can be asked of and remains unanswered by all 435 members of Congress petitioned by their constituents to inquire formally into whether Barack Obama satisfies the Constitutional qualifications of the office of President.  Including Madam Speaker, who refuses to respond to voters’ questions as to what was the documentary basis for swearing in that signed Certification of his Nomination that he is a natural born citizen.  (See Citizens of Virginia Complaint of Election Fraud to AG Cuccinelli, in sidebar.) Because even though for 2 (two) years now, these federal legislators have been telling their constituents, they believe, he has satisfied a showing he is Constitutionally qualified for office; in fact, based on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence constituents have assembled even without their help; he has not.

On November 2, 2010, all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives will be up for election.  Based on the failure of all our Representatives, now incumbents, to demonstrate they appreciate the solemn public trust inherent in their positions, as evidenced by their ongoing decision to ignore constituent petitions for an inquiry into the President’s Constitutional qualifications for office; why would we want any one of them back on the job?

Each member of the House of Representatives will constructively forfeit the privilege of reelection by failing to introduce a Resolution of Impeachment before the November 2010 election.  That is the only mechanism through which we can examine Mr. Obama’s role in the criminal conspiracy of fraud that got state election officials to print on the ballot the name of the candidate who overwhelming circumstantial evidence establishes is Constitutionally unqualified for the job.  And, assuming the focused investigation and trial by the Senate validates our findings then, under the Constitution, Impeachment is the only way to remove him from office.

Several jurors began crying.

Pooh-poohing Pulitzer

May 3, 2010

View this document on Scribd



BOB BAUER, RUMORED-TO-BE NEXT WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, TO FEDERAL COURT: F*** YOU!

October 27, 2009

I had intended to issue these revised Complaints of Election Fraud against various members of the Democratic Party and Requests for Investigation by State Attorneys General, anyway; but when I read in FOX News that Robert Bauer, Esquire, General Counsel to the DNC and personal attorney to Barack Obama could replace White House Counsel Greg Craig by the end of the year, I decided to post these updated complaints in an homage to him. BAUER TO BE NAMED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL?

Judging by the historical collaboration between Mr. Bauer and the POTUS, achieving a better match between attorney and client appears unlikely.

This line in the article, which FOX attributes to Wikipedia, jumped out at me: “Bauer is highly regarded in Democratic circles as a tenacious and brilliant lawyer ….” If true, this statement exemplifies everything that is contemptible about Mr. Bauer and his Democratic clientele, including Mr. Obama: they conflate hubris with intellect.

How else to explain Mr. Bauer gets points for helping his clients – The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention; The Honorable Harry Reid, Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate; and Tim Kaine, Governor of Virginia and Chair of the DNC (his AG is the recipient of several of these complaints) – elect a President merely saying, he is Constitutionally qualified for the job?

Or this, from the Complaints to the A’sG, describing how he asked a federal judge to take judicial notice of a mirage.

In January 2009, Mr. Obama was the named Defendant in a case filed in federal district court, ostensibly seeking to determine whether the Uniform Code of Military Justice required a military Plaintiff to obey orders from a Commander in Chief he was not certain was a NBC. (Pleadings for Hollister v. Soetoro, Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-02254-JR, can be found on line at https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/rumors-lies-and-unsubstantiated-facts/.) Mr. Obama submitted a Motion to Dismiss predicated on Plaintiff’s failure to establish the Court’s jurisdiction; and to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (The Defendant was represented by Attorney Robert F. Bauer of PERKINS COIE LLP, who signed the pleadings submitted to the court on his client’s behalf.) Additionally, Mr. Obama asked the court to take judicial notice of the following ‘fact’: he had publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. (Presumably, he used the phrase “publicly produced” referring to the fact, he posted that photocopied COLB on his FTS web site.) Yet he did not provide the court with the ‘original’ COLB so the Clerk could mark up the document as evidence and place it in the case record (where it would be subject to scrutiny by the Plaintiff or the judge’s in-camera inspection). Instead, he tried to authenticate that internet COLB just by asking the court to take “notice” that Annenberg Political Fact Check (“APFC”) “conclude[d] that the birth certificate is genuine.” https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/rumors-lies-and-unsubstantiated-facts/ (APFC is one of many such organizations wholly funded by the Annenberg Foundation, which also paid his salary as Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995-1999.) (And recall he wrote on FTS, this COLB only establishes he is a “native citizen,” anyway.)

Given the fact that 2008 DNC Convention Chair Pelosi is also the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, making her 3rd in line of Presidential succession, with all of the gravitas incorporated therein, it defies credulity that Mr. Obama would seek judicial notice of the lesser fact he is a native citing APFC says he is; but not offer into evidence the DNC Official Certification of Nomination Ms. Pelosi submitted to election officials in the state of HI, swearing Barack Obama is “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution,” or any one of the dozens of her signed Certifications, which persuaded election officials throughout the country to print the name of Barack Obama next to the D on the Presidential ballots in the 2008 general election.

Eschewing reliance on Ms. Pelosi’s Certification, incredibly, Mr. Obama asked the court to take judicial notice of this information: APFC “note[d] a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper.” In fact, APFC had only posted on their web site an image of an unattributed ‘newspaper announcement,’ which phantom image they admitted they had usurped from the “td” blog, where it was posted anonymously. (Note: the “td” TexasDarlin blog site was closed by its owner in August 2009.) With no further investigation into that ‘announcement,’ APFC declared, “The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.” http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html) Like APFC, Defendant Obama omitted the name of this publication. And he failed to enter into the court record any physical evidence of a newspaper announcement, making his claims there was such an announcement, as with his claims the internet COLB was real, impossible to verify, too.

It’s true. Mr. Bauer actually asked a federal judge to take judicial notice that APFC ‘noted’ an imaginary newspaper birth announcement; and that Barack Obama “publicly produced” a “birth certificate” that can only be observed through a computer screen. And he had the audacity to hope the court would grant his wish. Thank goodness, the only relief The Honorable Judge James Robertson granted was the Motion to Dismiss. Because know what Mr. Bauer would have done if Judge Robertson had been as “impressed” with his tenacity as Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Kaine, et al.? He would have twisted judicial notice that APFC made a ‘note’ on their web site and that Mr. Obama posted something on the internet; into a ruling by the federal court that his client is a NBC.

In my opinion, more than 1 (one) ‘birther’ attorney has earned sanctions from the federal court.

(editing assistance provided by d2i)
***************************************************************************************************
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTING COMPLAINTS

1. Download complaint from Scribd by clicking on link below complaint.
2. Fill in your real name and address. Your residency in that state entitles you to the services of your AG.
3. AG complaint gets faxed; copies to parties noted on complaint may be sent by any means preferred.
4. Please distribute copies of filed complaints to the press.

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SOUTH CAROLINIANS

Even if you have previously filed a complaint, please, re-file. Evidently the fax number to the AG’s office was incorrect; and this means, the copies you distributed are copies of documents not on file. So, please, re-file, and re-distribute copies. (The bad news, you need to duplicate your work. The good news? This revised complaint is dynamite.)

GEORGIA

View this document on Scribd

MARYLAND

View this document on Scribd

SOUTH CAROLINA

View this document on Scribd

TEXAS

View this document on Scribd

VIRGINIA

View this document on Scribd

%d bloggers like this: