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

June 25, 2012

UPDATED 06.26.12: See update at bottom of article.

© 2012 jbjd

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

For the past 12 years, Harden has been the Senior Managing Attorney for Public Outreach in the Open Records Division of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas. Before joining the OAG, she served as Special Counsel to Senator Gregory Luna of Bexar County.  Id. Ms. Harden received her undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University and her J.D. from Texas Tech University School of Law. Id. She has been working at the AG since December 1995; her current annual salary is $80,000. http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/government-employee-salaries/state-of-texas/june-b-harden/1114680/

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

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

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

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

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

(1)  by a governmental body;  or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View this document on Scribd

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

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

Sec. 141.036.  PRESERVATION OF APPLICATION.  The authority with whom an application for a place on the ballot is required to be filed shall preserve each application filed with the authority for two years after the date of the election for which the application is made.

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

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

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

To say nothing of the fact that the opening provision of the PIA urges its provisions not to be narrowly construed so as to limit public access to records but, on the contrary; to be “liberally construed in favor of granting a request for information.” http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.552.htm

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

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

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

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

View this document on Scribd

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

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

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

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


TEXAS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

April 30, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

UPDATED 05.01.12 (15:00 EDT): See below.

This morning, kjcanon, from Arlington; and Native Texan, from Calvert; met in Austin with Attorney Keith Ingram, Election Director, Texas Secretary of State, for what kjc and NT had scheduled would be an “in-depth” discussion of “the Texas election process.” With kjc’s help; I drafted the letter which served as the basis for that ‘discussion,’ in which we synthesized the key glitches we had worked to identify in the Texas electoral process, insofar as these problems related to the job qualifications of candidates whose names appear on the Texas ballot. kjc meticulously assembled a folder containing documentary evidence that backed up these allegations. kjc and NT also provided a narrative of their personal experiences trying to obtain voting related information. The meeting began at 10:30 AM; it was all over by 11:03.

Before reading my report of the results of that meeting, which were conveyed by telephone to me, shortly thereafter; please, read the letter. Trust me: it’s the only way to fully grasp the nature of Mr. Ingram’s response to the presentation.

View this document on Scribd

(If you have trouble viewing this document in Scribd; here are jpeg images of that same letter.)

In short; here was Mr. Ingram’s response. (My abbreviated editorial comments follow, in orange.)

You gave me assertions only; you have not given me any facts. (Obviously, we not only gave you facts but also offered to give you documentary evidence to back up those facts.)

All the information voters need is on VoteTexas.gov. “I would even call it impeccable.” (Yes; you may call the information you provide, impeccable; but not if the Secretary’s purpose in posting that information is to inform the voters. Because we are voters and, we just reported to you that we, along with numerous other Texas voters disagree that the Secretary provides adequate information so as to cast an informed vote. Are you blaming us voters for failing to intuit election related information that’s not on your web site, such as the ‘fact,’ candidates are using at least 3 (three) different ballot applications? Are you rejecting all suggestions that we voters get to decide what  information we require to cast informed votes in the election?)

The Secretary of State has no enforcement power; go to the Legislature. (We are not asking you to enforce anything; rather, we are asking you to tell us what you know about how candidates access the ballot; which are the same things we need to know to become informed voters.) (The TX legislature is not in session until January 2013.)

We’re not required to post completed party application forms. (That’s precisely why we didn’t cite a law requiring you to post these applications and, instead, cited to your promise to appropriately inform voters regarding elections.)

If you want to challenge the ballot, go through the courts. (And say what, that we are Unaffiliated or Write-in candidates who are being denied Equal Protection of the law inasmuch as only we are required by the SoS to swear to Constitutional eligibility for office in order to get on the Texas Presidential ballot, whereas the Republican and Democrat candidates only fill out the party’s application?) (Or are you just trying to send us on a wild goose chase, like your colleague tried before you, alleging a legal violation when, by merely withholding information from the voters; no one has actually broken any laws?)

I always say, any answer is an answer. That is, we now know, the Elections office will not act on our request, on its own. So, to get action on the proposals and problems pointed out in the letter; we are following the chain of command – Mr. Ingram > his boss, Secretary Andrade > her boss, Governor Perry – until the buck stops. (That is, whoever is left with the final decision to amend the Secretary’s operations. This will likely be Ms. Andrade.) That’s where we will concentrate our efforts to ensure whatever steps necessary to make the information referred to in this letter available to all Texas voters. Assuming this means getting Secretary Andrade to act; I will again provide a ‘complaint,’ of sorts, for downloading and sending, which will be a re-format of the letter for wider use and distribution, and will include links to appropriate documentation. Fortunately, the Secretary’s web site suggests that voter concerns are transmitted electronically.

Of course, convincing the Secretary to shore up her operation will not resolve the problem of candidate ballot eligibility, which will require legislative action, up to and including calling an emergency session before the Presidential election. And, if more people understood the mess that is the current ‘system’ of getting candidates on the ballot; well, presumably they would be sufficiently outraged to demand such an emergency session and, to require the passage of appropriate legislation.

That said; with a few simple alterations in the rules; at least, the Secretary could achieve a uniform standard of candidate ballot application. But, as can be inferred by the attitude of Director Ingram; she is unlikely even to do that without massive citizen action. And that’s where you come in. If you can get fellow Texas voters to understand all of this election related material then, feeling like you feel now, they will be inspired in sufficient numbers to mobilize to require changes in the administrative procedures currently in place in the Office of the Secretary, including both posting the requested information and, making the rules apply equally to both unaffiliated and party candidates.

Because once we achieve widespread distribution of the information referenced in these complaint letters; no doubt enough voters will become sufficiently mobilized to demand the necessary candidate ballot eligibility legislation.

UPDATE 05.01.12 (15:00 EDT): kjc hand-delivered a follow-up letter to Mr. Ingram’s boss, the Honorable Hope Andrade, Secretary of State of Texas.

View this document on Scribd

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

Please show your support for the work going on at “jbjd.”


BALLOT ENTITLEMENT LAWS should DISQUALIFY PRESIDENT OBAMA in TEXAS

April 16, 2012

CRITICAL UPDATE 04.18.12, 17:59 EDT

at bottom of post

(CORRECTED 06.25.12)

©2012 jbjd

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

It’s true; look at the law.

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

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

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

The state chair of each political party holding a Presidential primary election shall certify the name of each Presidential candidate who qualifies for a place on the Presidential primary election ballot and deliver the certification to the Secretary of State. §191.003 NOTICE OF CANDIDATES TO SECRETARY OF STATE

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

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

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

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

Now, look at the facts.

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

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

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

He shouldn’t have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom costs.


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


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.

BACK UP, BIRTHERS!

October 12, 2010

© 2010 jbjd

COPYRIGHT WARNING

and

CONSUMER ALERT!


This is a copyright warning and consumer alert to the owners and readers of any of the following internet sites: americangrandjury; americanthinker; butterdezillion; canadafreepress; citizensagainstproobamamediabias; citizenwells; devvykidd; fellowshipofminds; freerepublic; logisticsmonster; obamareleaseyourrecords; oilforimmigration;  sodahead; theconservativemonster; thedametruth; theobamafile; thepostemail; therightsideoflife; washingtontimes; and westernjournalism and and wnd (both Bob Unruh’s bloviating babies).

You have been made accessories after the fact to the theft by JB Williams of  original work produced by and copyrighted to me, “jbjd” and posted on the “jbjd” blog but which work he stole without my prior notice or approval and has been illegally distributing under his name ever since.  Adding insult to injury, having only stolen the work but not bothered to learn what it meant, Mr. Williams misrepresented to his audience what it meant.  As a consequence of his subterfuge,  dozens of blog owners ostensibly motivated by their heartfelt desire to teach others about our electoral process; and hundreds of thousands of citizens ostensibly trying to learn about our electoral process by reading these blogs, have been distributing and consuming false information Mr. Williams wrongly extrapolated from my work.

Worse, crediting this narrative knock-off, citizens have been traveling up blind alleys trying to figure out the fraud that tainted the 2008 election cycle when collectively, they could have been taking positive steps I already laid out to redress the illegal fraud I had previously identified, years ago now, which action would help to prevent its recurrence.  In wasting their time and effort in this way, they have been paying for his crime ever since.

Evidence of the Theft

On August 13, 2009 I posted IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO on my blog, “jbjd.” This article was inspired by  comments from the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, to USA Today, describing boisterous dissent at town hall meetings leading up to the vote on Obamacare as “un-American.”  (“Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.”)  The article focused on the contradiction between 1) Ms. Pelosi’s Certification that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen, and Obama’s statement on “Fight the Smears” that he is only a “native”; and between 2) communications from members of Congress to their constituents claiming that Obama is eligible to be President because Annenberg Political Fact Check says he is, and the fact I exposed that APFC does not check facts, which I documented in RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’ posted 4 (four) days earlier, on August 9, 2009.

As background, I parenthetically reminded readers, saying Obama was “duly nominated” or was “Constitutionally eligible for the job” was a distinction without a difference.

(In some states, like TX and GA, the law requires that the party candidate must be Constitutionally eligible for the job.  But even in these states, no provision of law requires anyone in government to check.  DNC rules dictate that the candidate for the Democratic nomination for President “shall meet those requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States.”  http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf (p.14, K.1 and 2).  Thus, identifying under oath that BO was the D party nominee was tantamount to swearing, he is a NBC, anyway.)

To show this difference, I posted images of 2 (two) DNC Certifications of Obama’s Nomination submitted to election officials in SC and HI, both of which had been available individually on the internet for more than 8 (eight) months by that time, since 2008. And, consistent with my writings on the 2008 election cycle since before the August 2008 DNC nominating convention, in which I emphasized that elections are a state by state affair conducted according to individual state laws; I repeated that the difference in wording found in these 2 Certifications was only attributable to the individual requirements of election laws passed in each state. I pointed out according to the election laws in HI, the party must explicitly write this Constitutional eligibility into their Certification.  But again, this difference in the wording of the Certifications was not the point of the article.  Signing two different Certifications was not a problematic ‘fact’ because as I explained, saying either “duly nominated” or “Constitutionally eligible” meant, he is a Natural Born Citizen.

But introducing the side-by-side images of these Certifications in this August 2009 article, I wrote this line:  “In HI, just identifying the name of the nominee does not guarantee his name will be placed on the ballot.  No;  in order to get BO’s name on the ballot in just that state, NP also had to swear he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.”  Unfortunately, JB Williams misconstrued that throwaway line to mean, ‘NP failed to Certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for President in 49 states but did Certify his eligibility in HI because HI law required the Party to swear the nominee was Constitutionally qualified.’  Of course, he got it all wrong.  As you know, saying “duly nominated” by the DNC means, saying he is a NBC.  Because DNC rules require the nominee to be a NBC.  (Maybe I should have said, “in just that state, NP also had to explicitly swear he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.”  In other words, under HI election law, just swearing he was “duly nominated” without explicitly writing he was “qualified” under the “Constitution” would not have been enough to get election officials to print his name on the ballot even though Certifying he was “duly nominated” still meant, he was “Constitutionally eligible for the job.”)

And as I was to learn from ongoing research only several days later, that additional explanation still would have been wrong.  Anyone who reads my blog regularly knows, just a couple of weeks after I posted the August article containing the images of the HI and SC Certifications, I posted  UP to HERE in ELECTION FRAUD in SC, FROM the CHAIR of the 2008 DNC CONVENTION to the CHAIR of the DNC, the article that explained election law in SC also requires explicit eligibility language to accompany the submission of candidate names to election officials to print on the ballot.  In other words, HI is not the only state whose election law requires an explicit statement that the candidate is qualified for the job before election officials will print the candidate’s name on the ballot.  So, why wasn’t this explicit language in the SC Certification of Nomination?  Well, as I pointed out in the SC article, this specific eligibility certification in SC was accomplished even before the nominating convention in August 2008, way back in November 2007, in time for the Presidential preference primary.  Because under SC law, candidates who want their names to appear on the party’s primary ballot must register directly with the party! This meant, in SC, Obama’s Constitutional eligibility had to be sworn to by the party, back in November 2007 in time to have election officials print his name on the D Presidential preference primary ballot.  So, in SC, Kathy Hensley, Treasurer of the SC Democratic Party, explicitly swore Obama (and Biden and Clinton…) was Constitutionally eligible for the job, in 2007.  (I obtained these primary documents working with a reader of my blog from SC, who spoke with an official from the SC Election Commission to answer ‘my’ questions.)

On September 11, 2009, playing on the words of the titles of my preceding 2 articles, JB Williams published, “The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don’t Lie,” in Canada Free Press, the neo-Nazi rag which lists him as a “Partner” (along with Douglas Hagmann of Northeast Intelligence Network (“NEIN” for “No” in German, get the ‘joke’?)).   Evidently seeing these dual HI and SC Certifications for the first time, Mr. Williams now hyperbolically announced to the world:

…They snuck it past fifty state election commissions, congress, the US Supreme Court and Justice Department, the Federal Elections Commission and countless members of the Electoral College nationwide. Not a single member of the, as Limbaugh says, “drive-by media” caught it either, or if they did, they decided to become complicit for their own political reasons.

But as is always the case with liars, cheats and thieves, they slip up Ð make a silly mistake Ð overplay their hand Ð leave evidence lying around that they had forgotten about. And as with all chronic liars, they eventually get caught in their own web of lies.

Then, one day, someone stumbles into that evidence, and the house of cards comes crashing down around them. It’s almost poetic…

…Last, the fact that TWO DNC Certifications exist, both signed, dated and notarized by the same individuals on the same day, means that a very real conspiracy to commit election fraud was underway, and since it took until six months after the election to uncover it, the conspiracy was indeed successful.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm

(How many mistakes of fact were you able to count in just these quoted lines?)

(Note to JB Williams:  The Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) is only legally authorized to oversee campaign finance and not candidate eligibility for office.  http://www.fec.gov/)

Immediately, the thief was confronted with the facts, readers detected his theft from my blog and opposed his wrong interpretation of the meaning and significance of these dual Certifications.  How do we know?  Because they told him, in writing, and urged him to refer his readers to my blog, reporting I had been working on these issues for some time, and could accurately explain their meaning in context.

From markcon:

Please give credit where it is obviously belongs: https://jbjd.wordpress.com/
for the correct meaning and interpretation that he has studied for almost a year now and also how to act on it.

Posted by markcon  on  09/10  at  08:51 PM | #

From Paralegal:

Mr. Williams
Please follow the enclosed link. There is a movement just
started to file complaints with State Attorney Generals
about this very problem. A model complaint, prepared by an attorney, has been prepared which can be used in every state, with corrections that will apply to your state of filing. Please take a look, and it could be the subject of a future article. Here is the link:
https://jbjd.wordpress.com/
Thanks for the article, great work.

Posted by Paralegal  on  09/12  at  02:52 PM | #

More from markcon:

people pay attention. the site where these 2 files were borrowed with no credit given is https://jbjd.wordpress.com/ Please give credit where it is obviously belongs: https://jbjd.wordpress.com/
for the correct meaning and interpretation. jbjd has studied for almost a year now and also how to act on it.

Posted by markcon  on  09/12  at  08:14 PM | #

Again from markcon:

MR. Williams,
You stated “I had NO knowledge of the site you reference until AFTER the release of your column. NO knowledge of this site whatsoever.”
I was not implying that you did!
I was referring to the anonymous reader that sent them to you, and the possible idea of fraud that came with it, if any. I commend you on being able to take the initiative and investigate. I am sure your readers understood that point and I thought you did too because you so generously let me post the site https://jbjd.wordpress.com/ where people can take advantage of research that has been done in this area for almost a year now.

I am in no way part of that blog- just a fan.
And as a fan I wanted to point to a blog where I think in my opinion is more detailed and corrects some wrong conclusions on your part and others new come to the issue.

I hope you take advantage of well thought out research and possibly report on https://jbjd.wordpress.com/ work especially in the states of Hi and TX. since the report would be on jbjd there would be no issues and would be a great follow up to your column because I am sure you would agree that there are others like you concerned about fraud.
The NH investigation is a red herring and will give msm a chance to say the issue has been settled even though NH has no such law.

Thanks again for posting my comment about https://jbjd.wordpress.com/ and I am sorry if there was any misunderstanding.columns like yours that are concerned about fraud only want the truth and by posting my comment you showed that you cared enough to show the path to that truth.

From azgo:

Go here, jbjd has been diligently working on this and other things for quite some time. See “MODEL COMPLAINT OF ELECTION FRAUD TO STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL”. Please read the other posts by jbjd.
https://jbjd.wordpress.com/
(Note – The bold lettering may show and somehow got messed up today in the model letter to the Texas Attorney General. jbjd is working on fixing this.)

The Texas chair of the Texas Democratic Party used his letterhead on practically the same letter and as jbjd has noted in the model letter to the Texas Attorney General. Texas election code requires the state political party chair to certify the names of the nominees for POTUS and “the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law”. Please note that the notary’s date of the “27 day of August, 2008”.
http://falseflagrag.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/texas-general-election-certifications/official-tdp-cert/

Posted by azgo  on  09/10  at  04:09 PM | #
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/the-theory-is-now-a-conspiracy-and-facts-dont-lie/P318/

Obviously, given azgo’s information that only Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) signed the Certifications that went to election officials in TX, and not Nancy Pelosi, he was wrong when he told readers, Nancy Pelosi signed Certifications in all 50 states!  And he could have easily checked, because azgo also informed him, those TX documents were the basis for the citizen complaint of election fraud to TX AG Abbott I had posted on my blog and made available to readers for download and sending, free of charge. But by this time, Mr. Williams was too invested in the notoriety he had begun receiving for posting my work, to admit culpability for his crime.  So, he never corrected the mistakes he had incorporated into his faulty analysis of the work I had created which he re-posted under his name.  He couldn’t now post these corrections, or direct readers of his plagiarized column to my blog and the TX complaint I had posted there specifically for their use and which could prove effective against the state party chair; without giving away he had stolen his column from me!

So, how did Mr. Williams respond to these numerous charges, he had stolen my work?  He now claimed he had just received the two differently worded Certifications “anonymously.”  (Later on, he claimed, he still had not found the time to authenticate the HI document.  Thus, he posted these documents from an ‘anonymous source’ without authentication, and then based his conclusions on these images.  Some researcher!)

Fallout From the Theft

Meanwhile, all of those other sites that had posted JB Williams’ work and, like him, failed to credit me or, follow my blog, not only missed out on the truth FOR ONE WHOLE YEAR but also wasted their time and energy on a wild goose chase dependent on the differences in Certifications, instead of pursuing the mechanism I had created on my blog that would allow citizens to go after those members of the D Party who committed election fraud in applicable states.

Especially hard hit was butterdezillion.  In September 2010, she credited JB Williams with writing the definitive article in CFP on the 2 different Certifications of Obama’s Nomination; and she, too, repeated the lie, HI is the only state that requires explicit Certification of Constitutionality to get on the ballot.  Just like the response triggered when JB Williams stole my work, now, one year later, when butterdezillion credited his theft of that same work, she, too, was bombarded with writers informing her, this was my work all along.  And it didn’t mean what JB Williams said it meant.  Additionally, I contacted her and demanded a retraction.  Now, unlike Mr. Williams, she did alter her credits to reflect, the research that produced these Certifications was mine.  (In fact, I had not originally obtained either document.  The SC Certification was on the internet.  The HI Certification came from Justin Riggs.  I only put them side by side to visually demonstrate the differences.) (More on my collaboration with Justin later…) However, like JB Williams, as she had failed to study my work, she now incorrectly told her readers what this research means.

You have to see how far behind the curve she – and her readers – remain in September 2010.  (Note the added ‘mention’ of the election law in SC.)

Outstanding research by blogger jbjd here, here, here, and here, with summary here, showed that Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond , as representatives of the Democratic National Committee, had signed one Certificate of Nomination for Obama and Biden that was sent to 49 states, and another that was sent only to Hawaii. Only the certificate sent to Hawaii included a statement that Obama and Biden were Constitutionally qualified to serve as President and Vice-President.

That certificate of nomination for Hawaii is the ONLY statement in this nation signed by somebody besides Obama which claims that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President. (Note: I am currently checking into whether the South Carolina Democratic Party also signed a statement of Constitutional eligibility. Will update later if this paragraph needs to be edited.) Contrary to arguments that Congress certified Obama’s eligibility when they certified the results of the electoral vote, neither representatives of Congress nor any Secretary of State has signed a legal document saying that Obama is eligible. This one oath by Pelosi and Germond is the only legal claim that Obama’s eligibility was verified.

http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/certificate-of-nomination-summary/

And responding to a reader comment, she writes,

I also saw something about the SC Democratic Party certifying eligibility; I think I’ve seen jbjd write about that. I need to check that out and update the post to reflect that the SCDP also certified eligibility…

But not surprisingly, as of now, despite her ‘conscienscious’ words, she has failed to “check that out and update the post to reflect that the SCDP also certified eligibility…”  Because just like the alternative confronting Mr. Williams, if she corrects her work in 2010 based on work previously processed on my blog beginning in 2008; what does this say about the caliber of her work?  Better to leave her readers in the dark…

Not understanding my work or the context of these Certifications, she, too, invented a cottage conspiracy industry related to the mistaken uniqueness of the HI Certification of Nomination, with a twist.  See, she uses the fact the DNC Certification of Nomination contains the line that Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job; to support her argument, the HI D Party refused to put that line in their state Certification because they knew Obama is not a NBC.  How does she know this?  Well, she retrieved both the DNC and the HI D Party Certifications for 2000, 2004, and 2008.  In 2000, the DNC document began without the eligibility line, which was obviously typed in after the original document was completed.  The HDP document in 2000 contained the same eligibility line.  In 2004, the DNC document did not contain the eligibility line; the HDP document did.  In 2008, the DNC document did; the HDP document did not.

butterdezillion points out all of the variables were the same – the election law was the same, Brian Schatz was the HI D Party Chair; and Joseph Sandler was the General Counsel to the DNC – and argues, on this basis, one would expect that the Certifications would have been processed in the same manner.  Since they were not, she concludes, Mr. Schatz “refused” to swear to Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for President because he knew the man was not a NBC.

Only, she is wrong.  For one thing, all of the material variables were not the same.  But that fact has not stopped the ‘usual suspects’ from piggy-backing on her mistakes.  Even worse, her work now specifically contains a reference to research done by “jbjd,” thus arguably giving the false impression, again, my work is the basis for her soon-to-be-exposed-as-discredited findings.

Basically, here is her argument.  Looking at the dates of these Certifications, she found, in 2000, the DNC Certification was dated 08.17.00; HDP 09.08.00.  In 2004, DNC 07.29.04; HDP 08.31.2004.  In 2008, DNC 08.28.08; HDP 08.27.08.  Following is her invented rationale as to what happened in 2008:

So instead of acting independently a month after the National Convention and confirming Constitutional eligibility as in the past, the HDP acted before the Convention to take out the eligibility language from their standard certificate, signed it, and gave it to Joe Sandler before Pelosi had signed anything – signaling to the DNC that they were not going to certify eligibility. They coordinated their efforts with Joe Sandler, who sent both documents together to the HI Elections Office. Apparently Sandler, Pelosi, and Germond all knew that Hawaii’s special certification was necessary because the HDP refused to certify Obama’s eligibility.

Let me just point out one of butterdezillion’s most glaring mistaken presumptions.  Joseph Sandler did not submit both the DNC and the HDP documents “together” to the HI Elections Office.   (This probably explains why his cover letter only references the DNC Certification and not the HDP Certification, and why he uses the word “Certification,” in the singular.)  And how do I know this?  Because way back in January 2009, I asked the HI Election Office.  That is, I asked Justin Riggs to ask them.

See, in December 2008 I learned that Justin Riggs had been corresponding with elections officials in various states asking them to provide the paperwork submitted by the D and R parties to get their respective Presidential nominees on the general election ballot.  Justin posted his paperwork.  I looked at the HI documents – these are now posted on my web site, along with Justin’s correspondence – and had questions.  So, I asked Justin to ask HI election officials, since he had already established a rapport. Especially I was interested in learning when they had received these Certification documents.  Because among those documents I got from him were just the DNC Certification; the HDP Certification; and the HDP cover letter.  Joseph Sandler’s cover letter was missing.  And as you can see from the documents posted on butterdezillion, his cover letter is the only one with a ‘date received’ stamp.

(Actually, the 2008 documents butterdezillion posted on her blog in September 2010 are linked to this blog, http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hawaii-response.pdf, where they were first posted almost 2 (two) years ago.  The date, January 06, 2009 01:17p in the upper left corner, designates a FAX transmission.)

Mr. Sandler’s cover letter, dated August 28, was stamped received by the HI Elections Office on September 03.  And that cover letter was the only one of those DNC/HDP Certification documents received by the HI Election Commission for Obama that received a Date Stamp.  Consequently, as the documents I received from Justin did not contain Mr. Sandler’s cover letter, none of his documents had a stamp evidencing it had even been received by the HI Elections Office!  But obviously, the documents were received, as election officials did print Obama’s name on HI’s general election ballot.  (The date these documents were received didn’t matter, for the same reason, that is, I knew they had been received in time.)  Just to satisfy my curiosity, I asked Justin to ask officials how they received these DNC and HDP documents.  Here is his reply to me.

jbjd,
Here you go… it looks like the HI Democratic party forwarded both documents to the Elections Office.
Hope that helps. Keep me posted on your progress.
Justin—
From: Carolyn.L.Roldan@hawaii.gov <Carolyn.L.Roldan@hawaii.gov>
Subject: Re: Response to December 12, 2008 Request
To: “Justin Riggs” <juriggs@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, March 6, 2009, 1:44 PM
Dear Mr. Riggs,
Both documents were forwarded by the Democratic Party of Hawaii.

Sincerely,

Kevin B. Cronin

Now that I see Mr. Sandler’s cover letter, Mr. Cronin’s answer makes even more sense.  That is, between his use of the singular “Certification”; and the delay between the date his letter was written and the date this was received by the HI Election Office’ it would make sense that the DNC gave the documents to the HDP who then forwarded these to the HI Elections Office.

When butterdezillion wrote her ‘seminal’ Certification article on September 10, 2010, she knew none of this.  Thus, based on her faulty assumptions about how the DNC and HDP letters of Certification reached the HI Election Office, she asks, “The question that begs an answer is: Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama’s eligibility as they had always done to successfully place presidential candidates on the ballots before?”  And answered it with that contrived story.

A more plausible answer as to why the HDP did not add the line about Constitutional eligibility in 2008 like they had in 2004 and 2000 likely could come from anyone reading the work produced on my blog.  Here’s a hint:  what information highlighted in COUP (2 of 3) and (3 of 3) led to my conclusion, Obama and the DNC had identified which Clinton pledged delegates were from vote binding states?  Yep; it’s those state Delegate Selection Plans.  As I told you, provisions in the DNC Model Delegate Selection Plan for 2006 required, in order to obtain final approval from the RBC for state delegate selection plans for use in the 2008 election cycle, state parties were required to submit those plans to the RBC accompanied by all state statutes reasonably related to the delegate selection process. (Emphasis added by jbjd.) http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/e824f455b24c7782dc_jjm6ib44l.pdf In this way, the DNC could monitor any idiosyncratic requirements in individual states so as to ensure Obama’s name would qualify to get onto every general election ballot.

I assumed this provision was not included in the 2002 DNC model delegate selection rules to be used in the 2004 election, and that’s why the HI state party (and, presumably, state parties in other states) handled their special Certifications on their own.  Finally, I had time to check my hypothesis; and I was right.

View this document on Scribd

In other words, where changes would be required in the language of the Certification of Nomination to satisfy the law of individual states, in 2006, the DNC began assuming responsibility for all such changes.

And that would explain why in 2008 the HDP did not certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for office but the DNC did.

Conclusion

Just because I believe no documentary evidence available in the public record can establish Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen, let alone natural born; does not mean, I buy into every speculative conspiracy theory on the subject polluting the blogosphere.  No; I still want back-up material that would tend to support any such claims.  And claims once supported by such material which are later de-bunked with newer information, I want to be tweaked or rescinded altogether.  But that’s just me.  Sure, I make mistakes; but I never try to bolster my popularity to the detriment of my readers!  (Word to the wise:  if a particular blog continues to post uncorroborated and unsubstantiated conclusions as fact, consider whether you would be better off going elsewhere for your ‘news.’)

To everyone who steals my work, listen:  I have already outed the illegal fraud related to Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for office which occurred during the 2008 election cycle, and prescribed remedies that can produce results now.  But first, people have to pursue those remedies, which requires understanding our electoral process.  The ‘nuts-and-bolts’ information provided on my blog tells you everything you need to know to file citizen complaints of election fraud, in applicable states.  Of course, if you have questions, ask me!  (fellowshipofminds picked up on butterdezillion’s now discredited conspiracy theory in HI.  Eventually, s/he notified readers, s/he received an email pointing out, I have already conducted extensive research on these issues and posted citizen complaints of election fraud for applicable states, in the sidebar on my blog.  But in an incredibly blatant act of hubris, now that this new correspondence has effectively established, the work produced on fellowshipofminds is fatally misinformed; s/he advises readers, ‘Visit jbjd’s blog to get those complaints in the sidebar and if you have any questions, come back here to ask me!’)

My blog competes with these several sites preoccupied with self-notoriety through posting glitzy salacious ‘discoveries’ about anything remotely connected to that election, even re-casting issues already de-constructed on my blog, years ago.   If only these other sites would at long last shift their focus toward learning the ins and outs of our electoral process by actually reading my blog, including the Comments – some of the best work is carried out in interactions between my readers and me – instead of re-inventing the wheel.  Then, when they understand that process, they could demonstrate a bona fide commitment to fixing our electoral system by spearheading massive citizen action in just one state, say, TX, aimed to persuade AG Abbott to follow through on the more than 100 citizen complaints of election fraud filed against Boyd Richie, the D state chair who signed and submitted to state election officials the sole Certification of Obama’s Nomination, which got them to print his name on the general election ballot…

P.S.  What does arouse my suspicion in HI is the ‘coincidence’ that Mr. Schatz, Chair of the HDP, taught in Kenya and went to school there, in the early ’90’s…  What are the odds?

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=10197

A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (3 of 4)

September 6, 2010

(Note to Readers:  The “COUP” Series is now complete.  See, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGHEPILOGUE.)

© 2010 jbjd

A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (3 of 4) is the third installment in the 4-part series describing the fraud pulled off at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention in order to ensure Barack Obama would receive the nomination so that his name would appear next to the D on the general election ballot.  The groundwork for the present article, “The Coup at the Convention,” was laid in the first 2 (two) installments, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 4); and A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 4).  Trust me, if you understand what got us here, to the convention, then you are now at the same jumping off point as those people who were determined to steal the nomination.  Yep; just like you, from here on in, they were winging it, too.  Because something they hadn’t anticipated happened at the start of the convention which could have derailed their best laid plans to obtain the nomination.  Indeed, as I wasn’t there, it is only in retrospect I can explain to you what I later realized is about to go down, notwithstanding as it turns out, I was responsible for what happened next.

The Coup at the Convention

Judging by how hard they had fought to elbow Clinton out of the race at the beginning of the primary and caucus contests, powerful parties interested in placing Obama in the White House knew from the start, the only certain way to force this flawed candidate on the American people was to limit his exposure to public scrutiny by sewing up his nomination well in advance of the August 25 nominating convention.  They failed, miserably.  Indeed, while publicly maintaining since February, his nomination was a fait accompli; even they didn’t feel comfortable enough until August 14 that, having strong-armed a sufficient number of pledged delegates and paid off the rest, no matter what, they would pull off the nomination in an open roll call vote of pledged delegates from all states on the floor of the convention; to concede consistent with past practice the name of any other candidate seeking the nomination should also be formally entered into the roll.

Yes, they were confident on August 14 and for almost the next 11 (eleven) days that their Herculean investments in his candidacy over the past couple of years would pay off, better late than never.  And in the end, even accounting for the open roll call vote of pledged delegates from every state, from the floor of the convention,  he would walk away with the nomination.

Have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) recruit Obama in the summer of 2006 to run against Clinton for the 2008 Presidential nomination?  Check.  Immediately thereafter, have DNC Chair Howard Dean rig the delegate apportionment process so as to ensure that Clinton, despite winning on account of real votes cast in state contests for her, would nonetheless lose and Obama, despite losing the actual vote count, would win?  Check, check, and check.   Have him appoint Pentacostal Preacher Leah Daughtry, DNC Chief of Staff, to be the CEO of the 2008 DNC  Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention?  Check.  Have him make Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and 3rd in line of Presidential succession, the Chair of the 2008 Convention thus enabling her to control the nomination process (and after making him the nominee, to co-sign the Certification of his Nomination swearing to election officials he is Constitutionally eligible to be President to get them to print his name on the ballot in states whose laws only allow on the ballot the names of candidates who are legally qualified for the job)?  Check.

Then, on August 25, the first day of the convention, something unexpected happened which began to unsettle his henchmen; and which, by Tuesday, August 26, the second night of the convention, had panicked them into pulling a bait and switch on the scheduled roll call vote of pledged delegates from all states on the floor of the convention, scrambling to preserve the chance that just through the use of that roll call, he could get the nomination.

That’s when they scrapped the scheduled open roll call vote of all states on the floor of the convention, simultaneously orchestrating a convoluted ploy affording them plausible deniability, they had not.

The ‘change’ in voting procedure, fashioned by both the Clinton and Obama camps Tuesday night, was rolled out to the press in Wednesday morning’s conference call.  (Even the word “change” was never used.) Bill Burton, spokesperson for the Obama campaign,  handed off the details to Jenny Backus; and she only prefaced her remarks by saying, she would “talk a little bit today, um, about some of the, um, process that you will see that will happen tonight, um, at the convention.”

Last night, convention secretary Alice Germond; ah, Jeff Berman, who is a senior adviser to the Barack Obama campaign; and Craig Smith who is a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton sent out a joint note to, um, all of the state delegation chairs with some information about, um, Wednesday’s roll call vote.  Ah, basically, um, here’s the guidance that we can give you, ah, so far.  Ah, last night and this morning, state delegations received vote tally sheets for their delegates.  Um, throughout the day today they’ll be distributing those tally sheets to their delegates.  Um, the cheat sheets will be completed by 4pm mountain time.  Eh, today from about 3 to 5pm mountain time   the voting and roll call procedure will happen.  Um, the convention will gavel open at 3, ah, there’ll be, um, 3 nominating speeches, um, for Senator Clinton, a nominating speech and seconding speeches, ah, and then a nominating speech and 3 seconding speeches for Senator Obama.  Ah, they will, ah, each candidate’s speeches will total, ah, no more than 15 minutes, so that’ll be about a half an hour of speeches.  Once the speeches are concluded the vote tally sheets will be collected, ah, by the office of the secretary, ah, and then we will begin the roll call of the states and the delegation chair or her designee will announce the totals for each candidate.  So, that’s the procedure how the roll call vote is gonna work today.

Um, and, ah, you can look forward to later this morning, ah, a joint statement from the Clinton and Obama office about who will be giving those nominating speeches, um, for each of us.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/27/roll-call-details-hammered-out/?fbid=yBSb83MFwB9

A reporter from BBC (whose name I did not get) asked, “…in reference to the roll call vote, I just wanted to confirm that there’s not going to be stoppage of, of any sort of states, that all 50 states will have their say and their vote tallies announced, right?  There won’t be any kind of stopping?” Id.

Ms. Backus replied, “Um, the guidance that we’re giving you on the roll call vote is basically exactly what I just, ah, said to you right there.  Um, it will go from, ah, 3 to 5pm mountain, ah, which is 5 to 7pm eastern, um, and that’s the procedure on how it’s gonna work.”  Id.

Joe Manus, St. Louis Post Dispatch asked, “So the roll call will be at the beginning of tonight’s proceedings; and will the states be doing their unofficial tallies like this morning at the breaksfast?” Id.

“States will, um, begin to do their, um, unofficial tallies at the breakfast and throughout the day, um, and they will turn in those tally sheets, ah, this evening after either during or after, um, the nominating speeches before the call of the roll begins.” Id.

In sum, Ms. Backus told the press, pledged delegates will begin voting at their hotels this morning and throughout the day as delegation chairs distribute the “cheat sheets” to members of their delegations, only until 4:00 mountain time, when they are due to be delivered to the floor of the convention to be added into state totals which will be announced during the roll call of all states on the floor of the convention beginning at 3:00 mountain time.

Get it?

Delegates awoke on Wednesday, August 27, and shuffled off to another round of state delegation breakfasts where, in addition to their coffee and tea, they were now served up this bitter elixir from their delegation chairs.  They would have to cast votes for their candidates after breakfast, in the hotel, behind closed doors, and then re-group on the floor of the convention.

Their response?  Total confusion.

At least according to this account published in the Austin Chronicle at 1:33 on Wednesday afternoon, describing what had happened that morning when Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”), a super delegate who had committed to Obama before the end of the primary/caucus contests, announced the new plans to the Texas delegation.  (All mistakes appear in original.)

Finally, a Roll Call Vote

Boyd Richie announced a change to the Roll Call Vote process at this morning’s Delegate Breakfast. After receiving our delegate credentials, we were directed to a small room in the west wing of the host hotel. Inside the room we presented our delegate credential and ID, then placed our president preference (Obama, Clinton, or Abstain) and signed our name. This was our official vote. The list will be copied and published then delivered to the Pepsi Center via a shuttle bus around 12:30pm (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

Mr. Richie stated that officials staying at other hotels would still have the opportunity to vote later today. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

Chairman Richie was upset both visibility and emotionally when some delegates asked whether observers would be present during the voting process. “We’re all Democrats”, said Richie in an angry tone. Finally, after several interruptions from some delegates requesting an observer, he asked the Obama registered agent Ron Kirk and Hillary registered agent Garry Mauro whether they wanted observers. Registered agents are the official representatives for campaigns. Mr. Kirk said they [Obama delegates] were not interested in having observers. As he said this, some Obama supporters began to chant, “Unity, unity.” In place of Mr. Mauro, John Oeffinger represented the Hillary campaign and honored the request of Hillary delegates to assign observers. John then immediately scrambled about the ballroom to schedule observers in shifts.

Strangely, we’ve also been told that we’ll vote again this evening. Mr. Richie said he did not know the process for delegates that wish to change their vote from what they placed on this morning’s ballot. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

After voting, we were sent to a table to obtain our seating assignment for this evenings Roll Call Vote at the Pepsi Center.

So, how many times do we vote? Which one counts? I guess we’ll find out tonight.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/News/Blogs/index.html/objID666330/blogID/

How many times do we vote?”  “Which one counts?”  Mr. Richie’s announcement there was a “change” in the voting procedure obviously left the Texas delegation with the impression, the ‘process’ used by the DNC to choose their Presidential nominee was ‘play it by ear.’

In contrast, that same morning, at 9:43, the Rocky Mountain News announced convention committee CEO Leah D. Daughtry described the voting process was ‘business as usual,’ pursuant to the ‘rules.’

Convention roll-call plans set for tonight

COLORADO CONVENTION CENTER — Each state at tonight’s session of the Democratic National Convention will announce the results of its delegate tally during a roll call that has been the source of much speculation and controversy this week.

Convention committee CEO Leah D. Daughtry said the roll call will take place as it has in previous conventions, despite speculations that a compromise between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton might result in a departure from the usual process.

The roll call is guided by the rules of the party,” Daughtry said at this morning’s convention press briefing. “It will proceed just as the rules dictate. (Emphasis added by jbjd.) Every state and every delegate will have the opportunity to vote. Everyone will be represented. Everyone will have their votes counted.”

The roll call will begin with each state announcing its delegate vote totals for the two Democratic candidates after a series nominating and seconding speeches for Clinton and Obama, Daughtry said.

Voting has already begun, as delegates began receiving tally cards this morning. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/27/convention-roll-call-plans-set/

Guided by the rules of the party…just as the rules dictate?”  Rules?  What rules?

Certainly not the Delegate Selection Rules, 2, Participation, F:

In accordance with Article Nine, Section 12 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States, votes shall not be taken by secret ballot at any stage of the delegate selection
process
…?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf

Or Article Nine, Section 12 of the Charter:

All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee, and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot.)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/58e635582dc516dd52_5wsmvyn09.pdf

This drivel points to why I said in COUP (2 of 4), it’s useless trying to reinstate order to the Democrat’s Presidential nominating process by falling back on the rules, regulations, and Charter of the Democratic Party.

By 12:53, Ben Smith at Politico was announcing Barack Obama’s campaign has reverted to plans for a traditional roll call on the convention floor… (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

There’s a bit of confusion about the plans for a roll call, and some Democrats say they’re dissatisfied by a process that has them voting in private, by state. But that’s the old-fashioned way, says my colleague Andy Glass, who’s covered these for years.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/A_traditional_roll_call.html

But whichever version of events you bought into – “just as the rules dictate”;  “the old-fashioned way”; or ‘play it by ear’ – one thing was clear.  From the outside looking in, it wasn’t easy to recognize these events for what they were:  the signal that Obama’s warriors had decided at the last minute to scrub the scheduled open roll call vote of pledged delegates from all states on the floor of the convention, which was expected to have been followed by Clinton’s release of her pledged delegates, and then another vote after that, which was supposed to give him the nomination.

Incredible, huh.  Thousands of eye witnesses in Denver, including the press, scrutinizing every detail of the goings on inside the convention, and no one asked why whoever was in charge had decided to scrap the open roll call of pledged delegates.  Why?  Because they lacked the information necessary to recognize what they were observing.  So, what was this ‘thing’ that happened under everyone’s nose yet flew under the radar, so significant it caused Obama’s allies in the DNC to re-orient the nomination process at the last minute in order to hide votes for Clinton from her pledged delegates as the preferred means to guarantee his nomination?

Word had spread to the Clinton pledged delegates sent to the convention from those 13 vote binding states, including CA, that the laws in their states required them to hold fast to their candidate through at least the first round of voting at the convention; and that their Attorneys General had received complaints Obama’s people were subverting the law by trying to get those delegates to promise to switch their votes to him, even before they got to the convention. We know that at least one of those A’sG, Thurbert Baker (D-GA), instructed that state’s pledged delegates to obey the law.  Consequently, these delegates were going to obey the law, and vote for her through at least the first round.  Some, including Clinton pledged delegates from CA, even after that.

So, why was this such a big deal? BECAUSE OBAMA AND HIS CONSORTS HAD ONLY AGREED TO HOLD AN OPEN ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE FLOOR OF THE CONVENTION RELYING ON THE FACT, SEVERAL HUNDRED CLINTON PLEDGED DELEGATES FROM VOTE BINDING STATES WOULD HAVE NO IDEA THEY WERE ‘PLEDGED’ PLEDGED TO CLINTON WHEN THEY REACHED THE FLOOR OF THE CONVENTION. Thus, those pledged delegates who had already been successfully co-opted  to switch their votes to him, added to those who would enthusiastically switch to him in the fabricated momentum of the occasion; plus those who would fatalistically give in to the feigned inevitability of his nomination, would easily put his numbers over the top.

But didn’t I say, in COUP (1 of 4), Obama’s agents would have known which states had vote binding laws before they twisted the arms of Clinton delegates in those states since the state delegate selection Plan sent to the RBC for approval had to include details of any state laws respecting the conduct at the convention of pledged delegates from that state? Yep; that’s what I said.  So now you’re probably thinking, ‘well, jbjd, if Obama’s people knew about the laws in those states by looking at those delegate selection Plans then, wouldn’t any delegates seeking guidance as to their conduct at the convention by examining the state Plan, be able to read about the state’s vote binding status, too?’  Nope.  Know why?  Because there was nothing in those state Plans about vote binding laws. And now you are probably shaking your heads.  Why did I say the Plans submitted to the RBC explain how Obama’s people knew in advance which states had vote binding laws if the Plans contain no information about vote binding laws!

To answer this question, you have to read the fine print in the RBC Regulations.

Section 2, Submission and Review of Plans, regulation 2.2, Formal Submission, reads, “Each State Party Committee shall include the following documentation with the submission of its Plan to the RBC…”  “I., “… a copy of all state statutes reasonably related to the delegate selection process…”  Id. Did you catch that?  The rules don’t say, this documentation about special state laws regarding how pledged delegates must vote at the convention is a part of the state delegate selection Plan.  The RBC rules only tell the state committee, when submitting the delegate selection Plan for our approval, you have to attach this additional information.

In other words, this additional information forwarded to the RBC by the state party about special state laws respecting party delegates – this would include laws spelling out how to submit to state election officials the name of the Presidential nominee to be printed on the state ballot –  does not become a part of the accompanying state delegate Plan.  Wanna see?

Here’s California’s approved 2008 Delegate Selection Plan.  Nothing in either the Table of Contents or the body of the Plan, references any special laws requiring pledged delegates to vote for the candidate voters in that state elected them to represent, on the floor of the convention.

This means that pledged delegates wading through the various DNC documents for guidance as to how they should vote at the convention would only find this line on p. 19 in the DNC Call for the 2008 Convention:

All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.  (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

“Good conscience.”  But nothing about the law!

Here’s just a sample of language I pulled together from the laws in some of those vote binding states.

“Each person selected as a delegate shall sign a pledge that the person will continue to support at the national convention the candidate for President of the United States the person is selected as favoring until 2 convention nominating ballots have been taken.”  OR

“Each political party shall, on the first ballot at its national convention, cast this Commonwealth’s vote for the candidates as determined by the primary or party caucus.”  KY

“Each delegate or alternate delegate to the national convention of his political party shall cast their vote on all ballots for the candidate who received this state’s vote.”  OK

“Each delegate to the national convention shall use his best efforts at the convention for the party’s presidential nominee candidate who received the greatest number of votes in the presidential preference election until the candidate is nominated for the office of president of the United States by the convention.”  AZ

“As a delegate to the national convention of the Democratic Party, I pledge myself to vote on the first ballot for the nomination of president by the Democratic Party as required by Section 1-8-60 NMSA 1978.”  NM

“Delegates and alternates shall be bound to vote on the first ballot at the national convention for the candidate receiving the most votes in the primary.”  VA

“The delegates to the national conventions shall be bound by the results of the preferential presidential primary for the first two (2) ballots and shall vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged.”  TN

In an Opinion now appended to his state’s binding vote law, the words of the Attorney General of GA reach the heart of similar laws enacted in all of these states:  “This section reflects the legitimate interest of the state in insuring orderliness in the electoral process, and it provides a means of presenting the political preferences of the people of this state to a political party.”  GA

(Can you imagine how long it took me to research the election laws in all 50 states in order to find the 13 states that bound their delegates at the convention?)

The majority of pledged delegates from vote binding states were unaware of their special status coming into the convention.  How can I prove this?  And, more importantly, how do I know that news of their obligations under the vote binding laws of their states still managed to reach Clinton pledged delegates?  And that this new found knowledge was a game changer to the roll call vote?

In the summer of 2008, I was only one of hundreds of citizen activists who became immersed in the machinations of the Presidential nominating process of the Democratic Party.  As I previously explained, one of my contributions was to ‘discover’ and then publicize the existence of those 13 vote binding states.  As I wrote in A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 4), my work did not immediately ignite the endorsement of people who could have spearheaded a massive public education campaign in advance of the convention.  GA was the one state in which I and my team of Georgians were able to get out a concerted campaign to alert both Clinton pledged delegates and AG Baker, Obama’s agents were breaking the law.  And, as a result, AG Baker reminded delegates in that state, “pledged” means pledged. Id. Eventually, in the days immediately preceding the convention, my work on vote binding states did attract the attention of members of the party who, previously unaware these laws existed, saw the strategic value of the work to support the Clinton campaign.  Id.

But what I hadn’t yet told you, is that my work on vote binding states also attracted the attention of another citizen activist, from CA, who not only managed to get inside the convention, but who also had a hand in assembling packets of information that were distributed to all delegates.  Guess what she slipped into these delegate packets?  Yep; my materials on the laws regarding the votes of pledged delegates from vote binding states.

Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, was a member of the CA delegation.  She addressed the CA delegates at their first delegation breakfast on Monday, August 25.  Listen as she not-so-subtly twisted arms to get Clinton pledged delegates to violate CA law.  Imagine, the Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, soliciting Clinton pledged delegates to abandon the will of the voters, in defiance of the law, in order to support her candidate of choice?   Imagine being a Clinton pledged delegate sitting in the audience under the watchful eye of the powerful Madame Speaker; holding a packet of materials that informed you for the first time, you are from a vote binding state.  How free do you suppose you would feel to question what she was saying, let alone to express disdain at what she was asking you to do?

Another member of the CA delegation receiving this information was Attorney Gloria Allred, a Clinton pledged delegate.  Watch while she informs reporters when Monday’s breakfast was over, that fellow delegates had asked her to research whether the law required them to vote for Clinton on the first round of balloting.  (Some confusion arose because CA election law applicable to either the D or the R Presidential preference primary is codified in separate sections.   But D delegates are bound by law to the candidate voters elected them to represent, arguably until a candidate is nominated at the convention.)  Ms. Allred makes a point of saying, she will vote for Clinton on the first round in order to carry out the will of the voters who elected her; but makes clear, she does not yet know whether such a result is required by law.

By Tuesday morning’s breakfast, Ms. Allred had researched CA election law.  Here she is after breakfast, informally trying to get word out to Clinton pledged delegates,  they are bound to vote for their candidate at the convention.  (I wish I could see the papers she is waving around.  Maybe one of these was my letter to AG Brown complaining Obama was poaching Clinton delegates in his state and asking him to intervene?)

Later that same day, speaking at the end of a rally to celebrate the 88th anniversary of women’s suffrage, the 19th Amendment, Ms. Allred, claiming she was denied the opportunity to formally address fellow delegates at breakfast, now informs the crowds, in CA, the primary is “binding.”  She points out, ‘voting for Clinton is consistent with DNC rules which say, use your “conscience” to represent the voters who elected us, since they elected us to vote for Clinton…’

She reasons, ‘even if Hillary releases, we owe an obligation to the voters.’

That night, Pelosi, Obama, Dean, and Reid, et al. decided to call off the open roll call vote of all states scheduled to take place Wednesday evening on the floor of the convention.

So, instead of waiting until after the first round of voting during the open roll call of all states on the floor of the convention, Clinton released her delegates early Wednesday afternoon.  AFTER THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING (albeit behind closed doors at the hotel).  Now, technically, according to some of these vote binding laws, pledged delegates from vote binding states were free to vote for the candidate they in “good conscience” (from the DNC Delegate Selection Plan) concluded was a “fair reflection” (from the DNC Charter) of the will of the voters who (indirectly) elected them.  And they might have, except for one thing:  having already voted once, back at the hotel, they would have no opportunity to vote again.

This last minute early release of Clinton delegates from their pledges could have created another problem if it hadn’t also escaped detection.  See, since Clinton did not release her delegates until Wednesday afternoon; when Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states voted at their hotels Wednesday morning, they had to vote for her according to the law.  Thus, any vote totals from those 13 vote binding states that were then transmitted to the Secretary should have reflected the number of delegates appointed as the result of votes cast in the state for the candidate, at the time of the primary or caucus contest, right?  Not surprisingly, they did not.

Here are the numbers of Clinton pledged delegates awarded as the result of votes voters cast for her in those vote binding states: AZ – 31, CA- 204, GA-27, IN-38, KY-37, MA-55, NH-9 NM-14, OH-74, OK-24, OR-21, TN-40, and VA-29. This makes a total of 609, just from those vote binding states. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-HF.phtml The total number of votes from Clinton delegates just from those vote binding states we saw ‘vote’ from the floor of the convention, before NY, should have been 415.  But it wasn’t.  Not even close.  (The low number of Clinton votes becomes even more suspect when you consider, in addition to votes from Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states, the totals would also have included votes from Clinton pledged delegates who were not legally bound to vote for her but who, in “good conscience,” would have honored the voters who elected them by sticking to their candidate, at least on the first round.)

The DNC refuses to release an ‘official’ tally of votes cast in the hotels, by whom.  I received an email from a KY Clinton pledged delegate who said her delegation chair, Jennifer Moore, ignored her request for a list of that state’s votes, too.  Shortly after the convention, the DNC did release some kind of tally sheet that included ALL states, not just those states voting on the floor of the convention; but they rescinded that list shortly thereafter.   The GreenPapers published that list, with links, that are now inoperative.  In the 2 (two) years since the convention, the DNC has failed to post another list.

According to Andy Glass at Politico, “…there’s not even any formal mechanism within national party rules for each delegate’s vote to be recorded. What’s recorded is the vote of each state delegation.” Id.

The CA delegation passed.  The reason?  According to Don Frederick at the LATimes, “because a tally of its 441 votes had not been completed when the state’s name was called.”  But hadn’t they already voted back at the hotel?  (Evidently, Mr. Frederick is another one of those reporters who is unaware of the laws in those vote binding state.  He writes, “Clinton did not receive a majority in any of the recorded tallies — and in most, Obama’s backing was overwhelming. But Clinton’s support was notable in a few instances, including Arizona (40 votes for Obama, 27 for her), Kentucky (36 for him, 24 for her) and Massachusetts (65 for him, 52 for her).”  “Notable”?  How about, ILLEGAL? AZ, KY, and MA are all vote binding states.)

This means, while we can establish which of Obama’s agents suborned Clinton pledged delegates in vote binding states to violate their pledge; we cannot determine which of those delegates ended up breaking the law.  Including those pledged delegates who are PLEO‘s, or party leaders and elected officials, like mayors, governors, city councilors, and legislative leaders.   And this brings us to the heart of the matter involving Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states:  the unpledged PLEO’s, better known as super delegates.

See, here’s the thing.  As long as pledged delegates from vote binding states remained unaware of their bound status, Obama could have managed to convert an only slight (contrived) lead in pledged delegates into a landslide win.  Only, this landslide was in jeopardy once pledged delegates from vote binding states learned they were bound by the law.  But so what?  Even without any shenanigans with respect to any of the pledged delegates, based strictly on the number of pledged delegates awarded immediately after the primary and caucus contests ended; neither Clinton nor Obama had the requisite number of votes from pledged delegates alone to win the nomination.  Certainly not on the first round. At some point, if the typical give and take expected of such political theater could not produce a nominee, the unpledged PLEO’s would have broken the impasse.  And the majority of these unpledged PLEO’s had already come out publicly in support of Obama, even in states where Clinton had won the popular vote. In other words, whatever happened along the way, in the end Obama was set to run off with the nomination.

So, why the mad rush to take the nomination just from votes cast by pledged delegates?

Recall what I wrote in A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 4):

DNC rules provide if voting at the convention fails to support one candidate over the other then, special super delegates will add their votes to the totals to reach the number required for nomination. So they were also furiously pouring money into the PAC’s and war chests of these super delegates, in return for which the candidate received a public pledge of support positively correlated to the superior size of his financial investment.

The people who staged the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention needed the pledged delegates to pull off Obama’s nomination because they did not want you to see that the votes of those unpledged super delegates had been bought and paid for, well in advance of the convention, by his wealthy benefactors…

From OpenSecrets:

For those elected officials who had endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25, the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegate received the endorsement 82 percent of the time. In cases where Obama had made a contribution since 2005 but Clinton had given the superdelegate nothing, Obama got the superdelegate’s support 85 percent of the time. And Clinton got the support of 75 percent of superdelegates who got money from her but not from Obama. For this update to the Feb. 14 study the Center combined contribution data with a list of superdelegates and their endorsements compiled by The Politico as of Feb. 25.

http://www.opensecrets.org/capital_eye/inside.php?ID=338

…including Madame Pelosi, his biggest ‘vote fairy godmother’ of all.

From Dr. Lynette Long, in NoQuarter:

“Bought and Paid For! By Nancy Pelosi”

As Americans sat glued to their television sets watching the most hotly contested presidential primary in American history, pundits counted pledged delegates won in caucuses and primaries and discussed the highly prized superdelegates’ endorsements. Eventually it would be these superdelegates, Democratic officials, governors, and members of congress, who would determine the nominee, since neither contestant won enough pledged delegates in the 52 primary contests.

What the pundits forgot to tell the American public was that these superdelegates were doing some counting of their own. They weren’t counting how many of their constituents had voted for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, but rather how much money was being put into their war chests by the Obama campaign and the Democratic hierarchy. This money, moved from one candidate to another via PAC’s, would determine their endorsements and ultimately the nomination….

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/13/bought-and-paid-for-by-nancy-pelosi/

And that’s why they pulled off the coup that hid hundreds of votes of Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention.

Conclusion

For readers expecting a sort of summation of the ‘lesson learned’  from all four installments of “A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH,” the main focus of which series was the fraud pulled off at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention, I offer this.

“I can only imagine Clinton would have made a much better President than Obama but, based on how he obtained the nomination, I anticipated he would make a much better crook.”  jbjd.

EPILOG

A lay person looking at this chart of delegates can easily read, the total number of delegates for either candidate fails to get the nomination.  But Obama had bought off a sufficient number of these super delegates to help him steal the nomination.  So, even with a real open roll call vote of all states from the floor of the convention, before the arm twisting and poaching, eventually, the super delegates would have had to intervene to break the impasse.

“GROUNDHOG DAY” in TEXAS

August 8, 2010

Know that movie “Groundhog Day,” with Bill Murray, where he plays a t.v. weatherman doomed to repeat the same inane moments of his life, over and over and over again, until he ‘gets it right’?  Here, let me show you.

Well, it’s ‘groundhog day’ in Texas.  Boyd Richie was just re-elected Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”).

Mr. Richie’s record in electing D’s to fill state and county offices in Texas is 0-29.  That’s not a typo.  Not counting him, no D’s have been elected into these offices under Richie’s leadership of the TDP.  None.  Nada.  Zilch.

Contrast this record, against the message he delivered in his first speech as Chairman after his 2006 election:  “Our job is not win arguments, but to win elections.”  I would ask, ‘Oh, yeah, Mr. Richie?  How’s that going for you?’  But I can anticipate his reply.  ‘Swell, thank you.’  Know why?  Because just like the title of this post implies, with him, it’s not about winning and losing; it’s about repetition.

Here’s another example of  ‘more of the same.’  Right out of the gate of his re-election, Chairman Richie again filed suit to keep a Republican out of office.

Democrats question Texas Sen. Brian Birdwell’s eligibility

AUSTIN – Sen. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, who won a special election this spring to replace the retiring Kip Averitt, will have to defend his freshly minted victory against charges he is ineligible to hold the seat.

Birdwell had been living in Virginia and working for the Pentagon and moved to Texas in May 2007. State law says that you must be a resident of Texas for five years before you can run for the Senate.

Democrat John Cullar, appointed by the party to run for the seat, and the Texas Democratic Party have filed a petition in the Fort Worth Court of Appeals asking the court to resolve the question. If they prevail, Birdwell’s name would be removed from the November ballot, probably giving Cullar an easy path to victory.

“I’m going to run a comprehensive campaign, and part of that is analyzing if my opponent is eligible to represent the people of Senate District 22,” Cullar said. “I look forward to seeing that question resolved by the court. In the meantime, I’ll be out talking with the voters of the district I’ve been proud to call home for 26 years.”

Birdwell maintains that he is legally entitled to the seat. But questions about his residency and whether he was eligible were raised during the special election, which he won in a runoff with 58 percent of the vote.

Birdwell, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who was critically burned in the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, voted in Virginia until 2006.

But the law is still in question because active-duty members of the military can live one place and still vote in Texas and consider the state home. Birdwell bought land in Texas in 2005, where he eventually built his house.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-statesen_07tex.ART.State.Edition1.360fc4a.html

Remember, he filed suit against the Chair of the Republican Party of Texas (“RPT”) in 2006, the same year he was first elected Chair of the TDP, which forced the R’s to keep the name of Tom DeLay on the Congressional ballot in November, notwithstanding at the time of the lawsuit, Mr. DeLay had moved to VA and was a legal resident of that state.  (CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (1 of 2) and (2 of 2); and IDIOMS!)

So, let me ask you something.  Assume in 2012 Mr. Obama is the Presidential nominee of the DNC.  Given Mr. Richie’s historical penchant for consistency; what do you suppose are the chances he will refuse to Certify Mr. Obama’s Nomination to state election officials, on the grounds, no documentary evidence in the public record establishes he is a NBC?

P.S. Speaking of disrespecting people serving in the military (and parents of young children, and shift workers, and the elderly, and the physically challenged…)… In addition to overwhelmingly re-electing Richie, guess what arcane practice the D’s voted overwhelmingly to keep for the 2012 election?  Yep; the infamous Texas two-step, that combination of primary election and caucus free-for-all that managed to award Obama more pledged delegates than Clinton with less votes per delegate required.  And I can find no reports that anyone, R or D, with any evidence of widespread caucus fraud produced any public protests to try to change their minds, let alone  anyone in possession of a documentary film that preserved eye-witness narratives of this conduct from the citizens of Texas who had attended and participated in (or at least tried to participate in) these fraud riddled events.

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

Freedom costs.


NOW, LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!

August 4, 2010

The President is scheduled to visit Texas on August 9, 2010.  But Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) knew by July 31 he would be unable to attend a fundraising soiree with Mr. Obama at Austin’s Four Seasons Hotel due to other non-specified commitments.  In fact, he could not only not sit down to dinner with the Commander in Chief, but he was even too busy for an Air Force One touchdown meet-‘n-greet.

“Texas Democratic  candidates distance themselves from Obama”

…State Democratic Chairman Boyd Richie said the party is focused on ousting Perry and other Republican incumbents in Texas, adding that “D.C. politics” and the 2012 presidential election aren’t on the radar. “Texans are patriotic people and proud to support our president, but at the end of the day, we’ve been winning Texas elections on Texas issues, and that will again be the case this November,” Richie said.

Say what?

Best of the Blogs, a site which describes itself as an on-line community for progressive bloggers, calls it more directly like it is.

“Democrats Run From Obama”

…But the other statewide candidates are running away from President Obama like he had a combination of ebola and swine flu, and they could catch it just by being caught in the same county as the president. They may be running on the Democratic ticket, but they’d just as soon the voters of Texas forgot that when they go to the polls in November.

http://bestoftheblogs.com/Home/31852

But I think these reports of Mr. Richie dissing the POTUS based on his unpopularity, either in Texas or throughout the whole United States, miss the point.

Mr. Richie only became Chair of the TDP in June of 2006.   http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1052 And look at what Mr. Obama has put him through in that brief time.

One-and-a-half years after becoming Chair of the TDP, Mr. Richie swore to election officials the candidate satisfied the requirements of the Office of President of the United States in order to get them to print his name on that state’s Democratic Presidential Preference Primary ballot.  http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.191.htm#191.003 Because under Texas law, the candidate must be eligible for office to appear on the ballot.  http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.192.htm#192.031

In March 2008, Hillary Clinton won the Texas primary.  Voting remained so close in subsequent contests that DNC Chair Howard Dean suggested Texas superdelegates could wait until July 1, a date by which all of the primary and caucus contests would be over, to weigh in on which nomination they would support at the August 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention.  http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/DN-superdelegates_24pol.ART.State.Edition1.46d87b8.html But Mr. Richie and his wife, Betty, both superdelegates, jumped the gun, announcing on May 29 that in 3 (three) months they had decided to vote in favor of Mr. Obama’s nomination.  http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/5867/

Just days later, the Richies had to realize they had made a terrible mistake.

In the beginning of June, with rumors swirling that Barack Obama, the Democratic Presidential nominee wannabe failed to satisfy the Constitutional eligibility requirement of natural born citizen; the candidate launched a new electronic advertising campaign with the slogan “Fight the Smears.”  On the web site of that same name, Robert Gibbs, then Communications Director for the candidate’s political campaign, posted an image of a mock-up of a ‘document’ labeled “Certification of Live Birth,” accompanied by copy proclaiming this image proved his client was at least  “native” born.  Presumably, being a long time politico familiar with the rigors of federal laws with respect to political campaign advertising, Chairman Richie, even before reading the attribution in the FTS footer, could recognize this was campaign advertising.  Being a lawyer, Attorney Richie was surely able to discern the legal distinction contained in an admission the candidate is a “native” citizen from the threshold Constitutional requirement of “natural born.”

Yet despite knowing he’d been ‘had,’ 3 (three) months later, after Mr. Obama was handed the nomination, Attorney Richie, a member in good standing of the Texas state bar, again swore to state election officials the nominee was Constitutionally qualified for the job in order to get Mr. Obama’s name printed on the general (Electors) election ballot.  And for almost the next year, he managed to get away with this lie.  Until the fall of 2009, when citizens began contacting AG Abbott with complaints charging that he had committed election fraud in order to get the state to print Mr. Obama’s name on its ballot and then, that he had violated the Texas Open Records law by refusing to provide requested documentation which was the basis for that eligibility certification.  https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/open-letter-ag-abbott-tx/

Of course, Mr. Richie had no documentation which was the basis for Mr. Obama’s eligibility certification.

Given these circumstances, who could blame Mr. Richie now for refusing to give Mr. Obama the time of day?  On the other hand,  Dave Montgomery, the reporter for the Star-Telegram, hints the President’s unpopularity explains Mr. Richie’s snub.  Someone should contact Mr. Montgomery to report the more likely reason why.  dmontgomery@star-telegram.com


%d bloggers like this: