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.
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.
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
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.
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.