PAYDIRT

April 14, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

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

Not everyone agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom costs.


MISSING the FINE PRINT in GEORGIA

February 6, 2012

©2012 jbjd

I will make this brief, because ever since ALJ Malahi issued the ruling adverse to Complainants at the administrative hearing on the ballot challenge in GA; I have been swamped by disillusioned ‘Minor v. Happersett‘ ex pats now ‘willing’ for the first time to try to shift the burden of proof (and production) as to whether President Obama is a NBC, onto those people who swore he was, the seminal point in the eligibility ‘cures’ I first proposed more than 3 years ago now, before the name Barack Obama was printed on state general election ballots.

(Note to those ‘birthers’ rendered depressed by Malihi’s findings (after raised artificially high by Orly’s ‘false flag,’ ‘I won!!! I won!!!’): just because an ALJ in GA says, MvH’s mention of the phrase NBC doesn’t mean what Leo Donofrio says it means; doesn’t mean, it doesn’t mean what he says it means. Or that Leo generally doesn’t know what he is talking about. Of course, as I wrote in jbjd’s FRENEMIES LIST, MvH’s use of the phrase NBC doesn’t mean what Leo says it means; and Leo doesn’t know what he is talking about. (I wrote this article before ALJ Malihi decimated Complainant’s reliance on MvH; although I believe he overstepped his lawful authority by ‘ruling’ on the meaning of NBC as that term appears in the U.S. Constitution; and by citing as precedent for a decision in a GA (11th circuit) administrative hearing, a decision by an IN (7th circuit) state appellate court, worse, in a state not even in the same (federal) circuit.) http://www.uscourts.gov/court_locator.aspx

At the risk of exposing myself as the only birther in the room able to view the recent events in GA from the ‘glass half full perspective’; I want to point out, in fact, a lot of good news came out of this fiasco. For example, counting down in no particular order of import:

5. Citizens of GA made a modest effort to take control of their state ballots using their state laws. High 5! (Now, if they would only have the self-confidence to do so on their own, that is, without inviting in all of these outside agitators! And speaking of outside agitators, it seems completely incongruous to me that the same people who eschew creeping federalism would invite into a ‘local’ state election law scrimmage; coaches and fans from across the country with the hope that by doing so, they somehow tilt in their favor the decision of the local referee!)

4. By participating at any stage in these ballot challenge proceedings, from formulating the legal cause of action setting off the event as well as the legal theory underpinning the charges; to drafting the documents; to representing the parties, to promoting and providing  coverage of the spectacle, which culminated in a live broadcast of the evidentiary hearing; those involved afforded people across the country the opportunity to see for themselves that the money they had been donating to such ’causes’ was being frittered away by a cast of characters with no business near a hearing room, let alone a courtroom. (Maybe now they will stop funding this litigious juggernaut. NOTE TO THOSE WHO STILL FAIL TO ACCEPT, THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE DOING: art2superpac, the same-old-limited-thinkers-in-the-birther-game-disguised-as-the-new-kids-on-the-block; are now soliciting funds to mount a legal challenge to ALJ Malihi’s ruling. Without attacking the credibility of this ‘configuration’ of the familiar cast of birther characters; let me just assure you, a challenge of this decision has even less chance of success than the original action.)

And now – I told you, I am in a hurry – the best news from GA has nothing to do with anything said or done by either Complainants or ALJ Malihi. Can you guess what that is? (HINT: what did I say was the best news coming out of the equally legally infirm Hollister case, from January 2009?)

1. Attorney Jablonski, by submitting a Motion to Dismiss in which he argued the inviolate right of the political parties to choose their candidates for the state election ballot; as opposed to the party’s right to have the name of its chosen candidate printed on that same ballot; confirmed that the way to keep Constitutionally ineligible candidates out of the WH was to keep their names off the state ballot.

View this document on Scribd

Because political parties don’t have a right to put the names of ineligible candidates on the ballot in states that limit ballot inclusion to only those candidates qualified for the job.

Some of you have reported, state officials respond to your complaints by insisting they have no right to tell the parties which candidates they may choose. You have indicated, they appear to be trying to fob you off. I have encouraged you not to argue but, instead, to respond as if they are sincerely misreading your intent. Concede the obvious. ‘Of course, state officials have no right to tell the parties which candidates they may run for office! It would be silly to think otherwise. That’s why I am not complaining they picked an ineligible candidate – they can pick anyone they want; I couldn’t care less – and I am not asking you to countermand their choice. But I do care about my state laws; and in this state, we don’t print the names of ineligible candidates on the ballot. So, I just want to make sure my state officials aren’t printing the names of those ineligible candidates on my ballot.’

Now, stop leaving your democracy in the hands of this crazy cast of characters; and write the damn laws. 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)  Then, make sure the rules are in place to carry out these laws. (I still can’t believe while these people went to all that trouble to file a ballot challenge on the basis of eligibility; they didn’t bother to ask the SoS to promulgate rules to carry out the GA ballot law.)

If your state already has a candidate ballot eligibility law; petition the SoS to promulgate emergency rules to carry out the intention of the legislation. There is no legitimate reason these cannot be in place by the time these same state officials receive the DNC Service Corporation’s Certification of Barack Obama’s 2012 nomination.

Finally, let me remind you, by writing smart candidate eligibility laws, you will not only guarantee that only the names of eligible candidates will appear on the ballot; but you will also lead the way to reach the federal appellate court with a case on point so as to obtain a legally binding definition of NBC. That is, the parties will, undoubtedly, protest these laws. (‘It’s unConstitutional for you to define NBC!’) And, of course, the state’s reply? ‘We are not defining NBC, as that term is used in Article 2, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution! That would be illegal! We are only defining, the names of which candidates we will print on our state ballots.’

Now, re-read HOW ADOPTING the “NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE INITIATIVE” CAN STEAL an ELECTION ‘BY HOOK’ and ‘BY CROOK’

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

Freedom costs.


IT WAS A GOOD TIME; IT WAS THE BEST TIME; IT WAS A PARTY

January 28, 2012

©2012 jbjd

The party in Georgia is over. And now, having been asked several times both here and on other blogs, what I predict will be the outcome of Thursday’s OSAH hearing in Georgia before Administrative Law Judge Malihi and, further, how Secretary Kemp will proceed in light of the ALJ’s determination; I will tell you what I think.

However, I am not privy to the record in this case and so, I am basing any speculation as to the posture of this case; on publicly available documentation. And I have no contact with anyone else who has privy to the record in this case (although this probably makes no difference as to the caliber of my prediction).

(Having access to the people directly involved would not mean that I would obtain reliable information from them, a fact made unambiguously clear when several people directly involved with the case instigated a massive public campaign of misinformation with a self-serving pronouncement that, the judge in a court of law had ordered President Obama to appear, when he had only refused to grant Respondent’s Motion to Quash Petitioner’s Subpoena. Yes, I agree the press can be blamed for their role in disseminating this propaganda by failing to investigate these claims before streamiing them into syndication; but in my opinion, this makes the attorneys involved doubly culpable for ‘blowing’ this incredible opportunity thereby provided, to educate people, instead, converting it into their personal platform to spread paranoid, error laden, hyperbolic rants.)

Finally, of course, is the fact that, notwithstanding all other considerations, when it comes to predicting a decision by any ruling authority; in fact, your guess is as good as mine.

RUMOR ALERT: Some people have insisted that before the hearing, the lawyers present met with the ALJ, who offered to “Default” Obama for not showing up. At that point, any one of the Petitioners – not just Farrar, who had issued a subpoena for him to appear so as to give “sworn” testimony – could have made a request to the ALJ, in the form of a motion, as prescribed by Rule 11; to default Obama. Or, the ALJ could default Respondent, sua sponte, that is, on its own.

But let’s say, an ordinary citizen files a complaint with the SoS that ends up in the OSAH and the Respondent bails the fact-finding hearing. S/he is likely to look up, IN ADVANCE, how this conduct would impact the proceedings.

Starting from the OSAH home page, I first found the hearing calendar and, from there, a link to Frequently Asked Questions (by parties to these proceedings).

In particular, consider that these guidelines indicate, if the Complainant is late to the hearing; the case “can be” dismissed; and if the Respondent doesn’t appear; the case “can be” decided without his input. In other words, where the burden is on Petitioner; showing up late could mean, the case was dismissed before you arrived. (More on “burden” soon.)

I, of course, looked up the section of the Administrative Procedure rule regarding default, which, again, are accessed from the OSAH home page. But before I post this, understand the meaning of the word “party” as used in the statute and corresponding rules. (Note: the statute creating the OSAH is written by the legislature, and signed into law by the governor. A provision of that law tells the head of OSAH to promulgate rules and regulations necessary for that office to carry out its legal mandate, as spelled out in the statute.)

O.C.G.A. § 50-13-2
GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
TITLE 50.  STATE GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 13.  ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ARTICLE 1.  GENERAL PROVISIONS
O.C.G.A. § 50-13-2  (2011)

§ 50-13-2.  Definitions

As used in this chapter, the term:

(2) “Contested case” means a proceeding, including, but not restricted to, rate making, price fixing, and licensing, in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing.

(4) “Party” means each person or agency named or admitted as a party or properly seeking and entitled as of right to be admitted as a party.

(5) “Person” means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental subdivision, or public or private organization of any character other than an agency.

(5.1) “Record” means information created, transmitted, received, or stored either in human perceivable form or in a form that is retrievable in human perceivable form.

(6) “Rule” means each agency regulation, standard, or statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of any agency.

Now, here is the Administrative rule on Default. (Again, I reached these rules through the OSAH home page.) All emphasis is mine.

RULES
OF
OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CHAPTER 616-1-2
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF PROCEDURE

616-1-2-.30 Default. Amended.
(1) A default order may be entered against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding, a party that fails to file any required pleading, or a party that fails to comply with an order issued by the Administrative Law Judge. Any default order shall specify the grounds for the order.
(2) Any default order may provide for a default as to all issues, a default as to specific issues, or other limitations, including limitations on the presentation of evidence and on the defaulting party’s continued participation in the proceeding. After issuing a default order, the Administrative Law Judge shall proceed as necessary to resolve the case without the participation of the defaulting party, or with such limited participation as the Administrative Law Judge deems appropriate, and shall determine all issues in the proceeding, including those affecting the party in default.
(3) Within ten (10) days of the entry of a default order, the party against whom the default order was issued may file a written motion requesting that the order be vacated or modified, and stating the grounds for the motion.
(4) The Administrative Law Judge may decline to enter a default or may open a default previously entered if the party’s failure was the result of providential cause or excusable neglect, or if the Administrative Law Judge determines from all of the facts that a proper case has been made to deny or open the default.
(5) If a party fails to attend an evidentiary hearing after having been given written notice, the Administrative Law Judge may proceed with the hearing in the absence of the party unless the absent party is the party who requested the hearing, in which case the Administrative Law Judge may dismiss the action. Failure of a party to appear at the time set for hearing shall constitute a failure to appear, unless excused for good cause.

Respondent’s absence from this hearing despite an in effect subpoena to appear could have triggered the sanction of Default, but only with respect to Respondent. This would mean, the record would have been foreclosed as to him, absent a successful appeal of the Default Order. And all of Petitoners’ evidence would have been submitted into the record without objection from the other side.

(Or, in the alternative, Petitioners could have sought an Order to Appear. We already know that only the Superior Court can issue such an Order, on Motion of Plaintiff (who in the OSAH is the Petitioner). Petitioner’s/Plaintiff’s Motion to the Superior Court can be accompanied by the ALJ’s certification as to the facts which led to this point.)

616-1-2-.22 Hearing Procedure. Amended.

(5) Upon application by a party, the Administrative Law Judge shall certify the facts to the
superior court of the county in which a party, agent, or employee of a party:
(a) disobeys or resists any lawful order or process;
(b) neglects to produce, after having been ordered to do so, any pertinent book, paper, or
document;
(c) refuses to appear after having been subpoenaed;
(d) upon appearing, refuses to take the oath or affirmation as a witness;
(e) after taking the oath or affirmation, refuses to testify; or
(f) disobeys any other order issued by an Administrative Law Judge
for a determination of the appropriate action, including a finding of contempt.

Rumor is, ALJ Malihi asked whether Petitioners wanted him to enter such Default; but, reportedly, they said, ‘No.’

Supposedly, although they have entered this same ‘evidence’ into dozens of other records, they did not want to waste this opportunity to submit testimonial evidence into this record, providing ALJ Malihi with a first-hand opportunity to gauge the credibility of their witnesses, under some mistaken belief, submitting this evidence into the record of this administrative hearing without objection from Respondent, automatically validated their submissions. Then, if they won, they could file yet another suit in a real judicial court based on ‘evidence’ certified by the OSAH (but which was outside of the scope of that forum’s expertise or authority) President Obama is Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

616-1-2-.22 Hearing Procedure. Amended.
(1) The Administrative Law Judge shall conduct a fair and impartial hearing, take action to
avoid unnecessary delay in the disposition of the proceedings, and maintain order. The
Administrative Law Judge may, among other things:


(3) Whenever any party raises issues under either the Georgia or United States Constitution,
the sections of any laws or rules constitutionally challenged and any constitutional provisions
such laws or rules are alleged to violate must be stated with specificity. In addition, an allegation
of unconstitutionality must be supported by a statement either of the basis for the claim of
unconstitutionality as a matter of law or of the facts under which the party alleges that the law or
rule is unconstitutional as applied to the party. Although the Administrative Law Judge is not
authorized to resolve constitutional challenges to statutes or rules, the Administrative Law Judge
may, in the Administrative Law Judge’s discretion, take evidence and make findings of fact
relating to such challenges.

Or, if they lost; they could use this record as the basis for an appeal filed in a subsequent judicial proceedings.

616-1-2-.39 Judicial Review. Amended.
Pursuant to the APA, a copy of any petition for judicial review of a Final Decision shall be filed
with the Office of State Administrative Hearings by the party seeking judicial review
simultaneously with the service of the petition upon the Referring Agency. The Referring
Agency shall submit the hearing record as compiled and certified by the Clerk to the reviewing
court.

Of course, they would be very very wrong.

Assume the ALJ allowed all of Petitioners’ materials into the record AND, believing their witnesses genuinely believed everything they said AND reviewing the record, took all evidence as true, and issued findings of fact based on this record. And assume Petitioners subsequently used this administrative record in a real judicial proceeding. Any judge would toss this tripe based on a finding, by crediting this ‘evidence’ the previous tribunal had acted in a manner that was both “capricious and arbitrary” and “contrary to law.”

Then again, maybe petitioners didn’t end the proceedings when ALJ Malihi gave them the option; just so as not to let the cameras go to waste.

At any rate, if this rumor is true that Petitioners could have moved for an Order of Default which would have been granted and which still would not have foreclosed the opportunity to provide live testimony as well as additional documentation then, these people are more incompetent than even I thought. More about that below.

Now,  about what actually happened and what will be the result.

When state law requires that all candidates whose names are printed on the ballot must be qualified for office; in theory, exercising a state ballot challenge will work to keep off the ballot the name of an unqualified candidate in that state, depending on the language of the laws in that state. That’s why I proposed this venue for redress (in those states with candidate eligibility laws) in the first place. And, by using a ballot challenge, the crazies who appeared at the OSAH hearing in Georgia yesterday before Administrative Law Judge Malihi, for the first time were not barred from proceeding because of a procedural flaw, such as lack of standing. Indeed, it was this new-found feeling of not being kicked out before the proceeding which produced this nonsensical elation from Petitioner Farrar’s counsel – “I won!!! I won!!!”

But the ballot challenge they presented in this case won’t work not just because they have no idea what they are doing; but because they made the wrong case.

For example, as I have been saying for years now, you cannot win an eligibility case based on a claim Barack Obama is not a NBC. Instead, you can only claim no documentary evidence available in the public record evidences he is a NBC; or that others, including D party officials who claimed he was a NBC refuse to disclose the documentary basis for such claim..(Even better, you can charge that such official with a duty to disclose refused your request!) You cannot charge Barack Obama is not a NBC because his father was not a U.S. citizen. (As I recall, this ‘legal’ fiction originated in 2008 or 9 with Leo Donofrio.) You cannot use non-experts as experts; or printouts of internet postings as documentary evidence. (You CAN, however, use these postings as evidence of other claims in your case, such as the fact, the candidate posted an image.)

A ballot challenge will not succeed where the Petitioner mistakes the forum (referring to the Executive session as a Judicial proceeding); or where he misstates the law (the court in Minor v. Happersett does not limit a definition of NBC to citizens with 2 citizen parents). It won’t succeed where Petitioner or his associates, colleagues, and attorneys have filed multiple challenges; or have a history of failure at such challenges; or a history of bizarre conduct in public; or have earned a reputation as kooks. (Give up, if your lawyer puts herself on the stand.)

But let’s assume, in Thursday’s hearing, Petitioners had miraculously cured all of these infirmities. The question then is, what does it mean to Farrar’s ballot challenge that President Obama ignored his subpoena to appear as his – Farrar’s – witness – I already told you, that’s exactly what he did – and to bring documents that presumably would tend to support his – Farrar’s – case, after ALJ Malahi denied Obama’s Motion to Quash (that subpoena)? Here goes.

Again, I want to clarify who are the parties in that Georgia ballot challenge case heard Thursday by Administrative Law Judge Malihi. Complainant Farrar, Respondent Obama, and the GA Office of Secretary are all parties.  Here’s a picture of the docket (calendar) for Thursday’s OSAH hearing. Notice, it lists the Case Name as David Farrar, and not Farrar v. Obama. It provides a box for the name of the Non-Agency Attorney, that is, Farrar’s attorney. That space is empty. It also has a box for the Case Official.  Know who that is? The person from the agency who is responsible for representing the (position of the) agency at the hearing. That box is also empty. (Note: I checked the docket for other hearings; the caption for Case Name was always the person seeking redress; and, usually, both the names of non-agency attorneys and case officials were filled in.)

Here is the downloadable subpoena from the GA OSAH web site. Notice in the case caption, that is, the section in the beginning listing the forum – OSAH – and the attached administrative agency – Secretary of State – the words “Petitioner” and “Respondent” appear in lieu of “Plaintiff” and “Defendant.”

http://www.osah.ga.gov/#

Notice that the heading lists the parties as Petitioner and Respondent. Further down, in the section beginning with “YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, to appear in court on behalf of” notice that the party issuing the subpoena, Petitioner or Respondent, identifies itself to the recipient by checking the appropriate box. Also notice, ALJ Malihi’s signature and the OSAH seal are pre-stamped on the downloadable document. (Finally, notice the word “court” as used here refers to this administrative hearing of the Executive branch and not to a Judicial proceeding.)

Notice in particular that the party issuing the subpoena selects whether s/he commands the recipient either to appear and testify as a witness; or to produce a document; or both. (The word “document” here is singular.) Thus, the subpoena allows the party to compel this witness, presumably possessing knowledge as to a specific matter which will help to support his case, to provide such aid, either in the form of sworn testimony, or a document, or both.)

Now, here is the subpoena as filled in by Petitioner Farrar directed to Respondent Obama.

View this document on Scribd

Notice here, Petitioner has checked off, he is both Petitioner and Respondent. And, he is commanding Mr. Obama, who actually is the Respondent; to both be sworn in as a Witness on his – Petitioner’s behalf – but also to produce the several (categories of) documents he lists to support his case.

(On the other hand, when Complainant Swensson wanted documents, he produced a Notice to Produce, as provided for by OSHA Rules of Procedure, cited in his notice.) (Notice that like his fellow Petitioners, he asks for numerous documents, too. Also, see that in the caption he refers to the parties as Plaintiff and Defendant. But, he correctly lists the SoS office as the applicable agency attached to this OSHA hearing.)

View this document on Scribd

Here is Respondent’s Motion to Quash (Petitioner Farrar’s subpoena). (Notice in the caption that, he, too refers to the parties as Plaintiff and Defendant. But, he also correctly lists the SoS office as the applicable agency attached to this OSHA hearing.) Also notice that while the heading is Motion to Quash Subpoenas, plural; Respondent only addresses one Petitioner, Farrar; and mentions the only subpoena issued in this case, by Petitioner Farrar.

View this document on Scribd

And here is ALJ Malahi’s denial of that Motion. Notice he raises only 2 narrow grounds: failure to cite support to claim of hardship to attend; and 2) failure to establish grounds to find improper service. Interestingly, he calls the Petitioners “Plaintiffs,” and Respondent, “Defendant.” But he gets the SoS office right. Notice that he copies the plural Subpoenas in his heading. But, for some reason, he lists all Petitioners in the caption, whereas by this time, the cases had been severed.

View this document on Scribd

(I will not comment in depth as to whether ALJ Malahi should have granted the Motion to Quash except to say, given the limited purpose for which the OSHA subpoena form was obviously intended, that is, to compel a witness to testify as to a specific fact or circumstance supported perhaps by a corresponding document under his or her control; and given Petitioner’s obvious attempt to expand that scope; I think ALJ Malihi had ample grounds to support a decision to quash based on Obama’s objections, Petitioner was impermissably trying to bolster its case by subverting the narrow aim of the subpoena in order to circumvent rules prohibiting Discovery.)

616-1-2-.38 Discovery. Amended.
Discovery shall not be available in any proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge except to
the extent specifically authorized by law. Nothing in this Rule is intended to limit the provisions
of Article 4 of Chapter 18 of Title 50 or Rule 37.

So, when Respondent/Witness (Obama), ignoring a subpoena still in force; absented himself from these proceedings; in what way did this failure to appear impact Petitioner’s case? In other words, just because he didn’t show up; did Farrar win?

Well, that depends on a lot of things, including who bears the burden of proof. That is, in a proceeding the purpose of which is to obtain a (non-binding) recommendation from the ALJ to the SoS to take Obama’s name off the ballot; did Farrar need to prove, he is not a NBC? Or did Obama need to prove he is a NBC?  Or, did the SoS need to prove it had acted in accordance with existing rules and regulations with respect to preparing the ballot?

(Note: For the sake of argument, I assumed that ALJ Malihi was so upset with being ‘dissed’ by counsel for Respondent, he would exercise whatever authority available to lock him out of these proceedings.)

Let’s look at the Administrative Rules.

616-1-2-.07 Burden of Proof. Amended.
(1) The agency shall bear the burden of proof in all matters except that:
(a) in any case involving the imposition of civil penalties, an administrative enforcement order,
or the revocation, suspension, amendment, or non-renewal of a license, the holder of the license
and the person from whom civil penalties are sought or against whom an order is issued shall
bear the burden as to any affirmative defenses raised;
(b) a party challenging the issuance, revocation, suspension, amendment, or non-renewal of a
license who is not the licensee shall bear the burden;
(c) an applicant for a license that has been denied shall bear the burden;
(d) any licensee that appeals the conditions, requirements, or restrictions placed on a license
shall bear the burden; and
(e) an applicant or recipient of a public assistance benefit shall bear the burden unless the case
involves an agency action reducing, suspending, or terminating a benefit.
(2) Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge may determine
that law or justice requires a different placement of the burden of proof.

http://www.osah.ga.gov/documents/procedures/administrative-rules-osah.pdf

Petitioners’ original complaint is that SoS Kemp should not have allowed the name of Barack Obama on the GA D Presidential preference primary ballot because under GA law, only the names of candidates who are qualified for office may be printed on the ballot; AND President Obama is Constitutionally unqualified for the job. Well, (1) says, the agency bears the burden of proof (as to why it acted as it did, in this case, determining to keep Obama’s name on the ballot). Only, the SoS, while a party; was not the named Respondent. And no one from the office of SoS was listed as participating in the hearing. But (2) says, the ALJ can shift that burden before the hearing begins. By naming Obama the Respondent/Defendant, is this what ALJ Malahi did? In other words, did he make Petitioner bear the burden of proof that Obama is not a NBC? If so, Petitioners alone failed to meet that burden.

But what if the office of the SoS had been named the Respondent and, therefore, bore the burden of proof in the case? Watch this.

Look at this rule on Nature of Proceedings.

616-1-2-.21 Nature of Proceedings. Amended.

(1) In a hearing conducted under this Chapter, the Administrative Law Judge shall make an
independent determination on the basis of the competent evidence presented at the hearing.
Except as provided in Rule 29, the Administrative Law Judge may make any disposition of the
matter available to the Referring Agency.
(2) If a party includes in its pleadings a challenge to the regularity of the process by which the
Referring Agency reached a decision, the Administrative Law Judge shall take evidence and
reach a determination on such a challenge at the outset of the hearing. The party making such a
challenge shall have the burden of proof. If the Administrative Law Judge finds the challenge
meritorious, the Administrative Law Judge may remand the matter to the Referring Agency.
(3) The hearing shall be de novo in nature, and the evidence on the issues in a hearing shall not
be limited to the evidence presented to or considered by the Referring Agency prior to its
decision.
(4) Unless otherwise provided by law, the standard of proof on all issues in a hearing shall be a
preponderance of the evidence.

Recall the definition of “rules,” above: “Rule” means each agency regulation, standard, or statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of any agency.”

Petitioners’ original complaint, supported by all of the materials they produced to make their case, is that SoS Kemp should not have allowed the name of Barack Obama on the GA D Presidential preference primary ballot because under GA law, only the names of candidates who are qualified for office may be printed on the ballot; AND President Obama is Constitutionally unqualified for the job. That was a fatal mistake. Instead – and I am borrowing this from my work on those citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG, in the sidebar – they should have argued this.

The SoS allowed the name of Barack Obama on the ballot using bad rules. That is, he carried out his ministerial duty to oversee elections by using rules that allowed onto the ballot the name of a candidate for whom even the D’s refuse to provide documentary evidence available in the public record; is Constitutionally qualified for the job. Under the Nature of Proceedings, above, this would place the burden of proof back on Petitioner; the standard, a preponderance of the evidence (>50%). And that’s a good thing. If the burden remained on the SoS, he would argue, the rules are fine, and no one could demonstrate they haven’t worked to keep an unqualified candidate off the ballot. (Remember, nothing Petitioners argued could ever establish Obama is not a NBC.)

But with the burden of proof shifted to them, Petitioners could have made their case merely by issuing subpoenas for all of those officials involved in signing the 2008 Certification of Nomination from the DNC Services Corporation swearing the then nominee Obama was “duly nominated,” that is, vetted for Constitutional eligibility under the DNC Charter; and submitting this to the GA SoS in 2008 to get his name printed on the ballot. Again, the blueprint for this argument and the evidence which Petitioners could have submitted into the record to support this argument; is laid out in those citizen complaints.

Do you suppose any of the D witnesses would have shown up?  Again, under the Administrative Procedure rule regarding default (above), if a default issued, this means, the ALJ has the authority to ignore any input from these witnesses. But this absence would actually speak volumes. It would demonstrate for everyone to see what we – I -have been saying all along: everyone else is willing to explain why Barack Obama is a NBC but the official members of the D party. Not when it comes to answering the question for voters and constituents – see the evidence compiled in the citizen complaints to state A’sG – and not  when it comes to explaining his eligibility to an official judicial or administrative body.  No reasonable person could be expected to trust the word of people who refuse to back up their word with their presence at this proceeding.

The Case Official representing the Respondent SoS could only argue back, ‘We did what we always do; accept the representation of the candidate’s (presumptive) qualification, from the Party.’

Finally, GA Petitioners could have asked that the SoS immediately promulgate appropriate rules so as to ensure that from now on, only the names of qualified candidates will appear on the state ballot.

GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
TITLE 50.  STATE GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 13.  ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ARTICLE 1.  GENERAL PROVISIONS
O.C.G.A. § 50-13-9  (2011)

§ 50-13-9.  Petition for promulgation, amendment, or repeal of rule; agency response

An interested person may petition an agency requesting the promulgation, amendment, or repeal of a rule. Each agency shall prescribe by rule the form for petitions and the procedure for their submission, consideration, and disposition. Within 30 days after submission of a petition, the agency either shall deny the petition in writing, stating its reasons for the denial, or shall initiate rule-making proceedings in accordance with Code Section 50-13-4.

And, under the timetable provided for, by law, these rules could be in place in time for the 2012 general election ballot.

That’s my analysis, for what it’s worth.

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

Freedom costs.


TRUMPED by TRUMP (Updated 04.10.11)

April 4, 2011

©2011 jbjd

(04.10.11):  See update at bottom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump fails to produce birth certificate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like Ben Smith, at Politico.

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

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

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

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

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

Id.

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

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

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

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

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

(04.10.11):  Update.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Including Mr. Isikoff and MSNBC.

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


ALOHA OBAMA and SHALOM

January 29, 2011

©2011 jbjd

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Benjamin Franklin

“A citizenry that cannot compel its current elected officials to carry out those laws already in effect, cannot change this outcome by electing new officials or enacting new laws.”

jbjd

 

If Barack Obama is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President then, those members of the D party broke the law in 2008 who swore to state election officials he was, to get them to print his name on the ballot in those states that only print the names of candidates qualified for the job.  Many people who believe he is ineligible advocate we should shore up state election laws to forestall another round of fraud in 2012.  Meanwhile, others urge we should not let off the hook those members of the D party who fraudulently pulled off his election in 2008.

The problem of establishing candidate eligibility for office can be rectified on two fronts.

Those of you in states without existing ballot eligibility laws can focus on drafting smart candidate ballot eligibility laws for 2012.  The rest of you can work to persuade your A’sG to enforce existing laws.  In this way, that is, by concentrating on eliminating election fraud viz a viz the ballot using both prevention AND remediation, we can get at the problem of candidate eligibility coming AND going.

For residents of HI, here are updated citizen complaints of election fraud for the State of Hawaii.  Please, whether you have already filed a complaint, file this current updated one now. Note that Brian Schatz, formerly Chair of the Democratic Party of HI, is now the Lt. Gov.  And the new AG, David Louie, only assumed office a couple of weeks ago.  (Mr. Louie graduated from Occidental College, said to be one of Mr. Obama’s alma maters.)

All filers, old and new, make sure to read and understand the complaint before signing with real names and addresses, and sending.

View this document on Scribd

DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2)

January 3, 2011

©2011 jbjd

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of the Federal Laws Governing Paid Political Advertising

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom costs.

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

§ 441d. Publication and distribution of statements and solicitations(a) Identification of funding and authorizing sourcesWhenever a political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing any communication through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising, or whenever any person makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or solicits any contribution through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising or makes a disbursement for an electioneering communication (as defined in section 434 (f)(3) of this title), such communication—(1)  if paid for and authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication has been paid for by such authorized political committee, or (2)  if paid for by other persons but authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication is paid for by such other persons and authorized by such authorized political committee; [1](3)  if not authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state the name and permanent street address, telephone number, or World Wide Web address of the person who paid for the communication and state that the communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.”


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

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

1. Credit Communication: Barack Obama 2008

 

Paid for by Barack Obama 2008. All Rights Reserved


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

2. Credit Communication: OBAMA FOR AMERICA 2008

PAID FOR BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA 2008.  All Rights Reserved


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

2. Credit Communication: ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA

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


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

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

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

Therefore it is safe to say;

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


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

%d bloggers like this: