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.

Advertisements

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.


jbjd’s FRENEMIES LIST

February 3, 2012

©2012 jbjd

For the first time in ages, I got sick. And, for the first time in longer than that, I was too sick to go to work. In fact, I was so sick I didn’t even take advantage of being home; to work on my blog. But that was before I decided to put aside the music playlist I was compiling to peruse the blogosphere to sample materials related to these nationwide ballot challenges. Now, I am so angry that, I am actually angrier than I am sick. Fingers crossed, I will feel better if I write.

I have decided to compile a frenemies list from among those on-line characters spewing their interminable fixes to the glitches implicated either directly or tangentially in undermining our electoral system. The bizarre ‘cures’ championed, accepted by too many unwitting citizens as true, are doing more damage to our political system than was already accomplished in the past by sheer apathy. Because those of us who know better and who truly want our government to work as we presume the Founders intended; and who have been exercising our considerable energies (and finite monetary resources) to educating those of our fellow citizens without access to our information or facts or powers of analysis, often with only psychic remuneration; now are additionally compelled to expend our finite resources de-programming those same citizens who have been indoctrinated with this poisonous tripe.

Here’s how Urban Dictionary defines the word “frenemy“:

An enemy disguised as a friend.The type of “friend” whose words or actions bring you down (whether you realize it as intentional). The type of friend you ought to cut off but don’t cuz…he’s nice… good…you’ve had good times with him. He’s good people you can count on to bring you down again sometime in the near future.The friend you may or may not have cornered about his quicksand-like ways and keep around rationalizing “its in the past”…. The person who will continue to bring you down until you demand better for yourself.

So, who has aroused my ire to the point of becoming the first frenemy on my brand new list, the person who whether intentionally or through a personal character flaw is leading you astray under the guise of helping you to find your way?

Leo Donofrio, Attorney at Law.

And what precisely after all of this time has put me into a ‘I’ve-had-it-up-to-here’ stance with respect to Mr. Donofrio’s seemingly endless deluge of fecal matter-cum-legal critique? That *!*!*!* 200+-page amicus brief he assembled and is submitting to every ballot challenge forum he can find, from the GA OSAH hearing to the IL election commission.

(Note: For the purpose of this article, I am intentionally omitting any discussion as to the propriety of submitting such a brief in the first place.)

At first, I only intended to dismiss the brief as irrelevant, by specifically pointing to Leo’s reliably faulty analyses of so many other issues in the past few years. (Note: I am not charging here that everything Leo writes is legally unsound, but only that assuming it is unsound is safer than a detrimental reliance on its validity.) For example, more than 3 years ago, I drafted those military complaints after seeing those many failed attempts by Plaintiffs to address the issue of Presidential eligibility through the federal courts, whose cases were tossed out on procedural grounds. Looking for a way to get around the ‘standing’ problem they encountered, I found the the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, which led to the idea that people seeking redress in federal court could ask for a Declaratory Judgment, using state National Guard Plaintiffs subject to federal recall. Naturally, when drafting the military complaint, I cited to the applicable federal law. Yet, Leo criticized my proposal as un-Constitutional, absurdly arguing federal courts could not issue declaratory judgments! Now, it’s true, the Constitution explicitly says, the authority of the federal court is restricted to deciding “cases” and controversies.”  http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/controversy  But, of course, the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act provides a mechanism for obtaining the court’s opinion within the framework of this restriction.  (His rationale in this instance represented a common flaw that appears in Leo’s reasoning: he looks narrowly to the ‘plain language’ in a passage without considering its practical meaning in the larger legal and political context.) (FYI, here is the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure on Declaratory Judgments. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_57 For a comprehensive explanation as to when the federal court may issue declaratory judgments, see http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag21_user.html)

Then, there was the time he argued that he had found a federal law allowing a member of the security division of the Executive branch to withhold ‘secrets’ from the President, the boss of the Executive, based on a determination, this is in the public interest. I spent hours explaining, especially on CW’s blog, this is not what the law means. For definitions of the terms contained in this section of the law, you have to look at another section of the law. And those definitions spelled out, the law Leo claimed applied to the President applied only to contract employees. (Or you can use your common sense!) Indeed, I intended to make my case that any ‘legal’ work produced by Mr. Donofrio is irrelevant; by searching through years of internet postings, in which I refuted such tripe; and even began such a search. But I found the task overwhelming. (Readers of the CW blog familiar with this exchange might look it up and send here; I will post.)

I also figured Leo likely had only reached the 200-page milestone by incorporating into this amicus brief much of that same flawed ‘legal’ reasoning I had already de-bunked over the years. That’s when I decided to skim the brief. And, sure enough, this document contains many of those ‘legal’ arguments conjured up only in Leo’s imagination, which arguments even if they could be said to validate his personal private machinations; nonetheless still detract from the practical approach required to engage an active citizenry in shoring up our electoral system so as to ensure, only the candidate who is a NBC, can be elected for the job.

PLEASE, LEST YOU ARE TEMPTED AT THE OUTSET OF MY ANALYSIS TO COMPARE, CONTRAST, OR CHALLENGE RESPECTIVE CREDENTIALS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE PUBLIC BY US ON-LINE PUNDITS; STOP! I have asked readers to consider our respective legitimacy only by examining on-line track records based on criteria that include reliability of analysis, and accurate reporting of facts, a feat which can be accomplished even absent full access to the particulars in his or her CV. (Let’s start with this fact. The legal and political analyses of issues related to presidential eligibility which I began in 2008 in response to voter concerns, led me to recommend at that time, given existing state laws, the mechanism for keeping Barack Obama out of the WH was to keep his name off the state election ballot. Leo only accessed this mechanism for redress of the eligibility dilemma, 3 1/2 years after the fact.) CHALLENGING BO’S ELIGIBILITY TO GET ONTO THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT AS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR POTUS)

Leo begins the amicus brief with his assumptions of these facts: 1) Barack Obama was born in HI; and 2) his father was a British subject at the time of his birth. Then, based on these assumptions, he argues, Barack Obama is not a NBC because Minor v. Happersett defines only those citizens born in the U.S. of 2 U.S. citizen parents are NBCs.

No, it does not. And I have explained several times, it does not. For example, see SENSE and non-SENSE, relying on such sources such as the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University School of Law. Nor does Minor in any way limit the definition of NBC to only those people born in the U.S. of 2 U.S. citizen parents.

The decision from the lower courts which was appealed to the Supreme Court in Minor was quite narrow:

The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

Thus, the main focus of this case was not on citizenship; in fact, everyone involved in the case already agreed, based on the wording of the 14th Amendment, she was a citizen. Rather, the question presented to the high court was whether privileges and immunities connected to  citizenship included the right to vote. The lower courts had ruled, it did not. Minor disagreed; that’s why she appealed. But before the high court could issue what would then become a legal “fact” with respect to voting as a privilege and immunity of citizenship; it first had to determine whether those “persons” now classified in the 14th Amendment as (having always been) citizens with a right to privileges and immunities, (historically) included women. If yes; the court would then determine whether voting had historically been treated as a privilege and immunity of citizenship, so as to determine whether it would be a privilege and immunity of citizenship, now. For this analysis, the court looked back at the history of women-qua-persons-who-would-have-been-considered-citizens pre-14th Amendment. Determining Minor was always considered a citizen (and thus, would have enjoyed the privileges and immunities of citizenship) even before the formalization of that designation in the 14th Amendment, was easy. As the court pointed out, given her specific set of circumstances – she was a woman born in the U.S. of 2 U.S. citizen parents – the literature was consistent. Thus, at a minimum, she was a citizen entitled to the same privileges and immunities of all citizens. Then, the court ‘just’ had to consider whether voting was one of these privileges and immunities which had historically been attached to such citizenship.

But you didn’t stop there.

Referring again to the Minor court, you wrote, “Their holding was that natural-born citizens were citizens at birth who do not require the 14th Amendment to establish their membership in the nation.” No, it was not; the holding in Minor had absolutely nothing to do with citizenship. Remember, the lower courts all agreed, Minor was both a citizen of MO and of the U.S.; and that voting wasn’t a privilege and immunity with respect to such citizenship. Minor appealed to the high court on the narrow grounds, she believed voting was a privilege and immunity tied to her citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

Here’s the holding in Minor, again, closely correlated to the narrow question asked:

Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

As for your statement that the court [said] Minor was a citizen before the 14th Amendment, well, of course, it could not say otherwise, since everyone who was a U.S. citizen before the 14th Amendment was still a citizen after its passage; and no one who wasn’t already a U.S. citizen was made a citizen by this Amendment. The court actually said,

There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are expressly declared to be “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association.

Id.

Read the legislative history; the 14th Amendment did not confer a new status of citizenship on anyone not already a citizen before its passage, whether native, natural born, or naturalized. It merely had to find that   http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14a_user.html#amdt14a_hd1

And then, you really went off the deep end. “The Court determined it was necessary to define the class of natural-born citizens, and the definition remains current legal precedent.”

Leo, for goodness sake, get a grip. The court explicitly only set out to confirm that the word “citizen” appearing in the 14th Amendment also meant women who ‘belonged’ to this country before the 14th Amendment officially codified they were citizens. Because once it confirmed that women had always been considered ‘citizens,’ from the founding of this country and, therefore, that all of the privileges and immunities attached to such citizenship, beginning at that time, should apply now under the 14th Amendment; it could then figure out whether voting had been treated as a privilege or immunity of that citizenship. It made no difference to the analysis rendered by the court whether Minor could be said to be a native, natural born, or naturalized citizen but only whether she could be said to have been a citizen even before that word was codified in the 14th Amendment; and only because the rights enumerated in the 14th Amendment were limited to citizens. Yes, by reasoning that Minor was a citizen before the 14th Amendment the court also confirmed, the amendment did not confer new citizenship status or rights but merely ‘codified’ s status which already existed with respect to Minor. However, it did not, as you would suggest, confirm, in dicta, that the only “citizens” who were citizens before the 14th Amendment were NBCs; rather, it only confirmed that, at least, NBCs (like Minor) were citizens before the 14th Amendment.

Thus, consistent with the lower courts, the Supreme Court agreed, Minor was a citizen according to the language in the 14th Amendment. Then, examining the implications of citizenship before the 14th Amendment, the court found, in fact, Minor rightly could be considered a citizen before the 14th Amendment. But, alas, having examined the historical privileges and immunities ancillary to citizenship before the 14th Amendment; it also agreed, voting appears not to have been one of those privileges and immunities of citizenship. Thus, the court did not have to enforce a right to vote in MO. (Interestingly, the court  virtually invited the electorate to cure this mistake.)

We have given this case the careful consideration its importance demands. If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us. The arguments addressed to us bearing upon such a view of the subject may perhaps be sufficient to induce those having the power, to make the alteration, but they ought not to be permitted to influence our judgment in determining the present rights of the parties now litigating before us. No argument as to woman’s need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a State to withhold.

Id.

In sum, with respect to the 14th Amendment and citizenship, NO U.S. CITIZENS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY SATISFIED THE CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENTS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL STATES OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NEEDED THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH THEIR U.S. CITIZENSHIP. BOTH THOSE CITIZENS WHO WERE CITIZENS ON THE BASIS THAT THEY WERE BORN HERE OF 2-CITIZEN PARENTS; AND THOSE CITIZENS WHO WERE CITIZENS ON THE BASIS THAT THEY WERE BORN HERE OF NON-CITIZEN PARENTS; AND THOSE CITIZENS WHO WERE CITIZENS ON THE BASIS THAT THEY WERE NATURALIZED HERE,WERE ALREADY CITIZENS OF THE NATION BEFORE THE 14TH AMENDMENT, EVEN IF THESE SAME U.S. CITIZENS FAILED TO QUALIFY AS CITIZENS OF INDIVIDUAL STATES UNDER THE LAWS OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL STATES OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. THUS, ALL OF THESE CITIZENS WHO WERE ALREADY CITIZENS OF THE NATION BEFORE THE 14TH AMENDMENT, WERE MENTIONED IN THE 14TH AMENDMENT ONLY FOR THIS NARROW PURPOSE: TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE NOW KNEW, BEING CITIZENS MEANS, BEING ENTITLED TO THE SAME DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES AS ALL OTHER CITIZENS FROM NOW ON.

Got that now? And the only reason the court even reached the analysis of Minor’s citizenship was so as to confirm the word “citizen” and “person” as used in the new 14th Amendment necessarily meant even before the 14th Amendment, women who were similarly situated, that is, women born here of 2 citizen parents, but only because Minor was a woman born here of 2 citizen parents. Once it determined the threshold issue, that is, the new Amendment did, indeed, apply to the woman named in the present case; it stopped the ‘citizen’ aspect of its analysis and reached the voting qua “privileges and immunities” of citizenship core of the case. The Minor court only ruled, for the first time, under this new right vested in citizens by the 14th Amendment, voting cannot be said to be a “privilege or immunity.” It did not rule that only citizens born here of 2 citizen parents are NBCs.

Then, Leo contradicted himself.

The Minor Court’s construction of the natural-born citizen clause was the independent ground by which the Court avoided construing the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.Therefore, such construction is precedent, not dicta, despite Presidential eligibility not being an issue in that case. The Court determined it was necessary to define the class of natural-born citizens, and the definition remains current legal precedent.

As I have stated, the Minor court did, in fact, undertake a legal and historical analysis which, as a threshold issue, determined that, as the word “citizen” was used in the new 14th Amendment; Minor was a citizen even before the 14th Amendment. Thus, having considered the issue of Minor’s pre-14th Amendment citizenship (status) in order to “construe” that the word “citizen” in the 14th Amendment means her; the court cannot be said to be simultaneously “avoiding construing the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.” It did construe the 14th Amendment’s guarantee to equal privileges and immunities of all citizens, to mean all “persons” who have ‘belonged’ to this country even before the 14th Amendment, including women. At this same time, it did avoid an exhaustive exploration of all of the possible iterations of  ‘women belonging to a country’ which also might rightly have triggered the designation “citizen” that appears in the 14th Amendment and, thereby implicated the “privileges and immunities” clause. And it avoided an exhaustive consideration of these ancillary issues because in the present case, it did not have to reach these issues in order to render its ruling on the case before the court.

Finally, Leo again raises the specter of Vattel. For goodness sake, give up that ghost! DEFINITION on DEMAND

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

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.)


A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH: EPILOGUE

September 15, 2010

In the COUP Trilogy (A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 4); (2 of 4); and (3 of 4) I charged that DNC operatives hid hundreds of votes of Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Nominating Convention so as to ensure Obama’s foregone nomination would be based only on votes cast by delegates pledged to either candidate, and not on votes cast by unpledged PLEO’s, or Party Leaders and Elected Officials, the so-called super delegates. Further, I alleged the DNC instituted this maneuver so as to allow these PLEO’s to avoid scrutiny they had sold their votes to the higher bidder. One week later, I want to clarify these 2 (two) points; and to add another.

First, do not let the technicalities and background narratives of these pieces obscure this damning fact: members of the Democratic Party conspired to violate the election laws passed in 13 (thirteen) states.

Second, although my conclusions as to the role the PLEO’s played in this coup was new, the information that they were bought, was not. Nor was any of the other information I posted regarding the advance planning implemented by senior D’s to ensure Obama would be the Presidential nominee, including configuring a skewed votes-per-delegate formula. Or the ongoing machinations to ensure his nomination, such as re-allocating pledged delegates from one candidate to another, by the RBC; and compelling ongoing negotiations regarding not only how and when, but also whether to hold what should have been an automatic open roll call vote of all states on the floor of the convention, consistent with past practice. What was new was the way in which I wove all of these together into cause and effect. And just because the facts fit my final conclusion, this does not mean, I am right although, naturally, I believe I am.

Most importantly, the reason I wrote the COUP Trilogy telling you how election laws were broken – and these vote binding laws are all codified in the section of state laws marked “Election” – was so that you could do something about it.

I admit and have admitted several times, I was ignorant as to how our political system worked in real life, before the 2008 election cycle. But in the past two years, I have worked tirelessly to de-construct the election process and then, to explain what I learned to my fellow citizens, in terms lay people can understand. That’s one of the reasons I provided so much background information in this series, especially when the charges I was making could have been accomplished in much fewer lines. For example, I detailed how I stumbled onto vote binding states and frantically worked to get the word out. Why? Because this information did not make the ‘news.’ In other words, you would not know what I did unless I told you. This is precisely why I told you. I hoped that chronicling the serendipitous nature of my ‘discoveries,’ I would help you to realize, by overseeing the electoral process, asking questions whenever you think something isn’t quite right until you are satisfied you understand what went wrong, you, too, can come to know as much about our political system as those who ‘did wrong.’

In other instances, I pointed you to exactly what went wrong, even if the conduct was not illegal. For example, I included numerous links which led to more information spelling out that PLEO’s voiced public support for the D candidate who donated more money to his or her PAC’s (Political Action Committees).

But figuring out what went wrong or being told what went wrong points to the inherent shortcoming of all of my work. That is, just knowing what went wrong is not enough; now, you have to fix it.

For some people, this means educating others, or correcting mistakes where possible, especially when it comes to members of the press, who, at least when reporting on the voting obligation of pledged delegates at the convention, keep getting it wrong. Some people will have to do more.

For example, our state officials must be compelled to enforce existing laws. Even with admittedly flawed election laws, zealous law enforcement alone could have prevented the fraud that pervaded the 2008 elections. This means doing more than just writing or calling when both prove ineffective to get the official’s attention. People will be required to visit state offices to advance their concerns, accompanied by friends, family, and colleagues, arm-in-arm with the press. In states with holes in existing laws, for example, those states with no vote binding laws, we need to enact these laws. Votes in our state should mean something, whether cast in a general election or in a Presidential preference primary. Otherwise, we should refuse to conduct the primary for the political party. After all, we enacted the laws whose language allowed these private clubs to insinuate themselves into our governmental process in the first place. Only we have the power to write them out.

We also have to ‘call out’ those officials who did us wrong.

I wonder; DID ANYONE CONTACT THE OFFICIALS WHOSE CONVENTION VOTES WERE FOR SALE TO SAY, SHAME ON YOU! If their conduct in this regard now persuades you to vote for someone else, how will they know? If you don’t support the votes cast by your elected officials; or if they won’t enforce vote binding laws in your state (or even investigate charges against a party official who placed the name of a candidate on the ballot notwithstanding he was ineligible for the job) then, announce to these officials you intend not to re-elect them into office. And don’t. But also make sure the candidates now getting your votes know that you expect these unresolved issues to be addressed, as the price of being elected into office.

In the week since the COUP series ran, I received comments that point to another weak link in the omnibus citizen advocacy required to fix our political system: partisanship.

Citizen activism has to be non-partisan. After all, vote binding laws apply to everyone in the state, and they were passed by legislators elected by all of the voters. These are LAWS, not R laws, or D laws, or laws only for Unenrolled’s. (I wonder whether any of you, being R’s, ignored the paid off super delegates because the elected officials who bought off the D’s were D’s themselves? Being D’s, did you ignore the bribery of your public officials for this same reason?) Elected officials swear allegiance to the state and federal Constitutions, and not to the major political parties. Regardless of party affiliation, they need to take these oaths seriously. And regardless of party we, the sovereign citizens, have to make them.

I am not saying bipartisanship alone guarantees a job well done. In TX, the law says, only candidates eligible for office can get their names printed on the state ballot. Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) swore to state election officials Obama was eligible to be President but refuses to disclose the documentary basis for his Certification. Based in part on these facts, hundreds of citizens of TX – R’s and D’s and I’s – filed well-documented complaints with AG Greg Abbot (R-TX) charging Mr. Richie had committed election fraud. So far, Mr. Abbott refuses to act on these citizen complaints.

On the other hand, you saw that AG Baker (D-GA), on receiving well-documented complaints from citizens of GA – again, D’s and R’s and I’s – that Obama (D-IL) was violating vote binding laws, did something. IMMEDIATELY. (I wrote the letters but these had to be sent by real citizens of GA, with real addresses in the state. After all, AG Baker works for them.)

We have to begin thinking about the electoral process as non-partisan. Not just because as we have seen in the case of the rampant election fraud perpetrated by members of the D Party; the results have impacted us all. But because if one party sees we are impotent to moderate the conduct of the other, then, it correctly extrapolates our impotence across the political spectrum.

Certainly, we citizens are much stronger acting together to address the flaws in our political system than we are acting as agents for interested political parties.

Finally, I want to emphasize the underlying themes of all of the work I produce with respect to how our political system plays out in real life. Citizenship in our Constitutional Republic is not a spectator sport; and no weapon staves off tyranny more effectively than an educated electorate. Bottom line, I spelled out for you in the COUP series the unlawful fraud that occurred at the 2008 DNC Convention, effecting the outcome of the 2008 Presidential election, entrusting you to ‘run’ with this information. Otherwise, I predict, in the 2012 campaign cycle, your most cynical aspirations will come true. That is, nothing will change. (Except, of course, next time, you will understand perfectly everything that goes wrong.)

EPILOGUE to A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH

In the COUP Trilogy (A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3); (2 of 3); and (3 of 3) I charged that DNC operatives hid hundreds of votes of Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Nominating Convention so as to ensure Obama’s foregone nomination would be based only on votes cast by delegates pledged to either candidate, and not on votes cast by unpledged PLEO’s, or Party Leaders and Elected Officials, the so-called super delegates.  Further, I alleged the DNC instituted this maneuver so as to allow these PLEO’s to avoid scrutiny they had sold their votes to the higher bidder.  In retrospect, I want to clarify these 2 (two) points; and to end with another.

First, I hope that the technicalities and background narratives of these pieces did not obscure the main point:  members of the Democratic Party conspired to violate election laws passed in 13 (thirteen) states.

Second, my conclusions as to the role the PLEO’s played in this coup was new but the information they were bought, was not.  Nor was any of the other information I posted regarding the planning implemented to ensure Obama would be the Presidential nominee, including configuring a skewed votes-per-delegate formulas; or re-allocating pledged delegates from one candidate to another, by the RBC; or conducting ongoing negotiations regarding not only how and when, but also whether to hold what should have been an automatic open roll call vote of all states on the floor of the convention, consistent with past practice.  What was new was my putting this all together.  And just because the facts fit my final conclusion, this does not mean, I am right.  Naturally, I believe I am.

So, why did I provide so much background information when the charges I was making could have been accomplished in much fewer lines?  For example, I included a lot of background information, like how I stumbled onto vote binding states and frantically worked to get the word out, which information did not make the ‘news.’ That is, you would not know what I did unless I told you. So, I told you.  Because I hope you realize you, too, can figure out something is wrong; and then do something about it.  Whenever you think something isn’t quite right, follow up.  Research.  Ask questions on the blogs.  Until you are satisfied.  And then, educate others, or correct mistakes where necessary, especially when it comes to members of the press, who, at least in reporting on the votes of pledged delegates from vote binding states, keep getting it wrong.

More importantly, now that you know election laws were broken, this calls for redress.

I admit and have admitted several times, I was ignorant as to how our political system worked in real life, before the 2008 election cycle.  But in the past two years, I have worked tirelessly to de-construct the election process so that lay people could understand how it works, and where it doesn’t, take action to shore it up. And that citizen activism must be non-partisan.  After all, vote binding laws apply to everyone in the state, and they were passed by legislators elected by all voters in the state.  These are LAWS, not R laws, or D laws, or laws only for Unenrolled’s.  Public officials swear allegiance to the state and federal Constitutions, and not to the major political parties.

In TX, the law says, only candidates eligible for office can get their names printed on the state ballot.  Boyd Richie, Chair of the TDP swore to state election officials Obama was eligible to be President but refuses to disclose the documentary basis for his Certification.  Based on these facts, hundreds of citizens of TX filed well-documented complaints with AG Greg Abbot (D-TX) charging Mr. Richie had committed election fraud.  Mr. Abbott won’t touch these citizen complaints. But you saw that AG Baker, D-GA, on receiving well-documented complaints from citizens of GA that Obama was violating vote binding laws, did something.  IMMEDIATELY.  (I wrote the letters but they had to be sent by real citizens of GA, with real addresses in the state. After all, AG Baker works for them.) We have to begin thinking about the electoral process as non-partisan.  Because the results affect us all. And we have to compel our state officials to enforce the law, regardless of party.  That’s our job.

I also included numerous links in this series which would lead to more links, which would spell out that PLEO’s voiced public support for the D candidate who donated more money to his or her campaigns.  Did people follow these links and investigate their elected officials?  Did they share this information with families, friends, and colleagues?  DID THEY CONTACT THE OFFICIAL TO SAY, SHAME ON YOU!  Will they now vote for someone else?  Don’t like the way an elected official votes; or that, s/he will not pursue charges against the D’s who placed the name of a candidate on the ballot notwithstanding he was ineligible for the job; or won’t enforce vote binding laws in your state, announce you intend not to re-elect that person into office.  And then, don’t.

And if states have no such vote binding laws, we need to enact them.  Votes in our state should mean something, whether they are cast in a general election or in a primary for a political party.  Otherwise, we should refuse to conduct the primary for the political party.  After all, we enacted the laws whose language allowed these private clubs to insinuate themselves into our governmental process in the first place.  And we can write them out.


Good citizenship in our Constitutional Republic is not a spectator sport.  And an educated electorate is tyranny’s worst enemy.


A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 4)

August 10, 2010

(Note to Readers:  The “COUP” Series is now complete.  See, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 4), (3 of 4), and EPILOGUE.)

© 2010 jbjd

Introduction

The Democratic National Committee Services Corporation, disguised as the DNC, installed Barack Obama into the Office of President of the United States of America by committing massive election fraud that played out uniquely during each of these 3 (three) phases of the 2008 Presidential election cycle in relation to the company’s August 2008 Presidential Nominating Convention: 1) pre-Convention; 2) Convention; and 3) post-Convention. The fraud committed both before and after the Convention has been dissected in several articles previously posted here on the “jbjd” blog.

This  four-part series entitled, “A Coup, Through and Through” analyzes the fraud pulled off at the Convention.

Keep in mind, not all fraud is created equal. While the record establishes the D’s committed fraud throughout the general election cycle, my work has remained focused almost exclusively only on that fraudulent conduct which both 1) violated laws explicitly or implicitly proscribing such conduct; and 2) arguably altered the outcome of the 2008 Presidential (Electors) election.

Part 1: Prologue to Fraud

Before Barack Obama could be installed in the Oval Office, interested parties both within and outside of the Democratic National Committee Services Corporation had to ensure he would win the DNC Presidential nomination so that his name could appear next to the D on the general election ballot.  Because, as I have previously opined, while Electors voting in December may elect anyone they want; I could not imagine they would dare to elect a President whose name hadn’t even appeared on the November ballot. NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON (1 of 2) and (2 of 2). (Note:  I recently learned the D’s have been pressing state legislatures to pass the National Popular Vote Initiative (“NPVI”).  If this thing gets through, I believe even a candidate who fails to qualify to get on the ballot in one or more states can still be elected.) (See, HOW ADOPTING the “NATIONAL POPULAR VOTED INITIATIVE” CAN STEAL an ELECTION ‘BY HOOK’ and ‘BY CROOK’.)

But given the several problems they knew were inherent to his candidacy, any one of which, if exposed, could prove fatal to his political aspirations, winning the nomination would require that they clinch the nomination as far as possible in advance of the DNC convention. In this way, they could limit the scope of the public examination of the candidate apt to occur in a protracted battle for the nomination.

They were willing to do whatever it took to accumulate enough pledged delegates during the primary and caucus contests to reach the magic number that long before the convention would ensure at that time, he would be handed the nomination. Manufacture chaos at the caucuses and capitalize on the confusion created? Check. Collude with A.C.O.R.N.? Check. Censor critics with charges of racism? Check. Cultivate a compliant press willing to conceal stories unflattering to either the candidate’s character or, their own complicit conduct on the road to his nomination? Check and check.

When the numbers for Hillary Clinton, his toughest competition in the race for the nomination, placed these two in a virtual dead heat with 3 (three) more months until the primary and caucus contests ended and 5 (five) months until the convention, co-opt the free will of the voters by spreading the meme she has already lost the nomination? Check. Co-opt the free will of the candidate by calling her a sore loser if she doesn’t drop out of the race now and throw her support(ers) to him, for the good of the party? Check.

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

But even factoring in the votes of those super delegates already expressing support for Obama, with less than 3 (three) months to go before the convention he still had not achieved the superiority in delegates that would secure his nomination. And the delay had taken its costly and anticipated toll.

Despite their best efforts to control the narrative, one of those ‘problems fatal to his political aspirations,’ known as Rev. Jeremiah Wright, had leaked out. And from the time the public learned of the long close relationship between the candidate and his avowed “spiritual adviser,” he had already lost more than 10 (ten) points in the polls.

To understand what they did next, you need to know the difference between being designated a Clinton pledged delegate and an Obama pledged delegate.

Attorney Bob Bauer, then counsel to the DNC and now WH Counsel, explains the delegate selection process to the federal court in DiMaio v. DNC, a case not material to the fraud laid out here.

The DNC is the governing body of the Democratic Party of the United States and is responsible for promulgating delegate selection rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention…The nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States is chosen by the delegates to the Democratic National Convention held in each presidential election year. The National Convention is organized and run by an arm of the DNC. The delegates from each state are chosen through a process adopted by the state’s Democratic Party. For each presidential election starting in 1976, the DNC has established formal Delegate Selection Rules to govern the selection, in each state, of its delegates to the National Convention. These rules require each State Democratic Party to develop a written delegate selection plan and to submit that plan to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (“DNC RBC”) for review and approval. The delegate selection process in each state involves two basic functions: (1) the allocation of delegate positions among presidential candidates, i.e., how many delegates from that state will go to the Convention pledged to each candidate; and (2) the selection of the actual individuals to fill those positions, i.e., the selection of the people who will attend the Convention as delegates and alternates. Generally, state parties use either a primary or a caucus/convention system. In a primary system, the state party uses the state-government run or a party-run primary election to allocate delegate positions, and then a party-run meeting (caucus) to fill those positions. In a caucus system, the state party uses a series of party-run meetings — caucuses — both to allocate delegate positions and to select the persons to fill those positions. A caucus/convention system does not involve use of the state’s electoral machinery. Of the 56 states and territories that sent delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, 20 used party run caucus/convention systems.

http://www-lvs13.net.ohio-state.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Dimaio-Brief-9-19-08.pdf

In short, the numbers of votes a candidate receives in a party primary or caucus contest translates into so many pledged delegates awarded, based on the vote:delegate ratio concocted in advance by the party. When the contest is over, the state party meets to select which party faithful, pledging fealty to one candidate or the other, will fill the slot of pledged delegate for his or her preferred candidate and then cast a vote for that candidate at the national nominating convention.

On May 31, the DNC RBC met to finalize their response to the dilemma presented by FL and MI. Legislatures in both states had moved up their primaries in contradiction to the calendar set by the DNC. As punishment, the DNC indicated it would not seat delegates from either state at the convention. (Accused of “pandering” to Iowa, Obama had pulled his name off the ballot in MI. Clinton did not. She won heavily in both states but, the DNC and their allies in the press not only did not count those pledged delegate numbers in her totals, they did not even credit her with receiving the number of popular votes.) DNC Chairman Howard Dean had said in March, he expected delegates were “eventually going to be seated in Florida and Michigan as soon as we get an agreement between the candidates on how to do that.”  In the meantime, each state party had allocated pledged delegates based on the actual popular vote for the candidates whose names appeared on the ballot, including those delegates who filled the slots represented by the ‘name’ “Uncommitted,” a category that received 40% of the MI vote.

The Committee,  whose members were hand-picked by Chairman Dean, heard from both of the states involved, and from representatives of both of the candidates, and then made their decision.  In FL, where both candidates appeared on the ballot, the Committee awarded delegates in accordance with the popular vote, but gave each delegate only half a vote at the convention. But desperate to bolster Obama’s sagging numbers, his allies on the Committee adopted this solution for MI. First, all delegates would be seated at the convention but with only half a vote each. Second, all votes that had been cast for “Uncommitted” were now deemed to have been cast for Obama; and delegates assigned based on votes cast for “Uncommitted” would be reassigned to delegates loyal to him. Third, 4 (four) of those pledged delegates already assigned to Clinton as the result of votes cast for her; would be taken away and re-gifted to him.

In the eyes of many stalwart Democrats, by second-guessing the voters’ intent in this way, the RBC had abandoned the core principle of “fair reflection” enshrined in the DNC Charter. Harold Ickes, an adviser to the Clinton campaign, pulled no punches. “This motion will hijack, hijack, remove four delegates won by Hillary Clinton and most importantly reflect the preferences of 600,000 Michigan voters. This body of 30 individuals has decided that they are going to substitute their judgment for 600,000 voters.”

On June 3, the primary / caucus season ended.  Clinton suspended but did not end her campaign.

Once upon a time – March 28, 2008, to be exact – Chairman Dean announced to the press he thought it would be “nice” if by “July 1,” all of the  superdelegates weighed in with the name of the candidate they would support, implicitly acknowledging even back then that neither candidate would secure the requisite number of pledged delegates throughout the remainder of the primary / caucus contests  to ensure the August nomination.  Top Democrat wants party contest decided by July 1. But on June 4, the day after the primaries ended and just 5 (five) days after the RBC issued its controversial shuffling of the MI delegate deck to sweeten Obama’s hand, the following headlines appeared in the L.A. Times:  “BREAKING NEWS:  Dean, Pelosi, Reid set Friday deadline for superdelegates’ choices, move to force end to Clinton bid

According to the article, DNC Chairman Dean; Nancy Pelosi, (Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and 3rd in line of Presidential succession, acting in a civilian capacity as Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention); and Senator Harry Reid jointly issued a “carefully worded statement” which was widely interpreted as “a clear step to force an end to the effort by Clinton,” telling superdelegates to make their candidate choices known “tomorrow.”

Tomorrow? Whatever happened to “by July 1”?  Why this sudden (and rather petulant) rush to memorialize Obama’s coronation?  Probably because those pesky problems with his candidacy were about to derail his political aspirations.

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.

Yet hard as everyone tried, Clinton just would not abandon the nomination. And why should she? Examining the traditional rubrics of success – total number of pledged delegates; popular votes; likelihood to beat the Republican in the general election – the two contenders remained within the ‘margin of error.’ Besides, neither Clinton nor Obama had amassed the requisite number of pledged delegates to wrap up the nomination on the first call of the roll on the floor of the convention.

The Obama campaign launched “Fight the Smears” on June 12.

Up until this point, the ‘dirty tricks’ carried out by operatives tied to the D Corporation to lie and cheat their man’s way into the D nomination were only sinister and underhanded.  But, with the exception of the allocation of votes:delegates in Texas, technically, they were within the letter of the law. (LULAC v. Texas Democratic Party.) All that changed in the summer months leading up to the convention, when Obama and his champions and converts, now clawing at straws, conspired to literally steal the nomination.

The state parties had specifically chosen delegates to fill the number of slots reserved for Clinton or Obama as the result of votes cast for her or him in the primary or caucus contest, based on their loyalty to either one candidate or the other. But DNC rules only insist that pledged delegates voting at the national convention “in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” (Emphasis added by jbjd.) http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/fb3fa279c88bf1094b_qom6bei0o.pdf, p. 23. In other words, under DNC rules, there is no such thing as a “pledged” delegate. (At one time, the DNC did have such a “robot rule,” which required delegates pledged to a candidate to vote for that candidate at the convention. But they eliminated that rule in 1982.)

Which was a good thing for Obama emissaries who now fanned out across the country and harassed her delegates, in person and by wire, to get them to agree to switch their votes to him, before the convention.

Twisting arms to ‘turn’ pledged delegates before the convention was not only not prohibited under DNC rules but also, in 37 (thirty-seven) states, it wasn’t against the law. As for the other 13 (thirteen) states, well, that was quite a different story.

See, voters in 13 states  – AZ, GA, IN, KY, MA, NH, NM, OH, OK, OR, TN, VA, and the delegate mother lode, CA – had enacted this special legislation. ‘In our state, pledged means PLEDGED. This means, delegates pledged to a candidate as the result of votes cast in the political party’s primary or caucus election; must vote for the candidate voters elected them to represent, at the party’s nominating convention.’ (I ‘discovered’ these states in the summer of 2008 and named them “vote binding states.”) In short, extorting Clinton pledged delegates in these 13 vote binding states to commit to switching their votes to Obama before the convention, was against the law.

And they knew what they were doing was illegal.

Because as Mr. Bauer wrote in his submission to the federal court in DiMaio; “[DNC] rules require each State Democratic Party to develop a written delegate selection plan and to submit that plan to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (“DNC RBC”) for review and approval.” Id. (The DNC RBC is the same outfit that on May 31 had shuffled the candidate’s delegate count in a blatantly partisan attempt to improve Obama’s numbers and move him closer to the nomination.) And, contained in those DNC delegate selection rules is provision 2.2: Each State Party Committee shall include the following documentation with the submission of its Plan to the RBC:

(I) a copy of all state statutes reasonably related to the delegate selection process. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/e824f455b24c7782dc_jjm6ib44l.pdf

Being “related to the delegate selection process,” the state law that required pledged delegates to vote at the convention for the candidate voters elected them to represent was included in the delegate selection plan each of these 13 states had submitted to and was subsequently approved by the DNC RBC.  In other words, Obama’s agents who began harassing Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states to switch their votes to him, months before the convention, undoubtedly knew they were breaking the law.

But desperate times called for desperate measures.

(Next:  Part 2:  Lead-up to the Coup)


SLEIGHT-of-HAND in the “SHOW-ME” STATE

July 11, 2010

© 2010 jbjd

(IMPORTANT UPDATE IN TEXT, IN ORANGE, 02.13.12)

(UPDATE 07.25.10, AT END OF ARTICLE)

(IMPORTANT UPDATE ON 07.13.10, AT END OF ARTICLE)

Being an ‘in your face’ kinda gal, I always admired the no-nonsense approach indicated in Missouri’s unofficial sobriquet:  the “Show-Me” State.  But the sense of plain dealing that name conjures up is missing from this latest dog-and-pony show coming out of Missouri, involving an unknown candidate for the Republican U.S. Senate primary who is hitching his campaign wagon to the passions he hopes to arouse with complaints the MO Secretary of State discriminated again him by compelling him to prove he is an American citizen or else she would remove his name from the ballot.

It all began when “jbjd” blog cheerleader, Michelle, sent me this video of an interview with U.S. Senator wannabe Hector Maldonado, conducted by Karen Berka from Branson Radio on July 5.  Watch for yourself.

Catch anything funny about this?

Here’s a summary of material claims presented in the video.  Hector Maldonado said he registered with Secretary of State Robin Carnahan to get onto the Republican ballot for U.S. Senate.  (This is the hint that he is is referring to participating in the August primary, where there are both Republican and Democrat ballots, and not the November election.)   (Incidentally, he informed us, Ms. Carnahan is running on the Democratic ballot for that same office.)  She sent him a letter in early May, telling him to provide to her office evidence he is a U.S. citizen, a qualification for office spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.  He ignored the letter.  She followed up with a registered letter, notifying Mr. Maldonado to provide the requested proof of citizenship or be removed from the ballot.  As the result of this 2nd request, Mr. Maldonado provided such documentation, in the form of his U.S. Naturalization papers.  However, he objects to the fact that while he had to produce documentation tending to establish he is a U.S. citizen before Ms. Carnahan would agree to leave his name on the Republican primary ballot; Barack Obama was not required to show evidence of his status as a NBC before his name reached the ballot in the 2008 Democratic Presidential preference primary (and Presidential (Electors) election).  (While not directly addressed in the video, presumably, Mr. Maldonado asked Ms. Carnahan to provide any and all records related to Mr. Obama’s eligibility for office, under Missouri’s open records laws; and was informed, no such records exist.) Mr. Maldonado argues that by requiring qualifying documentation from him but not from Obama, the office of SoS is violating the law.  (I checked; Ms. Carnahan was the SoS for both the 2008 primary and general election. http://www.sos.mo.gov/sosbio.asp)

In other words, Mr. Maldonado charges SoS Carnahan demanded documentary evidence he is a U.S. citizen or else, she would remove his name from the R primary ballot but since no evidence exists in the public record she compelled Mr. Obama to undergo similar scrutiny in 2008; he wants to know why.

I can tell him why; but I suspect he will not be too pleased with my answer.  Because as soon as I got over my initial excitement at the thought Mr. Maldonado’s ‘revelations’ could attract press attention to the massive election fraud pulled off by the D’s in the 2008 election cycle; I started to smell a rat.

Question:  Given that the basis of Mr. Maldonado’s explosive public charges of disparate treatment from the MO SoS are the letters he claims she issued demanding evidence of his qualifications for office; why didn’t he show his audience the letters?

And why didn’t the interviewer, Ms. Berka, ask him to?

I may not be from Missouri but, I am not going to believe a story as easily verifiable as Mr. Maldonado’s tale unless he ‘shows me.’

Figuring he might have posted the letter(s) on his campaign web site, I checked that out.  No letter there either.  Not even a reference to the supposed inequity of this citizenship verification situation.  http://www.hectorforfreedom.com/Home.aspx

The absence of any documentary evidence his story was true told me, it was not.  After all, I began insisting more than 2 (two) years ago now, on that same basis, no member of the D party could have ascertained BO was Constitutionally qualified for office.

Now, to see whether his story is even plausible!

I accessed the web site of the Missouri Secretary of State to examine how candidates may register to appear on the party primary ballot.

Notice the options listed under the heading, “Documents Needed for Filing,” number 2, Proof of Identity:  Voter identification card; Missouri driver’s license;  birth certificate; or other form of certified or photo ID.

In other words, when the prospective candidate shows up to register, s/he needs to prove s/he is who s/he says and no more.

Next, I clicked on “Candidate Qualifications,” which displayed this information.

2010 Elected Officials Qualifications

U. S. Senator – Art. I § 3 U. S. Constitution
  • At least 30 years of age
  • Citizen of United States for 9 years
  • Resident of Missouri
U. S. Representative – Art. I, § 2 U. S. Constitution
  • At least 25 years of age
  • Citizen of United States for 7 years
  • Resident of Missouri

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/elect_qalification.asp

That is, “Qualifications” merely rehashes the Constitutional standard for the federal office sought. (Note:  the qualifications for POTUS do not appear on this mid-term primer.  However, if you are interested, here are instructions for candidates who would register for the Presidential preference primary held in 2008.  http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2008primary/2008ppp/2008pppfilinginfo.asp)

According to the requirements posted above, candidates must register for the ballot in person; and identification must be provided at the time of registration.  Hector Maldonado registered to appear on the August ballot, on February 23, 2010. http://www.sos.mo.gov/candidatesonweb/DisplayCandidatesPlacementStatic2010.asp#USSenate So, even assuming SoS Carnahan sought the requisite identification documents in May; why would she have waited until that time to determine Mr. Maldonado is the same man who registered for office in February?  What about the documentation that accompanied his registration?

Because according to the information posted on the SoS site, not every prospective candidate registering for the ballot must do so, in person.  Which candidate is exempt from registering in person?  Why, a member of the military on active duty!   And according to the press release issued by the newly registered candidate, Mr. Maldonado was on active duty until February 28, 5 (five) days after submitting his registration.  http://pressreleases.kcstar.com/?q=node/30232

This means, his story appears on its face to be not only untrue; but also highly implausible.

It gets worse.

Assuming my hunch is correct and, this is all a big con; who stands to benefit?

Well, back on June 11, 2010 the candidate did a telephone interview with Jonathan Cousar from freedomtorch.com. A Google search obtained this definition of the site: politics, conservative, republican, libertarian, reagan, christian, faith, freedom, ann coulter, michelle malkin, gingrinch, sarah palin, rush limbaugh.”  During the show, both men admitted their close personal ties didn’t start there.  No; as they tell listeners, they traveled together to Washington to protest against ‘Obamacare.’  (Maybe their pre-existing non-professional relationship explains why the interviewer did not ask Mr. Maldonado to provide evidence of his claims of harassment by SoS Carnahan, either.)  The show ends with a plea for cash to be sent to Mr. Maldonado’s campaign web site.

Indeed, dozens of web sites began begging for money with a tie-in to Mr. Maldonado’s passion play out of Missouri.  And I have no doubt that, notwithstanding I have been spelling out for you on this blog for 2 (two) years now the massive fraud Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Bauer, Axelrod, Gibbs, and other players in the DNC Services Corporation pulled off in the 2008 election; many of you were still suckered by these latest ‘save America’ pleas.  (In contrast, PayPal contributions over the past month to “jbjd” totaled $100.)

Thus, as in most big cons, the moral of this story is, ‘follow the money.’

But the lesson of the story is this:  the only way to stop the ‘Chicago combine’ from stealing the election again in 2012 is to seriously examine how our political system works, now.

Epilogue

A bit of good news came out of this wild goose chase, anyway.  In doing the endless research, I learned that MO is an applicable state for citizen complaints of election fraud to the state AG!  That’s right; in 2008, candidates for POTUS from the major political parties had to be Constitutionally qualified for the job! CALLING ALL MISSOURIANS! Contact me ASAP, please, so that I can draft a citizen complaint of election fraud for the “Show-Me” state! (UPDATE 02.13.12: Well, since no one asked me to prepare a citizen complaint of election fraud in MO, which would have required me to cite to the applicable candidate ballot eligibility law; I never focused on verifying that law. But I just read that Mr. Maldonado is filing a ballot challenge in MO, based on President Obama’s ineligibility for the job. So, this time, I honed in on that state’s eligibility law, as it applies to candidates for President whose names appear on the primary ballot BUT WHO ARE ELECTED THROUGH A NOMINATING CONVENTION. And, turns out, the ballot eligibility laws do not apply to them. Thus, no cognizable cause of action exists under those laws with respect to their alleged ineligibility.)

(IMPORTANT UPDATE:  07.13.10)

Well, well, well.  Curiouser and curiouser.  I received a Comment from a “jdirt” – s/he uses the name “jd” for short, get it? – who has somehow come up with an image s/he claims is that infamous letter from SoS Carnahan to Mr. Maldonado.  Here is our exchange.

jbjd,

I am a little taken aback by the tone of your skepticism. Not because you are skeptical, that’s a good thing, but because I perceive that you “smelled a rat” just because the letter wasn’t readily available to you. I almost feel that you automatically rebuffed the story without any due deference.

While you point out that there was no evidence anywhere to confirm the veracity of Mr. Maldonado’s statements, it doesn’t appear that you asked him either. People normally don’t post things all over the place. They don’t naturally assume no one will believe them. All you had to do is simply ask.

Here is the letter that you need to prove his statements are true:

(link omitted by jbjd)

Here is an article I wrote about it:

(link to FR posting omitted by jbjd)

(offensive sexual innuendo removed by jbjd)

Here is my response.

It appears that you are attempting to bamboozle FR readers – no a priori moderation there – and subvert my nom-de-plume in the process. “jdirt”? When you chose that moniker, you effectively announced to your audience that any forthcoming work product was suspect. (The sexual remark, while indicating you have a problem with women; did not signal to me you necessarily have a problem with the truth.) You claim to have a letter that “proves” charges lodged by Hector Maldonado against the SoS of MO, related to confirming his eligibility to appear on the R primary ballot (for U.S. Senate), given that under law, all candidates whose names appear on the ballot in MO, must be eligible for the job. Indeed, several questions arose even before I clicked on the Scribd link to that letter you sent to this blog. Who are you? What is the provenance of that letter? In other words, how did this letter ostensibly addressed to Mr. Maldonado, happen to come to you? Why isn’t this letter posted on the candidate’s U.S. Senate primary web site? I looked at the letter which you linked in a comment to my web site. Seems you created both that page and your new name just for this purpose. Immediately visible were ‘cosmetic’ concerns. What happened to the state seal (and the address in the footer and several words clearly missing from the margins)? Where is the designation this was a Registered Letter? Even with these telltale warning signs as to the authenticity of any letter you provided, nevertheless, I read the letter. Again, more questions. The election official in your letter says, ‘We could have accepted voting records to verify the 9-year citizenship required to be a U.S. Senator but you only registered to vote in 2008. Now, we need further evidence you have been a citizen for 9 (nine) years.’ This would indicate to me, the question was never whether Mr. Maldonado was a citizen but rather, was he a citizen for 9 (nine) years. It appears from the clear language of this letter; he could have established this 9-year citizenship with his voter registration alone.

jdirt, given that you are shilling for citizens’ votes for Mr. Maldonado so that he can become a U.S. Senator – did the candidate authorize your efforts on his behalf? – both you and he will have to provide better evidence of his veracity than this, before I will concede, he is exactly who he says he is, let alone subject readers of this blog to such obvious subterfuge.

Ironically, having to re-visit the documentation on which I had relied for this story, in order to respond to claims from “jdirt” Mr. Maldonado had been telling the truth; instead, I found more evidence he had lied.

I said in my article that Mr. Maldonado claimed to have received a “Registered” letter from the SoS.  However, a review of the video from the Branson Radio interview shows clearly, he said, the letter was “Certified.”  (The WND article by Chelsea Schilling often linked throughout the internet to spread Mr. Maldonado’s story also quotes him as saying, this was a “Certified” letter.  However, in all fairness to Ms. Schilling, it would appear she merely transcribed the video of that Branson interview, which accompanies the piece, and did not actually check on any of the claims therein before posting her article.) Oops, I made a mistake and will issue a correction.  (I have been so tired trying to keep up with the work…) But just to be sure, I checked the tape of the radio broadcast of the interview Mr. Maldonado instigated with his pal, Jonathan Cousar, on FreedomTorch, back on June 11.   Guess what?  In this recording, Mr. M. clearly says, he got a “Registered” letter from the SoS.  Listen.

The moral of this update is clear.  If you do not want “jbjd” to catch you trying to con the American people, you will need to get your stories straight.

UPDATE:  07.25.10:

Mr. Maldonado has now posted the theme song for his U.S. Senate campaign.


%d bloggers like this: