PHYSICIAN, HEAL THYSELF

February 25, 2012

©2012 jbjd

On December 21, 2011, the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (“KSBHA”) upheld the decision it had first entered on November 21, 2011 (after a hearing 1 month earlier) to refuse to grant the application for a license to practice “osteopathic medicine and surgery” in the State of Kansas, submitted by Terrence Lee Lakin, the (former) Lieutenant Colonel who disobeyed orders to deploy to Afghanistan back in 2010.

According to this article on KCTV5 and the included video, Mr. Lakin currently holds licenses to practice in both MD and CO but had applied to obtain the KS license because he had hoped to move to that state to join his brother’s medical practice.

Now, I hope everyone leaves Mr. Lakin alone so that he can get on with the task which is likely to take longer than the rest of his life: recovering from his self-inflicted wounds.

DISCLAIMER: As far as I can tell; a recording of that October hearing cannot be directly accessed through the KSBHA web site. However, I ‘found’ what appears to be an audio recording of that hearing through a link on the Terry Lakin Action Fund website linked to a ‘news’ report containing a link to an audio of the hearing. (Interestingly, that first link on Lakin’s site appeared immediately below a link to a radio show called “Officer’s Oath” broadcast on Terry Lakin Action Fund Radio. This episode featured right wing luminary Carl Swennson (who spells his name with 2 n’s) to discuss “the continnuing question in Georgia of Eligibility…”) (What I could not find anywhere on this site was a link to documents or audio recordings related to his military court martial and conviction for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But those documents can be accessed through links I provided above.)

Anyway, I cannot guarantee the provenance of the recording since I did not obtain this from the KSBHA web site. 19663LakinTerrenceO21Tra…udio.zip

I also found a transcript of the October hearing although, again, this was not through the KSBHA web site and so, again, I cannot vouch for its authenticity. http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kctv//Lakin%20Transcript.pdf

The background to the tragedy which befell Lakin is simple enough, and has been broadly addressed. For example, I wrote about Lakin’s travails in HEROES and VILLAINS; and several others in the blogosphere have more than covered any aspects I might have missed. (The entire saga can be (roughly) pieced together from just the titles of the excellent links provided by the blog Oh, for Goodness Sake, arranged here chronologically. And NIMJ Blog-CAA FLOG is an absolutely fabulous site for all things military; a search of “Terry Lakin” yields hours of relevant material.)

Basically, based on political beliefs; the physician and soldier refused an order of military deployment to minister to troops in Afghanistan. He faced a court martial; was convicted, sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment; and dishonorably discharged from the service. In the words of the KSBHA, his conduct evidenced “a disregard for his professional duties” which “undermines the integrity of the medical profession”; and “potentially jeopardized the health, safety and welfare of the military troops for which [he] was employed to provide medical care.” Id.

Obviously, Lakin disagreed with this interpretation, which is why he asked for reconsideration of the Board’s initial decision, in the first place.

But under the licensing rules in KS, conviction of a felony or a class A misdemeanor means, no medical license; unless the applicant can persuade the Board, he has been “rehabilitated.” (All emphasis is mine.)

(c) The licensee has been convicted of a felony or class A misdemeanor, whether or not related to the practice of the healing arts. The board shall revoke a licensee’s license following conviction of a felony occurring after July 1, 2000, unless a 2/3 majority of the board members present and voting determine by clear and convincing evidence that such licensee will not pose a threat to the public in such person’s capacity as a licensee and that such person has been sufficiently rehabilitated to warrant the public trust. In the case of a person who has been convicted of a felony and who applies for an original license or to reinstate a canceled license, the application for a license shall be denied unless a 2/3 majority of the board members present and voting on such application determine by clear and convincing evidence that such person will not pose a threat to the public in such person’s capacity as a licensee and that such person has been sufficiently rehabilitated to warrant the public trust.

http://www.ksbha.org/statutes/haact.html#2836

Thus, having been convicted of what amounted to a misdemeanor, Lakin could only have received his medical license by convincing 2/3 of the Board, he had been rehabilitated, that is, he has either resolved not to let his politics influence his care; or, he has determined President Obama is a U.S. citizen, thus meriting the public’s trust that his politics will not interfere with his care. But, he could not meet this burden; although, as you will see, he might have.

And, notwithstanding I advocated above a ‘hands-off’ approach when it comes to the man; this fact that he might have prevailed in his hearing before the KSBHA explains why I am writing this piece. In fact, Lakin really isn’t the focus here. Rather, I am focusing on the gang of Lakin apologists who have expressed real (or feigned) outrage that the board based its January decision (not to reverse its November ruling) on an inquiry into what they – the gang – characterize are his political beliefs, bemoaning this as yet another sign of the apocalyptic loss of 1st Amendment rights. But reaching this conclusion is logically possible only when taken out of context, a gyration too often accomplished by these vacuous zealots.

Let’s examine specifically the narrow focus of the board which has spawned this vapid reaction: its questions about the President’s release of what they called his long-form birth certificate and whether this answered the Applicant’s questions as to whether President Obama is a citizen.

First, here is a video recorded at some time before this hearing in which Mr. Lakin explains, the motivating factor for his refusal to serve is the fact, President Obama has not produced a birth certificate evidencing he was born in HI.

(On a selfish note; I cannot help but notice, the language he uses here strongly mimics the language I have been using for years to describe the issues at the heart of any eligibility inquiry, especially his reference to documents “in the public domain.” Nice going, gang! Also note he finally acknowledges that, whether President Obama is a citizen has absolutely nothing to do with whether he was lawfully elected, a fact I have been arguing for years.)

Now, fast forward to the KSBHA hearing. The board asked whether, given the fact, President Obama released his long form birth certificate; Mr. Lakin now believed he was born in America. BUT THEY ALSO ASKED THIS QUESTION: “Say if and when he’s elected again the Health Reconciliation Act becomes law, which it already is, and all of a sudden we have 20 million more people who’ve got healthcare are you going to refuse those people because this is?” Lakin answered, “No, no, no.” Ah, but then, he explained, the only reason he refused to practice medicine in Afghanistan was that his life was on the line, intimating that, since his life (presumably) would not be on the line when treating patients in KS, President Obama’s non-citizenship would not come into play. That is, even faced with the direct question, he did not concede the birth certificate established the President’s citizenship.

By responding in this way, that is, by not correlating his duty to provide care solely to his being a doctor, regardless of whether President Obama’s citizenship has been established to his satisfaction; Lakin was unable to convince the board of his rehabilitation.

But now, read this ‘press release’ posted on the TLAF web site back in April 2011.

Response to the Release of the Barack Obama Birth Certificate from the Terry Lakin Action Fund


Press Release: April 27, 2011


For Immediate Release
Baltimore, MD

Had the Obama administration agreed to allow the document unveiled today and other related documents as requested for discovery in Terry Lakin’s first pre-trial hearing, the matter would have been resolved and soldiers assured their military orders were lawful, given by a lawful Commander-in-Chief.

A good soldier, having played his part in this issue, would have returned enthusiastically to the service for which he is so ably trained.

…This document which was so casually dropped on the news corps could just have easily been provided twelve months ago or two years ago. Even six months ago, it would have prevented LTC Lakin being manacled and hauled away to Fort Leavenworth prison for standing up for the Constitution, consistent with the oath he took as an officer, and the rule of law.

http://www.terrylakinactionfund.com/obamaresponse.html

In short, LTC Lakin admitted last April that, had President Obama released this document before he – Lakin – refused to provide medical care to his fellow soldiers; he would have provided this care. That is, he reaffirmed the level of care he would provide was predicated in the first instance on whether he believed the President was born in the USA. Just like the board imagined he would, judging by their questions and comments at the hearing.

(Seriously, imagine you are the ‘public’ whose best interests the board is ostensibly trying to protect. Would you really want them to license a physician you might need to turn to for care; knowing that care depended on your not saying the wrong thing?)

But in this statement posted on his web site; Lakin also confirmed, he believed the long-form birth certificate released by the President proved he was born in the U.S.A.

So, here’s my question. Even granting for the sake of argument, that the KSBHA improperly inquired into Lakin’s politics; and even disregarding the correlation between Lakin’s belief as to the President’s citizenship and, his willingness to provide medical care; and the public’s right to expect a certain level of care from a licensed physician; why didn’t the Applicant just repeat for the board, the same sentiment he publicly expressed 6 months earlier, that is, ‘As the result of the release of that birth certificate, I now believe the President was born in the U.S.A.’?

I can only guess; and I would rather not speculate. Suffice to say, if the words coming out of his mouth over time evidence his heartfelt convictions and originate with him then, I would have expected more consistency.

As I have always said; I feel so sorry for Terry Lakin. At this same time, I believe he is getting exactly the outcome he deserves.

P.S. Of course, under the U.S. Code, that long form birth certificate released in April 2011 is just a political ad signaling the launch (in earnest) of the President’s campaign for re-election in 2012.

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

Freedom costs.


ORLY TAITZ MISSES the POINT in MISSISSIPPI

February 19, 2012

©2012 jbjd

OMG! My complaint in MS was forwarded to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice appointed a Special Judge to handle my complaint. See order below. Thank God the things started to move, I don’t know, if I can withstand the stress for much longer.

So began the quote from the email sent by Orly to bob strauss, who posted her ‘news’ on CW’s blog, along with a link to her site. Until that point, I had no idea she had filed a ballot challenge in MS, let alone that it had wound its way to the Supreme Court, especially given the fact, as I already knew, MS had no candidate ballot eligibility law for the party’s Presidential preference primary. So, as I had done when bob posted her previous headlines with respect to GA – “I WON!!! I WON!!!” – I clicked on the link.

Here is the entire title of this post announcing the judge’s interlocutory or interim court order in the MS complaint, just as it appeared on her blog.

OMG! My complaint in MS was forwarded to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice appointed a Special Judge to handle my complaint. See order below. Thank God the things started to move, I don’t know, if I can withstand the stress for much longer.

Below is the order. (Note: I embedded this document posted on Scribd by “BirtherReport.com/ObamaReleaseYourRecords.com” because as much as possible, I like to identify and (dis)credit all the co-conspirators promoting this garbage, hoping at some point citizens hold all of them liable for perpetrating this fraudulent industry which purports to be aiming at exposing, President Barack Obama is Constitutionally ineligible for the job.)

View this document on Scribd

What caught my eye immediately was that this time, Orly was the named Complainant! And, it appeared she had misidentified the name of the Mississippi Democratic Party, calling it the “Democrat Party of Mississippi.” Of course, I looked that up; yes, it is the Mississippi Democratic Party. Next, having never examined her underlying case; I now looked for the reason the MS state supreme court had issued this order. I looked up the name of the judge who had signed the order – yes, he sat on the MS supreme court bench – and then, I looked up the law he had referenced as the basis for that order, Mississippi Annotated Code 23-15-961. .

Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-961
MISSISSIPPI CODE of 1972
*** Current through the 2011 Regular Session and 1st Extraordinary Session ***
TITLE 23.  ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 15.  MISSISSIPPI ELECTION CODE
ARTICLE 29.  ELECTION CONTESTS
D.  CONTESTS OF QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATES
Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-961  (2011)

§ 23-15-961. Exclusive procedures for contesting qualifications of candidate for primary election; exceptions

(1) Any person desiring to contest the qualifications of another person as a candidate for nomination in a political party primary election shall file a petition specifically setting forth the grounds of the challenge within ten (10) days after the qualifying deadline for the office in question. Such petition shall be filed with the executive committee with whom the candidate in question qualified.

(2) Within ten (10) days of receipt of the petition described above, the appropriate executive committee shall meet and rule upon the petition. At least two (2) days before the hearing to consider the petition, the appropriate executive committee shall give notice to both the petitioner and the contested candidate of the time and place of the hearing on the petition. Each party shall be given an opportunity to be heard at such meeting and present evidence in support of his position.

(3) If the appropriate executive committee fails to rule upon the petition within the time required above, such inaction shall be interpreted as a denial of the request for relief contained in the petition.

(4) Any party aggrieved by the action or inaction of the appropriate executive committee may file a petition for judicial review to the circuit court of the county in which the executive committee whose decision is being reviewed sits. Such petition must be filed no later than fifteen (15) days after the date the petition was originally filed with the appropriate executive committee. Such person filing for judicial review shall give a cost bond in the sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($ 300.00) with two (2) or more sufficient sureties conditioned to pay all costs in case his petition be dismissed, and an additional bond may be required, by the court, if necessary, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings.

(5) Upon the filing of the petition and bond, the circuit clerk shall immediately, by registered letter or by telegraph or by telephone, or personally, notify the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or in his absence, or disability, some other judge of the Supreme Court, who shall forthwith designate and notify from the list provided in Section 23-15-951 a circuit judge or chancellor of a district other than that which embraces the district, subdistrict, county or any of the counties, involved in the contest or complaint, to proceed to the county in which the contest or complaint has been filed to hear and determine the contest or complaint. It shall be the official duty of the circuit judge or chancellor to proceed to the discharge of the designated duty at the earliest possible date to be fixed by the judge or chancellor and of which the contestant and contestee shall have reasonable notice. The contestant and contestee are to be served in a reasonable manner as the judge or chancellor may direct, in response to which notice the contestee shall promptly file his answer, and also his cross-complaint if he has a cross-complaint. The hearing before the circuit court shall be de novo. The matter shall be tried to the circuit judge, without a jury. After hearing the evidence, the circuit judge shall determine whether the candidate whose qualifications have been challenged is legally qualified to have his name placed upon the ballot in question. The circuit judge may, upon disqualification of any such candidate, order that such candidate shall bear the court costs of the proceedings.

(6) Within three (3) days after judgment is rendered by the circuit court, the contestant or contestee, or both, may file an appeal in the Supreme Court upon giving a cost bond in the sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($ 300.00), together with a bill of exceptions which shall state the point or points of law at issue with a sufficient synopsis of the facts to fully disclose the bearing and relevancy of such points of law. The bill of exceptions shall be signed by the trial judge, or in case of his absence, refusal or disability, by two (2) disinterested attorneys, as is provided by law in other cases of bills of exception. The filing of such appeals shall automatically suspend the decision of the circuit court and the appropriate executive committee is entitled to proceed based upon their decision unless and until the Supreme Court, in its discretion, stays further proceedings in the matter. The appeal shall be immediately docketed in the Supreme Court and referred to the court en banc upon briefs without oral argument unless the court shall call for oral argument, and shall be decided at the earliest possible date, as a preference case over all others. The Supreme Court shall have the authority to grant such relief as is appropriate under the circumstances.

(7) The procedure set forth above shall be the sole and only manner in which the qualifications of a candidate seeking public office as a party nominee may be challenged prior to the time of his nomination or election. After a party nominee has been elected to public office, the election may be challenged as otherwise provided by law. After a party nominee assumes an elective office, his qualifications to hold that office may be contested as otherwise provided by law.

HISTORY: SOURCES: Derived from 1942 Code § 3151 [Codes, Hemingway’s 1917, § 6431; 1930, § 5904; Laws, 1916, ch. 161; repealed by Laws, 1970, ch. 506, § 33 and 1986, ch. 495, § 346]; en, Laws, 1988, ch. 577, § 1; Laws, 1990, ch. 307, § 1; Laws, 1999, ch. 301, § 14, eff from and after January 15, 1999 (the date the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section.)

Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-961

Okay, this says, “any person desiring to contest the qualifications of another person as a candidate for nomination in a political party primary election shall file a petition contesting eligibility…” This means, Orly is a “person” notwithstanding she doesn’t live or vote in MS. And it says, ‘If the state party executive board has thus far ignored your request for relief; then, file a petition with the MS Circuit Court, which will petition the Supreme Court to appoint a special judge in the circuit court, to hear your plea.’ Sure enough, I looked up R. Kenneth Coleman, the judge named to hear the case. Who is Mr. Coleman? A retired Circuit Court judge.


http://courts.ms.gov/judiciarydirectory/seniorstatusjudges.pdf

There you have it. Perhaps in making her hyperbolic announcement; Orly did not intend to mislead her captive readers, again, into believing she had brilliantly figured out how to pierce the judicial conspiracy which usually sabotaged her sound legal practice. Rather, she might just have been thinking, ‘OMG! I followed the law and, by following the law, I achieved the exact result spelled out in law!’

Only, of course, unbeknownst to the MS supreme court; she was still using the wrong law.

That same paragraph allowing Orly to name herself a petitioner; also clearly states, this law only applies to a contest of a candidate who is nominated via a primary election. For example, the candidates for, say, U.S. Senator from the R party who want their names to appear on the general election ballot; are nominated for that role in the party’s primary contest. Party nominees for President are not chosen in primary elections but at Presidential nominating conventions. No; only delegates to that convention are chosen in the primary.

(The rest of Orly’s underlying complaint repeats the same tripe knocked out of legal forum after legal forum, both judicial and administrative, which recognizes it as such.)

If you are one of those people who ‘come hell or high water’ still ‘credit the ‘legal’ work of Orly Taitz, which work appears to be loosely focused on the issue of President Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for office; then, I have to say, you are not one of those citizens to whom my work is addressed. Because at this point, if you still don’t understand what she is doing wrong then, you will never understand what I am doing right. Rest assured, while you are praying for the success of your personal savor in this endeavor, literally; and thereby are avoiding your civic responsibility to learn how our political system works and, to fix it, where it does not; I plow on with the heavy lifting, on your behalf.

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

Freedom costs.


WITNESS FOR ORLY’S PERSECUTION or MUCH ADO ABOUT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

January 24, 2012

©2012 jbjd

In yesterday’s post, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT to ORLY TAITZ I included a link to the home page of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings (“OSAH”) containing a video explaining the administrative hearing process. Please click on this link now, and watch the video. Pay attention to who is the Petitioner” (or “Plaintiff”)at these hearings, and who is the “Respondent” (or “Defendant”). Then, you will understand what I am about to say.

The ‘person’ on ‘trial’ on January 26 is the Office of the Secretary of State of Georgia, Brian P. Kemp, and not President Obama. Yes, the words “Plaintiffs” and “Defendants” appear on both the ‘pleadings’ and the rulings issued by Administrative Law Judge Michael M. Malihi. But, technically, Farrar is the Petitioner. And, technically, guess who is the Respondent? Yep; Secretary of State Kemp.

Thus, even though the question to be answered through this hearing process tangentially involves Mr. Obama; no question, but for Mr. Farrar’s subpoena, Mr. Obama would not be expected to attend. So, why did he have his attorney, Orly Taitz, issue that subpoena? You won’t believe this: she wants him there as a witness for her client, Petitioner Farrar!

I am not privy to what chain of events preceded this hearing or, to the documents previously presented to the Secretary; I have no idea how this case reached the administrative hearing level. But, obviously, Farrar must have failed to persuade Kemp to remove Obama’s name from the ballot in that state’s 2012 Democratic Presidential primary. Farrar disagreed with that decision. Under GA law, this led to the administrative hearing. Orly subpoenaed Obama to appear at the hearing in order to provide testimonial evidence which would support her client’s claim that by refusing to do as asked, that is, to remove Obama’s name from the primary ballot; the SoS had broken the law.

I cannot predict exactly what will happen at Thursday’s hearing before Georgia Administrative Law Judge Malihi. But I am absolutely certain what will  not: President Obama will not participate in this dog and pony show. For one thing, as I already explained in WITH ALL DUE RESPECT to ORLY TAITZ; he was not ordered to appear, despite the media circus triggered both by Orly’s ‘misinterpretation’ of ALJ Malihi’s refusal to grant Defendant’s motion to quash Plaintiff’s subpoena and the AP’s grossly incompetent reporting of her misinterpretation. In fact, as Orly surely must know, ALJ Malihi has no authority to compel him to appear. How do I know this, given the fact, this is not my case? Because, unfamiliar with the scope of authority vested in Administrative Law Judges in the state of Georgia; I looked this up.

First, a primer on the founding principle of governmental separation of powers or, checks and balances, which produced these 3 separate branches: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.

The ballot challenge case brought by Orly on behalf of her client, Farrar, originated in the Executive branch, with the Office of the Secretary of State based on that office’s statutory oversight of the function of elections. Basically, Farrar charged, exercising the lawful authority conferred by GA statutes (Legislative branch); the SoS should remove Obama’s name from the D primary ballot in that state on the basis that 1) under GA law, the state may only print on the ballot the names of those candidates qualified for office; and 2) Presidential candidate Barack Obama is not Constitutionally qualified for the job. The office of the SoS referred the matter to the Office of State Administrative Hearings (Executive branch).

Did you catch that? The GA Office of State Administrative Hearings is part of the Executive branch of government and not, as I suspect most of you assumed, the Judicial branch.

O.C.G.A. § 50-13-40

GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
TITLE 50.  STATE GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 13.  ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ARTICLE 2.  OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
O.C.G.A. § 50-13-40  (2011)

§ 50-13-40.  Office created; chief state administrative law judge

(a) There is created within the executive branch of state government the Office of State Administrative Hearings. The office shall be independent of state administrative agencies and shall be responsible for impartial administration of administrative hearings in accordance with this article. The office shall be assigned for administrative purposes only, as that term is defined in Code Section 50-4-3, to the Department of Administrative Services.

The authority of the OSAH is strictly limited to the administration of an office or agency of the Executive branch and does not extend to authority over the person, as spelled out in GA law.

O.C.G.A. §50-13-13

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

§ 50-13-13.  Opportunity for hearing in contested cases; notice; counsel; subpoenas; record; enforcement powers; revenue cases

(a) In addition to any other requirements imposed by common law, constitution, statutes, or regulations:

(1) In any contested case, all parties shall be afforded an opportunity for hearing after reasonable notice served personally or by mail;

(2) The notice shall include:

(A) A statement of the time, place, and nature of the hearing;

(B) A statement of the legal authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is to be held;

(C) A reference to the particular section of the statutes and rules involved;

(D) A short and plain statement of the matters asserted. If the agency or other party is unable to state the matters in detail at the time, the notice may be limited to a statement of the issues involved. Thereafter, upon application, a more definite and detailed statement shall be furnished; and

(E) A statement as to the right of any party to subpoena witnesses and documentary evidence through the agency;

(3) Opportunity shall be afforded all parties to be represented by legal counsel and to respond and present evidence on all issues involved;

(4) Unless precluded by law, informal disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order, or default;

(5) Unless specifically precluded by statute, in addition to the agency, any contested case may be held before any agency representative who has been selected and appointed by the agency for such purpose. Before appointing a hearing representative, the agency shall determine that the person under consideration is qualified by reason of training, experience, and competence;

(6) The agency, the hearing officer, or any representative of the agency authorized to hold a hearing shall have authority to do the following: administer oaths and affirmations; sign and issue subpoenas; rule upon offers of proof; regulate the course of the hearing, set the time and place for continued hearings, and fix the time for filing briefs; dispose of motions to dismiss for lack of agency jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties or for any other ground; dispose of motions to amend or to intervene; provide for the taking of testimony by deposition or interrogatory; and reprimand or exclude from the hearing any person for any indecorous or improper conduct committed in the presence of the agency or the hearing officer;

(7) Subpoenas shall be issued without discrimination between public and private parties. When a subpoena is disobeyed, any party may apply to the superior court of the county where the contested case is being heard for an order requiring obedience. (All emphasis added by jbjd.) Failure to comply with such order shall be cause for punishment as for contempt of court. The costs of securing the attendance of witnesses, including fees and mileage, shall be computed and assessed in the same manner as prescribed by law in civil cases in the superior court;

(8) A record shall be kept in each contested case and shall include:

(A) All pleadings, motions, and intermediate rulings;

(B) A summary of the oral testimony plus all other evidence received or considered except that oral proceedings or any part thereof shall be transcribed or recorded upon request of any party. Upon written request therefor, a transcript of the oral proceeding or any part thereof shall be furnished to any party of the proceeding. The agency shall set a uniform fee for such service;

(C) A statement of matters officially noticed;

(D) Questions and offers of proof and rulings thereon;

(E) Proposed findings and exceptions;

(F) Any decision (including any initial, recommended, or tentative decision), opinion, or report by the officer presiding at the hearing; and

(G) All staff memoranda or data submitted to the hearing officer or members of the agency in connection with their consideration of the case; and

(9) Findings of fact shall be based exclusively on the evidence and on matters officially noticed.

(b) In proceedings before the agency, the hearing officer, or any representative of the agency authorized to hold a hearing, if any party or an agent or employee of a party disobeys or resists any lawful order of process; or neglects to produce, after having been ordered to do so, any pertinent book, paper, or document; or refuses to appear after having been subpoenaed; or, upon appearing, refuses to take the oath or affirmation as a witness; or after taking the oath or affirmation, refuses to testify, the agency, hearing officer, or other representative shall have the same rights and powers given the court under Chapter 11 of Title 9, the “Georgia Civil Practice Act.” If any person or party refuses as specified in this subsection, the agency, hearing officer, or other representative may certify the facts to the superior court of the county where the offense is committed for appropriate action, including a finding of contempt. The agency, hearing officer, or other representative shall have the power to issue writs of fieri facias in order to collect fines imposed for violation of a lawful order of the agency, hearing officer, or other representative.

(c) Except in cases in which a hearing has been demanded under Code Section 50-13-12, subsection (a) of this Code section and the other provisions of this chapter concerning contested cases shall not apply to any case arising in the administration of the revenue laws, which case is subject to a subsequent de novo trial of the law and the facts in the superior court.

Thus, not only did ALJ Malihi not order Mr. Obama to obey Plaintiff’s subpoena to appear but, he could not issue such an order, anyway, lacking the authority to do so, under the law. Nope; his job is to decide whether the agency followed the law.  You want to compel the President’s attendance at an administrative hearing so that he can testify on behalf of your client that by not removing his name from the primary ballot; the Secretary of State had broken the law? Go ask the Superior Court. (And don’t hold your breath.)

Then, there’s this, express limitation on the weight of any ruling resulting from that administrative hearing.

O.C.G.A. § 50-13-41

GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
TITLE 50.  STATE GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 13.  ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ARTICLE 2.  OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
O.C.G.A. § 50-13-41  (2011)

§ 50-13-41.  Hearing procedures; powers of administrative law judge; issuance of decision; review

(a)(1) Whenever a state agency authorized by law to determine contested cases initiates or receives a request for a hearing in a contested case which is not presided over by the agency head or board or body which is the ultimate decision maker, the hearing shall be conducted by the Office of State Administrative Hearings, and such hearings shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and the rules and regulations promulgated under this article.

(2) An administrative law judge shall have the power to do all things specified in paragraph (6) of subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-13.

(b) An administrative law judge shall have all the powers of the referring agency with respect to a contested case. Subpoenas issued by an administrative law judge shall be enforced in the manner set forth in paragraph (7) of subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-13. Nothing in this article shall affect, alter, or change the ability of the parties to reach informal disposition of a contested case in accordance with paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-13.

(c) Within 30 days after the close of the record, an administrative law judge shall issue a decision to all parties in the case except when it is determined that the complexity of the issues and the length of the record require an extension of this period and an order is issued by an administrative law judge so providing. Every decision of an administrative law judge shall contain findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended disposition of the case.

(d) Except as otherwise provided in this article, in all cases every decision of an administrative law judge shall be treated as an initial decision as set forth in subsection (a) of Code Section 50-13-17, including, but not limited to, the taking of additional testimony or remanding the case to the administrative law judge for such purpose. On review, the reviewing agency shall consider the whole record or such portions of it as may be cited by the parties. In reviewing initial decisions by the Office of State Administrative Hearings, the reviewing agency shall give due regard to the administrative law judge’s opportunity to observe witnesses. If the reviewing agency rejects or modifies a proposed finding of fact or a proposed decision, it shall give reasons for doing so in writing in the form of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
(e)(1) A reviewing agency shall have a period of 30 days following the entry of the decision of the administrative law judge in which to reject or modify such decision. If a reviewing agency fails to reject or modify the decision of the administrative law judge within such 30 day period, then the decision of the administrative law judge shall stand affirmed by the reviewing agency by operation of law. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

(2) A reviewing agency may prior to the expiration of the review period provided for in paragraph (1) of this subsection extend such review period by order of the reviewing agency in any case wherein unusual and compelling circumstances render it impracticable for the reviewing agency to complete its review within such period. Any such order shall recite with particularity the circumstances which render it impracticable for the reviewing agency to complete its review within such review period. Any such extension by the reviewing agency shall be for a period of time not to exceed 30 days. Prior to the expiration of the extended review period, the review period may be further extended by further order of the reviewing agency for one additional period not to exceed 30 days if unusual and compelling circumstances render it impracticable to complete the review within the extended review period. Such further order further extending the review period shall likewise recite with particularity the circumstances which render it impracticable for the reviewing agency to complete its review within the review period as previously extended. If a reviewing agency fails to reject or modify the decision of the administrative law judge within the extended review period, then the decision of the administrative law judge shall stand affirmed by the reviewing agency by operation of law.

(3) An agency may provide by rule that proposed decisions in all or in specified classes of cases before the Office of State Administrative Hearings will become final without further agency action and without expiration of the 30 day review period otherwise provided for in this subsection.

In other words, the Secretary need not adopt the recommendation of the ALJ, anyway!

Phew! That’s enough for now; let’s start with this and then tomorrow, I will spell out what I predict will happen on Thursday.


SELF-PROCLAIMED “BIRTHER DEBUNKER” CHARGES NYT REPORT on ROSA PARKS is “RACIST REVISIONIST HISTORY”

July 9, 2011

© 2011 jbjd


SENSE and non-SENSE

July 1, 2011

UPDATE:  Please read my Comment below, containing an excerpt from the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Slaughterhouse Cases, which emphasizes this point with relation to the 14th Amendment’s language on citizens.  In short, if the 14th Amendment can be said to be conferring citizenship rather than merely codifying those definitions already understood in law and practice then, it does so only by establishing the distinction between the rights accruing to citizens as citizens of the U.S.A. which rights are now uniform; versus the rights of citizens as citizens of the states (in which they reside), which vary according to the state.  

© 2011 jbjd

No legally binding definition exists of the phrase “natural born citizen” as written in Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution; and no such definition will be forthcoming until a federal appeals court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, rules, this is the definition, in the holding of a case or controversy directly on point, that is, one which requires the court to formulate such definition so as to reach resolution of the matter properly before the court.

I have said this a ‘million’ times, with only slight variation, since I began blogging in 2008. And, as I have also indicated, for a couple of reasons, at this point, that is, now that President Obama has been elected; I couldn’t care less whether he is a NBC; and I have been saying this for a long time, too. What difference does it make whether he is a NBC when we enacted no laws that required our state Electors to elect only a President who is Constitutionally eligible for the job!  (This would explain my insistence that present calls for Impeachment cannot be predicated only on his Constitutional ineligibility for office.) And, regardless of the absence of documentary evidence available in the public record that, he is even a C, which status certainly was well defined and accepted by the aforementioned legal authorities even before this definition was codified in the 14th Amendment for the purpose of qualifying who is entitled to “privileges and immunities”; it appears true that, millions of my fellow citizens who voted for (Electors for) the man, could not have cared less whether he is a NBC, either, even before his election.

Thus, I have steered clear of substantively addressing the ‘legal’ arguments out there which insist, a binding definition of NBC exists.

However, obviously, this recognition of the status quo, that is, no legally binding definition exists of NBC; and my present indifference to Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for office; have had little to do with my continuing efforts to identify a mechanism for determining whether he is a NBC, for those people who want to know. Indeed, my mission has always focused on the larger issue of understanding how our government, in general; and particularly our electoral system works and, where it does not work, how we might fix it.  (Yes, in so doing, I figured out how to spark the court case that could result in a legally binding definition of NBC but, that is not the focus of this post.)

And it is because my focus is on fixing what is broken in our system that, notwithstanding I have refused to enter the ‘legal definition of NBC’ fray in the past; for the moment, I changed my mind.  Because now, 3+ years into our national discussion about Constitutional eligibility; about to dive into a new general election cycle; we are still being sidetracked by such folly.  So, responding to a comment from long-time “jbjd” reader, Mick; I decided to weigh in, once and for all, on the case most often cited to sustain this drivel.

From Mick:

Again, a circular firing squad you present. If there is no judiciable definition of natural born Citizen, as you say, then how can the Secretary of State of any state verify whether a POTUS candidate is eligible? As usual, many words in this post saying nothing, except the whining about someone stealing your “work”. How about this definition, straight from SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Pretty plain to most people with any sense.

Here is my response.

Mick: The legal case you mention – Minor v. Happersett – does not rest on defining what is meant by the term “natural born citizen.”  Indeed, the case is not at all concerned with distinguishing from among “natural born citizen”; or “native citizen”; or “naturalized citizen.” Rather, this is a (state) voting rights case to determine only whether MO law can rightly prohibit women from voting, brought under the “rights and privileges” clause of the 14th Amendment. In other words, is suffrage a “right” or “privilege” that now must be protected for female citizens otherwise prohibited under state law from voting on account of their gender?  But as a threshold matter, the court must first determine whether the word “citizen” as this is used in the 14th Amendment; means women, too.

Thus, the court conducts an extensive analysis (non-binding dicta) of the legal posture of historical authorities, both in common law, statutes, and state constitutions, with respect to the meaning of citizen, as this applies  generically.  It acknowledges, these authorities have always been consistent in saying, the child born in this jurisdiction, of citizen parents is a natural born native citizen; but inconsistent on whether the same can be said of children born here of non-citizen parents. Both of Ms. Minor’s parents were citizens at the time of her birth.  The court wrote, therefore, there was no need to “reach” the question as to whether she would still be a native natural  born citizen if her parents were not citizens.

Here is the whole quote from that same passage you excerpted in your comment. Now, see if this makes more sense.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Then, having determined, Ms. Minor is by all other means, a citizen; the court similarly conducts an extensive analysis (non-binding dicta) of the legal posture of historical authorities, both in common law, statutes, and state constitutions, with respect to the meaning of citizen, as this applies  to women.  And, it concludes, women were always historically considered citizens (who satisfied the uniformly accepted threshold requirement of birth in this jurisdiction to citizen parents).  Thus, the word “citizen” in the 14th Amendment as this relates to the “privileges and immunities” clause, means, women, too.  (The court makes clear that, as she is a natural born native citizen, her citizenship, and impliedly the citizenship of all women and men similarly situated, (though not necessarily the citizenship of people born here to non-citizen parents, or who achieved citizenship through naturalization because, as the court had already pointed out, the authorities had heretofore been mixed as to whether these were citizens and, it would not resolve that issue here) was not newly conferred by the 14th Amendment but only newly codified as entitling them as citizens to the same “privileges and immunities” as all citizens of the several states. That is, the 14th Amendment does not create a new definition of citizen.)

Then, having determined, Ms. Minor is by all other means, a citizen; and that, citizen means, women; the court similarly conducts an extensive analysis (non-binding dicta) of the legal posture of historical authorities, both in common law, statutes, and state constitutions, with respect to whether suffrage can be said to be a “right” or “privilege” under the 14th Amendment.  And that’s where Ms. Minor’s case fails. Because voting in the several states had always been largely exclusive to men.  Even when it was not exclusive to citizens.

Besides this, citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote. The same provision is to be found in the constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas.  Id.

In other words, Ms. Minor was entitled to all of the privileges and immunities of all citizens; and voting wasn’t one of those privileges and immunities.

Finally, you ask, how can the Secretary of State of any state verify whether a candidate for President is eligible for the job?  S/he cannot.  Because, right now, no law says, s/he must, even in those states that require candidates to be qualified for office to appear on the ballot.  Yep; even in those states where the legislature has already acted, no SoS had promulgated rules and regulations defining such ballot eligibility, let alone identifying whose job will be, to check.

In conclusion, Mick, no legally binding definition exists of the phrase “natural born citizen” as written in Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution; and no such definition will be forthcoming until a federal appeals court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, rules, this is the definition, in the holding of a case or controversy directly on point, that is, one which requires the court to formulate such definition so as to reach resolution of the matter properly before the court.  And, absent a legally binding definition of NBC; no state with a law requiring candidate eligibility to appear on the ballot, has even (attempted) to enact rules and regulations to define NBC for the sole purpose of determining ballot eligibility.

Make sense?  ADMINISTRATOR

****************************************************************************************************************************************************

For those of you who will not read the whole case, here is a syllabus, prepared by the court.

Syllabus

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


88 U.S. 162

Minor v. Happersett


Argued: February 9, 1875 — Decided: March 29, 1875


ERROR to the Supreme Court of Missouri; the case being thus:

The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in its first section, thus ordains; [n1]

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.”

And the constitution of the State of Missouri [n2] thus ordains:

“Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.”

Under a statute of the State all persons wishing to vote at any election, must previously have been registered in the manner pointed out by the statute, this being a condition precedent to the exercise of the elective franchise.

In this state of things, on the 15th of October, 1872 (one of the days fixed by law for the registration of voters), Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, over the age of twenty-one years, wishing to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, and for a representative in Congress, and for other officers, at the general election held in November, 1872, applied to one Happersett, the registrar of voters, to register her as a lawful voter, which he refused to do, assigning for cause that she was not a “male citizen of the United States,” but a woman. She thereupon sued him in one of the inferior State courts of Missouri, for wilfully refusing to place her name upon the list of registered voters, by which refusal she was deprived of her right to vote.

The registrar demurred, and the court in which the suit was brought sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment in his favor; a judgment which the Supreme Court affirmed. Mrs. Minor now brought the case here on error.

1. The word “citizen” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.

2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since.

3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.

4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the States; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

5. Neither the Constitution nor the fourteenth amendment made all citizens voters.

6. A provision in a State constitution which confines the right of voting to “male citizens of the United States,” is no violation of the Federal Constitution. In such a State women have no right to vote.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************

NOTE TO READERS:  Those trusted legal sites on which I have been relying for much of the research I conduct on your behalf have, up to now, provided unlimited access to their voluminous holdings, for free.  But I donate money to those sites, anyway; because it’s the right thing to do.  After all, someone at the other end of the computer is working hard to compile and maintain the library and operate the site.  I pass on the results of this research, without charge, to you; but, this does not mean, the work is free. It only means, up to now, I could maintain the quality of the blog by absorbing all of the cost.  This is becoming prohibitive; and I will not sacrifice quality.  Please, hit one of the PayPal buttons in the sidebar of the blog; because it’s the right thing to do.


TESTING, 1, 2, 3

June 23, 2011

©2011 jbjd

Here is part of a Comment submitted by long time loyal “jbjd” reader, Al, on the previous post:

Submitted on 2011/06/23 at 07:05

To date, jbjd–am drawing upon your sharp legal prowess here, Have you developed any specific language that State representatives around the country may chooose to use in introducing legislation in their respective States to enact/pass candidate eligibility laws?

In fact, having first focused the ‘eligibility’ debate on the states back in 2008; I have subsequently posited in several places on this blog, various solutions to the Constitutional eligibility conundrum.  But I want to see if I have made my point.  So, I am asking all of you to please, write in with answers to Al’s question, even if you can only come up with some good guesses.  Because for me, figuring out solutions to this dilemma and, posting these on the pages of this blog; is not enough.  I am greedy; that is, I want to communicate these solutions in a manner that educates my fellow citizens, who cannot read my mind.

If you don’t want me to post your response, just say so; all comments are in moderation.

Thank you.


MICHELLE GOLDBERG HAMMERS ANOTHER NAIL in the MSM COFFIN

June 4, 2011

© 2011 jbjd

Granted, Michelle Goldberg has her own web site; has written a couple of books which, according to her, were well researched and appear to be selling well (id.); and writes a column for the Daily Beast. But assuming she means what she says in her recent diatribe, “Why Birthers Won’t Die,” that is, taking on face value that she is not writing just for provocation or brainwashing then, I cannot emphasize enough: when it comes to issues related to establishing Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, Ms. Goldberg has demonstrated she has absolutely no idea what she is talking about.

It’s not just the fact she repeats the fallacy, the hard copy of the electronic image President Obama calls a birth certificate and recently ‘released’ to the press, is actually a long form birth certificate, that makes any information coming from her suspect.  (I will write another article focusing on the lunacy of anyone’s continued bona fide belief, photocopying any electronic image adds to its authenticity.) Obama’s Director of Communications, Daniel Pfeiffer, posted this image on the WhiteHouse.gov blog. Ms. Goldberg even links her readers to that image effectively reasserting its authenticity.  But Pfeiffer’s job is to shape the President’s message and not to communicate news, which is the job of the Press Secretary (notwithstanding Robert Gibbs, Director of Communication of Obama’s Presidential campaign and former Press Secretary for President Obama often conflated those 2 positions).  Unlike Ms. Goldberg, Mr. Pfeiffer was doing a good job, by shaping the message.

Or that, she uses Mr. Corsi’s refusal to buy into this lie (that a bona fide birth certificate has been released) as a weapon against his motives and intellect.  In spades.

Much of Where’s the Birth Certificate? rehashes old, debunked stories meant to cast doubt on Obama’s birth in Hawaii. But the book also claims that even if Obama was born in the United States, he still might not be a “natural-born citizen” because of his father’s foreign citizenship, which would make him ineligible for the presidency. To make this argument, Corsi dredges up a constitutional theory popular in white supremacist and anti-immigrant circles, making an invidious distinction between those granted citizenship by the 14th Amendment and those who were citizens under the Constitution as originally written.

What?  Only those identified with “white supremacist and anti-immigrant circles” espouse that a bona fide difference exists between the terms “natural born citizen” in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution; and the term “citizen” as used in the 14th Amendment?  (Of course, I reject claims by Corsi or anyone else that citizens of non-citizen parents are not natural born citizens; and this only makes sense, since I maintain that no ‘legal’ definition of NBC exists absent a ruling by a federal appellate court, in a case on point.)

Worse, adding insult to injury, Ms. Goldberg justifies her political stereotyping using flawed reasoning, thereby additionally exposing her Constitutional  ignorance.

But Corsi’s ideas about the 14th Amendment, if taken seriously, wouldn’t just affect the children of immigrants—they could disqualify all black people from the presidency. “Obama defenders who want to define him as a natural-born citizen because he is native-born and a citizen under the 14th Amendment are engaged in an effort to redefine Article 2, Section 1, away from its original natural law meaning,” Corsi writes. The original meaning, of course, did not encompass black people. That’s why we needed the 14th Amendment in the first place.

Let me point to the absurdity of just one segment of this drivel:  Ms. Goldberg’s mistaken focus on Corsi’s phrase, “effort to redefine Article 2, Section 1, away from its original natural law meaning,” to mean that, Mr. Corsi rejects Obama’s Presidency based on his race.  She reasons, it is this focus on race which motivates Corsi to object to any attempt to steer the conversation toward 14th Amendment inclusion of blacks as eligible to become President, and away from the original intent, which clearly excluded blacks. But whether he is racist; she doesn’t know her Constitution and, based on her ignorance, obviously misconstrued the ‘plain meaning’ of Corsi’s words.

The phrase “natural born citizen” is listed in Article II, section 1, as a condition of Presidential eligibility.  And, the word “citizen” is listed in Article I, sections 2 and 3, as the eligibility requirements for Representative and Senator, respectively, put there almost 100 years before the 14th Amendment.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

Get it?  The Drafters used the word “citizen” in 2 (two) different contexts of eligibility for office, one to be President; and the other to be a member of Congress. (Technically, the wording for President applies to eligibility; whereas the term for Congress applies to actual holding of the position.  This makes sense since members of Congress are elected directly – perhaps the Drafters did not trust the average citizen to choose the right person for the job – whereas Presidents are chosen by Electors who, it would appear safe to predict at the time, could not be anticipated to elect a President they were not certain was eligible for the job .) Since the Drafters used these 2 (two) different phrases, the tenets of statutory construction require that, we must assume, therefore, the Drafters meant 2 (two) different things.  “When Congress includes a specific term in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it should not be implied where it is excluded.” Arizona Elec. Power Co-op. v. United States, 816 F.2d 1366, 1375 (9th Cir. 1987); see also West Coast Truck Lines, Inc. v. Arcata Community Recycling Ctr., 846 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 856 (1988). http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s104.htm

See, contrary to Ms. Goldberg’s wishful projection; Corsi wasn’t at all waxing nostalgic, harkening back with longing to a time in our history when no blacks were counted as citizens and thus, could not be elected President (or Representative or Senator).  Rather, his use of the phrase “original natural law meaning” referenced the requirement of eligibility for President in Article II – natural born citizen – as opposed to, say, the original requirement in Article I for holding the office of U.S. Representative or U.S. Senator – citizen – which excludes the modifier, natural born.  Both of which applications of the term “citizen” he undoubtedly would agree should presently be read to include all citizens now Constitutionally defined as such, through the 14th Amendment.  Even those whose skin color is black.

In other words, even assuming a preference for color; Corsi just wants people to stop conflating “citizen” with “natural born citizen.” Get it?

But that excerpt points to my biggest objections to Ms. Goldberg’s hit piece on Mr. Corsi: her disingenuous diatribe against the man for what she paints as a racially motivated focus on the 14th Amendment. Those of you who have dissected the information on this blog probably already ‘get’ that she reverses cause versus effect. In fact, the eligibility argument only arose because Obama raised it by calling himself a “native” citizen and not “natural born.”  Indeed, he set up this false dichotomy, way back in 2007, when he – or perhaps more accurately, his campaign’s Director of Communications, Robert Gibbs – wrote “Fight the Smears,” the propaganda piece I have argued they would never have made public had he stolen the D nomination before the D Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention.  And in that same electronic advertising campaign, he posted the red herring argument about the 14th Amendment, couching it in racial terms, perhaps to misdirect the attention of astute citizens who otherwise might have noticed, he had conflated the 2 (two) Constitutional terms; and suspected a likely reason to be, he was trying to mask his ineligibility.

Want to see the evidence that supports my hypothesis, Ms. Goldberg?  IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO; or  TOO IGNORANT TO LEAD Of course, I am only a blogger.  (Then again, so was Dan Pfeiffer, in the context of posting that electronic image of the ‘document’ entitled, “Certificate of Live Birth” on the White House blog.)

Granted, maybe I am holding Ms. Goldberg to too high a journalistic standard.  After all, in the context of writing for the DB; she wears the hat of “columnist,” arguably absolving her from the profession’s constraints of both accurate and impartial reporting.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I am reporting that, evidently, Mr. Corsi’s book endorsed the work originating here on “jbjd” focused on filing citizen complaints of election fraud with state A’sG in those states with existing laws requiring candidate eligibility for office in order to access the ballot.  However, I have not read his book.)


(FORMER) CHAIR of CA D PARTY CONFIRMS “jbjd” CORRECT: 2009 PRESSER WAS a DOG-and-PONY SHOW

April 21, 2011

©2011 jbjd

Why, in April 2011, is Bill Press, a D among D’s – after all, how many D’s rise to the top of the CA state party? – still touting that July 2009 WH presser when he pretended to ask then WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and Mr. Gibbs pretended to answer, this question:  Why do people still not believe President Obama is a NBC?  (And how was Mr. Press able to recall the date of that session off the top of his head, anyway?)

Watch this.

Did you catch when Mr. Press claimed Barack Obama first released his HI birth certificate in 2007 –  “In 2007, the President produced his birth certificate…” – but then checked himself and said this – “…asked the state of HI to, they did; they put it up on line; that’s what they do in HI, end of story.”

Notice that, in this present exchange, Mr. Buchanan asks Mr. Press for the reason that the WH press corps is not asking Mr. Obama why he chooses not to release his birth certificate; but that Mr. Press responds by saying, ‘I did, a year-and-a-half ago; Google it!’  Actually, in 2009, Mr. Press did not ask why the President does not release his birth certificate.  Because releasing this document was not the point of that dog-and-pony show.  Rather, the point of that charade was to reinforce the meme, such document had already been released and was posted on line.  In fact, Press only asked Gibbs this question:

Is there anything you can say that will make the Birthers go away?

thus cueing Gibbs to repeat that the electronic image of the COLB mock-up appearing on the paid political ad called “Fight the Smears” really is Obama’s birth certificate, which he – Gibbs – told Obama to post to silence questions as to whether he was “born in this country.” Id.

(It’s all here; read this.  PRESS BILL PRESS to EARN his  PRESS CREDENTIALS)

But know what really jumped out at me?  Even after Press caught himself, now crediting HI with producing the COLB rather than Obama; and ambiguously using the pronoun “they” to mean either HI or Obama’s campaign; he still acknowledges, this document that was obtained in 2007 was posted on line.  (Does he mean to falsely imply that, once the document was obtained (however it was either ‘obtained’ or ‘fabricated’) it was immediately posted?)  So, here’s the question I would ask Mr. Press.

Given your acknowledgement that this document was obtained in 2007 and subsequently posted on line; and given the fact that the attribution in the footer of the FTS web site containing the electronic image of this document, evidences this was copyrighted in 2007; and given that Mr. Gibbs claims he asked Obama to release this document; then why did the D’s wait until June 2008 to release it?  (This is a rhetorical question.  As I have answered previously, this tripe called “Fight The Smears” would never have seen the light of day if Obama and his co-conspirators hadn’t bungled the theft of the D Presidential nomination so that even after the primary/caucus season ended, no clear winner emerged.  If they had been better crooks then, with the over-weighted caucus votes and accompanying shenanigans, they could have wrapped up the nomination before people started asking questions about whether he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.)

P.S.  And when Gibbs said back in July 2009, ‘I asked Obama to post his birth certificate a year and a half ago’; this really jumped out at “Miri.”  (I told you, the Comments here at “jbjd” can be as intriguing as the Posts!)


FALSE ADVERTISING

February 26, 2011

©2011 jbjd

Based on the dozens of story lines featured on the subject on the site, DRUDGE REPORT clearly knows, for years now, citizens convinced Barack Obama is not a NBC crave his impeachment.  (Actually, most have called for ‘something’ other than impeachment that will get him out of office, mistakenly believing, assuming he is Constitutionally ineligible to be President, he was unlawfully elected, anyway and, therefore, cannot be removed as the CiC through the only process prescribed in the Constitution.)  So, one could naturally assume, Mr. Drudge printed for their benefit these banner headlines, in red, replete with dome light, announcing, “‘ Gingrich gives Obama ‘impeachment’ warning’.”  Indeed, the link to the Newsmax article died through overuse.  Even I, chuckling as I clicked, knowing, had Gingrich mentioned “impeachment” in the context of “ineligibility” Drudge would have said so on his site; nonetheless joined the presumably millions of others, like lemmings to the sea, to confirm I had been intentionally misdirected.

I had confirmed on other sites, Gingrich’s use of the word ‘impeachment’ was in no way related to Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for office – no surprise there – but to instructions to the DoJ to decline to actively defend against challenges to the DoMA. Then, I got through to Newsmax.  Here was their headline:

Gingrich: If Palin

Took Obama Actions,

There Would Be Calls

for Impeachment

Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment
Disingenuously clarifying, he wasn’t suggesting Obama should be impeached, anyway, Gingrich complained that when it comes to the conduct of the left versus the right, there is a lot of hypocrisy.  Okay; but then, he went ‘a bridge too far.’

Gingrich slammed Obama for his decision, telling Newsmax that he is not a “one-person Supreme Court” and his decision sets a “very dangerous precedent” that must not be allowed to stand…. Gingrich adds: “I don’t think these guys set out to create a constitutional crisis. I think they set out to pay off their allies in the gay community and to do something that they thought was clever. (Emphasis added.) I think they didn’t understand the implication that having a president personally suspend a law is clearly unconstitutional.”

See, here’s the problem with hyperbole.  It is so easily verifiable as untrue.  “Very dangerous precedent” (as in, happening for the first time)?  And, heaping insult onto injury, characterizing the decision not to spend more money defending against a law some federal courts have already ruled is unconstitutional (Gill et al v. Office of Personnel Management et al) as deciding to”personally suspend a law”?

Gingrich again exposes his ethical vacuity by aiming this garbage to gullible receivers.  Of course, I only characterize him as the scoundrel he is in this instance, because I can prove it.

For example, I find absolutely no evidence in the public record that U.S. Representative Gingrich mentioned the word impeachment in relation to the decision of President George H. W. Bush, in 1992 to refrain from defending an FCC policy “to give minorities an edge when it came to the awarding of radio and television broadcast licenses.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702394.html (The FCC’s policy was adopted at the urging of Congress, and the solicitor general’s office usually defends agencies such as the FCC against legal challenges.” Id.)

Ha, when the case finally reached the SCOTUS – Metro Broadcasting v. FCC –  the U.S., on the legal advice of (Acting) Solicitor General John Roberts, actually argued against the government policy, claiming it violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Id. The SCOTUS disagreed.  (Mr. Roberts was later nominated to the SCOTUS by President George W. Bush.)

But neither refraining from prosecuting a challenge to an existing law nor arguing against an existing law is illegal.

Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes,” drafted in 1994, isa memorandum to the Honorable Abner J. Mikva, Counsel to the President (George H. W. Bush), written by Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger,  discussing the President’s constitutional authority to decline to execute unconstitutional statutes.  Here are just a few findings and conclusions:

The President should presume that enactments are constitutional. There will be some occasions, however, when a statute appears to conflict with the Constitution. In such cases, the President can and should exercise his independent judgment to determine whether the statute is constitutional. In reaching a conclusion, the President should give great deference to the fact that Congress passed the statute and that Congress believed it was upholding its obligation to enact constitutional legislation. Where possible, the President should construe provisions to avoid constitutional problems.The Supreme Court plays a special role in resolving disputes about the constitutionality of enactments. As a general matter, if the President believes that the Court would sustain a particular provision as constitutional, the President should execute the statute, notwithstanding his own beliefs about the constitutional issue. If, however, the President, exercising his independent judgment, determines both that a provision would violate the Constitution and that it is probable that the Court would agree with him, the President has the authority to decline to execute the statute.

“…we do not believe that a President is limited to choosing between vetoing, for example, the Defense Appropriations Act and executing an unconstitutional provision in it. In our view, the President has the authority to sign legislation containing desirable elements while refusing to execute a constitutionally defective provision.”

Summing up, Gingrich did not propose impeaching President George H. W. Bush either for refusing to defend against a race-based preference policy in awarding broadcast licenses or for opposing the existing policy in the U.S. arguments to the high court.  And based on his assumption Obama’s conduct is wedded in support for equal rights for gays and lesbians; he suggests the left would call for impeachment if President Palin ‘unilaterally’ ordered the DoJ to refrain from enforcing a law to which she was philosophically opposed. 

But as history shows, Presidents do this all the time. And Dr. Gingrich (Ph.D., History) knows this.

P.S.

The DRUDGE REPORT proudly boasts its daily hits are in the millions – “VISITS TO DRUDGE 02/25/11, 031,840,693 IN PAST 24 HOURS" – presumably netting significant commercial revenues.  Imagine how much smarter Mr. Drudge (and his colleagues) could leave the body politic if only he would spend some of that money educating his readers instead of just titillating us.  

I haven’t reached 1,000,000 hits since I started this blog in August 2008!  Yet I spent hours putting together this post, all by myself, for free.

Enjoy.


REVOLVING DOOR, REVOLUTION, or just PLAIN REVOLTING

February 23, 2011

©2011 jbjd

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

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

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

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

Yep; here’s the text of that bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revolting.

Given my extensive research into and knowledge of these issues in general and TX law in particular, perhaps citizens in Tyler, TX, the district represented by Mr. Berman, can suggest that if he is determined to propose new laws to address candidate eligibility, he should review the provisions in HOW to WRITE SMART CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY LAWS in your STATE (and make applying to get on the ballot harder than applying to get into Harvard).

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

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

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


%d bloggers like this: