October 17, 2015

©2015 jbjd

I am Jewish. After much searching, I found the perfect Star of David necklace on-line. It was sold by a military supplier, and is made of stainless steel. I purchased two, one for me, one for my son. He tucks his in; I wear mine outside of my clothing. This bothers him, especially when I am riding the train to school, and even more so once I’m there. He worries that one of my Muslim students will hurt me. I told him, sometimes, I am concerned about advertising my Jewishness, too. But I explained, if I am not brave enough to wear my Jewish Star in public, here, now; would I have lifted a finger in Nazi Germany, to try to forestall the Holocaust?

My landlady, also Jewish, drove me to the store today. She brought up the subject of her grandson Joey, who is spending a college semester abroad studying in Israel. Given the current turmoil there, she lamented she  constantly fears for his safety. I did not bite my tongue.

You voted for Barack Obama, twice. Elections have consequences.’

I recounted that during the 2008 primaries, I investigated the candidates. Inasmuch as my most important consideration for the Commander in Chief is foreign policy; I began by focusing on their foreign policy advisers. That’s when I found this pronouncement by Samantha Power, now U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., who advised the Obama campaign (emphasis provided by jbjd):

I actually think in the Palestine-Israeli situation there’s an abundance of information and what we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism. What we need is a willingness to actually put something on the line in helping the situation. And putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import. It may more crucially mean sacrificing, or investing I think more than sacrificing, really billions of dollars not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine; investing billions of dollars it would probably take also to support I think what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old, you know, Srebrenica kind or the Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence.

Because it seems to me at this stage–and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses which we’re seeing there–but you have to go in as if you’re serious. You have to put something on the line. And unfortunately imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful, it’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy–or they’re meant to anyway. And there, it’s essential that the same set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to people who are fundamentally, politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called “Sharafat.”

I mean, I do think in that sense that both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible, and unfortunately it does require external intervention which–very much like the Rwanda scenario, that thought experiment, if we had intervened early–any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism, but we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced.

And that was a couple of months before the Rev. Wright fiasco. I pointed out, if I put my arm around Adolph Hitler and call him my spiritual adviser for 20 years, it’s safe for you to conclude, I  am not too crazy about the Jews.

P.S. In general, I am not a fan of Henry Kissinger. For me, the Nobel Peace Prize lost most of its  luster when it was awarded to him. But he wrote a brilliant article about the current Middle East mess: A Path out of the Middle East Collapse. One of the ‘talking points’ in the piece is his rejection of the favorable comparison between the nuclear deal with Iran, and President Nixon’s opening diplomatic relations with China. (Kissinger was then Nixon’s National Security Adviser, later his Secretary of State.) In short, for reasons stated, he declares these two are ‘applies and oranges.’ And, at least on this account, he would know.


My mind is a terrible thing to waste.





January 7, 2015

©2015 jbjd

On September 19, 2012 French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo published a series of images described by the Christian Science Monitor as “raunchy cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.”  Here, in an interview with al Jazeera, Stephane Charbonnier, editorial director of Charlie Hebdo, explains he timed the images to coincide with current events, namely, press accounts of world-wide demonstrations of “radical Muslims” against the “Fascist American film” (the YouTube video, “Innocence of Muslims”).

The timing of the 2012 images was widely criticized by everyone from the French prime minister to church officials, having come only days after “about 200 (emphasis added) people” demonstrated in front of the U.S. embassy in Paris, against the “Innocence” video, on September 15 (emphasis added). Id. (France’s population is 66 million, of which 5-10% is Muslim. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html)

The publication even attracted the attention of Brazilian cartoonist Carlos Latuff, who posted this cartoon of Mr. Charbonnier on the same day. (Note,Charbonnier is wearing the same jersey worn during the al Jazeera interview.)

But, the “Innocence of Muslims” video was not a factor in world de-stabilization on September 11, 2012, when terrorists attacked us in Benghazi, Libya. No; it only became a weapon in global terror after the Benghazi attack, when President Obama conspired with Secretary Clinton to make it one. THE MOHAMMAD VIDEO SLEIGHT-of-HAND.


My mind is a terrible thing to waste.


January 3, 2015

©2015 jbjd

If the House of Representatives (“accusers”)  of the U.S. Congress finds that President Obama attempted to subvert the Constitution by directing the IRS to exercise its power to stifle political speech that was otherwise protected by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution; or was connected in any suspicious manner with any person engaged in such conduct and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person; or made announcements and assertions bearing on the case which the evidence shows he knew to be false or designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors then, they must vote for Impeachment. And let the Senate “judge” whether to convict.

In 1974, the late great Representative Barbara Jordan, Democrat from Texas and member of the House Judiciary Committee discusses Impeachment with respect to President Nixon. (Note, the YouTube video incorrectly dates her statement as taking place in 1971.)

Of all the ‘material’ statements made by Ms. Jordan, I found this passage to be the most salient.

It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office. The Constitution doesn’t say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body of the legislature against and upon the encroachments of the executive. The division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judgers — and the judges the same person.


(Note: I intentionally linked to the American Rhetoric site because it provides a true transcript of Ms. Jordan’s remarks. As regular readers of “jbjd” know, I usually link to C-Span for original source material. However, while C-Span lists Ms. Jordan’s video on its site; it cannot be played due to “rights restrictions.” And, while it provides a written transcript of her speech, the transcript contains errors, at least one of which is what we would call a ‘material’ error.

For example, the transcript reads,


But the speaker said,


American Rhetoric got it right; I have contacted C-Span to make the corrections.)

Ms. Jordan proposed the Committee should “juxtapose” some of the activities the President (Nixon) had engaged in (with respect to events surrounding ‘Watergate,’ misuse of the IRS for political purposes, and defiance of Congressional subpoenas (contempt of Congress)), against Impeachment criteria enunciated by contemporaneous Constitutional experts including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, and participants at state ratifying conventions. She argued, therefore, the record supported a recommendation of Impeachment. And, after considerable analysis and debate; ultimately, her fellow Committee members on a bi-partisan basis approved 3 (three) articles of Impeachment. (The Congressional Quarterly Press is a member site. But you can reach the source page by searching, House Judiciary Committee Articles of Impeachment Nixon CQPress.) However, before a vote on Impeachment by the full House, President Nixon resigned. Id.

Having reviewed the applicable standards of Impeachment, let’s adapt Ms. Jordan’s exercise, to President Obama, with respect to the IRS. I’ll start.

In the category of ‘made announcements and assertions bearing on the case which the evidence shows he knew to be false’ or were designed to thwart investigation by government prosecutors: “Not even a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS (accompanied by derisive sneering and snickering), with accompanying evidence.

Here is the interview conducted with Bill O’Reilly from FOX News, on February 2, 2014.

Here is the transcript of that interview, provided by FOX. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/02/transcript-bill-oreilly-interviews-president-obama/

But Mr. Obama knew in February 2014 his assertion there was not a “smidgen” of corruption, was false because on May 13, 2013 the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (“TIGTA”) issued a report confirming the IRS had been unlawfully targeting conservative-sounding applicants for tax-exempt status, at least as far back as 2010. (For a summary of the TIGTA report, see http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-began-targeting-conservatives-in-2010/) And since May 2013, public reports had chronicled that on May 9, Lois Lerner, then Director of the Exempt Organizations Division of the IRS, had planted a question to be asked the next day, May 10, at a meeting of the American Bar Association, which would provide an opportunity for her to admit to this unlawful targeting, just 3 (three) days in advance of the publication of that damning TIGTA report.

“I received a call from Lois Lerner, who told me that she wanted to address an issue after her prepared remarks at the [American Bar Association] Tax Section’s Exempt Organizations Committee Meeting, and asked if I would pose a question to her after her remarks,” Roady said in a statement to U.S. News and World Report. “I agreed to do so, and she then gave me the question that I asked at the meeting the next day. We had no discussion thereafter on the topic of the question, nor had we spoken about any of this before I received her call. She did not tell me, and I did not know, how she would answer the question.”


Here is an audio of Ms. Lerner’s response to that planted question.

Your turn.



My mind is a terrible thing to waste.


January 26, 2012

 ©2012 jbjd

Okay, so now we have confirmation that 1) President Obama will not be attending today’s administrative law hearing in Georgia and 2) neither will Attorney Michael Jablonski, representing him in that matter.

For those of you who, since learning these latest developments, have experienced a sudden descent from the manic phase of the bipolar-like disorder associated with blind belief in the probable success of any ‘legal’ ploy attempted by Attorney Orly Taitz in her quixotic pursuit of exposing President Obama is not a NBC; I offer a little ‘chillin’ out’ music for your listening pleasure.

Now, let’s work.

Here is the letter sent by Mr. Jablonski to Secretary Kemp. (H/T Jack Ryan.)

View this document on Scribd

The most important words are these:

For these reasons, and as discussed briefly below, you should bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued

Here’s the reason why.

In previous posts on the subject, I  cited several portions of the Georgia statutes which apply to the administrative process. In sum, there are 2 ways a challenge to the conduct of the Secretary of State with respect to ballot challenges, can reach the OSAH. 1) The elector aggrieved by an adverse decision of the SoS can appeal that adverse decision to the OSAH. 2) The SoS, on receiving a challenge to his act; can ‘certify’ the challenge directly to the OSAH.

For example, this section of the law describes how to file a ballot challenge.

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5
Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5  (2011)

§ 21-2-5.  Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications

(a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

(b) The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate. Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which he or she is offering. Upon his or her own motion or upon a challenge being filed, the Secretary of State shall notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and shall advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Title 50 and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing when such information becomes available. The administrative law judge shall report his or her findings to the Secretary of State.

(c) The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified to seek and hold the public office for which such candidate is offering. If the Secretary of State determines that the candidate is not qualified, the Secretary of State shall withhold the name of the candidate from the ballot or strike such candidate’s name from the ballot if the ballots have been printed. If there is insufficient time to strike the candidate’s name or reprint the ballots, a prominent notice shall be placed at each affected polling place advising voters of the disqualification of the candidate and all votes cast for such candidate shall be void and shall not be counted.

(d) In the event that a candidate pays his or her qualifying fee with a check that is subsequently returned for insufficient funds, the Secretary of State shall automatically find that such candidate has not met the qualifications for holding the office being sought, unless the bank, credit union, or other financial institution returning the check certifies in writing by an officer’s or director’s oath that the bank, credit union, or financial institution erred in returning the check.

(e) The elector filing the challenge or the candidate challenged shall have the right to appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by filing a petition in the Superior Court of Fulton County within ten days after the entry of the final decision by the Secretary of State. The filing of the petition shall not itself stay the decision of the Secretary of State; however, the reviewing court may order a stay upon appropriate terms for good cause shown. As soon as possible after service of the petition, the Secretary of State shall transmit the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceedings under review to the reviewing court. The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary of State as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions of the Secretary of State are:

(1) In violation of the Constitution or laws of this state;

(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the Secretary of State;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedures;

(4) Affected by other error of law;

(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or

(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

An aggrieved party may obtain a review of any final judgment of the superior court by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as provided by law.

And this section of the law describes the ways an agency dispute can reach the OSAH.

O.C.G.A. § 50-13-41
Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
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.

(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.

As I said, I didn’t know which route got us to ‘here.’

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.


Then, I read Mr. Jablonski’s letter to Secretary Kemp, withdrawing from these administrative proceedings; and Secretary Kemp’s reply. (H/T nolu chan.)

View this document on Scribd

Now, I know this case ended up in front of the ALJ not as the result of an adverse decision against Mr. Farrar by the SoS. Evidently, Mr. Kemp had never issued such ruling but only referred the matter directly to the OSAH. How do I know?

Because Attorney Jablonski referred to Secretary Kemp’s “hearing request.” That is, the request for hearing did not come from Farrar but from Secretary Kemp.

And I know why Mr. Kemp wrote what he did.

I regret that you do not feel that the proceedings are appropriate, my referral of this matter to anadministrative law judge at OSAH was in keeping with Georgia law, and specifically O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5.

First, let me remind you that in yesterday’s post, I referenced a part of the law which states, the authority vested in OSAH is limited by § 50-4-3.

O.C.G.A. § 50-13-40

Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
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.

Now, since most of you evidently didn’t bother to look up § 50-4-3; I re-print the law here, in its entirety.

O.C.G.A. § 50-4-3
Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***
O.C.G.A. § 50-4-3  (2011)

§ 50-4-3.  Assignment for administrative purposes only; authorities to retain separate identities

(a) An agency assigned to a department for administrative purposes only shall:

(1) Exercise its quasi-judicial, rule-making, licensing, or policy-making functions independently of the department and without approval or control of the department;

(2) Prepare its budget, if any, and submit its budgetary requests, if any, through the department; and

(3) Hire its own personnel if authorized by the Constitution of this state or by statute or if the General Assembly provides or authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor.

(b) The department to which an agency is assigned for administrative purposes only shall:

(1) Provide record keeping, reporting, and related administrative and clerical functions for the agency;

(2) Disseminate for the agency required notices, rules, or orders adopted, amended, or repealed by the agency;

(3) Provide staff for the agency subject to paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of this Code section; and

(4) Include in the departmental budget the agency’s budgetary request, if any, as a separate part of the budget and exactly as prepared and submitted to the department by the agency.

(c) Whenever any authority is assigned for administrative purposes, it means only that the state department through which the authority deals with the state shall be that department to which the authority is assigned. Any authority created by state law shall retain its separate identity as an instrumentality of the state and a public corporation. The department to which an authority is assigned is authorized, only with the approval of the authority, to perform for such authority any or all of the functions set forth in subsection (b) of this Code section.

This means that, when the SoS asks (through a referral) the OSAH to issue a finding in a disputed case; it is essentially engaging OSAH as a consultant. In this case, Secretary Kemp merely shifted the burden of addressing the complaint brought to his office by Mr. Farrar; to its consulting branch, OSAH, for reasons about which I will not speculate in this article, which is already too long.


In short, Secretary Kemp tried to avoid dealing with this issue by relying on OSAH, consultants for his office, to provide some political cushioning for his conduct. But now that Mr. Jablonski has opted out of the circus; he is (seemingly) protesting, at least in public, the fact the issue has been tossed right back in his lap.

Trust me; the outcome would have been the same, either way.


June 29, 2011

© 2011 jbjd

Not every procedural inconsistency that occurred between the 2008 election cycle and previous elections, is definitive evidence of fraud, let alone proof that such fraud occurred.

I received this comment today from HawaiiSurfer, bemoaning the fact that HI Lt. Gov. Brian Schatz (D), formerly Chair of the HI Democratic Party in 2008; has gotten away with election fraud in relation to the wording of the 2008 D Certification of Obama’s Nomination.  But, HawaiiSurfer got it wrong; and those of you who regularly read my blog know s/he got it wrong.  Here’s that comment, in its entirety.

Brian Schatz should not be allowed to waltz scot-free on his signature and wording on the 27 August 2008 memo in question.  Our country has gone down a road where our children look up and wonder if anyone in leadership has integrity.  Few leaders have touched an honest approach to the shadowy skullduggery surrounding the 2008 election…And the world is just suppose to be okay with it.  Someone needs to call Brian out publicly for signing this form and the wording he knew was in it.  As now our Lt Governor in Hawaii, Brian needs to come clean on why he approved and authorized this release.  Where has the ethical conscience and compass of our government gone?  Forget what the media calls the birth issue, this has to do with why Brian validated for our state the national democratic presidential candidate while “clearly omitting” the authentication that the candidate was Constitutionally qualified.  In stark contrast, two predecessors from Brian’s party, Brikwood Galuteria and Alfred Lardizabul, did the right thing by clearly certifying John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000 as Constitutionally qualified candidates.  If we went back further in time, we’d probably find Brian’s actions as Democratic Party Chair here are in clear contrast to far more than just documentation of the last few presidential elections.  Brian most likely is not to fault in everything related to this.  Many hands across our nation appear to have been deep in the cookie jar.  The democratic party was fed a bad deal with what is most likely one of the biggest frauds in American history.  Good people should have stopped it.  Brian Schatz seems like a wonderful person.  I’m sure Brian has done many great things for our communities and state, but that does not excuse any elected or appointed leader from actions of this weight and consequence.

Brian Schatz signs official campaign document showing missing statement that presidential candidate was Constitutionally qualified.
(link omitted by jbjd)

Our children and neighbors deserve much better.  Our country dies when we let go of our conscience.  Unfortunately, Brian may end up like Blago.  Behind bars.

I began responding to this comment when I realized, I had written all of this before. After a brief search I found BACK UP, BIRTHERS! which contained a well-developed explanation of the inconsistencies related to the 2008 HI Certification, none of which lends itself to a presumption of fraud, certainly not on a state level.


(beginning of excerpt)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Kevin B. Cronin

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

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

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

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

View this document on Scribd

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

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

(end of excerpt)


If your bona fide concern is shoring up the electoral process then, please, stop wasting time on ferreting out fraud and conspiracy where 1) none exists; and 2) this won’t make a difference to ensuring the next President is a NBC, anyway. And, do all of us a favor.  Stop buying into anything coming out of the hyperbolic factually vacuous blogs the links to which I continue to edit out on my blog!  Especially steer clear of any of those blogs which feature the people who have stolen and then, misrepresented the point of my work.  I wonder whether after yet another episode of emotional investment in a gambit which not only has no basis in fact but also was dispelled long ago on this blog; people will have become sufficiently angry to stop crediting another word from their ‘poison pens,’ anyway.


March 16, 2011

©2011 jbjd

The Supreme Court has the final authority to interpret the Constitution.  It can set aside any law – federal, state, or local – that a majority of the justices believes conflicts with any part of the Constitution.


(For a more legalistic discussion of the authority of Article III courts, see http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag14_user.html#art3_sec2)

No matter how many times or how strenuously people repeat the absurd claim that the definition of NBC in the U.S. Constitution is fixed by reference to any other written work, nothing fixes a definition of NBC until the ‘fat lady holding the scales of justice sings.’

In other words, until justices on the federal appellate court weigh in with a definition in a holding in a case specifically on point.  All else is cacophony.

Lie number 1. We know what NBC means because this term is defined in Vattel’s Law of Nations.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s say, this man Vattel wrote a book entitled Law of Nations in which he pontificated as to which of the laws of various nations he would incorporate into his Utopian country, and that the term NBC is unambiguously defined within this text.  Let us further assume that before deliberating on their own treatise, better known as the U.S. Constitution, the original drafters had access to Vattel’s tome, considering such variables including the date and place of publication, language, and availability; and that they did, indeed, read his definition of NBC before drafting our Constitution.

Assuming all that, it is nonetheless absurd to make the leap of logic that says with certainty, the Drafters, having read Vattel’s definition of NBC and understood his meaning, thereby adopted his definition into their text.  Because based on this logic that insists, any subject mentioned in the Constitution evidences a  concurrence with its counterpart in Vattel’s Law of Nations; we would also have state sponsored mandatory public worship of God and banishment of minority practitioners, instead of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”


Lie number 2. We know the Drafters meant for us to follow Vattel’s definition of NBC in Article II, section 1 because they specifically referenced “Law of Nations” in Article I, section 8 (“To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations”)

Setting aside the colonial custom of capitalizing nouns, let’s assume, again, this reference in Article I, section 8 adopts Vattel’s treatment of piracy exactly as laid out in his book (as opposed to a generic standard of responding to piracy on the high seas, according to laws of various nations sailing the seas).  According to the rules of statutory interpretation, this would not only not mean,  the Drafters intended the definition of NBC to echo Vattel’s definition; but it would mean precisely the opposite!  That is, by using the reference to Law of Nations in one place in the document but not the other, the court would find the Drafters intended not to mean the definition proffered by Vattel.

“[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted).  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-5274.pdf

That is, given that the Drafters obviously knew how to reference Vattel in one part of the Constitution, this means, if they had wanted to reference his work in another part of this legal document, they likely would have.  Yet, they failed to repeat the phrase either in Article II or anywhere else in the document.

But definitively attributing the phrase “Law of Nations” in Article I to Vattel’s text and not to a general world standard of laws, is absurd on its face.

John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison wrote the Federalist Papers so as to persuade the special Constitutional panels in the 13 states to ratify the newly drafted U.S. Constitution to replace the inadequate Articles of Confederation.  In Paper 83, Mr. Hamilton addresses the construction of Article III, the federal judiciary, arguing for a right to trial by jury in all criminal cases but not in civil cases.  (All emphasis added.)

But this is not, in my estimation, the greatest objection. I feel a deep and deliberate conviction that there are many cases in which the trial by jury is an ineligible one. I think it so particularly in cases which concern the public peace with foreign nations that is, in most cases where the question turns wholly on the laws of nations. Of this nature, among others, are all prize causes. Juries cannot be supposed competent to investigations that require a thorough knowledge of the laws and usages of nations; and they will sometimes be under the influence of impressions which will not suffer them to pay sufficient regard to those considerations of public policy which ought to guide their inquiries. There would of course be always danger that the rights of other nations might be infringed by their decisions, so as to afford occasions of reprisal and war. Though the proper province of juries be to determine matters of fact, yet in most cases legal consequences are complicated with fact in such a manner as to render a separation impracticable.


Or, just scroll back to Vattel’s own text, in which the phrase “law of nations” and permutations appear generously.

Lie number 3. We know what NBC means because this term is defined in a law review article; and the Boston Globe°; and dicta in several Supreme Court cases not directly on point.

See lie number 1.

° This lie is especially pernicious, for 2 (two) reasons.  First, it falsely implies the theories of the speaker are supported by the imprimatur of the editors of the Boston Globe! In truth, an advice column appearing in the newspaper more than 100 years ago,contained what the writer stated was his personal opinion, namely, the words “native born” and “natural born” appearing in the Constitution in relation to the word “citizen” mean two different things.  Second, it disingenuously sustains a fabricated claim that the words “native born” and “natural born” can honestly be conflated to mean the same thing and then uses the personal off-the-cuff opinion of the columnist to hyperbolically deflate such contention.  Ha, the ‘legal’ pundit pedaling this tripe calls the Globe piece a “crucially relevant article.”  Straw dogs.  As I indicated in the beginning of the present post, following  the basic rules of statutory interpretation necessarily leads to the conclusion that, because the Drafters used “native born” in one section of the document and “natural born” in another section; the courts would assume they intended “native born” and “natural born” to mean two different things!


I cannot say what the Founders intended by the term NBC.  But I am troubled by the willingness of so many purported “patriots” to supplant reason with their interpretation of the document those Founding Patriots created. Of course, I have studied history; of course, I have studied the law. Naturally, I have opinions. But I am not the arbiter of the Constitution’s truth; and neither are any of those internet pontificators, lawyer and layperson alike, who claim otherwise.

I could not care less as to the individual interpretations people ascribe to the original intent of the Drafters; or whether they adopt a Constitutional methodology of original intent or ‘living document,’ to reach their conclusions. But I am as fearful of becoming enslaved by zealots on one side as on the other.  Let me emphasize, just because a particular lay interpretation appears to make sense to lay people does not mean it could survive critical judicial scrutiny. (Keep in mind, many of the people involved with founding this government were trained as lawyers.) If I point to a flaw with the legal methodology, this does not mean, I am pointing to a flaw in the character. That people continue to label theories of statutory construction as ‘belonging’ to one person or another scares the hell out of me. Practically speaking, the meaning of the Constitution is only ascertained when the federal bench rules, this it what it means. This is why I seldom express my personal views as to what the document means; or engage in endless speculation as to what the Constitution means. I am too busy doing actual work aimed at changing the status quo.

While there are few absolutes in interpretation, certainly we can all concede that no interpretation is valid or invalid based only on who is espousing that view.  So, in conclusion, I want to repeat my strenuous objections that some people, expressing an opposing view to the positions discussed in this article, continue to direct such dissent to me and not to the work.  I suspect these bullies are intentionally misleading people by clinging to discredited theories of Constitutional interpretation in order to sidetrack attention and energies which could be better utilized to challenge the legality of those Certifications of Obama’s nomination submitted in several ballot eligibility states.

Because in the end, Obama will not be removed from office on the basis of a legal definition of NBC, anyway.  Even if  documents available in the public record could establish the facts of his birth, which facts could then be fit into such legal definition of NBC.   Because no law required the Electors to only elect a President who meets the Constitutional eligibility for office, anyway.  But we have no such facts of birth or legal definition of NBC.  However, we definitely know the definition of “C.”  Because the SCOTUS has previously ruled on this issue in several cases directly on point.  This means, we can confront anyone who Certified to state election officials in applicable states, candidate Obama was qualified for office, with this question: on what documentary basis did you ascertain beforehand he was a U.S. Citizen?


My mind is a terrible thing to waste.


March 3, 2011

©2011 jbjd

Add syndicated columnist Cal Thomas to the ever growing list of disingenuous town criers who, in the wake of President Obama’s decision the Executive branch will refrain from defending against court challenges to DoMA, are shouting a proverbial ‘the sky is falling’ warning to a captive audience ignorantly unaware in this instance, the sky is not only intact but also precisely in the place Congress (the Legislative branch of government) intended it to be.

Here are some snippets from Mr. Thomas’s latest tirade against Obama, “Obama’s duty is to enforce the law”:

President Obama has said his view of same-sex “marriage” is “evolving.” Apparently he thinks that the law should be based on a kind of Darwinian jurisprudence which allows it to “evolve” and become whatever the ruling politicians at a given moment say it is (or isn’t).How else to explain the decision by the president and his attorney general, Eric Holder, not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996?

Now, you have to be real careful reading this double slight of hand.  See, Mr. Thomas begins this article by telling readers right there in the title, Obama has a duty to “enforce” laws.  But here, in the meat of his offering, he changes the word “enforce” to “defend,” correctly stating in simplest terms, Obama has decided not to defend against (court) challenges to the law (filed by aggrieved parties).  In other words, the fed will still define marriage as between same sex partners, for example, when it comes to doling out spousal benefits.

Then, he hurdles a leap and a bound by pointing readers to the false narrative, Obama based his decision that ‘this law means what he says it means’ because his ‘views on gay marriage are evolving.’  On what documentary basis did Mr. Thomas conjure up this ’cause’ and ‘effect’?

Given his recent history, it appears far more likely, Mr. Obama still opposes equal rights when it comes to sexual orientation but is just exercising this tactic because he is gearing up for the 2012 election and, having alienated a good percentage of his gay base, was ordered by his handlers to take steps to herd them back into the D fold.

For example, it took 2 (two) years to even sign into law a bill that indicates an intention to repeal DADT, notwithstanding strong bi-partisan support for the repeal from all political comers, including both  military brass, and military chaplains. Anyway, DADT is still the law of the land; and Obama has not ordered the DoJ to refrain from defending against court challenges to that law.

Despite the big congressional vote in December to repeal DADT, the law is actually still in effect. The repeal legislation doesn’t stop its implementation until 60 days after top Pentagon brass say they’re ready — and the brass say they’re still working on it, and it could take a few more months.

“The appeal is still alive and kicking because Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is still the law of the land,” said Dan Woods, a lawyer representing the Log Cabin Republicans.

“On behalf of our client, we suggested to the government that we would be willing to stay the appeal on one condition: that the government agree not to discharge any service member under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in the meantime,” Woods told HuffPost. “And the government refused.”

Woods said the Pentagon “is continuing to investigate and process discharges under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

The DOJ lawyers filed their brief Friday even though President Obama, speaking directly to gay service members when he signed the repeal legislation, hailed that December day as marking “the end of a particular struggle that has lasted almost two decades.”


Yep, Obama failed to rescind DADT even as he answered a question regarding his views on same sex marriage by mentioning he had ‘evolving’ views.

In December, the president scored a major legislative victory (with the help of Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Harry Reid, D-Nev.) in signing the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, ending the practice of banning gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

That was quickly followed by this widely noted answer to a question about same-sex marriage at his year-end news conference in December.

“[M]y feelings about this are constantly evolving. I struggle with this. I have friends, I have people who work for me, who are in powerful, strong, long-lasting gay or lesbian unions. And they are extraordinary people, and this is something that means a lot to them and they care deeply about,” President Obama said.

“At this point, what I’ve said is, is that my baseline is a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the legal rights that married couples have. And I think — and I think that’s the right thing to do. But I recognize that from their perspective it is not enough, and I think is something that we’re going to continue to debate and I personally am going to continue to wrestle with going forward,” he added.


(Note that PBS gets it wrong, too, giving credit to Obama for ending DADT when the bill he signed into law only states an ‘intention’ to end the policy.  As I said earlier, the military is still enforcing the current DADT policy and the DoJ is still defending the military’s use of this policy in court.)

Then, Mr. Thomas gets really dishonest.
Imagine the reaction from the Left had George W. Bush announced his administration would no longer defend Roe v. Wade because he thought it unconstitutional and it would eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court.

As regular “jbjd” readers now know,  President Bush nominated to the SCOTUS as Chief Justice, the former Solicitor General who, under his father, President George H. W. Bush, had not only refused to defend against a court challenge to an existing government policy, but also argued against the government policy in federal court, claiming it violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  See FALSE ADVERTISING.  And he had every right to do so.  Id. Not only that, in 2002, President Bush signed into law legislation which created a formal mechanism for reporting to Congress those cases in which the Executive determined to refrain from defending or enforcing any law.

This is from my Reply to a Comment by markcon, on FALSE ADVERTISING.

markcon, you (and millions of others like you) are being played. In acknowledgment that, from time to time, the Executive decides to refrain from defending (or enforcing or administering) what it considers are unConstitutional laws, Congress passed this law requiring the Executive to report its decision(s).

§ 530D. Report on enforcement of laws
(a) Report.—
(1) In general.— The Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a report of any instance in which the Attorney General or any officer of the Department of Justice—
(A) establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to refrain—
(i) from enforcing, applying, or administering any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer on the grounds that such provision is unconstitutional; or
(ii) within any judicial jurisdiction of or within the United States, from adhering to, enforcing, applying, or complying with, any standing rule of decision (binding upon courts of, or inferior to those of, that jurisdiction) established by a final decision of any court of, or superior to those of, that jurisdiction, respecting the interpretation, construction, or application of the Constitution, any statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer;
(B) determines—
(i) to contest affirmatively, in any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the constitutionality of any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law; or
(ii) to refrain (on the grounds that the provision is unconstitutional) from defending or asserting, in any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the constitutionality of any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law, or not to appeal or request review of any judicial, administrative, or other determination adversely affecting the constitutionality of any such provision; or
(C) approves (other than in circumstances in which a report is submitted to the Joint Committee on Taxation, pursuant to section 6405 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) the settlement or compromise (other than in bankruptcy) of any claim, suit, or other action—
(i) against the United States (including any agency or instrumentality thereof) for a sum that exceeds, or is likely to exceed, $2,000,000, excluding prejudgment interest; or
(ii) by the United States (including any agency or instrumentality thereof) pursuant to an agreement, consent decree, or order (or pursuant to any modification of an agreement, consent decree, or order) that provides injunctive or other nonmonetary relief that exceeds, or is likely to exceed, 3 years in duration: Provided, That for purposes of this clause, the term “injunctive or other nonmonetary relief” shall not be understood to include the following, where the same are a matter of public record—
(I) debarments, suspensions, or other exclusions from Government contracts or grants;
(II) mere reporting requirements or agreements (including sanctions for failure to report);
(III) requirements or agreements merely to comply with statutes or regulations;
(IV) requirements or agreements to surrender professional licenses or to cease the practice of professions, occupations, or industries;
(V) any criminal sentence or any requirements or agreements to perform community service, to serve probation, or to participate in supervised release from detention, confinement, or prison; or
(VI) agreements to cooperate with the government in investigations or prosecutions (whether or not the agreement is a matter of public record).
(2) Submission of report to the congress.— For the purposes of paragraph (1), a report shall be considered to be submitted to the Congress if the report is submitted to—
(A) the majority leader and minority leader of the Senate;
(B) the Speaker, majority leader, and minority leader of the House of Representatives;
(C) the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and
(D) the Senate Legal Counsel and the General Counsel of the House of Representatives.
(b) Deadline.— A report shall be submitted—
(1) under subsection (a)(1)(A), not later than 30 days after the establishment or implementation of each policy;
(2) under subsection (a)(1)(B), within such time as will reasonably enable the House of Representatives and the Senate to take action, separately or jointly, to intervene in timely fashion in the proceeding, but in no event later than 30 days after the making of each determination; and
(3) under subsection (a)(1)(C), not later than 30 days after the conclusion of each fiscal-year quarter, with respect to all approvals occurring in such quarter.
(c) Contents.— A report required by subsection (a) shall—
(1) specify the date of the establishment or implementation of the policy described in subsection (a)(1)(A), of the making of the determination described in subsection (a)(1)(B), or of each approval described in subsection (a)(1)(C);
(2) include a complete and detailed statement of the relevant issues and background (including a complete and detailed statement of the reasons for the policy or determination, and the identity of the officer responsible for establishing or implementing such policy, making such determination, or approving such settlement or compromise), except that—
(A) such details may be omitted as may be absolutely necessary to prevent improper disclosure of national-security- or classified information, of any information subject to the deliberative-process-, executive-, attorney-work-product-, or attorney-client privileges, or of any information the disclosure of which is prohibited by section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or other law or any court order if the fact of each such omission (and the precise ground or grounds therefor) is clearly noted in the statement: Provided, That this subparagraph shall not be construed to deny to the Congress (including any House, Committee, or agency thereof) any such omitted details (or related information) that it lawfully may seek, subsequent to the submission of the report; and
(B) the requirements of this paragraph shall be deemed satisfied—
(i) in the case of an approval described in subsection (a)(1)(C)(i), if an unredacted copy of the entire settlement agreement and consent decree or order (if any) is provided, along with a statement indicating the legal and factual basis or bases for the settlement or compromise (if not apparent on the face of documents provided); and
(ii) in the case of an approval described in subsection (a)(1)(C)(ii), if an unredacted copy of the entire settlement agreement and consent decree or order (if any) is provided, along with a statement indicating the injunctive or other nonmonetary relief (if not apparent on the face of documents provided); and
(3) in the case of a determination described in subsection (a)(1)(B) or an approval described in subsection (a)(1)(C), indicate the nature, tribunal, identifying information, and status of the proceeding, suit, or action.
(d) Declaration.— In the case of a determination described in subsection (a)(1)(B), the representative of the United States participating in the proceeding shall make a clear declaration in the proceeding that any position expressed as to the constitutionality of the provision involved is the position of the executive branch of the Federal Government (or, as applicable, of the President or of any executive agency or military department).
(e) Applicability to the President and to Executive Agencies and Military Departments.— The reporting, declaration, and other provisions of this section relating to the Attorney General and other officers of the Department of Justice shall apply to the President (but only with respect to the promulgation of any unclassified Executive order or similar memorandum or order), to the head of each executive agency or military department (as defined, respectively, in sections 105 and 102 of title 5, United States Code) that establishes or implements a policy described in subsection (a)(1)(A) or is authorized to conduct litigation, and to the officers of such executive agency.

(FYI, Congress passed this ‘reporting’ law back in 2002. http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl107-273.html) (Following this link and its successor, above; you can see, first the text appears in the numbered “public law” and then, the law is codified into the appropriate spot in the U.S. Code.)


I zealously try to post information that will inform but not titillate.  Then again, with all due deference to Mr. Thomas, I am only a blogger and not a syndicated columnist.

%d bloggers like this: