GOOD THING the REPUBLICAN PARTY of TEXAS READS the “jbjd” BLOG

April 19, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

Thanks to the Republican Party of Texas (“RPT”) I am able to amend some misleading information I posted in the previous article, BALLOT ENTITLEMENT LAWS should DISQUALIFY PRESIDENT OBAMA in TEXAS. How they came to aid in this clarification, is a hoot!

On Wednesday, April 18, at around 5:30 PM EDT, I received a call from kjcanon, in TX. “Are you sitting down?” Needless to say, I was by the time I answered her question.

Seems she had just received a call from Mr. Jesse Lewis, who is the Executive Director of the RPT,  concerning her open records request. (She had listed her telephone number on that request.) According to Mr Lewis, the documents she asked for had already been forwarded to the email address she provided, and he wanted to know why she would claim otherwise. Immediately, she thought back to that complaint she had just filed 2 days earlier with AG Abbott, charging that Steve Munisteri, Chair of the TDP, a public official under the Public Information Act inasmuch as he certifies candidate names to the ballot; had refused to produce public records she requested, which were the basis of his certification. Could that office have possibly followed up so quickly? She asked Mr. Lewis what was the source of his information: “…I saw the JBJD (sic) blog…”

Turns out, the RPT had sent the materials on April 5, to the wrong address and then, seeing my blog, on Tuesday, re-sent the materials, again to the wrong address. Finally, after contacting kjc on Wednesday, they got it right. They also asked her to pass on this information to me, which she did. (They didn’t ask her to withdraw the public information complaint she had filed with AG Abbott but she did that immediately, too.)

Here are those RPT emails.

Notice that 2 documents were attached: one, designated “20120405091443653.pdf,” which contained multiple candidate applications to the ballot; and the other designated “order on party conventions.pdf.” This second attachment leads to the other subject raised by Mr. Lewis, which we will discuss first.

As the result of a settlement recently reached among the parties in the TX redistricting lawsuit, the dates were changed for several key party functions during the primary season, including the voting by party members during the actual primary contest and, the holding of the party state convention, which changes now conflicted with existing state statutes. Consequently, the federal district court ruling on redistricting matters (on remand from the SCOTUS) issued several orders with respect to these new dates, in which all such inconsistencies were addressed. (Four such orders were issued between February 28 and March 1!) Here is a snippet from an Order entered on February 28:

d. Sections 163.00, 191.007, and 191.008, Texas Election Code, are suspended for the
purposes of modfications (sic) to party rules made pursuant to this order.

Mr. Lewis, again obviously referencing the article he had read here on the “jbjd” blog, now informed kjc that, according to item “d” of this redistricting court order; the RPT wasn’t required to submit its rules to the SoS by January 5, the date which appears in the statute, in order to preserve the entitlement of their candidates to appear on the ballot, anyway! He would send along that court order for her reference.

Now, having not yet seen any of the documents to which kjc referred, I could only ‘guess’ at why Mr. Lewis was wrong. I reasoned that, obviously, a rule determining federal qualifications was not impacted by a court order necessitating changes in filing deadlines, which, without the court’s exception, would conflict with existing state laws. Then, I saw the order. The modifying language in section “d” makes clear, the only party rules exempted from the deadlines contained in those specific statutes, are those rules which must be modified pursuant to the changes imposed by the order, on the timetable for events occurring during the course of the primary season.  (Perhaps that’s why the RPT entitled that attachment, “order on party conventions.”) There is also this, from SoS Andrade:

All dates, deadlines or requirements not specifically adjusted by the federal court order remain as required under state or federal law. Calendar of Important Dates for Candidates for the 2012 Primary and General Elections

Before I complete the discussion of the rules, I want to focus on the other attachment which came in the mail, the Presidential candidate applications.  According to Mr. Lewis, the applications “are the only documents used to certify these candidates place on our ballot.” So, we looked for something in the form which confirms that the candidate has established meeting “federal” “qualifications.” Here is the form submitted by Charles “Buddy” Roemer.

Notice that this contains an oath or affirmation from the applicant swearing s/he satisfies the Constitutional requirements for the job.

Now, look at the TDP form submitted by Barack Obama (which also appeared on the previous post.)

No such self-authentication. (Had you already noticed that the application form supplied by the TDP contains no such oath or affirmation?)

Either way, neither the RPT nor the TDP can be said to ‘certify’ a Presidential candidate has met federal qualifications when the only basis for that certification is the candidate’s self-authentication.

Anyway, that was just the beginning of our work. On the RPT form, in the upper left corner, I noticed this blurb: Prescribed by the Republican Party of Texas, Rule #38, 10/2011. So, the RPT ostensibly has a rule with respect to establishing a candidate for President is federally qualified? How did we miss that? We searched through the RPT rules (and the TDP rules) for anything containing the numbers “191” or “192,” the sections of TX statutes dealing with Presidential candidates, and found nothing. Now, we looked at the RPT’s rule 38. Here is the section of that rule relating to the candidates’ applications:

Rule No. 38 – National Convention Delegates and Alternates – Amended February 29, 2012
Section 1. Presidential Primary, Application of Rule

Section 2. Method of Qualifying as Presidential Candidate
a. Filing: Any person eligible to hold the office of President of the United States may qualify to participate as a Presidential candidate in the presidential primary by filing with the State Chairman, not later than 6:00 p.m. the second Monday in December of an odd-numbered year preceding the presidential primary, a signed and acknowledged application for his or her name to be placed on the Presidential Primary ballot, accompanied by a supporting petition signed by a minimum of 300 registered voters of the state from each of a minimum of fifteen (15) Congressional Districts, or the payment of a filing fee of $5,000.

So, yes, both the TDP and the RPT filed ‘rules’ with the SoS by deadlines created either in the statute or through the court order(s). But neither party preserved its entitlement to the ballot by filing a rule that spelled out how it would determine conclusively so as to certify to the Sos; both the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are federally qualified for the job.

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

Freedom costs.

Advertisements

BALLOT ENTITLEMENT LAWS should DISQUALIFY PRESIDENT OBAMA in TEXAS

April 16, 2012

CRITICAL UPDATE 04.18.12, 17:59 EDT

at bottom of post

(CORRECTED 06.25.12)

©2012 jbjd

Under Texas law, by failing to file with Texas Secretary of State Hope Andrade the rules adopted by the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) to determine that the party’s nominees for President and Vice President are federally qualified for the job; Attorney Boyd Richie, Chair of the TDP, has forfeited the entitlement of the party to have the name of its nominees for those federal offices appear on the 2012 TX ballot. In fact, by failing to provide the candidate qualification rules of the Republican Party of Texas (“RPT”), Attorney Steve Munisteri, Chair of the RPT, has similarly forfeited the entitlement of his party’s nominees for President and Vice President to appear on the 2012 ballot, too.

It’s true; look at the law.

In TX, who determines whether the names of the nominees chosen by a political party, for President and Vice-President of the United States appear on the ballot?

A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for President and Vice President of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law. §192.031 PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT

But who determines whether the nominee for President is Constitutionally eligible for the job?

The state chair of each political party holding a Presidential primary election shall certify the name of each Presidential candidate who qualifies for a place on the Presidential primary election ballot and deliver the certification to the Secretary of State. §191.003 NOTICE OF CANDIDATES TO SECRETARY OF STATE

How does the state chair determine whether the candidate has satisfied federal eligibility?

The state executive committee of each political party holding a Presidential primary election shall adopt the rules necessary to implement these laws. §191.008 IMPLEMENTATION BY PARTY

How does the SoS know that the party has adopted these rules necessary to verify the federal qualification of the  Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates submitted to that office?

For a political party to be entitled to have its nominees for President and Vice President of the United States placed on the general election ballot in an election year in which the party is holding a presidential primary election, the rules adopted under this section or the rules already in existence must be filed with the secretary of state not later than January 5 of the Presidential election year. Id.

Now, look at the facts.

In 2008, the SoS received from Mr. Richie the list of candidates the TDP wanted the state to print on the TX primary ballot. Here is Mr. Richie’s cover letter, and only the first page of that candidate submission.

(These 2008 records were obtained from the SoS in 2012 during a series of requests for public information, which was delayed due to court redistricting issues that in turn pushed back the date of the primary to May 29 and, therefore, the deadline for party submissions). (The mandatory retention schedule for such records is 2 years unless the records have been the subject of some kind of challenge. We have no idea why the SoS maintained these records for 4 years, but we are glad she did.)

In the cover letter, Mr. Richie explains he is sending this information to the SoS “in compliance with §172.028(a) of the Texas Election Code.” That section, STATE CHAIR’S CERTIFICATION OF NAMES FOR PLACEMENT ON GENERAL PRIMARY BALLOT, is found under TITLE 10, POLITICAL PARTIES, SUBTITLE B. PARTIES NOMINATING BY PRIMARY ELECTION, CHAPTER 172. PRIMARY ELECTIONS. Then, as you can see; in the page that followed, he listed together both the Presidential candidates and the down-ticket candidates, like U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative.

He shouldn’t have.

Title 10 only applies to party candidates chosen via a primary election. And even though the names of both the Presidential hopefuls and these down-ticket offices appear on the same primary ballot; the party nominees for U.S. Senate and U.S. Representative are chosen directly as the result of the primary contest, whereas the nominees for President and Vice President are not. Rather, these are chosen at the party’s Presidential nominating convention. (This is covered in Title 11, in §191.003.) This means, votes cast for the Presidential candidate during the party primary only count for the purpose of the assignment of pledged delegates who will then vote for that candidate at the party’s national convention.

So, is listing the Presidential candidates, covered under 191.003, on the same form as candidates covered by 172.028(a), as cited in Mr. Richie’s letter, just a legal technicality, in other words, a distinction without a difference? Hardly. Here is the text of 172.028(a): “Except as provided…the state chair shall certify in writing for placement on the general primary election ballot the name of each candidate who files with the chair an application…” In other words, to get on the ballot under this section, a candidate need only submit an application. And no law requires the party to adopt rules to carry out the laws in this section. On the other hand, 191.003, printed above, requires the chair to submit only the names of candidates federally qualified for the job. And 191.008 requires the party to adopt rules to ensure the section’s implementation.

Naturally, just because Mr. Richie wrote down the wrong law didn’t mean, he hadn’t carried out the mandate of the right law by verifying the candidates he submitted to the SoS for the 2008 Presidential preference primary ballot were federally qualified for the job. But we know he didn’t verify whether the Presidential nominee wannabes were federally qualified for the job. We also know that Mr. Munisteri, his counterpart in the RPT, didn’t verify Republican Presidential candidates were federally qualified for the job, too. Because we looked it up. That is, we searched the internal rules of the respective parties for references to 191.003.

TDP Rules, 2006-2008: http://txdems.3cdn.net/b365cb3e72bc521333_pom6vdrl3.pdf

TDP Rules, 2012: http://www.txdemocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/2010-2012-TDP-Rules.pdf

RPT Rules, 2008: http://www.1888932-2946.ws/TexasGOP/E-ContentStrategy/userfiles/2008_General_Rules.pdf

RPT Rules, 2011 (Amended for 2012): http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2011RPTRules_Amended.pdf

Lo and behold, we found no such rules. For either party. For the years 2008 – 2012. This means, neither party could possibly have submitted the rules required under 191.003 to the SoS. And, under 192.031, this means neither party is entitled to have the names of its Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees on the general election ballot. It’s as simple as that.

Of course, just because both the TDP and the RPT have lost entitlement to have the names of their nominees for President and Vice President on the general election ballot doesn’t mean that SoS Andrade cannot exercise her discretion to place those names on that ballot or, on the primary ballot, anyway. But she should not. And here’s why.

Notwithstanding neither party promulgated rules as required by law to preserve entitlement for the names of their Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to appear on the ballot; this does not mean, they didn’t somehow verify their candidates had satisfied federal qualifications for the job. So we submitted a request for the production of documents which were the basis for their ballot certification; to the Chairs of both parties, under the TX Public Information Act.

You might recall we attempted to retrieve documents from Mr. Richie and the TDP in 2010. But notwithstanding under the law the documents requested were pubic records; and the parties, as holders of these records, were public officials; those 2010 requests were ignored. TEXAS TWO-STEP. Maybe it was because we hadn’t spelled out in our request the legal framework which supported our rights to the documents requested. In other words, we hadn’t let him know, we know the law. So, this time, we did. (Citizens shouldn’t have to be lawyers to get their public officials to do their jobs, whether these are unelected officers of a private political club merely fulfilling a public function. Especially when those officials are lawyers, too. Id.) 1) §191.003.  NOTICE OF CANDIDATES TO SECRETARY OF STATE. This law established the Chair had a duty to certify the names of the party candidates to the SoS. 2) §192.031.  PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT. This restricts entitlement to be on the ballot to only those Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates meeting federal qualifications for the job. 3) §141.035.  APPLICATION AS PUBLIC INFORMATION. This establishes a candidate’s application for a place on the ballot is a public record on filing. 4) §161.004.  PARTY DOCUMENT AS PUBLIC INFORMATION. This states that any document required to be filed by the party is public information. 5. §161.009.  PARTY OFFICER SUBJECT TO MANDAMUS.  This spells out that when a party officer has a duty to act under the election code; the performance of that duty is enforceable by writ of mandamus in the same manner as if the party officer were a public officer.

Here is the Public Information request letter sent to the RPT.
How did the RPT respond to the request? Attorney Munisteri ignored it. (Kelly has already filed a complaint with AG Abbott.)

Presumably, the esteemed Chair of the RPT knows when it comes to submitting names to the TX ballot; he is a public official, required to respond to this request for public information. Because his brother in the law, Attorney Richie, Chair of the TDP, knows. When we sent this letter to him –

he gave us everything we wanted – (CORRECTION 06.24.12: He only appeared to give us what we wanted. Because as Kelly pointed out; this application was missing any language establishing the candidate was Constitutionally eligible for the job; and she had asked for documents which were the basis for his finding the candidates whose names he submitted to the SoS to appear on the ballot were “federally qualified.”) (See WILL TX AG ABBOTT PROSECUTE the TDP for VIOLATING the TX PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT?)

which consisted of nothing more than Mr. Obama’s ballot application. (Under §1.012, PUBLIC INSPECTION OF ELECTION RECORDS, you can view this public record by visiting the offices of the TDP.)

In other words, Mr. Richie put the name of Barack Obama on the TX ballot just because he asked him to. As if he was a down-ticket candidate under 172.028(a).

Wherefore, SoS Andrade should exercise her discretionary authority to keep the RPT candidates for President and Vice President off the ballot; not just because they ignored the law requiring rules adopted for candidate eligibility to be filed with her office but also because they ignored the law requiring production of records used for public elections. She should exercise her discretion to keep the TDP candidates off the ballot because they ignored the law on rules and then swore to the SoS, having filed an application to get on the ballot, the candidate was thereby federally qualified for the job

When it comes to exercising her discretion as to whether to allow the Presidential candidates of either of these parties, Republican or Democrat, to appear on the TX ballot; SoS Andrade should come down on the side of the citizens of Texas, and not the political parties.

(H/T to “jbjd” patron kjcanon for her Herculean assistance researching, editing, and thinking out loud.)

CRITICAL UPDATE 04.18.12, 17:59 EDT: I have just been informed of a change of status with regard to the documents requested from the RPT. The post which will print shortly will explain everything. jbjd

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

Freedom costs.


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


BACK UP, BIRTHERS!

October 12, 2010

© 2010 jbjd

COPYRIGHT WARNING

and

CONSUMER ALERT!


This is a copyright warning and consumer alert to the owners and readers of any of the following internet sites: americangrandjury; americanthinker; butterdezillion; canadafreepress; citizensagainstproobamamediabias; citizenwells; devvykidd; fellowshipofminds; freerepublic; logisticsmonster; obamareleaseyourrecords; oilforimmigration;  sodahead; theconservativemonster; thedametruth; theobamafile; thepostemail; therightsideoflife; washingtontimes; and westernjournalism and and wnd (both Bob Unruh’s bloviating babies).

You have been made accessories after the fact to the theft by JB Williams of  original work produced by and copyrighted to me, “jbjd” and posted on the “jbjd” blog but which work he stole without my prior notice or approval and has been illegally distributing under his name ever since.  Adding insult to injury, having only stolen the work but not bothered to learn what it meant, Mr. Williams misrepresented to his audience what it meant.  As a consequence of his subterfuge,  dozens of blog owners ostensibly motivated by their heartfelt desire to teach others about our electoral process; and hundreds of thousands of citizens ostensibly trying to learn about our electoral process by reading these blogs, have been distributing and consuming false information Mr. Williams wrongly extrapolated from my work.

Worse, crediting this narrative knock-off, citizens have been traveling up blind alleys trying to figure out the fraud that tainted the 2008 election cycle when collectively, they could have been taking positive steps I already laid out to redress the illegal fraud I had previously identified, years ago now, which action would help to prevent its recurrence.  In wasting their time and effort in this way, they have been paying for his crime ever since.

Evidence of the Theft

On August 13, 2009 I posted IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS “un-AMERICAN” THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO on my blog, “jbjd.” This article was inspired by  comments from the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, to USA Today, describing boisterous dissent at town hall meetings leading up to the vote on Obamacare as “un-American.”  (“Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.”)  The article focused on the contradiction between 1) Ms. Pelosi’s Certification that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen, and Obama’s statement on “Fight the Smears” that he is only a “native”; and between 2) communications from members of Congress to their constituents claiming that Obama is eligible to be President because Annenberg Political Fact Check says he is, and the fact I exposed that APFC does not check facts, which I documented in RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’ posted 4 (four) days earlier, on August 9, 2009.

As background, I parenthetically reminded readers, saying Obama was “duly nominated” or was “Constitutionally eligible for the job” was a distinction without a difference.

(In some states, like TX and GA, the law requires that the party candidate must be Constitutionally eligible for the job.  But even in these states, no provision of law requires anyone in government to check.  DNC rules dictate that the candidate for the Democratic nomination for President “shall meet those requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States.”  http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf (p.14, K.1 and 2).  Thus, identifying under oath that BO was the D party nominee was tantamount to swearing, he is a NBC, anyway.)

To show this difference, I posted images of 2 (two) DNC Certifications of Obama’s Nomination submitted to election officials in SC and HI, both of which had been available individually on the internet for more than 8 (eight) months by that time, since 2008. And, consistent with my writings on the 2008 election cycle since before the August 2008 DNC nominating convention, in which I emphasized that elections are a state by state affair conducted according to individual state laws; I repeated that the difference in wording found in these 2 Certifications was only attributable to the individual requirements of election laws passed in each state. I pointed out according to the election laws in HI, the party must explicitly write this Constitutional eligibility into their Certification.  But again, this difference in the wording of the Certifications was not the point of the article.  Signing two different Certifications was not a problematic ‘fact’ because as I explained, saying either “duly nominated” or “Constitutionally eligible” meant, he is a Natural Born Citizen.

But introducing the side-by-side images of these Certifications in this August 2009 article, I wrote this line:  “In HI, just identifying the name of the nominee does not guarantee his name will be placed on the ballot.  No;  in order to get BO’s name on the ballot in just that state, NP also had to swear he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.”  Unfortunately, JB Williams misconstrued that throwaway line to mean, ‘NP failed to Certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for President in 49 states but did Certify his eligibility in HI because HI law required the Party to swear the nominee was Constitutionally qualified.’  Of course, he got it all wrong.  As you know, saying “duly nominated” by the DNC means, saying he is a NBC.  Because DNC rules require the nominee to be a NBC.  (Maybe I should have said, “in just that state, NP also had to explicitly swear he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.”  In other words, under HI election law, just swearing he was “duly nominated” without explicitly writing he was “qualified” under the “Constitution” would not have been enough to get election officials to print his name on the ballot even though Certifying he was “duly nominated” still meant, he was “Constitutionally eligible for the job.”)

And as I was to learn from ongoing research only several days later, that additional explanation still would have been wrong.  Anyone who reads my blog regularly knows, just a couple of weeks after I posted the August article containing the images of the HI and SC Certifications, I posted  UP to HERE in ELECTION FRAUD in SC, FROM the CHAIR of the 2008 DNC CONVENTION to the CHAIR of the DNC, the article that explained election law in SC also requires explicit eligibility language to accompany the submission of candidate names to election officials to print on the ballot.  In other words, HI is not the only state whose election law requires an explicit statement that the candidate is qualified for the job before election officials will print the candidate’s name on the ballot.  So, why wasn’t this explicit language in the SC Certification of Nomination?  Well, as I pointed out in the SC article, this specific eligibility certification in SC was accomplished even before the nominating convention in August 2008, way back in November 2007, in time for the Presidential preference primary.  Because under SC law, candidates who want their names to appear on the party’s primary ballot must register directly with the party! This meant, in SC, Obama’s Constitutional eligibility had to be sworn to by the party, back in November 2007 in time to have election officials print his name on the D Presidential preference primary ballot.  So, in SC, Kathy Hensley, Treasurer of the SC Democratic Party, explicitly swore Obama (and Biden and Clinton…) was Constitutionally eligible for the job, in 2007.  (I obtained these primary documents working with a reader of my blog from SC, who spoke with an official from the SC Election Commission to answer ‘my’ questions.)

On September 11, 2009, playing on the words of the titles of my preceding 2 articles, JB Williams published, “The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don’t Lie,” in Canada Free Press, the neo-Nazi rag which lists him as a “Partner” (along with Douglas Hagmann of Northeast Intelligence Network (“NEIN” for “No” in German, get the ‘joke’?)).   Evidently seeing these dual HI and SC Certifications for the first time, Mr. Williams now hyperbolically announced to the world:

…They snuck it past fifty state election commissions, congress, the US Supreme Court and Justice Department, the Federal Elections Commission and countless members of the Electoral College nationwide. Not a single member of the, as Limbaugh says, “drive-by media” caught it either, or if they did, they decided to become complicit for their own political reasons.

But as is always the case with liars, cheats and thieves, they slip up Ð make a silly mistake Ð overplay their hand Ð leave evidence lying around that they had forgotten about. And as with all chronic liars, they eventually get caught in their own web of lies.

Then, one day, someone stumbles into that evidence, and the house of cards comes crashing down around them. It’s almost poetic…

…Last, the fact that TWO DNC Certifications exist, both signed, dated and notarized by the same individuals on the same day, means that a very real conspiracy to commit election fraud was underway, and since it took until six months after the election to uncover it, the conspiracy was indeed successful.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm

(How many mistakes of fact were you able to count in just these quoted lines?)

(Note to JB Williams:  The Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) is only legally authorized to oversee campaign finance and not candidate eligibility for office.  http://www.fec.gov/)

Immediately, the thief was confronted with the facts, readers detected his theft from my blog and opposed his wrong interpretation of the meaning and significance of these dual Certifications.  How do we know?  Because they told him, in writing, and urged him to refer his readers to my blog, reporting I had been working on these issues for some time, and could accurately explain their meaning in context.

From markcon:

Please give credit where it is obviously belongs: https://jbjd.wordpress.com/
for the correct meaning and interpretation that he has studied for almost a year now and also how to act on it.

Posted by markcon  on  09/10  at  08:51 PM | #

From Paralegal:

Mr. Williams
Please follow the enclosed link. There is a movement just
started to file complaints with State Attorney Generals
about this very problem. A model complaint, prepared by an attorney, has been prepared which can be used in every state, with corrections that will apply to your state of filing. Please take a look, and it could be the subject of a future article. Here is the link:
https://jbjd.wordpress.com/
Thanks for the article, great work.

Posted by Paralegal  on  09/12  at  02:52 PM | #

More from markcon:

people pay attention. the site where these 2 files were borrowed with no credit given is https://jbjd.wordpress.com/ Please give credit where it is obviously belongs: https://jbjd.wordpress.com/
for the correct meaning and interpretation. jbjd has studied for almost a year now and also how to act on it.

Posted by markcon  on  09/12  at  08:14 PM | #

Again from markcon:

MR. Williams,
You stated “I had NO knowledge of the site you reference until AFTER the release of your column. NO knowledge of this site whatsoever.”
I was not implying that you did!
I was referring to the anonymous reader that sent them to you, and the possible idea of fraud that came with it, if any. I commend you on being able to take the initiative and investigate. I am sure your readers understood that point and I thought you did too because you so generously let me post the site https://jbjd.wordpress.com/ where people can take advantage of research that has been done in this area for almost a year now.

I am in no way part of that blog- just a fan.
And as a fan I wanted to point to a blog where I think in my opinion is more detailed and corrects some wrong conclusions on your part and others new come to the issue.

I hope you take advantage of well thought out research and possibly report on https://jbjd.wordpress.com/ work especially in the states of Hi and TX. since the report would be on jbjd there would be no issues and would be a great follow up to your column because I am sure you would agree that there are others like you concerned about fraud.
The NH investigation is a red herring and will give msm a chance to say the issue has been settled even though NH has no such law.

Thanks again for posting my comment about https://jbjd.wordpress.com/ and I am sorry if there was any misunderstanding.columns like yours that are concerned about fraud only want the truth and by posting my comment you showed that you cared enough to show the path to that truth.

From azgo:

Go here, jbjd has been diligently working on this and other things for quite some time. See “MODEL COMPLAINT OF ELECTION FRAUD TO STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL”. Please read the other posts by jbjd.
https://jbjd.wordpress.com/
(Note – The bold lettering may show and somehow got messed up today in the model letter to the Texas Attorney General. jbjd is working on fixing this.)

The Texas chair of the Texas Democratic Party used his letterhead on practically the same letter and as jbjd has noted in the model letter to the Texas Attorney General. Texas election code requires the state political party chair to certify the names of the nominees for POTUS and “the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law”. Please note that the notary’s date of the “27 day of August, 2008”.
http://falseflagrag.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/texas-general-election-certifications/official-tdp-cert/

Posted by azgo  on  09/10  at  04:09 PM | #
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/the-theory-is-now-a-conspiracy-and-facts-dont-lie/P318/

Obviously, given azgo’s information that only Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) signed the Certifications that went to election officials in TX, and not Nancy Pelosi, he was wrong when he told readers, Nancy Pelosi signed Certifications in all 50 states!  And he could have easily checked, because azgo also informed him, those TX documents were the basis for the citizen complaint of election fraud to TX AG Abbott I had posted on my blog and made available to readers for download and sending, free of charge. But by this time, Mr. Williams was too invested in the notoriety he had begun receiving for posting my work, to admit culpability for his crime.  So, he never corrected the mistakes he had incorporated into his faulty analysis of the work I had created which he re-posted under his name.  He couldn’t now post these corrections, or direct readers of his plagiarized column to my blog and the TX complaint I had posted there specifically for their use and which could prove effective against the state party chair; without giving away he had stolen his column from me!

So, how did Mr. Williams respond to these numerous charges, he had stolen my work?  He now claimed he had just received the two differently worded Certifications “anonymously.”  (Later on, he claimed, he still had not found the time to authenticate the HI document.  Thus, he posted these documents from an ‘anonymous source’ without authentication, and then based his conclusions on these images.  Some researcher!)

Fallout From the Theft

Meanwhile, all of those other sites that had posted JB Williams’ work and, like him, failed to credit me or, follow my blog, not only missed out on the truth FOR ONE WHOLE YEAR but also wasted their time and energy on a wild goose chase dependent on the differences in Certifications, instead of pursuing the mechanism I had created on my blog that would allow citizens to go after those members of the D Party who committed election fraud in applicable states.

Especially hard hit was butterdezillion.  In September 2010, she credited JB Williams with writing the definitive article in CFP on the 2 different Certifications of Obama’s Nomination; and she, too, repeated the lie, HI is the only state that requires explicit Certification of Constitutionality to get on the ballot.  Just like the response triggered when JB Williams stole my work, now, one year later, when butterdezillion credited his theft of that same work, she, too, was bombarded with writers informing her, this was my work all along.  And it didn’t mean what JB Williams said it meant.  Additionally, I contacted her and demanded a retraction.  Now, unlike Mr. Williams, she did alter her credits to reflect, the research that produced these Certifications was mine.  (In fact, I had not originally obtained either document.  The SC Certification was on the internet.  The HI Certification came from Justin Riggs.  I only put them side by side to visually demonstrate the differences.) (More on my collaboration with Justin later…) However, like JB Williams, as she had failed to study my work, she now incorrectly told her readers what this research means.

You have to see how far behind the curve she – and her readers – remain in September 2010.  (Note the added ‘mention’ of the election law in SC.)

Outstanding research by blogger jbjd here, here, here, and here, with summary here, showed that Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond , as representatives of the Democratic National Committee, had signed one Certificate of Nomination for Obama and Biden that was sent to 49 states, and another that was sent only to Hawaii. Only the certificate sent to Hawaii included a statement that Obama and Biden were Constitutionally qualified to serve as President and Vice-President.

That certificate of nomination for Hawaii is the ONLY statement in this nation signed by somebody besides Obama which claims that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President. (Note: I am currently checking into whether the South Carolina Democratic Party also signed a statement of Constitutional eligibility. Will update later if this paragraph needs to be edited.) Contrary to arguments that Congress certified Obama’s eligibility when they certified the results of the electoral vote, neither representatives of Congress nor any Secretary of State has signed a legal document saying that Obama is eligible. This one oath by Pelosi and Germond is the only legal claim that Obama’s eligibility was verified.

http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/certificate-of-nomination-summary/

And responding to a reader comment, she writes,

I also saw something about the SC Democratic Party certifying eligibility; I think I’ve seen jbjd write about that. I need to check that out and update the post to reflect that the SCDP also certified eligibility…

But not surprisingly, as of now, despite her ‘conscienscious’ words, she has failed to “check that out and update the post to reflect that the SCDP also certified eligibility…”  Because just like the alternative confronting Mr. Williams, if she corrects her work in 2010 based on work previously processed on my blog beginning in 2008; what does this say about the caliber of her work?  Better to leave her readers in the dark…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Kevin B. Cronin

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

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

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

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

View this document on Scribd

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

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

Conclusion

Just because I believe no documentary evidence available in the public record can establish Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen, let alone natural born; does not mean, I buy into every speculative conspiracy theory on the subject polluting the blogosphere.  No; I still want back-up material that would tend to support any such claims.  And claims once supported by such material which are later de-bunked with newer information, I want to be tweaked or rescinded altogether.  But that’s just me.  Sure, I make mistakes; but I never try to bolster my popularity to the detriment of my readers!  (Word to the wise:  if a particular blog continues to post uncorroborated and unsubstantiated conclusions as fact, consider whether you would be better off going elsewhere for your ‘news.’)

To everyone who steals my work, listen:  I have already outed the illegal fraud related to Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for office which occurred during the 2008 election cycle, and prescribed remedies that can produce results now.  But first, people have to pursue those remedies, which requires understanding our electoral process.  The ‘nuts-and-bolts’ information provided on my blog tells you everything you need to know to file citizen complaints of election fraud, in applicable states.  Of course, if you have questions, ask me!  (fellowshipofminds picked up on butterdezillion’s now discredited conspiracy theory in HI.  Eventually, s/he notified readers, s/he received an email pointing out, I have already conducted extensive research on these issues and posted citizen complaints of election fraud for applicable states, in the sidebar on my blog.  But in an incredibly blatant act of hubris, now that this new correspondence has effectively established, the work produced on fellowshipofminds is fatally misinformed; s/he advises readers, ‘Visit jbjd’s blog to get those complaints in the sidebar and if you have any questions, come back here to ask me!’)

My blog competes with these several sites preoccupied with self-notoriety through posting glitzy salacious ‘discoveries’ about anything remotely connected to that election, even re-casting issues already de-constructed on my blog, years ago.   If only these other sites would at long last shift their focus toward learning the ins and outs of our electoral process by actually reading my blog, including the Comments – some of the best work is carried out in interactions between my readers and me – instead of re-inventing the wheel.  Then, when they understand that process, they could demonstrate a bona fide commitment to fixing our electoral system by spearheading massive citizen action in just one state, say, TX, aimed to persuade AG Abbott to follow through on the more than 100 citizen complaints of election fraud filed against Boyd Richie, the D state chair who signed and submitted to state election officials the sole Certification of Obama’s Nomination, which got them to print his name on the general election ballot…

P.S.  What does arouse my suspicion in HI is the ‘coincidence’ that Mr. Schatz, Chair of the HDP, taught in Kenya and went to school there, in the early ’90’s…  What are the odds?

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=10197

A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (3 of 4)

September 6, 2010

(Note to Readers:  The “COUP” Series is now complete.  See, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGHEPILOGUE.)

© 2010 jbjd

A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (3 of 4) is the third installment in the 4-part series describing the fraud pulled off at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention in order to ensure Barack Obama would receive the nomination so that his name would appear next to the D on the general election ballot.  The groundwork for the present article, “The Coup at the Convention,” was laid in the first 2 (two) installments, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 4); and A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 4).  Trust me, if you understand what got us here, to the convention, then you are now at the same jumping off point as those people who were determined to steal the nomination.  Yep; just like you, from here on in, they were winging it, too.  Because something they hadn’t anticipated happened at the start of the convention which could have derailed their best laid plans to obtain the nomination.  Indeed, as I wasn’t there, it is only in retrospect I can explain to you what I later realized is about to go down, notwithstanding as it turns out, I was responsible for what happened next.

The Coup at the Convention

Judging by how hard they had fought to elbow Clinton out of the race at the beginning of the primary and caucus contests, powerful parties interested in placing Obama in the White House knew from the start, the only certain way to force this flawed candidate on the American people was to limit his exposure to public scrutiny by sewing up his nomination well in advance of the August 25 nominating convention.  They failed, miserably.  Indeed, while publicly maintaining since February, his nomination was a fait accompli; even they didn’t feel comfortable enough until August 14 that, having strong-armed a sufficient number of pledged delegates and paid off the rest, no matter what, they would pull off the nomination in an open roll call vote of pledged delegates from all states on the floor of the convention; to concede consistent with past practice the name of any other candidate seeking the nomination should also be formally entered into the roll.

Yes, they were confident on August 14 and for almost the next 11 (eleven) days that their Herculean investments in his candidacy over the past couple of years would pay off, better late than never.  And in the end, even accounting for the open roll call vote of pledged delegates from every state, from the floor of the convention,  he would walk away with the nomination.

Have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) recruit Obama in the summer of 2006 to run against Clinton for the 2008 Presidential nomination?  Check.  Immediately thereafter, have DNC Chair Howard Dean rig the delegate apportionment process so as to ensure that Clinton, despite winning on account of real votes cast in state contests for her, would nonetheless lose and Obama, despite losing the actual vote count, would win?  Check, check, and check.   Have him appoint Pentacostal Preacher Leah Daughtry, DNC Chief of Staff, to be the CEO of the 2008 DNC  Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention?  Check.  Have him make Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and 3rd in line of Presidential succession, the Chair of the 2008 Convention thus enabling her to control the nomination process (and after making him the nominee, to co-sign the Certification of his Nomination swearing to election officials he is Constitutionally eligible to be President to get them to print his name on the ballot in states whose laws only allow on the ballot the names of candidates who are legally qualified for the job)?  Check.

Then, on August 25, the first day of the convention, something unexpected happened which began to unsettle his henchmen; and which, by Tuesday, August 26, the second night of the convention, had panicked them into pulling a bait and switch on the scheduled roll call vote of pledged delegates from all states on the floor of the convention, scrambling to preserve the chance that just through the use of that roll call, he could get the nomination.

That’s when they scrapped the scheduled open roll call vote of all states on the floor of the convention, simultaneously orchestrating a convoluted ploy affording them plausible deniability, they had not.

The ‘change’ in voting procedure, fashioned by both the Clinton and Obama camps Tuesday night, was rolled out to the press in Wednesday morning’s conference call.  (Even the word “change” was never used.) Bill Burton, spokesperson for the Obama campaign,  handed off the details to Jenny Backus; and she only prefaced her remarks by saying, she would “talk a little bit today, um, about some of the, um, process that you will see that will happen tonight, um, at the convention.”

Last night, convention secretary Alice Germond; ah, Jeff Berman, who is a senior adviser to the Barack Obama campaign; and Craig Smith who is a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton sent out a joint note to, um, all of the state delegation chairs with some information about, um, Wednesday’s roll call vote.  Ah, basically, um, here’s the guidance that we can give you, ah, so far.  Ah, last night and this morning, state delegations received vote tally sheets for their delegates.  Um, throughout the day today they’ll be distributing those tally sheets to their delegates.  Um, the cheat sheets will be completed by 4pm mountain time.  Eh, today from about 3 to 5pm mountain time   the voting and roll call procedure will happen.  Um, the convention will gavel open at 3, ah, there’ll be, um, 3 nominating speeches, um, for Senator Clinton, a nominating speech and seconding speeches, ah, and then a nominating speech and 3 seconding speeches for Senator Obama.  Ah, they will, ah, each candidate’s speeches will total, ah, no more than 15 minutes, so that’ll be about a half an hour of speeches.  Once the speeches are concluded the vote tally sheets will be collected, ah, by the office of the secretary, ah, and then we will begin the roll call of the states and the delegation chair or her designee will announce the totals for each candidate.  So, that’s the procedure how the roll call vote is gonna work today.

Um, and, ah, you can look forward to later this morning, ah, a joint statement from the Clinton and Obama office about who will be giving those nominating speeches, um, for each of us.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/27/roll-call-details-hammered-out/?fbid=yBSb83MFwB9

A reporter from BBC (whose name I did not get) asked, “…in reference to the roll call vote, I just wanted to confirm that there’s not going to be stoppage of, of any sort of states, that all 50 states will have their say and their vote tallies announced, right?  There won’t be any kind of stopping?” Id.

Ms. Backus replied, “Um, the guidance that we’re giving you on the roll call vote is basically exactly what I just, ah, said to you right there.  Um, it will go from, ah, 3 to 5pm mountain, ah, which is 5 to 7pm eastern, um, and that’s the procedure on how it’s gonna work.”  Id.

Joe Manus, St. Louis Post Dispatch asked, “So the roll call will be at the beginning of tonight’s proceedings; and will the states be doing their unofficial tallies like this morning at the breaksfast?” Id.

“States will, um, begin to do their, um, unofficial tallies at the breakfast and throughout the day, um, and they will turn in those tally sheets, ah, this evening after either during or after, um, the nominating speeches before the call of the roll begins.” Id.

In sum, Ms. Backus told the press, pledged delegates will begin voting at their hotels this morning and throughout the day as delegation chairs distribute the “cheat sheets” to members of their delegations, only until 4:00 mountain time, when they are due to be delivered to the floor of the convention to be added into state totals which will be announced during the roll call of all states on the floor of the convention beginning at 3:00 mountain time.

Get it?

Delegates awoke on Wednesday, August 27, and shuffled off to another round of state delegation breakfasts where, in addition to their coffee and tea, they were now served up this bitter elixir from their delegation chairs.  They would have to cast votes for their candidates after breakfast, in the hotel, behind closed doors, and then re-group on the floor of the convention.

Their response?  Total confusion.

At least according to this account published in the Austin Chronicle at 1:33 on Wednesday afternoon, describing what had happened that morning when Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”), a super delegate who had committed to Obama before the end of the primary/caucus contests, announced the new plans to the Texas delegation.  (All mistakes appear in original.)

Finally, a Roll Call Vote

Boyd Richie announced a change to the Roll Call Vote process at this morning’s Delegate Breakfast. After receiving our delegate credentials, we were directed to a small room in the west wing of the host hotel. Inside the room we presented our delegate credential and ID, then placed our president preference (Obama, Clinton, or Abstain) and signed our name. This was our official vote. The list will be copied and published then delivered to the Pepsi Center via a shuttle bus around 12:30pm (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

Mr. Richie stated that officials staying at other hotels would still have the opportunity to vote later today. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

Chairman Richie was upset both visibility and emotionally when some delegates asked whether observers would be present during the voting process. “We’re all Democrats”, said Richie in an angry tone. Finally, after several interruptions from some delegates requesting an observer, he asked the Obama registered agent Ron Kirk and Hillary registered agent Garry Mauro whether they wanted observers. Registered agents are the official representatives for campaigns. Mr. Kirk said they [Obama delegates] were not interested in having observers. As he said this, some Obama supporters began to chant, “Unity, unity.” In place of Mr. Mauro, John Oeffinger represented the Hillary campaign and honored the request of Hillary delegates to assign observers. John then immediately scrambled about the ballroom to schedule observers in shifts.

Strangely, we’ve also been told that we’ll vote again this evening. Mr. Richie said he did not know the process for delegates that wish to change their vote from what they placed on this morning’s ballot. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

After voting, we were sent to a table to obtain our seating assignment for this evenings Roll Call Vote at the Pepsi Center.

So, how many times do we vote? Which one counts? I guess we’ll find out tonight.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/News/Blogs/index.html/objID666330/blogID/

How many times do we vote?”  “Which one counts?”  Mr. Richie’s announcement there was a “change” in the voting procedure obviously left the Texas delegation with the impression, the ‘process’ used by the DNC to choose their Presidential nominee was ‘play it by ear.’

In contrast, that same morning, at 9:43, the Rocky Mountain News announced convention committee CEO Leah D. Daughtry described the voting process was ‘business as usual,’ pursuant to the ‘rules.’

Convention roll-call plans set for tonight

COLORADO CONVENTION CENTER — Each state at tonight’s session of the Democratic National Convention will announce the results of its delegate tally during a roll call that has been the source of much speculation and controversy this week.

Convention committee CEO Leah D. Daughtry said the roll call will take place as it has in previous conventions, despite speculations that a compromise between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton might result in a departure from the usual process.

The roll call is guided by the rules of the party,” Daughtry said at this morning’s convention press briefing. “It will proceed just as the rules dictate. (Emphasis added by jbjd.) Every state and every delegate will have the opportunity to vote. Everyone will be represented. Everyone will have their votes counted.”

The roll call will begin with each state announcing its delegate vote totals for the two Democratic candidates after a series nominating and seconding speeches for Clinton and Obama, Daughtry said.

Voting has already begun, as delegates began receiving tally cards this morning. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/27/convention-roll-call-plans-set/

Guided by the rules of the party…just as the rules dictate?”  Rules?  What rules?

Certainly not the Delegate Selection Rules, 2, Participation, F:

In accordance with Article Nine, Section 12 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States, votes shall not be taken by secret ballot at any stage of the delegate selection
process
…?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf

Or Article Nine, Section 12 of the Charter:

All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee, and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot.)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/58e635582dc516dd52_5wsmvyn09.pdf

This drivel points to why I said in COUP (2 of 4), it’s useless trying to reinstate order to the Democrat’s Presidential nominating process by falling back on the rules, regulations, and Charter of the Democratic Party.

By 12:53, Ben Smith at Politico was announcing Barack Obama’s campaign has reverted to plans for a traditional roll call on the convention floor… (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

There’s a bit of confusion about the plans for a roll call, and some Democrats say they’re dissatisfied by a process that has them voting in private, by state. But that’s the old-fashioned way, says my colleague Andy Glass, who’s covered these for years.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/A_traditional_roll_call.html

But whichever version of events you bought into – “just as the rules dictate”;  “the old-fashioned way”; or ‘play it by ear’ – one thing was clear.  From the outside looking in, it wasn’t easy to recognize these events for what they were:  the signal that Obama’s warriors had decided at the last minute to scrub the scheduled open roll call vote of pledged delegates from all states on the floor of the convention, which was expected to have been followed by Clinton’s release of her pledged delegates, and then another vote after that, which was supposed to give him the nomination.

Incredible, huh.  Thousands of eye witnesses in Denver, including the press, scrutinizing every detail of the goings on inside the convention, and no one asked why whoever was in charge had decided to scrap the open roll call of pledged delegates.  Why?  Because they lacked the information necessary to recognize what they were observing.  So, what was this ‘thing’ that happened under everyone’s nose yet flew under the radar, so significant it caused Obama’s allies in the DNC to re-orient the nomination process at the last minute in order to hide votes for Clinton from her pledged delegates as the preferred means to guarantee his nomination?

Word had spread to the Clinton pledged delegates sent to the convention from those 13 vote binding states, including CA, that the laws in their states required them to hold fast to their candidate through at least the first round of voting at the convention; and that their Attorneys General had received complaints Obama’s people were subverting the law by trying to get those delegates to promise to switch their votes to him, even before they got to the convention. We know that at least one of those A’sG, Thurbert Baker (D-GA), instructed that state’s pledged delegates to obey the law.  Consequently, these delegates were going to obey the law, and vote for her through at least the first round.  Some, including Clinton pledged delegates from CA, even after that.

So, why was this such a big deal? BECAUSE OBAMA AND HIS CONSORTS HAD ONLY AGREED TO HOLD AN OPEN ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE FLOOR OF THE CONVENTION RELYING ON THE FACT, SEVERAL HUNDRED CLINTON PLEDGED DELEGATES FROM VOTE BINDING STATES WOULD HAVE NO IDEA THEY WERE ‘PLEDGED’ PLEDGED TO CLINTON WHEN THEY REACHED THE FLOOR OF THE CONVENTION. Thus, those pledged delegates who had already been successfully co-opted  to switch their votes to him, added to those who would enthusiastically switch to him in the fabricated momentum of the occasion; plus those who would fatalistically give in to the feigned inevitability of his nomination, would easily put his numbers over the top.

But didn’t I say, in COUP (1 of 4), Obama’s agents would have known which states had vote binding laws before they twisted the arms of Clinton delegates in those states since the state delegate selection Plan sent to the RBC for approval had to include details of any state laws respecting the conduct at the convention of pledged delegates from that state? Yep; that’s what I said.  So now you’re probably thinking, ‘well, jbjd, if Obama’s people knew about the laws in those states by looking at those delegate selection Plans then, wouldn’t any delegates seeking guidance as to their conduct at the convention by examining the state Plan, be able to read about the state’s vote binding status, too?’  Nope.  Know why?  Because there was nothing in those state Plans about vote binding laws. And now you are probably shaking your heads.  Why did I say the Plans submitted to the RBC explain how Obama’s people knew in advance which states had vote binding laws if the Plans contain no information about vote binding laws!

To answer this question, you have to read the fine print in the RBC Regulations.

Section 2, Submission and Review of Plans, regulation 2.2, Formal Submission, reads, “Each State Party Committee shall include the following documentation with the submission of its Plan to the RBC…”  “I., “… a copy of all state statutes reasonably related to the delegate selection process…”  Id. Did you catch that?  The rules don’t say, this documentation about special state laws regarding how pledged delegates must vote at the convention is a part of the state delegate selection Plan.  The RBC rules only tell the state committee, when submitting the delegate selection Plan for our approval, you have to attach this additional information.

In other words, this additional information forwarded to the RBC by the state party about special state laws respecting party delegates – this would include laws spelling out how to submit to state election officials the name of the Presidential nominee to be printed on the state ballot –  does not become a part of the accompanying state delegate Plan.  Wanna see?

Here’s California’s approved 2008 Delegate Selection Plan.  Nothing in either the Table of Contents or the body of the Plan, references any special laws requiring pledged delegates to vote for the candidate voters in that state elected them to represent, on the floor of the convention.

This means that pledged delegates wading through the various DNC documents for guidance as to how they should vote at the convention would only find this line on p. 19 in the DNC Call for the 2008 Convention:

All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.  (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

“Good conscience.”  But nothing about the law!

Here’s just a sample of language I pulled together from the laws in some of those vote binding states.

“Each person selected as a delegate shall sign a pledge that the person will continue to support at the national convention the candidate for President of the United States the person is selected as favoring until 2 convention nominating ballots have been taken.”  OR

“Each political party shall, on the first ballot at its national convention, cast this Commonwealth’s vote for the candidates as determined by the primary or party caucus.”  KY

“Each delegate or alternate delegate to the national convention of his political party shall cast their vote on all ballots for the candidate who received this state’s vote.”  OK

“Each delegate to the national convention shall use his best efforts at the convention for the party’s presidential nominee candidate who received the greatest number of votes in the presidential preference election until the candidate is nominated for the office of president of the United States by the convention.”  AZ

“As a delegate to the national convention of the Democratic Party, I pledge myself to vote on the first ballot for the nomination of president by the Democratic Party as required by Section 1-8-60 NMSA 1978.”  NM

“Delegates and alternates shall be bound to vote on the first ballot at the national convention for the candidate receiving the most votes in the primary.”  VA

“The delegates to the national conventions shall be bound by the results of the preferential presidential primary for the first two (2) ballots and shall vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged.”  TN

In an Opinion now appended to his state’s binding vote law, the words of the Attorney General of GA reach the heart of similar laws enacted in all of these states:  “This section reflects the legitimate interest of the state in insuring orderliness in the electoral process, and it provides a means of presenting the political preferences of the people of this state to a political party.”  GA

(Can you imagine how long it took me to research the election laws in all 50 states in order to find the 13 states that bound their delegates at the convention?)

The majority of pledged delegates from vote binding states were unaware of their special status coming into the convention.  How can I prove this?  And, more importantly, how do I know that news of their obligations under the vote binding laws of their states still managed to reach Clinton pledged delegates?  And that this new found knowledge was a game changer to the roll call vote?

In the summer of 2008, I was only one of hundreds of citizen activists who became immersed in the machinations of the Presidential nominating process of the Democratic Party.  As I previously explained, one of my contributions was to ‘discover’ and then publicize the existence of those 13 vote binding states.  As I wrote in A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 4), my work did not immediately ignite the endorsement of people who could have spearheaded a massive public education campaign in advance of the convention.  GA was the one state in which I and my team of Georgians were able to get out a concerted campaign to alert both Clinton pledged delegates and AG Baker, Obama’s agents were breaking the law.  And, as a result, AG Baker reminded delegates in that state, “pledged” means pledged. Id. Eventually, in the days immediately preceding the convention, my work on vote binding states did attract the attention of members of the party who, previously unaware these laws existed, saw the strategic value of the work to support the Clinton campaign.  Id.

But what I hadn’t yet told you, is that my work on vote binding states also attracted the attention of another citizen activist, from CA, who not only managed to get inside the convention, but who also had a hand in assembling packets of information that were distributed to all delegates.  Guess what she slipped into these delegate packets?  Yep; my materials on the laws regarding the votes of pledged delegates from vote binding states.

Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, was a member of the CA delegation.  She addressed the CA delegates at their first delegation breakfast on Monday, August 25.  Listen as she not-so-subtly twisted arms to get Clinton pledged delegates to violate CA law.  Imagine, the Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, soliciting Clinton pledged delegates to abandon the will of the voters, in defiance of the law, in order to support her candidate of choice?   Imagine being a Clinton pledged delegate sitting in the audience under the watchful eye of the powerful Madame Speaker; holding a packet of materials that informed you for the first time, you are from a vote binding state.  How free do you suppose you would feel to question what she was saying, let alone to express disdain at what she was asking you to do?

Another member of the CA delegation receiving this information was Attorney Gloria Allred, a Clinton pledged delegate.  Watch while she informs reporters when Monday’s breakfast was over, that fellow delegates had asked her to research whether the law required them to vote for Clinton on the first round of balloting.  (Some confusion arose because CA election law applicable to either the D or the R Presidential preference primary is codified in separate sections.   But D delegates are bound by law to the candidate voters elected them to represent, arguably until a candidate is nominated at the convention.)  Ms. Allred makes a point of saying, she will vote for Clinton on the first round in order to carry out the will of the voters who elected her; but makes clear, she does not yet know whether such a result is required by law.

By Tuesday morning’s breakfast, Ms. Allred had researched CA election law.  Here she is after breakfast, informally trying to get word out to Clinton pledged delegates,  they are bound to vote for their candidate at the convention.  (I wish I could see the papers she is waving around.  Maybe one of these was my letter to AG Brown complaining Obama was poaching Clinton delegates in his state and asking him to intervene?)

Later that same day, speaking at the end of a rally to celebrate the 88th anniversary of women’s suffrage, the 19th Amendment, Ms. Allred, claiming she was denied the opportunity to formally address fellow delegates at breakfast, now informs the crowds, in CA, the primary is “binding.”  She points out, ‘voting for Clinton is consistent with DNC rules which say, use your “conscience” to represent the voters who elected us, since they elected us to vote for Clinton…’

She reasons, ‘even if Hillary releases, we owe an obligation to the voters.’

That night, Pelosi, Obama, Dean, and Reid, et al. decided to call off the open roll call vote of all states scheduled to take place Wednesday evening on the floor of the convention.

So, instead of waiting until after the first round of voting during the open roll call of all states on the floor of the convention, Clinton released her delegates early Wednesday afternoon.  AFTER THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING (albeit behind closed doors at the hotel).  Now, technically, according to some of these vote binding laws, pledged delegates from vote binding states were free to vote for the candidate they in “good conscience” (from the DNC Delegate Selection Plan) concluded was a “fair reflection” (from the DNC Charter) of the will of the voters who (indirectly) elected them.  And they might have, except for one thing:  having already voted once, back at the hotel, they would have no opportunity to vote again.

This last minute early release of Clinton delegates from their pledges could have created another problem if it hadn’t also escaped detection.  See, since Clinton did not release her delegates until Wednesday afternoon; when Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states voted at their hotels Wednesday morning, they had to vote for her according to the law.  Thus, any vote totals from those 13 vote binding states that were then transmitted to the Secretary should have reflected the number of delegates appointed as the result of votes cast in the state for the candidate, at the time of the primary or caucus contest, right?  Not surprisingly, they did not.

Here are the numbers of Clinton pledged delegates awarded as the result of votes voters cast for her in those vote binding states: AZ – 31, CA- 204, GA-27, IN-38, KY-37, MA-55, NH-9 NM-14, OH-74, OK-24, OR-21, TN-40, and VA-29. This makes a total of 609, just from those vote binding states. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-HF.phtml The total number of votes from Clinton delegates just from those vote binding states we saw ‘vote’ from the floor of the convention, before NY, should have been 415.  But it wasn’t.  Not even close.  (The low number of Clinton votes becomes even more suspect when you consider, in addition to votes from Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states, the totals would also have included votes from Clinton pledged delegates who were not legally bound to vote for her but who, in “good conscience,” would have honored the voters who elected them by sticking to their candidate, at least on the first round.)

The DNC refuses to release an ‘official’ tally of votes cast in the hotels, by whom.  I received an email from a KY Clinton pledged delegate who said her delegation chair, Jennifer Moore, ignored her request for a list of that state’s votes, too.  Shortly after the convention, the DNC did release some kind of tally sheet that included ALL states, not just those states voting on the floor of the convention; but they rescinded that list shortly thereafter.   The GreenPapers published that list, with links, that are now inoperative.  In the 2 (two) years since the convention, the DNC has failed to post another list.

According to Andy Glass at Politico, “…there’s not even any formal mechanism within national party rules for each delegate’s vote to be recorded. What’s recorded is the vote of each state delegation.” Id.

The CA delegation passed.  The reason?  According to Don Frederick at the LATimes, “because a tally of its 441 votes had not been completed when the state’s name was called.”  But hadn’t they already voted back at the hotel?  (Evidently, Mr. Frederick is another one of those reporters who is unaware of the laws in those vote binding state.  He writes, “Clinton did not receive a majority in any of the recorded tallies — and in most, Obama’s backing was overwhelming. But Clinton’s support was notable in a few instances, including Arizona (40 votes for Obama, 27 for her), Kentucky (36 for him, 24 for her) and Massachusetts (65 for him, 52 for her).”  “Notable”?  How about, ILLEGAL? AZ, KY, and MA are all vote binding states.)

This means, while we can establish which of Obama’s agents suborned Clinton pledged delegates in vote binding states to violate their pledge; we cannot determine which of those delegates ended up breaking the law.  Including those pledged delegates who are PLEO‘s, or party leaders and elected officials, like mayors, governors, city councilors, and legislative leaders.   And this brings us to the heart of the matter involving Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states:  the unpledged PLEO’s, better known as super delegates.

See, here’s the thing.  As long as pledged delegates from vote binding states remained unaware of their bound status, Obama could have managed to convert an only slight (contrived) lead in pledged delegates into a landslide win.  Only, this landslide was in jeopardy once pledged delegates from vote binding states learned they were bound by the law.  But so what?  Even without any shenanigans with respect to any of the pledged delegates, based strictly on the number of pledged delegates awarded immediately after the primary and caucus contests ended; neither Clinton nor Obama had the requisite number of votes from pledged delegates alone to win the nomination.  Certainly not on the first round. At some point, if the typical give and take expected of such political theater could not produce a nominee, the unpledged PLEO’s would have broken the impasse.  And the majority of these unpledged PLEO’s had already come out publicly in support of Obama, even in states where Clinton had won the popular vote. In other words, whatever happened along the way, in the end Obama was set to run off with the nomination.

So, why the mad rush to take the nomination just from votes cast by pledged delegates?

Recall what I wrote in A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 4):

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

The people who staged the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention needed the pledged delegates to pull off Obama’s nomination because they did not want you to see that the votes of those unpledged super delegates had been bought and paid for, well in advance of the convention, by his wealthy benefactors…

From OpenSecrets:

For those elected officials who had endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25, the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegate received the endorsement 82 percent of the time. In cases where Obama had made a contribution since 2005 but Clinton had given the superdelegate nothing, Obama got the superdelegate’s support 85 percent of the time. And Clinton got the support of 75 percent of superdelegates who got money from her but not from Obama. For this update to the Feb. 14 study the Center combined contribution data with a list of superdelegates and their endorsements compiled by The Politico as of Feb. 25.

http://www.opensecrets.org/capital_eye/inside.php?ID=338

…including Madame Pelosi, his biggest ‘vote fairy godmother’ of all.

From Dr. Lynette Long, in NoQuarter:

“Bought and Paid For! By Nancy Pelosi”

As Americans sat glued to their television sets watching the most hotly contested presidential primary in American history, pundits counted pledged delegates won in caucuses and primaries and discussed the highly prized superdelegates’ endorsements. Eventually it would be these superdelegates, Democratic officials, governors, and members of congress, who would determine the nominee, since neither contestant won enough pledged delegates in the 52 primary contests.

What the pundits forgot to tell the American public was that these superdelegates were doing some counting of their own. They weren’t counting how many of their constituents had voted for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, but rather how much money was being put into their war chests by the Obama campaign and the Democratic hierarchy. This money, moved from one candidate to another via PAC’s, would determine their endorsements and ultimately the nomination….

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/13/bought-and-paid-for-by-nancy-pelosi/

And that’s why they pulled off the coup that hid hundreds of votes of Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention.

Conclusion

For readers expecting a sort of summation of the ‘lesson learned’  from all four installments of “A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH,” the main focus of which series was the fraud pulled off at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention, I offer this.

“I can only imagine Clinton would have made a much better President than Obama but, based on how he obtained the nomination, I anticipated he would make a much better crook.”  jbjd.

EPILOG

A lay person looking at this chart of delegates can easily read, the total number of delegates for either candidate fails to get the nomination.  But Obama had bought off a sufficient number of these super delegates to help him steal the nomination.  So, even with a real open roll call vote of all states from the floor of the convention, before the arm twisting and poaching, eventually, the super delegates would have had to intervene to break the impasse.

“GROUNDHOG DAY” in TEXAS

August 8, 2010

Know that movie “Groundhog Day,” with Bill Murray, where he plays a t.v. weatherman doomed to repeat the same inane moments of his life, over and over and over again, until he ‘gets it right’?  Here, let me show you.

Well, it’s ‘groundhog day’ in Texas.  Boyd Richie was just re-elected Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”).

Mr. Richie’s record in electing D’s to fill state and county offices in Texas is 0-29.  That’s not a typo.  Not counting him, no D’s have been elected into these offices under Richie’s leadership of the TDP.  None.  Nada.  Zilch.

Contrast this record, against the message he delivered in his first speech as Chairman after his 2006 election:  “Our job is not win arguments, but to win elections.”  I would ask, ‘Oh, yeah, Mr. Richie?  How’s that going for you?’  But I can anticipate his reply.  ‘Swell, thank you.’  Know why?  Because just like the title of this post implies, with him, it’s not about winning and losing; it’s about repetition.

Here’s another example of  ‘more of the same.’  Right out of the gate of his re-election, Chairman Richie again filed suit to keep a Republican out of office.

Democrats question Texas Sen. Brian Birdwell’s eligibility

AUSTIN – Sen. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, who won a special election this spring to replace the retiring Kip Averitt, will have to defend his freshly minted victory against charges he is ineligible to hold the seat.

Birdwell had been living in Virginia and working for the Pentagon and moved to Texas in May 2007. State law says that you must be a resident of Texas for five years before you can run for the Senate.

Democrat John Cullar, appointed by the party to run for the seat, and the Texas Democratic Party have filed a petition in the Fort Worth Court of Appeals asking the court to resolve the question. If they prevail, Birdwell’s name would be removed from the November ballot, probably giving Cullar an easy path to victory.

“I’m going to run a comprehensive campaign, and part of that is analyzing if my opponent is eligible to represent the people of Senate District 22,” Cullar said. “I look forward to seeing that question resolved by the court. In the meantime, I’ll be out talking with the voters of the district I’ve been proud to call home for 26 years.”

Birdwell maintains that he is legally entitled to the seat. But questions about his residency and whether he was eligible were raised during the special election, which he won in a runoff with 58 percent of the vote.

Birdwell, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who was critically burned in the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, voted in Virginia until 2006.

But the law is still in question because active-duty members of the military can live one place and still vote in Texas and consider the state home. Birdwell bought land in Texas in 2005, where he eventually built his house.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-statesen_07tex.ART.State.Edition1.360fc4a.html

Remember, he filed suit against the Chair of the Republican Party of Texas (“RPT”) in 2006, the same year he was first elected Chair of the TDP, which forced the R’s to keep the name of Tom DeLay on the Congressional ballot in November, notwithstanding at the time of the lawsuit, Mr. DeLay had moved to VA and was a legal resident of that state.  (CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (1 of 2) and (2 of 2); and IDIOMS!)

So, let me ask you something.  Assume in 2012 Mr. Obama is the Presidential nominee of the DNC.  Given Mr. Richie’s historical penchant for consistency; what do you suppose are the chances he will refuse to Certify Mr. Obama’s Nomination to state election officials, on the grounds, no documentary evidence in the public record establishes he is a NBC?

P.S. Speaking of disrespecting people serving in the military (and parents of young children, and shift workers, and the elderly, and the physically challenged…)… In addition to overwhelmingly re-electing Richie, guess what arcane practice the D’s voted overwhelmingly to keep for the 2012 election?  Yep; the infamous Texas two-step, that combination of primary election and caucus free-for-all that managed to award Obama more pledged delegates than Clinton with less votes per delegate required.  And I can find no reports that anyone, R or D, with any evidence of widespread caucus fraud produced any public protests to try to change their minds, let alone  anyone in possession of a documentary film that preserved eye-witness narratives of this conduct from the citizens of Texas who had attended and participated in (or at least tried to participate in) these fraud riddled events.

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

Freedom costs.


NOW, LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!

August 4, 2010

The President is scheduled to visit Texas on August 9, 2010.  But Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) knew by July 31 he would be unable to attend a fundraising soiree with Mr. Obama at Austin’s Four Seasons Hotel due to other non-specified commitments.  In fact, he could not only not sit down to dinner with the Commander in Chief, but he was even too busy for an Air Force One touchdown meet-‘n-greet.

“Texas Democratic  candidates distance themselves from Obama”

…State Democratic Chairman Boyd Richie said the party is focused on ousting Perry and other Republican incumbents in Texas, adding that “D.C. politics” and the 2012 presidential election aren’t on the radar. “Texans are patriotic people and proud to support our president, but at the end of the day, we’ve been winning Texas elections on Texas issues, and that will again be the case this November,” Richie said.

Say what?

Best of the Blogs, a site which describes itself as an on-line community for progressive bloggers, calls it more directly like it is.

“Democrats Run From Obama”

…But the other statewide candidates are running away from President Obama like he had a combination of ebola and swine flu, and they could catch it just by being caught in the same county as the president. They may be running on the Democratic ticket, but they’d just as soon the voters of Texas forgot that when they go to the polls in November.

http://bestoftheblogs.com/Home/31852

But I think these reports of Mr. Richie dissing the POTUS based on his unpopularity, either in Texas or throughout the whole United States, miss the point.

Mr. Richie only became Chair of the TDP in June of 2006.   http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1052 And look at what Mr. Obama has put him through in that brief time.

One-and-a-half years after becoming Chair of the TDP, Mr. Richie swore to election officials the candidate satisfied the requirements of the Office of President of the United States in order to get them to print his name on that state’s Democratic Presidential Preference Primary ballot.  http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.191.htm#191.003 Because under Texas law, the candidate must be eligible for office to appear on the ballot.  http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.192.htm#192.031

In March 2008, Hillary Clinton won the Texas primary.  Voting remained so close in subsequent contests that DNC Chair Howard Dean suggested Texas superdelegates could wait until July 1, a date by which all of the primary and caucus contests would be over, to weigh in on which nomination they would support at the August 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention.  http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/DN-superdelegates_24pol.ART.State.Edition1.46d87b8.html But Mr. Richie and his wife, Betty, both superdelegates, jumped the gun, announcing on May 29 that in 3 (three) months they had decided to vote in favor of Mr. Obama’s nomination.  http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/5867/

Just days later, the Richies had to realize they had made a terrible mistake.

In the beginning of June, with rumors swirling that Barack Obama, the Democratic Presidential nominee wannabe failed to satisfy the Constitutional eligibility requirement of natural born citizen; the candidate launched a new electronic advertising campaign with the slogan “Fight the Smears.”  On the web site of that same name, Robert Gibbs, then Communications Director for the candidate’s political campaign, posted an image of a mock-up of a ‘document’ labeled “Certification of Live Birth,” accompanied by copy proclaiming this image proved his client was at least  “native” born.  Presumably, being a long time politico familiar with the rigors of federal laws with respect to political campaign advertising, Chairman Richie, even before reading the attribution in the FTS footer, could recognize this was campaign advertising.  Being a lawyer, Attorney Richie was surely able to discern the legal distinction contained in an admission the candidate is a “native” citizen from the threshold Constitutional requirement of “natural born.”

Yet despite knowing he’d been ‘had,’ 3 (three) months later, after Mr. Obama was handed the nomination, Attorney Richie, a member in good standing of the Texas state bar, again swore to state election officials the nominee was Constitutionally qualified for the job in order to get Mr. Obama’s name printed on the general (Electors) election ballot.  And for almost the next year, he managed to get away with this lie.  Until the fall of 2009, when citizens began contacting AG Abbott with complaints charging that he had committed election fraud in order to get the state to print Mr. Obama’s name on its ballot and then, that he had violated the Texas Open Records law by refusing to provide requested documentation which was the basis for that eligibility certification.  https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/open-letter-ag-abbott-tx/

Of course, Mr. Richie had no documentation which was the basis for Mr. Obama’s eligibility certification.

Given these circumstances, who could blame Mr. Richie now for refusing to give Mr. Obama the time of day?  On the other hand,  Dave Montgomery, the reporter for the Star-Telegram, hints the President’s unpopularity explains Mr. Richie’s snub.  Someone should contact Mr. Montgomery to report the more likely reason why.  dmontgomery@star-telegram.com


%d bloggers like this: