On the Radio 06.30.12

June 29, 2012

UPDATE 06.30.12:  AT END

Join us on Saturday when TX citizen/activist Kelly Canon and I discuss alternative ways to keep off the 2012 general election ballot the name of the Presidential candidate who documentary evidence exposes was never federally qualified for the job.  Call in number is 714.242.5220. (If you cannot tune in tomorrow; you can listen to the archived show, by visiting the same link.)

Texas, We Have a Solution (Maybe)!

UPDATE 06.30.12:  We just finished the show and, having listened to the entire playback, I must say; it is absolutely fabulous. It offers a comprehensive synthesis of our work on ballot eligibility issues, from who determines whether a candidate is “federally qualified” to appear on the ballot; to how the executive branch carries out the express intention of the legislative branch for ballot entitlement; to how joining the National Popular Vote Initiative can subvert the strongest ballot eligibility laws.

(Or, as Kelly would say, we covered everything ‘from soup to nuts.’)


June 25, 2012

UPDATED 06.26.12: See update at bottom of article.

© 2012 jbjd

Disagreeing with me on a point of legal interpretation doesn’t per se mean you don’t know what you are talking about. But when Assistant AG June Harden rejected Kelly Canon’s complaint that the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) had violated the Public Information Act (“PIA” or “the Act”) by refusing to produce certain election-related documents; explaining to Ms. Canon that, political parties are not covered by the Act, well, Ms. Harden had no idea what she was talking about.

For the past 12 years, Harden has been the Senior Managing Attorney for Public Outreach in the Open Records Division of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas. Before joining the OAG, she served as Special Counsel to Senator Gregory Luna of Bexar County.  Id. Ms. Harden received her undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University and her J.D. from Texas Tech University School of Law. Id. She has been working at the AG since December 1995; her current annual salary is $80,000. http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/government-employee-salaries/state-of-texas/june-b-harden/1114680/

Judging by her bona fides; by now, she should know her job in and out. But she doesn’t. And I can prove it. First, some background information, which has been covered in previous articles.

The legal standard for getting the name of the Presidential candidate from the major political party on the general election ballot in Texas is spelled out in §192.031 PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT.  The first of four prongs to entitlement is, the person must be “federally qualified” for the job. Id. But no law specifically designates whose responsibility it is to determine either in the first instance, whether the candidate is federally qualified; or, at some point after the political party has electronically submitted the name of the candidate to the Secretary of State (“SoS”) and before she certifies the name to the ballot, whether anyone has previously determined s/he is federally qualified for the job. However, we know that the Secretary does not verify Constitutional eligibility; and so, Ms. Canon determined to find out on what documentary basis both the RPT (Republican Party of TX) and TDP had determined their 2012 Presidential candidates’ federal qualifications. The RPT returned their candidate applications which, like those applications designed by the Secretary for Independent and Write-in candidates, contained the Constitutionally qualified self-affirmation. The TDP returned the candidates’ unauthenticated applications. (See BALLOT ENTITLEMENT LAWS should DISQUALIFY PRESIDENT OBAMA in TEXAS.)

But that’s not what Canon asked for; so she filed a complaint with the AG charging the TDP had violated the PIA. Pending receipt of the actual opinion letter; Ms. Harden telephoned her response.

According to Harden, the TDP is not covered by the PIA. Why? Because, as she told Ms. Canon; under Title 5 of 552.003, Definitions, political parties are not identified as government entities. And, technically she’s right. That is, the TDP is not a government entity. But this fact alone does not end the analysis as to whether the documents requested are covered under the Act. For example, had she read section 552.002; she would have seen this.

Sec. 552.002.  DEFINITION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION; MEDIA CONTAINING PUBLIC INFORMATION.  (a)  In this chapter, “public information” means information that is collected, assembled, or maintained under a law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business:

(1)  by a governmental body;  or

(2)  for a governmental body and the governmental body owns the information or has a right of access to it.

This means, even granting that sec. 552.003 of the TX Statutes, Government Code, Title 5, Open Government; Ethics, does not explicitly define the TDP as a government entity; one cannot rightly infer that the documents held by the TDP which were the subject of Ms. Canon’s request and subsequent complaint to the AG for non-compliance; are not public documents under other provisions of the Act. Or that, under another legal scheme, either the party or the documents are not covered by the Act. And they are. For example, look at the Elections Code.

Sec. 191.003: NOTICE OF CANDIDATES TO SECRETARY OF STATE. 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 not later than the 57th day before presidential primary election day.

Thus, in TX, the Presidential candidates representing the major political parties do not apply directly to the Secretary of State (“SoS”) to get their names on the ballot. Instead, they must submit their ballot applications to the chair of the party; and s/he must submit the names of these candidates to the SoS. In other words, under Sec. 552.002, the information “collected, assembled, or maintained” with respect to these applications which are made pursuant to Sec. 191.003, requiring the delivery of the certification of qualified candidates to the SoS; is public information.

But just in case the logic of coverage under the PIA is still unclear; there’s this.

Sec. 141.035.  APPLICATION AS PUBLIC INFORMATION.  An application for a place on the ballot, including an accompanying petition, is public information immediately on its filing.

Indeed; like they had done to several requestors in 2010; the TDP ignored Canon’s first request for documents in 2012, in which she had failed to specify the applicable public records laws.

View this document on Scribd

No; she only received a response after she revised her letter and filed a second request for documents in which she specifically asserted the laws supporting the request.

And she knew if the TDP had any such documents related to the 2012 ballot; these documents would still be held by the TDP.

Sec. 141.036.  PRESERVATION OF APPLICATION.  The authority with whom an application for a place on the ballot is required to be filed shall preserve each application filed with the authority for two years after the date of the election for which the application is made.

However, the party failed to produce the specific documents she requested related to how it had ascertained the candidates’ federal qualification, which refusal had prompted her present complaint to the AG.

Presumably, before Ms. Harden issued her opinion; she researched past opinions issuing on this subject from the office of the AG. We looked; there are none. This means, this was a case of first impression. But this also means that, subsequent complaints as to the refusal of the parties to produce specific election-related information; will be rejected on the grounds of her opinion.

It would appear that AAG Harden repeated the mistakes others have made when interpreting the coverage of the PIA. That is, she was too narrowly focused on the definitions which ruled out political party chairs as ‘public officials,’ ignoring the fact  the section of the law immediately preceding those definitions makes unambiguously clear that documents held by these party officers may still be classified as public records.  Or the fact that other laws may define records as public, making them also subject to the PIA; and spell out that when party officers carry out traditional state functions associated with elections, covered by another section of the law; then, just like other public officials, they can still be ordered to hand over these public records, under an action in Mandamus initiated either by the aggrieved citizen or by the AG.

To say nothing of the fact that the opening provision of the PIA urges its provisions not to be narrowly construed so as to limit public access to records but, on the contrary; to be “liberally construed in favor of granting a request for information.” http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.552.htm

But as of now; the erroneous opinion stands.  This means the TDP has the legal obligation to submit the name of a Presidential candidate to the ballot, which name the SoS, who presumes the candidates named by the parties are federally qualified for the job and thus entitled to appear on the ballot; must certify these names to the ballot.  Sec. 192.033. But neither the SoS nor a private citizen has the right of access to the party documents which were the basis for the TDP’s eligibility determination. And the TDP knows this, having been copied on both the complaint and the opinion letter.

Recall that, in the past, the TDP refused to produce documentary evidence of its candidate applications until the requester cited applicable public records and election laws. Until we can reverse Ms. Harden’s patently erroneous legal interpretation of the scope of PIA jurisdiction; how likely do you suppose will be the TDP to voluntarily disclose such eligibility documentation?

And why would the citizens of TX allow to remain intact, a system of elections that presently permits a political party to maintain access to the ballot notwithstanding it cannot produce any documentary evidence to the public or the Secretary, that its candidates satisfy the threshold to entitlement, of being “federally qualified” for the job?

UPDATE 06.26.12: Well, well, well. AAG Harden’s written response arrived; and it’s even ‘better’ in black and white.

View this document on Scribd

See, in addition to memorializing her illogical opinion that, the TDP is not covered under the PIA inasmuch as they are not identified as a “government entity” in the Definitions section of that law; she now preserves for the record her mistaken assertion that the only records covered are those held by entities explicitly defined as ‘government.’ This, of course, leaves out all of those “records” defined in the law as “collected, assembled, or maintained under a law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business … for a governmental body and the governmental body owns the information or has a right of access to it.” Id.

But there’s more. Ms. Canon pointed out to Ms. Harden over the phone; she had filed a PIA request with the SoS seeking all documents the TDP had submitted to that office with respect to the federal qualification of the Presidential candidates whose names they provided to appear on the ballot. The SoS complied with this request. That is, they returned a printout of the electronic spreadsheet that had been submitted by the party, containing the candidates’ names. Because that’s all they had gotten from the party.  But apparently, Harden somehow got the idea that, Canon was perhaps complaining, the SoS had received from the party, documents of federal qualification; but had refused to forward to her that documentation! Now, writing the obvious, Harden advised that the SoS is a government entity under the PIA, and suggested Canon could file a PIA complaint against them!


Please support the work going on here at “jbjd.”


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.


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


April 12, 2010

View this document on Scribd


Freedom costs.


April 7, 2010

UPDATE 06.21.12: Okay, this is getting complicated. As it turns out, SoS Andrade has determined, the legal standard of entitlement for Presidential candidates to appear on the ballot is this: they must be federally qualified for the job. When it comes to Independent and Write-In candidates; the SoS determines they are federally qualified through the ballot application she devised, self-affirming Constitutional eligibility. She only assumes the RPT and TDP have confirmed the federal qualifications of candidates whose names they electronically transfer to her office, to appear on the ballot. The RPT verifies, using the same type of self-affirming ballot applications used  by the Secretary. On the other hand; the TDP says nothing on its application about being federally qualified for the job. WILL TX AG ABBOTT PROSECUTE the TDP for VIOLATING the TX PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT?

UPDATE 05.04.12: Events in 2012 have mooted out much of this piece. Specifically, Boyd Richie has now produced the 2012 candidate application submitted by Barack Obama, which contained neither evidence of Constitutional eligibility nor a self-affirmation from the candidate. But as it turns out; SoS Andrade wasn’t putting either the D or the R Presidential nominees on the ballot because, having established federal eligibility, they were entitled, under the law. Indeed, TX law does not require Presidential eligibility to appear on the ballot. Rather, having determined on her own that federal eligibility was a prerequisite for both Independent and Write-in Presidential candidates getting on the ballot; she was either exercising her discretion to assume federal eligibility of party candidates; or, merely applying a different eligibility standard for these affiliated candidates. TEXAS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

UPDATE 04.08.10: I have revised the Texas citizen complaints of election fraud against Boyd Richie to AG Abbott and request for investigation; to reflect the information contained in this article.  These complaints can be downloaded from the sidebar but, please, before filling in your (real) name  and (Texas) address and forwarding a complaint to Mr. Abbott, make sure you have read it completely and understand thoroughly what you are signing.  As always, if you have any questions, come back here.  (And, by all means, feel free to contribute to the work that goes on here by clicking on a PayPal button and donating accordingly.)

View this document on Scribd


Freedom costs.

CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (2 of 2)

March 31, 2010


In Clowns to the Left of Me; Jokers to the Right (1 of 2), we examined TDP v. RPT, learning that under Texas law, if the ineligibility of a candidate for public office is “conclusively established” then, the state Chair of that party is authorized to declare the candidate is ineligible.  Further, if the candidate’s name was previously submitted to the SoS to be placed on the ballot, the state Chair can now compel the SoS to remove that ineligible name.  (And if the Chair of another state party has a problem with this, s/he can sue to enjoin both the opposing Chair and the SoS from effecting this ‘disqualification.’)

The section of the law referenced in TDP v. RPT – Texas Election Code §145.003(f) – allows a party chair to declare a candidate ineligible.  But it does something else.  Here is the text of that provision and provision (g):

(f)  A candidate may be declared ineligible only if:

(1)  the information on the candidate’s application for a place on the ballot indicates that the candidate is ineligible for the office;  or

(2)  facts indicating that the candidate is ineligible are conclusively established by another public record.

(g)  When presented with an application for a place on the ballot or another public record containing information pertinent to a candidate’s eligibility, the appropriate authority shall promptly review the record.  If the authority determines that the record establishes ineligibility as provided by Subsection (f), the authority shall declare the candidate ineligible. (Emphasis added.)

Did you catch that?  If the authority – that would be, the party Chair – determines the candidate’s ineligibility is conclusively established by another public record, s/he shall declare the candidate ineligible.  Not may declare; or has discretion to declare; but has no other choice but to declare, the candidate is ineligible for the job.

Presumably, Chairwoman Benkiser determined the public record conclusively established Mr. DeLay was ineligible, based on those documents he submitted to her evidencing his current legal residency in Virginia.  So, as required by this law, she declared him, ineligible.

Does this provision mean, if Chairman Richie never “determines that the record establishes ineligibility,” he will never be obliged to declare, Barack Obama is ineligible? Absolutely not.

Recall from the first installment of “Clowns…,” who was responsible for petitioning the court to order the RPT (and the Texas SoS) to leave the name of Tom DeLay on the 2006 Congressional (mid-term) ballot in the first place.  That’s right; Attorney Boyd Richie, Chair of the TDP.*  I have no idea what prompted his involvement in this fight.  Surely, Mr. Richie knew Mr. DeLay had won the R primary; he could assume the RPT had submitted Mr. DeLay’s name to the SoS for placement on the ballot.  Presumably, he had heard Mr. DeLay announce soon after winning the primary, he had decided not to run for re-election.  Mr. Richie could anticipate the RPT would try to remove his name from the ballot and replace it with a more suitable candidate.  But RPT Chair Benkiser did not declare Mr. DeLay ineligible and seek to have the SoS remove his name from the ballot until receiving his VA documents, in May.  And that’s when Mr. Richie made his move.  How do you suppose he knew what Ms. Benkiser was up to?  Did she notify the TDP of her intentions?  Did the SoS receive the RPT de-certification and contact the TDP?  (If you Texans are curious, you can use the open records law to ask the SoS to produce any and all correspondence in whatever form, to and from both the RPT and the TDP between March 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006 inclusive, related to the eligibility of Tom DeLay to appear on the ballot.  (For template, see the link to the records request previously submitted to Mr. Richie for any and all documents that were the basis of his Certification of Barack Obama’s eligibility. https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/roadmap-tx-election-fraud-2008/ , under 6.))

Regardless how the TDP found out the RPT wanted to change the ballot; the point is this.  The TDP anticipated or knew the RPT intended to find Mr. DeLay ‘prospectively ineligible,’ and affirmatively set out to prevent both the RPT and the state from taking his name off the ballot.  And why wouldn’t they?  Obviously, running an ineligible candidate for the R team, means an almost certain win for the D’s! Which leads to this question.

If someone wanted to prevent the TDP from putting the name Barack Obama on the ballot in the 2012 Texas primary or general election, why not take a lesson from them?  (Note, in Texas, the party is responsible for submitting the names of candidates qualified to enter the primary.  (http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/guide/demorrep.shtml))

I have spelled out in the citizen complaints of election fraud to AG Abbott the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that supports the charge, Boyd Richie swore to state election officials Presidential wannabe Barack Obama was eligible for the job without ascertaining beforehand he is a Natural Born Citizen.  Using much of that same evidence, I can argue persuasively to the court that official public documents conclusively establish Barack Obama is ineligible to hold the office of President.  (In a later post, I will present the formalized legal argument in support of the claim, under Texas law, the record conclusively establishes Mr. Obama’s ineligibility.)

Assuming the court can be persuaded the record conclusively establishes Mr. Obama’s ineligibility, Texas election law leaves Chairman Richie with no other choice but to declare him ineligible. But what if after all this, Mr. Richie still refuses to declare him ineligible?

Well, remember, there’s always §161.009, which subjects the party chair to the legal cause of action called mandamus.  http://law.onecle.com/texas/election/161.009.00.htmls (I mentioned this on drkate’s Revolution Radio, Part III.)  Mandamus allows the court – the judicial branch of government – to order members of the executive branch of government – and, in Texas, political party Chairs – to perform their ministerial functions, as spelled out in law – legislative  branch – which law, in this case, says Mr. Richie must declare Mr. Obama ineligible.

I cannot be the only person who has figured this out.

Indeed, given the facts that copies of the citizen complaints of election fraud to AG Abbott have been mailed to the RPT (and the RNC); that the laws in TX require a party Chair to declare a candidate ineligible when such ineligibility is conclusively established in the record, and subject party Chairs to Mandamus; and that the TDP has already successfully petitioned the court to keep the RPT and the SoS from taking the name of Congressional candidate Tom DeLay off the ballot; why hasn’t the RPT expended similar efforts to prevent the TDP and SoS from putting the name of Presidential candidate Barack Obama, on?

I don’t know; do you?

And, to use a colloquialism, why hasn’t the RNC or any aspiring R Presidential candidates put their dog in the hunt?  After all, if Barack Obama is ineligible to get his name printed on the ballot in one applicable state, then…

Perhaps because both the RPT and the RNC are embroiled in more pressing matters than fighting to preserve and protect the integrity of election ballots in Texas.

Ms. Benkiser stepped down as Chair of the RPT in September 2009 to work as a Senior Adviser on Governor Perry’s re-election campaign, and was replaced by Cathie Adams. http://www.dallasobserver.com/2009-10-29/news/texas-gop-shifts-even-further-right-with-new-chair-cathie-adams/ Before this, Ms. Adams successfully campaigned to become an RNC Committeewoman.  She was endorsed by conservative stalwart, Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum National President.  “Cathie Adams is a leader in the battle for God, Family and Country. She is extremely capable and I am confident that she would excel as Republican National Committeewoman.” http://www.cathieadams4rnc.com/

One of Ms. Adams’ first priorities was to spearhead a campaign on behalf of conservative members of the party, to get the RNC to pass a resolution renaming the DNC, the Democratic Socialist Party.  In the spring of 2009, nearly 3 (three) years since TDP v. RPT was decided; several months after President Obama took the oath of office; Ms. Adams and RNC Chairman Michael Steele were interviewed by Neil Cavuto from FOX.  Obviously straining to keep a straight face, Mr. Cavuto asked whether the Committeewoman’s crusade to rename the DNC detracted from real efforts at problem solving.

Ya think?


* Here are the attorneys representing the parties, and the interested parties (other candidates, for example, not directly involved in the case but whose interests the court wanted to hear by granting their requests to introduce briefs in amici curiae, or friends of the court.) Chad Wilson Dunn (argued), Brazil & Dunn, Martin Jonathan Siegel (argued), Watts Law Firm, Houston, TX, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Law Firm, Corpus Christi, TX, Richard A. Grigg, Law Offices of Dicky Grigg, Cristen D. Feldman, Crews & Elliott, Austin, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.  (That’s Boyd Richie as Chair of the TDP.)

James Bopp, Jr. (argued), Raeanna Sue Moore, Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom, Terre Haute, IN, for Benkiser.  (Defendants-Appellants.)

R. Ted Cruz, Office of Sol. Gen., TX, Austin, TX, Amici Curiae for Williams.

Andrius R. Kontrimas, Jenkins & Gilchrist, Houston, TX, Amicus Curiae for Wallace for Congress.

Susan L. Hays, Curran Tomko Tarski, Dallas, TX, Amicus Curiae for 68th Texas Legislature.



Freedom costs.


February 25, 2010

If you have been unable up until now, to wrap your brain around the election fraud that occurred in the 2008 Presidential (Electors) Election in applicable* states like Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, among others; well, this picture showing how that fraud was carried out in Texas is worth a thousand words.

As you follow this roadmap to fraud, keep in mind:  if Barack Obama failed to satisfy the eligibility requirements to get officials to print his name on the ballot in the state of Texas then…

*Applicable states for the purpose of charging election fraud in the 2008 election are those states whose laws only allow the names of qualified candidates to appear on the ballot.

Concept:  http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

Layout & Design:  https://jbjd.wordpress.com and http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

Text:  https://jbjd.wordpress.com

(c)  All Rights Reserved

View this document on Scribd


Freedom costs.


*Applicable states for the purpose of charging election fraud in the 2008 election are those states whose laws only allow the names of qualified candidates to appear on the ballot.


February 14, 2010

(UPDATE 02.22.10: See follow-up post at CLUBS RULE.)

NOTE: Before you read this article, please read REMEMBER the ALAMO, which sets up the campaign to obtain from the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) any records that were the basis for the Certification by TDP Chair, Attorney Boyd Richie: Barack Obama is Constitutionally qualified for the job of POTUS.  Because in TX, it was this Certification, submitted to TX state election officials, which persuaded those officials to place Mr. Obama’s name next to the “D” on that state’s general election ballot, a ballot only open to candidates who are eligible for the job.


Here is the introduction to the TX Open Government law under which citizens of TX are trying to obtain records from Boyd Richie, Chair, Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”).  (All emphasis is mine.)  Keep these words in mind as you read the update to those citizen efforts, following.






Sec. 552.001.  POLICY; CONSTRUCTION.  (a)  Under the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government that adheres to the principle that government is the servant and not the master of the people, it is the policy of this state that each person is entitled, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, at all times to complete information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed to implement this policy.

(b)  This chapter shall be liberally construed in favor of granting a request for information.

Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 268, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993.


There is much to report.  I have now received 2 (two) proofs of transmission of the Open Records Request to Mr. Richie.  (This one shows the confirmation AND the page sent.)

Under the TX open records law, Mr. Richie was obligated to respond to such requests within 10 (ten) business days.  (Technically, even assuming he felt he was not obligated under that law to produce the requested records, he still had only 10 days to request, in writing, an opinion from the AG as to whether for reasons listed in the law, he was exempted from producing the requested records.  And he had only up to 5 (five) days after that to present any additional arguments to the AG, to inform the decision issuing from that office.  For example, Mr. Richie could assert he is not a “public official” under the law; or that, the documents requested are not “public records”; or that the TDP is not a “political subdivision.”)  Before those 10 days expire, Requestors are entitled to either the records requested or, written notice from the Holder of the Records – in this case, this would be Mr. Richie – as to the status of the request for Records, usually in the form of copies of the Request for AG Opinion. Even in a case where Mr. Richie might assert he does not have to present these records because they implicate some rights of a 3rd party, notice of a request for an AG opinion as to whether these records must be produced, must still be copied to the Requestor, appropriately redacted to preserve in advance of such AG decision, the rights, if any, of that 3rd party.

Based on the prior refusal of the TDP to produce such records after an informal request, https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/never-less-than-a-treason-2-of-2/#comment-979 I anticipated they would similarly refuse to produce any records after this formal request pursuant to TX open records law.  So, I tried to elicit help for ‘my’ Texans, both in writing and by phone, from an organization expressing dedication to the nature of this mission; and located much closer to home.

The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas (“FOIFT”) – “Protecting the Public’s Right to Know Since 1978” – is an organization purportedly dedicated to the proposition that citizens are entitled to an “open government.”  http://www.foift.org/index.php Recently, they moved their offices to Austin, the capital city, “to assume a more active and more visible role in advocating for, and preserving, open government.”  http://www.foift.org/index.php?page_id=16 For example, they are holding an “Open Government Seminar,” attendance at the afternoon session of which costs $50, covering “handbooks,” “handouts,” and access to “[o]ne or more of Texas’ leading attorneys on these laws will be on hand to answer your questions.” http://www.foift.org/index.php?page_id=98 And they post videos featuring the Executive Director, Keith Elkins, explaining various provision of the Texas open records law.  http://www.foift.org/index.php?p=144

First, I tried to get their attention.  On Thursday, February 4, 2010, I submitted this comment to the FOIFT blog site, and awaited a response.

February 4th, 2010 at 5:37 pm

Dear Texans,

In every other state and the District of Columbia, Certifications of Nomination signed by The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, acting in the non-governmental role of Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Convention, were forwarded to election officials to get them to print the name of Barack Obama next to the “D” on the 2008 general election ballot.* But not in TX. Nope; in TX, only Mr. Richie signed those Certifications. And for all of the citizens in those states where only the names of qualified candidates may be printed on the ballot, who filed charges of election fraud with their state A’sG charging members of the D party swore to state election officials BO was Constitutionally eligible for the job to get them to print his name on the ballot but failed to ascertain beforehand whether he is a NBC; the fact that NP did not sign the TX Certification but BR did, makes all the difference in the world.

Citizens of TX also asked BR to identify these documents that were the basis of his eligibility determination. And he also refused to say. But turns out, in TX, when it comes to defining the meaning of public documents; and avoiding having to disclose such documents, this same ‘get out of jail free’ card that applied to the DNC Corporation, does not apply to Chairman Richie and the state D party. On the contrary, under TX law, in certain circumstances, documents in the custody of political parties can be ‘discoverable’ as public records. (Not only that but, the court can compel officers of these parties to hand over these records under a cause of action called ‘mandamus,’ a process which is usually reserved to get government officials to do their jobs.)

Know what this means?

For the rest of the story and documents requests for download, see, “REMEMBER the ALAMO?” at https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/remember-the-alamo/

Not unexpectedly, this comment from a newcomer to the blog, was placed in moderation.  But when I checked the next day, Friday, February 5, it had disappeared.  (This is virtually the same comment I submitted to the Boston Globe, which was posted (without moderation) and then ‘disappeared.’ See, for example, “jbjd” BANNED in BOSTON.)  So, on Friday, February 5, I called the FOIFT, and spoke for some time with Pamela Mayo Clark, Director of Education and Special Projects.  As for the ‘disappeared’ comment, well, she referenced the comment while we were on the phone, even accessing my web page through the link provided in that comment.  In other words, somehow, my comment, while no longer visible to me on the FOIFT web site, was visible to her.  She attributed its disappearance on the web site to the fact, the blog had recently undergone dramatic re-design (this is true); and the missing comment was probably just a glitch (this proved to be untrue).  Here is an email I sent afterward, summarizing that conversation.  (Pay special attention to the “P.S.”)


Thank you again for devoting time on Friday to understanding the details of my request for assistance from the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas (“FOIFT”), which request I extended on behalf of the several citizens of Texas who had filed formal complaints of election fraud with Attorney General Abbott in conjunction with requests for records under the Texas open records law, with Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party.  You confirmed you had read the comment I submitted to the FOIFT web site on Thursday, and had accessed the link to an accompanying article posted on my blog, https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/remember-the-alamo/ which provide the background for these current actions. You also assured me, you took “copious notes” of my narrative, promising to pass on to your Executive Director, Keith Elkins, the information I provided, along with my request on behalf of your fellow Texans, for assistance from your organization.  For your convenience, I have summarized the salient points of our lengthy conversation.

This groundswell of citizen activism began with an examination of Texas election law, which only allows the names of eligible candidates to appear on the state ballot.  In August 2008, Mr. Richie Certified the Nomination of Barack Obama as the Constitutionally eligible candidate for President of the D party in papers he submitted to Texas election officials to cause them to print Mr. Obama’s name next to the D on the general election ballot.  Subsequently, citizens asked Mr. Richie, on what documentary basis he had ascertained such eligibility for the job.  (I was informed in September 2009 such requests had been made.) He did not respond.  Resulting in part on this refusal to identify the basis for his Certification, Texans suspected he had sworn the candidate was eligible without determining beforehand this was true.  Consequently, in September 2009, they began filing formal complaints of election fraud with Attorney General Abbott, which complaints detailed the overwhelming circumstantial case that supports their allegations, referencing these unsuccessful efforts to obtain relevant records on their own.

The AG still has issued no official ruling on these complaints of election fraud.  Meanwhile, citizens became aware they may be entitled to access to any such eligibility documentation under the Texas open records law.  Last week – specifically, on January 27, at 6:52 PM – citizens began submitting new requests for records to Mr. Richie, under this law.  (As I pointed out to you, both the citizen complaints of election fraud to AG Abbott; and the requests for records to Mr. Richie can be easily downloaded from my blog.  Citizens need only fill in their names and addresses.)

Given the stated mission of your organization – “Protecting the Public’s Right to Know” – and your geographic proximity to the petitioners – I am in New England – I hoped that you could provide guidance to your fellow Texans, and that I could send them to you for help.  You indicated you would pass on this request to Mr. Elkins.

As I said, the time for Mr. Richie’s response is tolling.  The 10 (ten) days allowed in the statute for an initial response expire in a few days.  I trust your response to my request for help will issue before that time.

I hope this summary aids your recollection.  Thanks again for all your help.


P.S.  During our conversation, you asked whether I was saying, Barack Obama was (Constitutionally) ineligible to be President.  I replied, his eligibility was outside of the scope of the concerns held by the citizens of Texas engaged in these activities to preserve the sanctity of their ballots.  However, I failed to mention, this disclaimer appears in the introduction to the citizen complaints of election fraud.  Note:  This Complaint takes no position on whether Mr. Obama is a NBC. I also want to point out that, having viewed the FOIFT video in which Mr. Elkins instructs would be seekers of public records, the holder of these records is prohibited by law from asking you why you want these records, or what you intend to do with them ( http://www.foift.org/index.php?p=144 ); I was surprised that you seemed to question my motives for wanting to access these particular records from Mr. Richie.  I must tell you, I could easily imagine circumstances under which being hit with that kind of question might have a “chilling” effect on the pursuit of records to which citizens would otherwise be entitled access, under the law.

I forwarded a copy of this email to Brian Collister, an Emmy award winning investigative reporter from WOAI TV, San Antonio, who is on FOIFT’s Board of Directors; and left a voicemail message for him at the t.v. station.

I never heard from Keith Elkins, Brian Collister, Pamela, or anyone else affiliated with FOIFT. The original comment I had submitted to the FOIFT web site never re-appeared.

Using a liberal count of the timetable prescribed by law, by the end of business on Thursday, February 11, 2010, the TDP was required either to produce the records sought by Requestors or to seek an opinion from the AG as to whether these were required to be released.  Plus, Requestors should have been notified in writing by the TDP (the Holder of Records) as to the status of these requests .  As the deadline approached, we had more work to do.

I asked Erica Thunderpaws and redhank to email to me evidence that the fax to Boyd Richie had been sent.  Then, on the 10th day, I asked them to telephone the TDP, to ask whether the requested records would be forthcoming.  Both redhank and Erica Thunderpaws called the TDP and were referred to Mark Corcoran, Special Assistant to the Chair (Boyd Richie).  A summary of those exchanges can be found in the Comments section to REMEMBER the ALAMO.  But I want to emphasize a couple of points from those exchanges.

First, Mr. Corcoran repeatedly pressed redhank to identify the name of her attorney.  And he insisted to Erica Thunderpaws, ‘Our legal counsel advised us, we don’t have to respond (to your request for records), even with a letter informing you, we believe, we don’t have to.’  As I stated in REMEMBER the ALAMO, the web site of the TX AG contains a primer on how citizens can obtain public records under the TX open records law.  http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/requestors.shtml Any citizen could access this information and compose an appropriate request for records.  Indeed, any citizen SHOULD be able to access such information.  After all, we are talking about legislation passed by state senators and representatives elected by the citizens; signed into law by their elected Governor; and published on a web site paid for by their tax dollars, under the auspices of the person they chose as the chief law enforcement officer of the state.  What good is a law  ostensibly intended to keep government open to the people, if the only way people can access its provisions is to have the means to hire an attorney!  But judging by the tone he used when pressing the one caller to identify her lawyer; and insisting to the other caller that TDP counsel said they don’t have to respond, I suspect Mr. Corcoran was trying to intimidate both callers into backing off of their request for records.  Just like Ms. Mayo Clark from the FOIFT, had tried with me.

If that was the goal, neither of them was successful.

Second, Mr. Corcoran was essentially saying, ‘The TDP has determined we need not comply with that aspect of the law which requires us to obtain waivers from its provision, through the Office of the AG.  No; we will consult with our attorneys to determine whether to obey the law.’  It is this hubris which adds insult to the injury of not being able to obtain those records to which citizens have a good faith belief they are legally entitled access in the first place.

Even assuming for the sake of argument the TDP can lawfully substitute its legal opinion for that of the AG, determining it is not compelled by law to produce the requested records, the question remains.  If BR had ascertained that BO is Constitutionally eligible for POTUS before submitting to TX state election officials his signed Certification of Nomination, in order to cause these officials to print his name next to the D on the general election ballot; then why does he refuse to disclose voluntarily the documentary basis for that Certification? To my 9th graders, the answer was self-evident.  OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES

Now, to get AG Abbott to ask that question.

And several options remain to get AG Abbott to ask that question, in the context of investigating the citizen complaints of election fraud against Boyd Richie already filed with his office.  But my recommendation as to best ‘next steps’ depends in part on how many people have requested (or intend to request) these documents; and how many have filed the complaints of election fraud.  So, I need you to let me know who of you have already filed these requests for records to BR and, the citizen complaints.  (I cannot get even a ‘ballpark’ count based on downloads because not everyone who downloaded sent these documents; and some people copied the documents they downloaded to distribute to others.)  Also, where possible, please send along redacted proofs of transmission.  (That is, make sure your identifying information is blocked out before sending.)  (Don’t send confirmations that do not in some way attach themselves to the document sent, for example, that copy the first paragraph of text in the fax transmittal confirmation.)

Finally, I want you to know, creating this post, which includes doing the leg work documented herein – research, emails; phone calls; file conversions; and layout and design, for example –  has taken over 24 hours.  I am compelled to offer my services because I have solutions to some of the unresolved problems that arose during the 2008 election cycle.  While I appreciate your many words of thanks, psychic benefits do not pay the rent; and sleep is not the only valuable commodity I have sacrificed in order to resolve these problems.  There is no such thing as a ‘free lunch.’  Please, take the work; feed the kitty.


Freedom costs.

%d bloggers like this: