RECOGNIZING when the PEOPLE INVOLVED with the PRESS ROLLOUT of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2011 LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AD CAMPAIGN WORE a PUBLIC v. PRIVATE HAT

April 8, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

In the first 3 articles in this series, 1) WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA WAITED until APRIL 27, 2011 to RELEASE a FACSIMILE of his LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE; 2) WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA RELEASED the LONG-FORM IMAGE of his BIRTH CERTIFICATE in PDF versus JPEG; and 3) SHE SAID / HE SAID: SCRIPTING the 04.27.11 LAUNCH of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE we distinguished between the public versus private aspects of the 2011 launch of President Obama’s long form birth certificate advertising campaign, including peeking at the roles played by the various actors identified as participating in the rollout, recognizing when these ‘officials’ wore their public (official) versus private hats.

We left off with the press gaggle that was hastily convened in the WH Briefing Room early on the morning of April 27, 2011, to discuss the release of the image Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer explained at that time was a/the long form birth certificate. (This is not say, the gaggle was hastily planned. As I pointed out previously, Pfeiffer handed out these documents on the 27th as part of the official press launch of the long-form ad campaign, which was followed this same day with an interview on Oprah, in Chicago, with security laid out well in advance by the Secret Service; and culminating with evening fundraisers, by invitation only, in NY. ) (Notice I said, Pfeiffer referred to the document as a long form birth certificate. If you review the gaggle exchange, you will see, he never explicitly said this long form birth certificate was “the President’s long form birth certificate” or “his long form birth certificate.” On the other hand, he once refered to that COLB posted in 2008 as “his birth certificate.” Does this mean that certification posted on FTS in June 2008 really began as an actual vital record received by the campaign (in 2007) from the issuing authority, that is, the HI DoH, which was then doctored appropriately so as to conceal from the public the information they – the campaign – wanted to hide? Or did Pfeiffer just misspeak?)

Some aspects of this public/private dichotomy seemed more obvious than others. For example, recall that we were informed the (alleged) trip to HI to retrieve the document was made by Ms. Corley, the President’s private attorney, and not WH Counsel Bauer; and was paid for not by public funds (meaning, it was paid for by the campaign). Based on conduct on display at the gaggle, it was easy to see that Mr. Pfeiffer was ‘officially’ speaking on behalf of the President’s campaign, and not as a member of the staff of the Executive office. That is, when the conversation concerned questions directed specifically to the long form document purported to reflect the vital record of the President’s birth; it was deliberately steered to him, as opposed to Mr. Bauer or Mr. Carney. (Plus, as I further pointed out; the campaign communications person is often brought in-house to manage his client’s political message after the election. And I noted that his job required no Senate confirmation, implying he didn’t ‘owe’ the government anything, like fealty to the Constitution; rather, he served at the pleasure of the President.) On the other hand; as I noted, Mr. Bauer’s job as WH Counsel was to protect the (Office of the) President as well as members of the Executive staff, from legal liability, Otherwise, his presence at the press gaggle could not be rationally explained. (Spelling out to reporters the difference between a long form birth certificate and a certification does not require the expertise of a WH Counsel who wrote the book, literally, on campaign finance laws.)

But our previous analysis didn’t do justice to either Loretta Fuddy, Director, HI Department of Health; or President Barack Obama, without whose complicity the campaign never could have pulled this off. In this 4th article in the series, we will examine this public/private dichotomy focusing on Ms. Fuddy (and her immediate predecessor at the HI DoH, Ms. Fukino), honing in on when the conduct of a public official is ‘officially’ part of the job.

The correspondence between Mr. Obama and Ms. Fuddy was intended to add credibility to the sham that the President had really released his long form birth certificate. (Did you know that Ms. Fuddy’s nomination by Governor Abercrombie to the position of Director had only been confirmed on March 27, 2011, less than 2 weeks before Obama officially (publicly) announced his 2012 re-election campaign?) On April 27, 2011 Pfeiffer distributed copies of what he said were those letters, to the press; and he posted a link to these documents on WhiteHouse.gov. (But recall that the image of the long form birth certificate was fully displayed directly on the page.)

But even assuming the original version of Ms. Fuddy’s correspondence was ‘real’; did her statements therein constitute an official state proclamation of the President’s place of birth? For example, would her seal of approval posted on the internet per se mean to a court of law, for example, (or a state election official) he is who he says he is? Not hardly.

One way to determine whether an utterance by someone holding public office is ‘official,’ is to examine whether the statement is made pursuant to an official function of the job. For example, do Hawaii Revised Statutes authorize the Director of the HI DoH to personally inspect the contents of vital documents of an identified individual contained in files that office is required to maintain? Do they authorize her to publicly pronounce her opinion as to the authenticity of the information contained in a personal record preserved in her care? The answer emphatically is, no. And you can get to this result in any number of ways, including these: find the law that specifically authorizes her to carry out the act; or, in the alternative, the law that prohibits it.

First, here is the law establishing the Office of the DoH (enabling statute), headed by a single executive, the Director. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol01_Ch0001-0042F/HRS0026/HRS_0026-0013.htm Generally, this requires the department to “administer programs designed to protect, preserve, care for, and improve the physical and mental health of the people of the State.”  Nothing there about personally verifying those records as authentic or, publicizing that verification. But the privacy and confidentiality rights of the subjects of records kept by the Department, are covered by Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18  Disclosure of records. Know where I got this link? On the HI DoH web site, in a page entitled Frequently Asked Questions about Vital Records of President Barack Hussein Obama II. (Well, technically, I found only the citation to the law, which was not linked to the actual law.)

Yes, I linked to the HI DoH web site, to the section above and another entitled “About Vital Records.” All the information needed to establish that statements such as the ones attributed to Director Fuddy (and Fukino before her), mean absolutely nothing when it comes to confirming the facts of Mr. Obama’s place of birth, is right there in front of your eyes, like a neon sign flashing, FRAUD. Because even assuming those statements attributed to Ms. Fuddy were actually made by her; under HI law, only Mr. Obama, the supposed subject of those records, has the right to reveal those statements publicly. Ms. Fuddy not only isn’t authorized to make statements with respect to the accuracy of Obama’s personal records; but, she isn’t authorized to breach his privacy rights. And that’s probably why, if you look closely, you will see, she did not. Rather, Mr. Obama did. She only referenced his prior remarks.

Did you catch that opening line?

On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.

And, this is the truth. The ‘bullets’ underneath the main heading on the HI DoH site link to documents which, while stored on the HI DoH server; per the lead, were first posted by the Obama campaign, with the exception of the bullet linking to Mr. Obama’s purported long form birth certificate, which is linked directly to the WH.gov server. (This only makes sense, because under the HI UIPA, an image like that long form birth certificate appearing on the HI.gov site would be subject to mandatory disclosure under a public records request.) If you click on the links from either the HI.gov or the WH.gov web sites, this opens the actual PDF files into your browser window. If you then right-click your mouse within the PDF file (environment) and select “document properties” from the pull-down menu, you will see the time that these documents were created and subsequently posted to their respective websites. You will see, the documents were posted on WH.gov a little after noon, EDT, beating the HI links to those documents, posted at around 8:30 AM HST, by about 4 hours. (For those keeping track, D.C. on EDT is 6 hours ahead of HI on HST. http://www.pia.nrcs.usda.gov/contact/pia_timezone_standard_chart.html )

In other words, even assuming Director Fuddy wrote her letter to Obama on April 22; she didn’t post links to that letter (or to any other documents associated with that letter) on April 22, April 23, April 24, April 25, or April 26. Instead, she waited until April 27, after Pfeiffer handed out copies of that letter to the press; and after he posted links to those documents on the WH.gov web site, before she posted that letter on the HI DoH web site. And that only made sense, since she couldn’t have provided links to these documents on her web site before they were created on the WH.gov site.*

*Here’s something else funny I noticed. The letter from Judy Corley which is posted on the HI DoH site and appears on the HI DoH server; displays a code ostensibly reflecting the document billing and retrieval system of Perkins Coie. (It’s on the bottom left side.) Presumably, that code links to a file marked “Obama Campaign 2012.”

But here’s the thing. While this code can be seen quite clearly on the HI DoH site; the same letter posted on WH.gov, which appears on the WH.gov server, shows a code so fuzzy it cannot be deciphered. Notwithstanding my general reluctance to speculate absent any evidence; I did think about the underlying rationale for this distinction, and came up with this.

The Obama campaign provided the HI DoH with the PDF of Ms. Corley’s letter to be stored on the HI DoH site and linked directly back to their blog, so as to provide the documents posted on the HI DoH web site with the ‘appearance’ of official HI pronouncements on the subject. Then, at some point after these documents were sent to HI; I imagine someone on this end, that is, in D.C., figured the log code for Perkins Coie was too easily traced by, say, an over-zealous filing clerk or, even a hacker! So, on the WH.gov blog, they made sure to post an obliterated log code. But for some reason, the PDF which had already been uploaded onto the HI server, was not replaced.

In addition to visual clarity, there is also this difference in those Corley letters: the PDF of that letter stored on the HI server, shows no hole-punch at the top, whereas the PDF stored on the WH server contains the 2-hole horizontal marks indicative of stored legal correspondence. I couldn’t help thinking, when the WH team determined to obliterate the legal code at the bottom; in an attempt to maintain the ruse that this was a legal letter from Corley to Fuddy, they copied the legal correspondence physically fastened in the file. In this way, it retained the ‘look’ of a real legal document which it was, part of the Obama 2012 campaign; while maintaining the element of untraceability.

But if these facts don’t convince you that, except for certifying Obama posted statements attributed to the HI DoH with respect to his long form birth certificate, the HI DoH has certified nothing; just read the Disclaimer at the bottom of their web page!

Let me repeat part of the “Disclaimer of Warranties”:

This WEB SITE is provided “AS IS” and without warranties of any kind. To the fullest extent of the law, the State of Hawai‘i, including each agency, officer, or employee of the State of Hawai‘i, disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied…with respect to this WEB SITE…In addition, neither the State of Hawai‘i nor any agency, officer, or employee of the State of Hawai‘i makes any representations, guarantees, or warranties as to: (1) the accuracy, completeness, currency, or suitability of the information provided via this WEB SITE; (2) the use of or the results of the use of this WEB SITE; and (3) the accuracy, reliability, availability or completeness or usefulness of the content of web sites created and maintained by persons other than the State of Hawai‘i and linked to or from this WEB SITE.

In sum, just because something is posted or linked to on the HI DoH.gov web site does not mean, it is the truth.

And now, a note about Ms. Fuddy’s immediate predecessor, Ms. Fukino.  The present HI DoH web site also contains 2 links to “all past statements by the Health Director.” Both of these links lead to statements made by Ms. Fukino. Here is the statement she made in October 2008.

Again, I want to call your attention to 2 items. First, notice this release originates with the HI DoH and not the office of the Governor, notwithstanding Ms. Lingle’s name and title are mentioned in the header. Second, pay attention to Ms. Fukino’s disclaimer at the bottom:

“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”

In other words, she is assuming all legal liability for ‘talking out of school,’ that is, making a public statement about Mr. Obama’s records not otherwise allowed by law. So, why would she put herself in what might appear on its face to be a legally untenable position? Who knows. Paraphrasing the words attributed to her successor, maybe it’s because “inquiries [to the HI DoH for Obama’s birth documents] have been disruptive to staff operations and have strained State resources.” Or maybe it’s because, the only person with standing to contest her apparent breach of privacy is the subject of the record, Barack Obama. And, surely, he is not about to attack the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg, least of all one month before the 2008 general election.

(I have to stop here. But try this exercise yourself. As I said, Governor Abercrombie issued a press release on April 27 accompanying the press launch, announcing Ms. Fuddy had done the deed of authenticating HI’s native son, repeating the party line. Does this mean, he is officially verifying Ms. Fuddy’s prior verification? I will post the best responses.)

(I also want to thank kjcanon for her editing assistance, without which this article was too bogged down to post.)

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

Freedom costs.

Advertisements

SHE SAID / HE SAID: SCRIPTING the 04.27.11 LAUNCH of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

April 1, 2012

©2012 jbjd

This is third in the series of articles addressing the legal nature of that long form birth certificate purporting to establish President Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth, released on April 27, 2011 in the form of both electronic images which were posted on the WhiteHouse.gov blog and, hard copies (of those same images) which were distributed to reporters. (This is all spelled out in the first 2 articles in the series, WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA WAITED until APRIL 27, 2011 to RELEASE a FACSIMILE of his LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE and WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA RELEASED the LONG-FORM IMAGE of his BIRTH CERTIFICATE in PDF versus JPEG, which are meant to be read before tackling the present post,) But the article I originally had in mind to follow these 2 required re-thinking when I received an email from azgo suggesting that “by reading the ‘jbjd’ blog, [the Obama campaign] devised the [long-form birth certificate] scheme to make it look like the image came directly from HI; per our conversations [on this blog] about how state election officials should receive birth records directly from the state in which the candidate was born.” That got me to thinking. So, I looked for any articles referencing the distinction between a real identification document and a fake; which were posted here on “jbjd” before the 2012 re-election campaign launch in April 2011.

azgo could be right.

On January 3, 2011, I posted DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2), which confirms that under the U.S. Code, images such as Barack Obama’s COLB appearing on his web site “Fight the Smears,” satisfy the expenditure disclosure requirements of an electronic political advertising campaign. Here is an excerpt from that post.

Here is just a partial index for TITLE 2 > CHAPTER 14 > SUBCHAPTER I, dealing with federal campaign funds.

DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS

  • § 441d. Publication and distribution of statements and solicitations

(a) Identification of funding and authorizing sources

Whenever a political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing any communication through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising, or whenever any person makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or solicits any contribution through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general public political advertising or makes a disbursement for an electioneering communication (as defined in section 434 (f)(3) of this title), such communication—
(1) if paid for and authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication has been paid for by such authorized political committee, or [1]
(2) if paid for by other persons but authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state that the communication is paid for by such other persons and authorized by such authorized political committee; [1]
(3) if not authorized by a candidate, an authorized political committee of a candidate, or its agents, shall clearly state the name and permanent street address, telephone number, or World Wide Web address of the person who paid for the communication and state that the communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

This was followed on January 12 by DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2), which discussed the criminal implications of producing and distributing electronic images, such as that COLB, on campaign sites; but pretending, these are ‘the real thing.’ Here is a snippet from that article.

Here is just a partial index for TITLE 18 > PART I (CRIMES) > CHAPTER 47, FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS.  (We will only use Part 1 for this analysis but here is a link to Part II, FYI.  PART II—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (§§ 3001—3771).)

But to answer the question concerning the legality of the  FTS COLB under the U.S. Code, we will be concentrating primarily on section 1028.

§ 1028. Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information

(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section—

(1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document;

(2) knowingly transfers an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority;

(4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States;

(7) knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(c) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that—

(1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document is or appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance or the document-making implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document;

(2) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) of this section; or

(3) either—

(A) the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce, including the transfer of a document by electronic means; or

(B) the means of identification, identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement is transported in the mail in the course of the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section.

(d) In this section and section 1028A

(1) the term “authentication feature” means any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code, image, sequence of numbers or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination with another feature is used by the issuing authority on an identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified;

(2) the term “document-making implement” means any implement, impression, template, computer file, computer disc, electronic device, or computer hardware or software, that is specifically configured or primarily used for making an identification document, a false identification document, or another document-making implement;

(3) the term “identification document” means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, political subdivision of a foreign government, an international governmental or an international quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals

(4) the term “false identification document” means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that—

(A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and

(B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization;

(5) the term “false authentication feature” means an authentication feature that—

(A) is genuine in origin, but, without the authorization of the issuing authority, has been tampered with or altered for purposes of deceit;

(B) is genuine, but has been distributed, or is intended for distribution, without the authorization of the issuing authority and not in connection with a lawfully made identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to which such authentication feature is intended to be affixed or embedded by the respective issuing authority; or

(C) appears to be genuine, but is not;

(6) the term “issuing authority”—

(A) means any governmental entity or agency that is authorized to issue identification documents, means of identification, or authentication features; and

(B) includes the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international government or quasi-governmental organization;

(7) the term “means of identification” means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any—

(A) name, social security number, date of birth, official State or government issued driver’s license or identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number;

(C) unique electronic identification number, address, or routing code; or

(D) telecommunication identifying information or access device (as defined in section 1029 (e));

(9) the term “produce” includes alter, authenticate, or assemble;

(10) the term “transfer” includes selecting an identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement and placing or directing the placement of such identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement on an online location where it is available to others;

(11) the term “State” includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other commonwealth, possession, or territory of the United States; and

(12) the term “traffic” means—

(A) to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value; or

(B) to make or obtain control of with intent to so transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of.

(f) Attempt and Conspiracy.— Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.

On January 24, I posted 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). Here is an excerpt from that seminal article, in which I warn voters against accepting as true any candidate’s self-authentication to appear on the ballot. (This also contains a link to a comment in which I issued this same warning, more than 1 year earlier.)

5. NO MECHANISM INTENDED TO ESTABLISH ONLY ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES WILL BE ELECTED PRESIDENT WILL SUCCEED, WHICH RELIES ON CANDIDATE SELF-AUTHENTICATION. This has always seemed to me to be self-explanatory.

I refuse to focus on BO to establish HIS OWN eligibility. On FTS, the web site he started and for which he paid before becoming the D Corporation nominee for POTUS; he posted the COLB he said is an official document, which proves he is eligible for POTUS. ADMINISTRATOR

2010/01/05 at 20:33

In other words, stop asking Obama or anyone acting on his behalf but not in an official capacity; to get the man to produce anything! And do not under any circumstances accept as true, any document or facsimile any of these representatives not acting as the “issuing authority” introduces and claims is real! 

Apparently, the usual “jbjd” readers hoping to hone their civics educations were not the only ones listening.

To see how that April 27, 2011 launch of the long form image of President Obama’s birth certificate conformed to these requirements of the U.S. Code with respect to campaign advertising and, at this same time, skirted criminal sanctions for document fraud; you can start by looking at the press gaggle that was held that morning. As no cameras or recording devices were allowed, I relied on this press release by WH Press Secretary Jay Carney, issued at 8:48 that morning and posted on the WhiteHouse.gov blog; to memorialize the scene. (Since I will only reference Mr. Carney’s release; after you read my article, I urge you to follow up by reading his, to see for yourself how the fact pattern spelled out in the U.S. Code, fits.)

Attending the early morning press gaggle were Carney; WH Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer; and WH Counsel Bob Bauer. First, a note about Mr. Bauer, who would leave that job in June 2011, 1 month after the long form launch.

President Barack Obama’s top lawyer at the White House, Bob Bauer, is quitting to return to his political law practice and represent Obama as his personal attorney and counsel to his re-election campaign….Bauer, a specialist in campaign finance, election law and ethics, is returning to the role as campaign counsel that he held when Obama ran for the presidency in 2008….

Bauer has been part of Obama’s circle since Obama was a freshman senator in Washington. He has long been a go-to lawyer for Democrats and is married to Anita Dunn, a Democratic operative who formerly served as Obama’s communications director…. He will also serve as counsel to the Democratic National Committee.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/02/bob-bauer-resigns-white-house-counsel_n_870290.html

And this, from Perkins Coie.

Bob returned to the firm after a period of service to President Barack Obama as his White House Counsel from December of 2009 until June of 2011.  He is now General Counsel to the President’s re-election committee, to Obama for America, and General Counsel to the Democratic National Committee.

http://www.perkinscoie.com/rbauer/

Now, from the gaggle. (My editorial comments appear in orange. These are not intended to be exhaustive; I could have colored the whole exchange! Besides, once you get the hang of interpreting ‘Obama-speak’; you will be able to de-construct these remarks, on your own.)

MR. PFEIFFER:

In 2008 (the copyright date in the in the footer of FTS is 2007), in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign (in June 2008, U.S. Senator Barack Obama was only the D Party Presidential nominee wannabe; and the image posted on his FTS web site, which was clearly marked “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA, per campaign expenditure laws) requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii.  We (the nominee’s campaign) received that document; we (the campaign) posted it on the website (FTS). That document was then inspected by independent fact checkers (lay staffers employed by Annenberg Political Fact Check), who came to the campaign headquarters and inspected the document — independent fact checkers did, and declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii.

That essentially — for those of you who followed the campaign closely know that solved the issue.  We didn’t spend any time talking about this after that….There may have been some very fringe discussion out there, but as a campaign issue it was settled and it was —

Q    When you posted this did you post the other side of it where the signature is?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Yes.

Q    Because it is not here and that’s been an issue.

MR. PFEIFFER:  We posted both sides and when it was looked at it was looked at by — the fact checkers came to headquarters and actually examined the document we had.

That settled the issue.  In recent weeks, the issue has risen again as some folks have begun raising a question about the original — about the long-form birth certificate you now have in front of you.  And Bob will explain why — the extraordinary steps we (the President’s 2012 re-election campaign) had to take to receive that and the legal restraints that are in place there.

But it became an issue again.  …  And the President believed that it was becoming a distraction from the major issues we’re having in this country. …  And it was really a distraction. … That really struck the President, led him to ask his counsel to look into whether we could ask the state of Hawaii to release the long-form certificate, which is not something they generally do. (It’s not clear to me from Pfeiffer’s reference whom the President asked to look into this matter, since he uses no names. It’s not even clear whether by “counsel” he meant, lawyer or advisor. But, technically, WH Counsel Bauer represents the Office and not the man and so, is properly referred to as “WH Counsel.”)* And he did that despite the fact that it probably was not in his long-term — it would have been in his — probably in his long-term political interests to allow this birther debate to dominate discussion in the Republican Party for months to come.  But he thought even though it might have been good politics, he thought it was bad for the country.  And so he asked counsel (again, I don’t know to which counsel this refers) to look into this. *(Here’s a good article on the sometimes murky role of WH Counsel. White House Lawyer Role Faces Test.)

And now I’ll have Bob explain that, and then we’ll take your questions.

MR. CARNEY:  I just want to — sorry, I meant to mention at the top, as some of you may have seen, the President will be coming to the briefing room at 9:45 a.m., making a brief statement about this — not taking questions, but just wanted to let you know.

MR. PFEIFFER:  And he will use this as an opportunity to make a larger point about what this debate says about our politics.

Go ahead, Bob.

MR. BAUER:  Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the longstanding prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate.  And so we undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made that we had the grounds upon which to make that request. (Based on several descriptions of the job responsibilities of WH Counsel; it is totally appropriate for him to advise the President as to the legality of his conduct.)

And by Thursday of last week, I spoke to private counsel to the President and asked her to contact the State Department of Health and to have a conversation about any requirements, further requirements, that they thought we (meaning, anyone associated with this ploy) had to satisfy to lodge that waiver request (and simultaneously avoid breaking the law).  She had that conversation with the state Department of Health on Thursday — counsel in question is Judy Corley at the law firm of Perkins Coie, (the law firm in which I was a partner before coming here and to which I will return shortly) and you have a copy of the letter she subsequently sent to the department with the President’s written request.

The department outlined the requirements for the President to make this request.  He signed a letter making that request on Friday afternoon upon returning from the West Coast.  And private counsel (presumably, he mean Ms. Corley) forwarded his written request — written, signed request — along with a letter from counsel (okay, I give up, I have no idea whom he means here), to the state Department of Health on Friday.

The department, as I understood it (plausible deniability here), after reviewing the law and reviewing the grounds asserted in the request, came to the conclusion that a waiver could be appropriately granted.  We (those of us perpetrating this fraud, excluding the President) were advised that the long-form birth certificate (mock-up) could be copied and made available to us as early as Monday, April 25th — the day before yesterday.  And we made arrangements for counsel to travel to Honolulu to pick it up and it was returned to the White House yesterday afternoon. (He keeps referring to the document as “it” but, in the letter provided to reporters, the President requested and received 2 copies of his long-form birth certificate, both certified.) (According to HI DoH instructions posted below, only 1 vital record per request!)

Let me emphasize again, there is a specific statute that governs access to and inspection of vital records in the state of Hawaii (as there is in every state)**.  The birth certificate that we posted online is, in fact, and always has been, and remains, the (facsimile of a) legal birth certificate of the President (or anyone else) that would be used for all legal purposes that any resident of Hawaii would want to use a birth certificate for (and which could be used for that purpose if appropriately presented, for example, if displaying the official seal or, unaltered in any way).

However, there is legal authority in the department to make exceptions to the general policy on not releasing the long-form birth certificate.  The policy in question, by the way, on non-release has been in effect since the mid-1980s, I understand.  So while I cannot tell you what the entire history of exceptions has been, (for effect, I will nonetheless speculate) it is a limited one. This is one of very few that I understand have been granted for the reasons set out in private counsel’s letter (id.).

MR. PFEIFFER:  We’ll be happy to take some questions.

Q    I guess I just want to make sure that we’re clear on this.  Even though this one says “certificate of live birth” on here, this is different than the other certificate of live birth that we’ve seen?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Yes.  The second page there is the one that was posted on the Internet.

Q    Okay.

MR. PFEIFFER:  And that is a copy of the one that has been kept at the Hawaii Department of Health.

Q    Okay.  And this is the one that would be referred to — that people have been asking for that is the birth certificate?

MR. PFEIFFER:  They are both — the second one is the birth certificate.  The one on the top is what is referred to as the long-form birth certificate.  As you can see — and Bob can walk you through it (again, doesn’t take a lawyer to explain this obvious difference between a certificate and a certification but it does add an official imprimatur to the ruse) — it contains some additional information that is not on the second page, which was the birth certificate which was released during the campaign.

If you could just explain the difference.

MR. BAUER:  There’s a difference between a certificate and a certification.  The certification is simply a verification of certain information that’s in the original birth certificate.  The birth certificate, as you can see, has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, who essentially oversees the maintenance of the records.  It contains some additional information also — that is to say, the original birth certificate — it contains some additional information like the ages of the parents, birthplaces, residence, street address, the name of the hospital.

The core information that’s required for legal purposes and that is put into the actual certification that’s a computer-generated document, which we (the members of then U.S. Senator Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential preference primary campaign) posted in 2008, that information is abstracted, if you will, from the original birth certificate, put into the computerized short-form certification, and made available to Hawaiian residents at their request.

So the long form, which is a certificate, has more information, but the short form has the information that’s legally sufficient for all the relevant purposes.

Q    This first one has never been released publicly, correct?

MR. BAUER:  That’s correct.  It is in a bound volume in the records at the state Department of Health in Hawaii.

Q    Bob, can you explain why President Obama let this drag on for four years?  Was it Donald Trump that prompted you to issue this?

MR. BAUER:  I’ll let Dan —

MR. PFEIFFER:  Sure.

Q    I know you expected that question, right?  (Laughter.)
MR. PFEIFFER:  He even said you would be the one who would ask it.  (Laughter.)

I don’t think this dragged on for four years because this was a resolved — for those of you who remember the campaign, this issue was resolved in 2008.  And it has not been an issue, none of you have asked about it, called about it, reported on it until the last few weeks.

And as I said earlier, it probably would have been — a lot of the pundits out there have talked about the fact that this whole birther debate has been really bad for the Republican Party and would probably be good for the President politically.  But despite that, the President, as I said, was struck by how this was crowding out the debate, particularly around the budget, on important issues, and was an example of the sort of sideshows that our politics focuses on instead of the real challenges that we have to confront as a country.

And so that’s why he made this decision now, because it became an issue that transcended sort of this — it essentially was something that was talked about, as I said, from the nether regions of the Internet onto mainstream network newscasts.  In fact, Jay has been asked about this just yesterday in this room.

Q    So I guess the implication is that you did get political advantage by having not released this until today, over the course of the last four years?

MR. PFEIFFER:  There has been — no one that I can recall actually asked us to — we were asked to release the President’s birth certificate in 2008.  We did that.  And then no one — it never — up until a few weeks ago, there was never an issue about that that wasn’t the birth certificate from any credible individual or media outlet.  And it hasn’t been until — I mean, Jay was asked about this yesterday —

Q    When you say that, you mean certification — you released the certification?

MR. PFEIFFER:  When any Hawaiian wants — requests their birth certificate because they want to get a driver’s license, they want to get a passport, they do exactly what the President did in 2008.  And that’s what that is.  And we released that.  And that’s what any Hawaiian would do to release their birth certificate.  And that was good enough for everyone until very recently this became a question again.  And so the President made this decision.  He’ll talk to you more about his thinking on that.

Q    And this is going to sound — I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to — remain unconvinced.  They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper (since that is what this is), you could have typed anything in there.  Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any — (laughter.)

Q    Will the President be holding it?

MR. PFEIFFER:  He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so.  But it will — the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a — what they have on file.  As Bob said, it’s in a book in Hawaii.

MR. BAUER:  And you’ll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states (“that” here refers to the letter, as in, “the letter states” and not, “the director of the Health Department states…”) that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to —

Q    But do you understand that this could quiet the conspiracy theorists?

MR. PFEIFFER:  There will always be some selection of people who will believe something, and that’s not the issue.  The issue is that this is not a discussion that is just happening among conspiracy theorists.  It’s happening here in this room; it’s happening on all of the networks.  And it’s something that, as I said, every major political figure of both parties who’s actually out trying to talk about real issues is asked about this by the media.  And so the President decided to release this.  And I’ll leave it to others to decide whether there’s still — there will be some who still have a different — have a conspiracy about this.

Q    You’ve got two certified copies, according to this study.  You have these physical —

MR. PFEIFFER:  Yes.  I showed you one.  Just one.

Q    You showed us a photocopy of one.

MR. PFEIFFER:  No, I showed you —

Q    Does that have a stamp? (Apparently, the copy distributed to this reporter did not.)

MR. PFEIFFER:  It has a seal on it.

Q    Why does this rise to the level of a presidential statement?

MR. PFEIFFER:  The President — this in itself — when you hear the President I think you’ll understand the point he’s making.  That will be in not too long.

Q    Did the President change his own mind about this?  In other words, was he advocating during the campaign let’s just put it out there and get it over with, or was this an internal shift in thinking based — in other words, was it the President who steadfastly during the campaign said this is ridiculous, I don’t want to give this any more ground, and has now changed his mind? Or is this the —

MR. PFEIFFER:  Let’s be very clear.  You were there for the campaign.  There was never a question about the original birth certificate during the campaign.  It was a settled issue.  (HA HA HA HA HA) I was there (in 2007)  for the original decision to release the birth certificate (if we couldn’t steal the primary before people began asking questions about the candidate’s Constitutional eligibility for office). I was there (in June 2008) when we posted it online (because questions about his eligibility threatened to kill his chances at the nomination).  I’m not sure I even knew there was an original one that was different than the one we posted online because it wasn’t an issue.  (Liar liar, pants on fire.) So it wasn’t like — let’s be very clear.  We were asked for the President’s birth certificate in 2008; we released the President’s birth certificate; and it was done.  That was it.

And so there hasn’t been a discussion about this other document for years.  It’s only been in the last few weeks.  And so to your second question, the President decided to do this and he’ll talk about this when he gets here — decided to do it at the timeline that Bob (Bauer, the campaign law expert and WH Counsel) laid out (so as to protect everyone involved in this farce from criminal liability) because it was a — this was a sideshow that was distracting from the real challenges that we’re facing.

It’s not just a sideshow for him; it’s a sideshow for our entire politics (meaning, our re-election campaign) that have become focused on this.

Q    Not to give Donald Trump more publicity than he has, but is he the person who sort of — sort of that bridge between what you’re calling a fringe and the mainstream?  Do you think that he’s the reason why this tripped the switch to a level where you now have to deal with something you thought was dealt with?

MR. PFEIFFER:  It’s not for me to say why mainstream media organizations began to cover this debate.  They’ll have to answer that for themselves.

Q    Dan, was there a debate about whether or not this deserved being discussed by the White House, whether or not — and I’m going back to the birth certificate.  I lose points, I understand.  But was there debate about whether or not this was worthy of the White House?

MR. PFEIFFER:  The point I’d make is that we weren’t the ones who — we’re not the first ones to bring this up in this room.  Jay has been asked questions about this; the President has been asked about it in media interviews.  And so that wasn’t a decision that we made, and the President made the decision to do this and he made the decision to — and when he comes down here this morning he’ll talk to you about why he thinks there’s an important point to be made here.

Q    Is there a concern that more and more people were actually starting to believe its sideshow — I mean, people have been asking about —

MR. CARNEY:  I will let the President speak for himself, but what Dan was saying and I think is important is that the issue here is that the President feels that this was bad for the country; that it’s not healthy for our political debate, when we have so many important issues that Americans care about, that affect their lives, to be drawn into sideshows about fallacies that have been disproven with the full weight of a legal document for several years.

So, again, as Dan said, and a lot of political pundits have said, you could say that it would be good politics, smart politics, for the President to let this play out.  He cares more about what’s good for the country.  He wants the debate on the issues.  He wants the focus on the issues that Americans care about.

Q    Just quickly, back on the birth certificate, yesterday you said this was a settled issue.  So —

MR. CARNEY:  Well, as Dan said, again, it has been a settled issue.

MR. PFEIFFER:  From a factual point of view, it’s absolutely a settled issue.  But the fact that it was a settled issue did not keep it from becoming a major part of the political discussion in this town for the last several weeks here.  So there’s absolutely no question that what the President released in 2008 was his birth certificate and answered that question, and many of your organizations have done excellent reporting which proved that to be the case.  But it continued; the President thought it was a sideshow and chose to take this step today for the reasons Bob laid out.

Q    Aside from the policy distractions that was presented, did you have some concern because it was sort of reaching back into the mainstream news coverage that this could become a factor in the 2012 election with centrist voters?

MR. PFEIFFER:  No.

Q    Just to clarify what this document is —

MR. PFEIFFER:  This is the — the letter first and the two certified copies — this is one of those.  This is the same thing you have a copy of as the first page of your packet.

Q    How did it get here?

MR. PFEIFFER:  As Bob said, it arrived by plane — the President’s personal counsel went to Hawaii and brought it back and we got it last night.

Q    Last night?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Last night.

Q    What time?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Q    When did you decide to do this gaggle?

MR. PFEIFFER:  What’s that?

Q    When was this gaggle put on — when was this planned?

MR. PFEIFFER:  Whatever time you received your guidance suggesting that it would be “this time tomorrow morning.”

Q    Are these letters supposed to demonstrate the legal steps that were involved in releasing it to the White House counsel?

MR. BAUER:  The letters that you have, the personal request from the President, along with the accompanying letter from private counsel, is merely meant to document the legal path to getting the waiver of that policy so we could get the long-form certificate (as opposed to documenting an actual path undertaken to obtain a bona fide waiver from Director Fuddy on the date in the letter, resulting in her office’s production of a facsimile of a record on file with her office, evidencing Barack Obama was born in HI).

Q    The waiver of Hawaii state government policy?

MR. BAUER:  Right.  The non-release of the long-form certificate, which has been in effect since the 1980s — a natural question would have been, well, what did you do to obtain the waiver, and those letters represent the request.

Q    Well, isn’t it true that anybody who was born in Hawaii can write this letter?  (Yes; of course.) I mean, that’s all there is to the waiver process?

MR. BAUER:  No.  Let me just explain once again because I also noticed, by the way, in one report already the wrong certificate was actually posted on the website.  The certificate with the signatures at the bottom — and that’s a key difference between the short form and the long form — the long form has signatures at the bottom from the attending physician, the local registrar, and the mother, is the original birth certificate, which sits in a bound volume in the State Department of Health.

The short from is a computerized abstract, and that’s the legal birth certificate we requested in 2008 and that Hawaiians are entitled to.  Since the mid-1980s, the State Department of Health, for administrative reasons, only provides to people who request their birth certificate the short form.  They do not provide the long form.

So in order for us to obtain the long form, we had to have a waiver (which, as you astutely pointed out, only required writing the letter requesting that waiver).  We had to actually determine that there was a legal basis for providing it, and then ask them to exercise their authority to provide us with the long form.  The steps required to accomplish that were a letter from the person with the direct and vital interest — the President — so you have a letter from the President (with no file reference code for document processing, archiving, or retrieval) , and then there was an accompanying letter from counsel basically formalizing the request.  (I cannot figure out the angle on that one. Obviously, unless the President, here, the Requestor of the Record, has been adjudged to be mentally incompetent and placed under the guardianship of Attorney Corley, he doesn’t need her to ‘formalize’ anything! Maybe Bauer is still trying to fool reporters into believing getting the waiver so as to obtain a certified copy of a long form birth certificate is a big deal. Ideas?) So the reason we included that is that those were legal steps we took to obtain the long form by way of this waiver.

Q    Do we have the letter from the President —

MR. BAUER:  It’s in the packet.

Q    And you went to Hawaii?

MR. BAUER:  I did not go to Hawaii.  The counsel, Judy Corley, who signed the — the President’s personal counsel at Perkins Coie, Judy Corley, whose letter — signed letter of request is in your packet, traveled to Honolulu and picked up the birth certificate. (Notice that now, he manages albeit awkwardly, to avoid saying either, ‘Ms. Corley signed the letter,’ or ‘Ms. Corley made this request to the HI DoH.’ Because saying that the President’s lawyer did these things is tantamount to saying, the President did these things. And as you just read, when it comes to the President and these long form shenanigans; the campaign, under the watchful eye of WH Counsel Bauer, is preserving a ‘hands off’ approach.) (434 (f)(3) of TITLE 2 > CHAPTER 14 > SUBCHAPTER I, DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS, is worth a read. While I didn’t use that section of campaign finance laws with respect to the FTS web site; it might apply here, to the cost of that campaign trip to HI to retrieve the campaign document. As for the gaggle being a “campaign communication,” well, since there is no record; and since otherwise ‘official’ topics were also discussed, by non-campaign staff; I am not sure what approach the DoJ would take for the purpose of determining whether illegal campaigning was going on from the WH.)

Thanks.END              9:18 A.M. EDT

** According to the web site of the HI DoH, here’s how to request certified copies of vital information.

How to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records

What Information You Should Be Prepared to Provide

An applicant/requestor must provide the information needed to 1) establish his/her direct and tangible interest in the record and 2) locate the desired record. This will normally include:

  • Applicant’s name, address, and telephone number(s);
  • Applicant’s relationship to the person named on the certificate;
  • Reason why you are requesting the certificate;
  • Full name(s) as listed on the certificate; (not provided)
  • The certificate’s file number (if known); (not provided)
  • Month, day, and year of the event; (not provided) and
  • City or town and the island where the event occurred. (not provided)
  • For birth certificates, also provide the full name of the father and the full maiden name of the mother. (not provided)
  • If you are applying for a certificate on behalf of someone else, you must provide an original letter signed by that person authorizing the release of their certificate to you and a photocopy of that person’s valid government-issued photo ID. (not provided)
  • Valid government-issued photo ID. (not provided)

(H/T azgo)

On the other hand, maybe all you want is a letter.

Letters of Verification

Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/civil union/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.

Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.

The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter.

Either way, you can download an application form directly from the site.

Application Forms

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html

Thus, summing up these first 3 articles in the series, by clearly identifying both orally and in writing, the ‘birth’ documents distributed at the press gaggle and displayed on the WhiteHouse.gov blog are part of the “campaign”; by explicitly stating no public funds were expended in obtaining these documents; by making sure that any ‘official (looking)’ seal from the HI DoH did not appear on copies of documents distributed to the public; by distributing the documents to the public but not to a government official under the guise, this was a bona fide representation of the ‘facts’ contained therein; and by separating the campaign function from the traditional function of the Executive branch; and by transporting the false document via airplane instead of the U.S. mail; President Obama’s team likely skirted criminal violations of both campaign expenditure and public records laws.

Or did they…

(The next article in the series focuses on President Obama’s remarks immediately following this press gaggle; and the nature of comments, both oral and written, with respect to the President’s vital records, attributed over time to state of HI employees.)

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

Freedom costs.


WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA WAITED until APRIL 27, 2011 to RELEASE a FACSIMILE of his LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

March 18, 2012

© 2012 jbjd

For my next few articles, I will focus on the elusive nature of paid political advertising campaigns. First, a riddle.

Why did President Obama wait until April 27, 2011 to release a facsimile of his long form birth certificate indicating he was born in Hawaii?

As you will see, the answer to each of these questions – why release and why release now – depends on whom you ask.

On April 27, 2011 Ben Smith at Politico posts this rationale he claims was emailed to him by a White House official (although, for some reason, Mr. Smith produces neither the name of the sender of the purported email nor an image of the email which was purportedly sent), answering both questions:

The day was chosen by when they provided it to us, it got here last night, so our belief was we had to do it today. Petraues et al is tomorrow’s announcement

I am not going to argue the politics of doing this are good — they probably aren’t. Allowing the GOP primary to devolve into birther mania probably would be better, but the president felt strongly that this was bad for the country

Why today?

That same day, John McCormack at the Weekly Standard, referencing Smith’s post, adds the following analysis:

Team Obama thought the “birther issue” was politically advantageous for them. By refusing to release the document, they gave the conspiracy theory just enough oxygen to keep it alive and make Republicans look crazy when asked about it by their constituents (obviously, the most die-hard “birthers” will summarily call the “long-form” certificate a forgery or find other excuses to keep their fevered dreams alive).

Why Did Obama Wait Until Today to Release His Long-Form Birth Certificate?

Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reported at 10:13 AM (ET) on the details of the birth certificate launch, but did not speculate as to the answer to either question:

The move came as a surprise to the press corps, many of whom had not shown up for Wednesday’s early-morning White House briefing. By the time word had spread that Obama would be making a 9:45 a.m. statement on the matter, however, the top anchors at all the networks had scurried into the briefing room.

Last Friday, the president himself wrote Loretta J. Fuddy, the director of health at the State of Hawaii, requesting “two certified copies of my original certificate of live birth.” Fuddy complied. Shortly thereafter, the president’s counsel, Judith Corley of the firm Perkins Coie, flew to Hawaii to pick up two copies of the form. The trip was not taxpayer funded but, rather, paid out of the president’s personal account. Corley returned on Tuesday at roughly 4 p.m. with the copies. The White House announced a “morning gaggle” for reporters shortly thereafter. One aide explained that they did not want to “hold” on to the documents for release on a later date.

Many members of the press confessed to being “stunned” as it became clear what was about to be discussed. White House press assistants handed out a six-page stapled packet of photocopies showing the new and old birth certificates as well as the White House’s legal correspondence with Hawaii’s Department of Health.

Obama Birth Certificate Released By White House (PHOTO)

Michael A. Memoli authored more than 1 article for the LA Times on that day. Here’s the one that, being more in line with the underlying theme of this (series of) article(s), most interested me:

Reporting from Washington — The White House released President Obama’s long-form birth certificate to reporters on Wednesday, an extraordinary step in reaction to renewed questions from critics about whether he was born in Hawaii.

The document also was posted on the White House website. President Obama is expected to speak on the subject from the White House briefing room later Wednesday morning. (Here, Memoli clearly indicates that, being a reporter, he received a copy of the President’s long form birth certificate and posted this article before the President spoke. But Sam Stein at HuffPo makes clear in the article he posted immediately after the President’s briefing room launch, that “top anchors at all the networks [who] had scurried into the briefing room” received both the President’s spin and the document he spun, contemporaneously. And that “members of the press [in the briefing room] confessed to being “stunned” as it became clear what was about to be discussed.”)

Amid questions during Obama’s 2008 run for the White House, his campaign released a certificate of live birth to verify he was a native-born citizen, a constitutional requirement of the office. (No; the Constitutional requirement is “natural born citizen”; and he released a “Certification,” not a certificate. It said so right on the mock-up.) So-called “birther” critics called the document insufficient, however, and conspiracy theories about the president’s birth have continued.

Administration officials said they felt compelled to release additional documentation because the continued “distraction” was harmful for the country.

“It may have been good politics and good TV, but it was bad for the American people and distracting from the many challenges we face as a country,” Dan Pfeiffer, White House communications director, wrote on the White House’s blog.

To receive the long-form document, the president personally sent a request to the Hawaii Department of Health. White House counsel Robert F. Bauer traveled to the state to retrieve it. (According to the blog, Attorney Judith Corley of Perkins Coie, traveled to HI for that purpose.)

The state of Hawaii has faced a regular barrage of requests for information about Obama’s birth, but privacy rules barred them from releasing the full birth certificate. The White House said the state granted this exception “in part because of the tremendous volume of requests they had been getting.”

The release comes on the same day that real estate mogul Donald Trump, who has put questions about Obama’s birthplace front and center in recent weeks, travels to New Hampshire as he considers a presidential campaign of his own. (More importantly, this release coincides with the President’s previously scheduled taping of the Oprah Winfrey Show, in Chicago, immediately after this press conference. Obamas Visit Oprah in Chicago Wednesday)

White House releases long-form Obama birth certificate

So, what is my answer to the riddle, why did President Obama wait until April 27, 2011 to release a facsimile of his long form birth certificate? Because both the purported request to HI officials for his long form birth certificate; and the release of that facsimile of his long form birth certificate were part of his 2012 political campaign. (That’s why Stein’s article included the disclaimer, “The trip [to HI to ‘retrieve’ those documents] was not taxpayer funded but, rather, paid out of the president’s personal account.”) And even though questions still “swirled” since he was inaugurated in 2009, that he was Constitutionally ineligible to be President; he couldn’t launch another paid political advertising campaign to counter those concerns until he was actually in another political campaign; and he only launched his 2012 re-election campaign on April 4.

And he launched the paid political ad on April 27 to coincide with his appearances on Oprah and at several high end fundraisers in NY.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/27/oprah-winfrey-show-obamas_n_854232.html

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

Freedom costs.


ALOHA OBAMA and SHALOM

January 29, 2011

©2011 jbjd

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Benjamin Franklin

“A citizenry that cannot compel its current elected officials to carry out those laws already in effect, cannot change this outcome by electing new officials or enacting new laws.”

jbjd

 

If Barack Obama is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President then, those members of the D party broke the law in 2008 who swore to state election officials he was, to get them to print his name on the ballot in those states that only print the names of candidates qualified for the job.  Many people who believe he is ineligible advocate we should shore up state election laws to forestall another round of fraud in 2012.  Meanwhile, others urge we should not let off the hook those members of the D party who fraudulently pulled off his election in 2008.

The problem of establishing candidate eligibility for office can be rectified on two fronts.

Those of you in states without existing ballot eligibility laws can focus on drafting smart candidate ballot eligibility laws for 2012.  The rest of you can work to persuade your A’sG to enforce existing laws.  In this way, that is, by concentrating on eliminating election fraud viz a viz the ballot using both prevention AND remediation, we can get at the problem of candidate eligibility coming AND going.

For residents of HI, here are updated citizen complaints of election fraud for the State of Hawaii.  Please, whether you have already filed a complaint, file this current updated one now. Note that Brian Schatz, formerly Chair of the Democratic Party of HI, is now the Lt. Gov.  And the new AG, David Louie, only assumed office a couple of weeks ago.  (Mr. Louie graduated from Occidental College, said to be one of Mr. Obama’s alma maters.)

All filers, old and new, make sure to read and understand the complaint before signing with real names and addresses, and sending.

View this document on Scribd

A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 4)

August 10, 2010

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

© 2010 jbjd

Introduction

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

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

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

Part 1: Prologue to Fraud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For months now, rumors had been swirling that Obama was not Constitutionally eligible for the job.  Specifically, he is not a “natural born” citizen, one of three requirements listed in Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  Then Communications Director Robert Gibbs (now WH Press Secretary) had come up with a seemingly brilliant on-line advertising campaign under the banner, “Fight the Smears,” designed to counter these mounting speculations.  The focal point of the ad campaign was an image of a mock-up “Certification of Live Birth,”  listing Obama’s place of birth as “Hawaii.”  (It was even appropriately redacted so as to give the appearance of protecting the candidate’s privacy.)  Ad copy accompanying the image reassured the public, this proves he is a “native” citizen.  At the bottom of the page, in the footer, appeared the sort of attribution required by the U.S. Code for all political advertising expenditures:  “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA.”

Designing a political ad campaign such as “Fight the Smears” ‘to be used only in case of emergency’ was one thing; but actually rolling it out was another.  Because its success gambled on the truth of this one contemptuous statement:  American voters are too stupid to know that there’s a difference between “natural born”  and “native”; and that “Fight the Smears” is nothing more than a PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT, anyway.  Understandably, the Obama team held back on the nuclear “Fight the Smears” option for as long as it could.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And they knew what they were doing was illegal.

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

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

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

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

But desperate times called for desperate measures.

(Next:  Part 2:  Lead-up to the Coup)


REMEMBER the ALAMO?

January 26, 2010

CRITICAL UPDATE on FEBRUARY 14, 2010: After you have read REMEMBER the ALAMO, please read the follow-up post at TEXAS TWO-STEP, which contains reports of communications between Requestors (of public records) and the TDP (Texas Democratic Party); and jbjd and the (misnamed) FOIFT (Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas).

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

Attorney Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party is a lone wolf in the Lone Star State.

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.

*In order to get BO’s name printed on SC’s Presidential Preference Primary ballot, the SC D state party Treasurer, Kathy Hensley, hand wrote the certification on the memo typed by Carol Fowler, party Chair, assuring the Board of Elections that he was Constitutionally eligible for POTUS. “IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK…

Take a look at my model citizen complaint of election fraud to the TX AG, which is also posted in the sidebar on the front of this blog.  (The description of the Certifications Mr. Richie submitted to TX election officials, with links to the documents, appears on pages 2 & 3.)

View this document on Scribd

Now, read “Purpose of Contact” on pages 1 & 2.  See, before citizens of TX and the 5 (five) other states readers have identified so far, filed these complaints, they attempted to find out what documentation was the basis of those certifications of eligibility submitted by members of the D party to state election officials to get them to print BO’s name on the ballot.  But NP, Alice Germond, and Joseph Sandler, all representing the D Services Corporation, would not answer.  JS specifically explained to those citizens who had framed their request  for documents as covered by the ‘freedom of information’ laws, the D Corporation is not a public agency and so, is not subject to public records disclosure laws.  Of course, he was right.  The D Services Corporation is a private club.  Thus, state and federal public records laws were powerless to compel NP,  AG, and others acting on behalf of the Corporation, to produce the requested documentation.   (Of course, as my 9th graders astutely pointed out, since JS went to the trouble to write the letter explaining that his client, the D Corporation, was exempt from public disclosure laws, it made no sense he just didn’t answer the question.  Unless he had something to hide.  “OUT of the MOUTHS of BABES“)

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?

Regardless of the unwillingness of TX AG Greg Abbott to investigate the hundreds of these complaints of election fraud his office has received since September; the citizens of TX can proceed on their own under TX state law to compel Chairman Richie to provide the documents that lead one step closer to establishing once and for all, for the record, despite all of these Certifications of Nomination, U.S. President Barack Obama is Constitutionally ineligible for the job. “THE END GAME

Look, we already know, no documents exist in the public record that would establish BO is a NBC.  White House Counsel Bob Bauer said so.  “COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3-CARD MONTE for FEDERAL COURT”  And for this reason, and the fact Boyd Richie refused to name any records when asked in the past, we know he committed election fraud in TX.  AG Abbott knows there is a strong circumstantial case for fraud; we laid it all out in those citizen complaints.  And Mr. Richie knows we are on to him, because he was copied on every complaint filed with Mr. Abbott.  (We also sent copies to our U.S. Representatives and Senators.)

It’s long past time our elected officials perform the work that is a function of their public office.  But as long as AG Abbott (and the House of Representatives) refuses to act, we still have to prove our own case.

So, that’s what we’ll do.  And we’ll do it by applying these TX laws.  Thus, instead of just asking Mr. Richie to provide the requested documentation, we will couch such requests in terms of TX election law, and act more entitled.  And if Mr. Richie wants to avoid honoring requests for these public records this time then, according to TX law, he will have to notify AG Abbott of these requests within the 10-day time period allowed for such delay in production, as well as his stated reasons for refusing to produce the requested records.  Then, AG Abbott will have to determine whether citizens of TX are entitled to these records under the law.  AND ALL OF THIS CORRESPONDENCE IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD!

Here are some of the applicable provisions of the TX Election Code.

ELECTION CODE

TITLE 1. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS

Chapter 1.  General Provisions

Sec. 1.012. PUBLIC INSPECTION OF ELECTION RECORDS. (a) Subject to Subsection (b), an election record that is public information shall be made available to the public during the regular business hours of the record’s custodian.

(b) For the purpose of safeguarding the election records or economizing the custodian’s time, the custodian may adopt reasonable rules limiting public access.

(c) Except as otherwise provided by this code or Chapter 552, Government Code, all election records are public information.

(d) In this code, “election record” includes:

(1) anything distributed or received by government under this code;

(2) anything required by law to be kept by others for information of government under this code; or

(3) a certificate, application, notice, report, or other document or paper issued or received by government under this code.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 728, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, Sec. 5.95(88), eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 393, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

TITLE 9. CANDIDATES

Chapter 141. Candidacy for public office generally

Subchapter B.  Application for place on ballot

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.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

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.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

TITLE 10.  POLITICAL PARTIES

Chapter 161.  General Provisions

§ 161.004. PARTY DOCUMENT AS PUBLIC INFORMATION.  If a document, record, or other paper is expressly required by this title to be filed, prepared, or preserved, it is public information unless this title provides otherwise.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

§ 161.009. PARTY OFFICER SUBJECT TO MANDAMUS. The performance of a duty placed by this code on an officer of a political party is enforceable by writ of mandamus in the same manner as if the party officer were a public officer.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

Another great source of information for the mechanism for requesting public records in TX is the web site for the TX Office of AG.  http://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/requestors.shtml Please review this before you send the letter below.  Make sure that whatever mechanism you use to transmit this letter, you retain proof of delivery or receipt so as to mark the tolling of the “reasonable” “prompt[]” time allowed under law for Mr. Richie’s response.  (For example, if you send via fax, keep the transmission confirmation.)  As always, feel free to send copies of your letters to anyone else you want.  Just make sure the letters to Mr. Richie and AG Abbott contain your real names and addresses, in TX.

Yes, my ‘two-stepping’ Texans, thanks to your enactment of special laws which subject Chairman Richie and the TX D state party to the same disclosure standards of public documents that apply to government agencies; you are in a position to pursue, catch, and de-claw this wolf, exercising the same dedication of purpose your forefathers and foremothers, Tejano and American alike, met Santa Anna’s onslaught against the Alamo, more than 150 years ago.**  Only this time, you have the opportunity to re-write the narrative on the 2008 general election. No doubt, you brave patriots, too, will be remembered for generations after the end of this conflagration.

Remember the Alamo!

**Santa Anna advanced into Texas with 4,000 men, headed for the Alamo, where almost 200 American and Tejano volunteers huddled, awaiting an attack. The now-infamous battle that occurred on March 6, 1836, resulted in a Mexican victory and the death of every last Alamo defender. Not left unscathed, the Mexicans lost 600 men.

Six weeks later, after a surprise attack on the Mexican forces near the San Jacinto River, Texan army commander Sam Houston rallied his troops with the cry, “Remember the Alamo!” Although the battle was won within minutes, the vengeful Texan army — including Tejanos — continued fighting for hours, killing any Mexican soldier they found. Santa Anna was captured the following day, effectively ending the war.

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/AA/qea2.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/alamo/filmmore/fd.html

View this document on Scribd

COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3 CARD MONTE* for FEDERAL COURT

November 23, 2009

*

Bob Bauer, currently White House Counsel, was formerly the Counsel to DNC Services Corporation and Obama for America, Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign. (BOB BAUER BIOGRAPHY) In January 2009, he defended Mr. Obama in Hollister v. Soetoro, a lawsuit aimed at exposing his client was Constitutionally unqualified for POTUS. HOLLISTER v. SOETORO (Mr. Hollister was represented by Attorney Phil Berg.) Mr. Bauer submitted his usual Motion to Dismiss – this was not the first lawsuit aimed at reaching his client’s eligibility – but this time, seeking to take advantage of the opportunity provided by this lawsuit to end the barrage of eligibility based challenges both inside and outside of the courtroom, he added something new: a footnote asking the judge to take judicial notice of certain facts, which notice he would recycle to construct the fiction, his client was Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

“Judicial notice” is a term found in the Federal Rules of Evidence. It applies to getting facts into the court record and, once those facts have been added to the record, assigns what weight this evidence will receive. (For a full explanation of judicial notice, see the Federal Rules of Evidence at http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm.)

Simply put, a judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Mr. Bauer wanted the federal court to take judicial notice of these facts.

1. His client, Barack Obama “publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii.”

This fact is true. But it fails to establish, his client is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

The only such self-authenticating ‘document’ his client “publicly produced” was that heavily redacted Certification of Live Birth – recall, Mr. Obama re-named this, his “Official Birth Certificate” – posted on “Fight the Smears,” the web site clearly advertising in the footer, this was “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA.” But even if the document was authentic AND the information contained therein was true, at best this could only establish his client is a “native” citizen, but not Natural Born. Mr. Obama admitted right on that site, this COLB only established he is a “native citizen” and not Natural Born. (See, MODEL COMPLAINTS OF ELECTION FRAUD TO STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL IN APPLICABLE STATES, on this page.)

Question: Since Bob Bauer was motivated to stave off attacks against his client by trying to construct Mr. Obama’s Constitutional qualifications for POTUS, why did he try to get the court to take judicial notice that his client publicly produced a certified document showing he was born in HI, when even assuming the fact he produced such a document also meant, he was actually born in HI; that fact could only establish he was a “native” citizen but not Natural Born as required by the Constitution?
Answer: Because if the court had taken judicial notice of these facts which implied his client was born in HI; Mr. Bauer could have perverted such notice into the meme, the federal court has now ruled, his client was born in HI; and, further, Mr. Bauer would have claimed, being born in HI makes him a NBC, propaganda which he and his clients, DNC Services Corporation, would have plastered throughout the print and electronic media. This campaign of propaganda emanating from the man who wrote the book – literally – on federal election law likely would have neutralized the mounting challenges to his client’s Constitutional qualification for POTUS.

Anyway, while referring to this ‘public production’ of a document showing his client was born in HI, Mr. Bauer did not submit the ‘original’ COLB to the court.

Question: Given that Mr. Bauer asked the court to take judicial notice his client produced that COLB, for what reason did he fail to produce for the court, the actual document?
Answer: Because he knew that COLB posted on his client’s blog is bogus.

2. Mr. Bauer wrote, “See, e.g., Factcheck.org, “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections 2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper).”

These facts are true, too. But they also fail to establish, his client is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

Mr. Bauer omits the name “Annenberg” from the proper title of the organization; and fails to reveal to the court, this group is sponsored by his client’s former employer, Chicago Annenberg Challenge, information the court is unlikely to know, absent his revelation; and which financial relationship a reasonable person would expect him to reveal as material to the court’s consideration. He also fails to name the “Honolulu newspaper” he claims printed that “contemporaneous birth announcement.” (The court could not know, APFC failed to name this publication which they “not[ed],” too, unless Mr. Bauer revealed this material information.) Recall, this ‘announcement’ is actually an unattributed image posted anonymously on the td blog, which APFC admits it copied from that site to post on theirs. RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’

Not surprisingly, while seeking judicial notice APFC noted this contemporaneous newspaper birth announcement showing his client was born in HI, Mr. Bauer did not submit an ‘original’ of that document to the court, either.

Plus, notwithstanding Mr. Bauer has now asked the court to take judicial notice [Annenberg Political] Fact Check said the document Mr. Obama publicly produced is “genuine,” again, he failed to produce that “genuine” document for the court.

Question: Why did Mr. Bauer ask the court to take judicial notice APFC said, the COLB his client publicly produced was “genuine”; but fail to introduce into evidence, the actual COLB?
Answer: Because he knew that COLB posted on his client’s blog is bogus.

3. Mr. Bauer asked the court to take judicial notice, “Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” ”

This fact is true. Again, it fails to establish, his client is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.

Hawaiian officials allegedly made this statement in late October 2008. Notice, the statement attributed to these officials does not include the words, ‘This “original birth certificate” we have on file indicates, Mr. Obama was born in HI.’ Indeed, Mr. Bauer does not allege these officials said, ‘He was born in HI.’ http://blogs.starbulletin.com/inpolitics/certified/

Lucky for us, the federal court took no such notice. Getting lay people to understand the fact that nothing in the public record establishes BO is a NBC, has been challenging enough, without having to explain the difference between these judicially noted “facts” and the lies Mr. Bauer and the members of the Corporation he represents would insist these facts actually mean.

Luckier for Mr. Bauer, neither Judge James Robertson nor Mr. Berg inquired as to where is this “genuine” document of HI birth he claims his client “publicly produced”; or the “contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper”; or the “original birth certificate” HI officials claim to have on file. (How do you suppose Mr. Bauer would have responded to such request from the bench or opposing counsel, for production of that “original birth certificate” those HI officials said is “on record”?) Because Mr. Bauer is a member of the D.C. Bar and according to the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, these examples of lack of “Candor to Tribunal”; or lack of “Truthfulness in Statement to Others”; or failure to display “Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel” could cost Mr. Bauer his license to practice law. See, DC RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.

Which leads us to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd in line of Presidential succession who, acting in a non-governmental role as Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, swore in August 2008 Mr. Bauer’s client was Constitutionally qualified for POTUS in the official DNC Services Corporation Certifications of Nomination that were submitted to election officials in dozens of states to get his name printed on the general election ballot.

Question: Instead of asking for judicial notice of representations made by APFC, notice which at best could only establish his client was a “native” of HI but not “Natural Born”; why didn’t Mr. Bauer ask the court to take judicial notice of Nancy Pelosi’s Certifications, let alone submit even 1 (one) of those Certifications into the court record?
Answer: Because he knew Nancy Pelosi’s sworn Certifications of Nomination submitted to state election officials are bogus, too.

Question: But given that Bob Bauer was willing to risk his license to practice law by tricking the court into taking judicial notice of misleading facts that, at best, could only establish Barack Obama was a “native” born citizen, anyway, and which notice he would have to message in order to dupe Americans into believing this meant, his client was also Constitutionally qualified for POTUS; why was he unwilling to risk his license on Nancy Pelosi’s Certifications, which explicitly stated, his client was Constitutionally qualified for the job of POTUS, judicial notice of which fact the court likely would have granted, and which notice more likely could have persuaded the public of the fact, his client was Natural Born?
Answer: Because at that time, Nancy Pelosi was his client, too, and under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, he could not exonerate one client facing a civil lawsuit by incriminating another in criminal election fraud.

For your information, here are CONTACTS AT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR.


%d bloggers like this: