IDIOMS!

Looking at either my blog, on which readers and I have been working together for more than a
year to „out‟ the fraud we believe permeated the 2008 election cycle; or Politijab, which arguably
appears to be trying to keep the fraud in; no one would conclude at this point, we Americans are
apathetic about how our political process works. That said, the tone of discourse between the
two sites offers real alternatives to the learning process. On Thursday, I posted on that site
excerpts from my article, “JUDGE ABBOT WOULD ORDER TDP CHAIR BOYD RICHIE TO
DECLARE BARACK OBAMA IS INELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB.”
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/judge-declare-bo-ineligible/ This set off a feeding frenzy of
rebuttal comments that has spanned the next several days and more than a dozen pages.

Friday afternoon, I received a rather intemperate comment from Politijab contributor “Brian
Hodges,” which sparked this realization. In order to moderate the level of discourse from people
holding opposing views so that their passion does not interfere with the substance of our
conversation, I need to host the „opposition‟ on this site. I emailed Mr. Hodges to apologize for
keeping his comment in moderation and explained his words had provided the inspiration for an
article I had yet to write. I promised to publish those words in that article, in their entirety.

First, I want to issue this WARNING TO THE CITIZENS OF TEXAS (and other states with
applicable election laws):

The legal route to expose the fraud that occurred in Texas during the 2008 election cycle is
paved with THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. Thus, THESE LAWS that apply (the
cause of action of) mandamus to officials of political parties; or classify party records as public
records; or compel a party officer to declare a candidate ineligible when the record says, s/he is;
or require any candidate whose name appears on the ballot must be eligible for the job; MUST
REMAIN ON THE BOOKS. THIS MEANS, YOU MUST MONITOR THE LEGISLATIVE
CALENDAR TO ENSURE THE LAWS RESPECTING THESE ISSUES OF CRIMINAL
ELECTION FRAUD AND GOVERNANCE OF POLITICAL PARTIES REMAIN UNALTERED
UNTIL A FULL CONSIDERATION OF SUCH ISSUES BY THE STATE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND/OR THE COURTS.

Now, here is Mr. Hodges‟ comment, which sparked this post.

2010/04/09 at 4:55pm

This is pretty thoroughly debunked over at Politijab at this thread:

http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2608&start=125#p127523
starting about the middle of page 6.

Bottom line is jbjd doesn‟t know what she‟s writing about and is misrepresenting what
cases stand for and what parties have asserted. She also has no idea what the function
of a motion to dismiss is.

But, let the blind lead the blind. It‟s all about that scary blck man in the White House, isn‟t
it?

In all fairness to the posters over at Politijab, whose bountiful criticism of work excerpted from
here and then posted there I will assume were mostly made in good faith; work produced on this
blog is extensive. I could not possibly repeat all of the rationale which led me to reach this
result versus that. I post links with the assumption that, readers understand what „snippets‟
appear on any blog other than mine are at best, only a part of the whole; and with the
anticipation readers will follow these links for more in-depth analysis. Otherwise, such editing
on these other blogs could lead well-intentioned readers to find my reasoning false.

I assure you, I know exactly what I am talking about.

All Roads Lead to Rome

The biggest confusion about my work can be clarified with this idiom: all roads lead to Rome.

The work on this blog originated with the good faith belief I share with millions of other American
citizens that Barack Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to be President of the United States
(“POTUS”) and should immediately be removed from office. Again, as I have repeated several
times throughout the blogosphere, I do not contest the fact Mr. Obama is the President, lawfully
elected according to the procedure spelled out in the Constitution. This means, the only
mechanism for removing him from office is through Articles of Impeachment. I believe he can
only be removed through the Articles of Impeachment, for reasons associated with the
fraudulent process that installed him in the Oval Office. At a minimum, by filing Articles of
Impeachment, Congress would trigger the investigation to determine once and for all his real
legal status. Of course, Congress could initiate these procedures at any time. However, in the
meantime, I devised incentives to get them off the dime.

And this is the part Politijab (and others including GeorgetownJD, commenting on the visual
Roadmap to Fraud in Texas which I posted on Scribd) got all wrong. There are now 2 (two)
separate procedures offered on this blog which could get Congress to introduce Articles of
Impeachment.

The first procedure impacting on Impeachment are those citizen complaints of election fraud
against various members of the D party and requests for investigation by state A‟sG in
applicable states. (These citizen complaints are posted in the sidebar of the blog for the 6 (six)
states already identified as having ballot eligibility laws: GA, HI, MD, SC, TX, and VA.) Another
way to think of these citizen complaints of election fraud is to call them crime reports. That is,
citizens of the state are reporting to their AG that a member of the D party committed the crime
of election fraud in this state. Not civil fraud; criminal fraud. In Texas, for example, the charge
reads, Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) swore to state election officials
Presidential candidate Barack Obama was qualified to have his name printed on the ballot
BEFORE ascertaining he was Constitutionally eligible for the job. Thus, the pivotal role of
investigating whether this crime has been committed; or, if it has, charging the wrongdoers;
rightfully vests in state officials – the AG and the DA – and not in lay citizens. In this case,
citizens are merely complaining witnesses.

How would these citizen complaints of election fraud lead Congress to file Articles of
Impeachment? Well, assuming citizens could persuade their AG to exercise discretion to open
an investigation into these charges; the AG could request authenticating documents from the D
party that were the basis for their certification to state election officials, Barack Obama is a NBC.
Given no such documentary evidence of eligibility is available in the public record; no such
documents could be forthcoming. And this non-production of records will serve notice to
Congress, time to introduce Articles of Impeachment. (Note: I am confident that these same
citizens whose zealous advocacy for the law persuaded the AG to initiate an investigation that
confirmed a blank record; could also ensure their federal elected officials are similarly
responsive to the will of these constituents.)

Any further consequences the AG may pursue against various named members of the D party
are outside of the scope of my work, which focuses primarily on helping citizens to help
themselves persuade their Representatives in Congress to introduce Articles of Impeachment.

The second procedure offered to induce Congress to file Articles of Impeachment is a proposed
civil lawsuit filed by the Republican Party of Texas (“RPT”) against the Texas Democratic Party
(“TDP”) modeled after the suit filed by the TDP against the RPT in 2006. The proposed case,
based on Mandamus, would compel Boyd Richie, Chair of the TDP to declare candidate Barack
Obama is ineligible to appear on either the 2012 Texas Presidential preference primary or
general election ballot. (This tack had a secondary „agenda.‟ I have become increasingly
frustrated that a number of people working to „out‟ Mr. Obama‟s ineligibility have ascribed blame
to the D‟s for causing this situation but have exonerated the R‟s as to any culpability. I was
looking for a way to demonstrate that, having been apprised the people are concerned their
President may be Constitutionally ineligible; avenues existed for the R‟s to intervene on the
people‟s behalf. They chose not to. In other words, everyone‟s hands are dirty.)

The argument I laid out on the blog for this RPT suit is neither a legal memorandum nor a brief;
rather, it is a guideline intended to demonstrate if the RPT wanted to fashion such a suit right
now, it could. Note that at present, standing to file this civil action of Mandamus vests
only in the Chair of the RPT.

A Spoonful of Honey will Catch More Flies than a Gallon of Vinegar

Okay, so now everyone knows, the citizen‟s criminal complaints of election fraud to the state
AG; and the model RPT civil suit in Mandamus, are two different animals. However, they share
this common characteristic: each is longer than it had to be in order to make its point. For
example, the citizen complaint of election fraud to AG Abbott could have consisted of nothing
more than this statement: „I charge the TDP committed election fraud when Boyd Richie, Chair
of the TDP swore to state election officials Presidential candidate Barack Obama was qualified
to have his name printed on the ballot BEFORE ascertaining he was Constitutionally eligible for
the job.‟ The reason I added so much other information is simple. Under the law, whether to
pursue an investigation is at the discretion of the Attorney General. I hoped that by neatly laying
out the overwhelmingly strong circumstantial case for election fraud, I would increase the
likelihood the AG would be persuaded to exercise this discretion to pursue an investigation.

The proposed RPT suit in Mandamus could simply have pointed out this fact to readers: „In
Texas, when the record conclusively establishes a candidate is ineligible for office, the law
allows the Chair of a state political party to file suit to compel the Chair of the opposing party to
declare the candidate‟s ineligibility.‟ After all, these readers have no standing to file such a suit
anyway. (Well, this is true now but, at some point in the future, eligible candidates will gain
standing to contest the eligibility of the opposition, too. Posting the legal argument here ensures
everyone, opposing party and opposing candidate alike, can see how this is done.) But
inasmuch as possible, I wanted to remove plausible deniability from the hands of the RPT. That
is, if citizens asked, I wanted to ensure the R‟s could not claim, filing suit to compel the TDP to
declare BO ineligible is not a legal option. You can see here, it is.

There is More than One Way to Skin a Cat / Don’t Put all of your Eggs in One Basket
In the RPT model, I repeated this information I had written in “CLOWNS” and “JUDGE
ABBOTT” and discussed on Revolution Radio. Under Texas law, when the record conclusively
establishes a candidate is ineligible, the state party chair has no other choice but to declare him
ineligible. In other words, the shortest distance between filing the Mandamus complaint and
obtaining the judge‟s signature on a proposed order telling the TDP to declare Presidential
candidate BO is ineligible for the job; passed through this conclusive record of ineligibility. Now,
as I suggested, there are many records which, when put together, establish conclusively BO is
ineligible. But as I said, keeping it simple (stupid) keeps the judge happy and more likely to „get‟
your point. So, I drew the straight line between the complaint and the order, through the point
when Boyd Richie refused citizens‟ requests under the Texas Open Records law to disclose the
documentary evidence that was the basis for his Certification, BO is a NBC. Because in Texas,
this non-disclosure means, he lied.

The fecal matter hit the proverbial fan. After all, the precise language of the Open Government
statute does not identify political parties or party officers as public officials for the purpose of
compelling production of public records. (I cited to the LULAC v. TDP case, decided under the
federal Voting Rights Act, to support the proposition that political parties can be viewed as
„political subdivisions‟; readers pounced. „Ha; jbjd doesn‟t know the difference between a
federal law (the Voting Rights Act); and a state law (the Texas Open Records Law). She read
the definition of „political subdivision‟ the federal court used for the federal law; and incorrectly
applied this definition to the state law. Consequently, she is improperly resting her whole (RPT)
case on this false logic: 1) given that the TDP is a political subdivision (the classification from
the federal law); 2) and that the records held by the TDP are public records under the Open
Records Law; then 3) Boyd Richie, the holder of those records, has a duty to produce these
documents on request.) (Often when readers at Politijab thought they had scored a victory in
legal interpretation, they inserted visuals like a laughing icon, along with a row of „HA! HA!
HA!‟s.)

Here‟s a practice tip in statutory interpretation: in order to determine whether a law or any part of
the law applies to a particular person or situation; look in the statute under both the area of law
– for example, Texas Open Government Law – AND the particular person or situation – for
example, election code and political parties – for a provision mandating inclusion.

As I said, in Texas, party documents related to candidate Certification are public information –

Sec.A161.004.AAPARTY DOCUMENT AS PUBLIC INFORMATION.A

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.

– and this makes these documents subject to the Texas Open Records Law.

And, party officers in Texas are treated like public officials for the purpose of producing this
public information –

Sec.A161.009.AAPARTY OFFICER SUBJECT TO MANDAMUS.A

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.
(Chapter 181 describes the procedure followed by the head of the state party, for submitting to
state election officials the name of the Presidential candidate nominated at the Convention.)

– and this means, TDP Chair Boyd Richie had a duty to disclose to Requestors the
documentation that was the basis for his Certification to Texas election officials Presidential
candidate Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the job, to get them to print his name
next to the D on the state‟s 2008 general election ballot.

BUT REMEMBER, THE ONLY REASON TO ESTABLISH WHETHER BOYD RICHIE HAD A
DUTY TO DISLCOSE THESE RECORDS IS THIS: if he has a duty to disclose documents that
would support his claim of BO‟s eligibility; then non-disclosure of these documents, per se
means his claims of eligibility are a lie. And this lie could persuade the court, the record
conclusively establishes, candidate BO is ineligible for the job. Under Texas law, this means,
Boyd Richie must declare BO ineligible for the job. If he refuses, the judge would grant
Mandamus. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.

As for the matter of the citizen complaints of election fraud to AG Abbott, keep in mind, these
are criminal witness/victim reports, not civil complaints of fraud. They charge Boyd Richie
swore to state election officials BO was eligible to be POTUS before ascertaining he was, just to
get officials to print his name on the ballot. Non-disclosure of documents requested by citizens
is not an element of that crime but rather, supporting evidence of the crime. Whether Mr. Richie
had a duty to disclose these documents to the citizens could be vital in a prosecution for
withholding such documents as a violation of the Texas Open Records Law; but violating the
Texas Open Records Law is not the cause of action underlying these citizen complaints of
election fraud. (Do you get that, GeorgetownJD?)

What’s Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander

Finally, we get to the area covered by Mr. Hodges‟ intemperate remarks to this blog. He wrote,
“She also has no idea what the function of a motion to dismiss is.” Specifically, he is
referencing the Motion to Dismiss WH Counsel Bob Bauer submitted to the court in Hollister.
You know, the Motion to Dismiss with that infamous footnote. Again, people unfamiliar with the
work on this site, high-jumped to wrong conclusions over there. Without getting too technical, I
will try to explain how they went wrong.

There is a procedural difference between ending the case against your client by getting the
court to grant your Motion to Dismiss; and getting the court to grant a Motion for Summary
Judgment. Basically, this difference is, whether evidence has been submitted into the record.
By asking the court to grant a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff‟s case, Defendant essentially says to
the court, „Look your Honor, even assuming everything the Plaintiff alleges about my client is
true; he still failed to establish the court has jurisdiction to hear the case; and, besides, he still
failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.‟ Did you catch the operative assumption
underlying any Motion to Dismiss? TAKE EVERY FACT ALLEGED BY THE PLAINTIFF AS
TRUE. This means, Defendant does not refute Plaintiff‟s facts when asking the court to grant a
Motion to Dismiss but rather points out to the court, even assuming everything Plaintiff says is
true, he still has no business here in this court.

To convert a Motion to Dismiss into a Summary Judgment, Defendant would introduce some
evidence into the record to refute the truthfulness of Plaintiff‟s claims and the court would now
make its ruling not just on whether the case is rightly before the court but on whether based just
on these submissions, the Defendant has established, Plaintiff cannot prevail on the MERITS of
the case. In other words, given that this is all of the evidence Plaintiff has; by law, this fails to
establish what he alleges about my client.

I have maintained ever since Mr. Obama posted that FTS COLB in June 2008, this is the best
evidence he has that he is Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS. Because having admitted
there were doubts as to his eligibility; 2 (two) months before Nancy Pelosi was scheduled to
steal the Nomination for him at the Convention; of course he would bring out the big guns to
establish incontrovertibly, he was qualified for the job. Yet as far as documenting his claims of
authenticity, this computer image proved absolutely nothing. However, his use of the image
under the guise it was proof, confirmed to me, he was a fraud. Therefore, in August 2008, when
Nancy Pelosi Certified he was Constitutionally eligible to have his name printed on the HI ballot;
I assumed she had lied. And this lie was confirmed for me in January 2009, in Mr. Bauer‟s
footnote in Hollister.

See, Mr. Bauer, being the seasoned legal practitioner he is, knows a Motion to Dismiss
assumes everything Plaintiff alleges is true. So, for example, when Plaintiff Hollister told the
court, Defendant Obama wasn‟t Constitutionally qualified to be President, this had to be taken
as true, for the purpose of ruling on the Motion. The question considered by the court is this:
even if Plaintiff‟s charges as to Defendant‟s ineligibility are true; has Plaintiff established a claim
for which relief can be granted; and that the court has jurisdiction to hear that claim? Mr. Bauer
was arguing, „No.‟

But then he did something so tricky that it slid right by all of the legal eagles at Politijab who,
judging by the volume and detail of their rebuke to work I reproduced there, were scrupulously
dissecting MY every word. They would have done better to look more closely at HIS.

Remember, in ruling on a Motion from Defendant to Dismiss, the judge takes Plaintiff‟s
statement as true. That‟s the law. But listen to this line in the beginning of Mr. Bauer‟s
Memorandum in support of his Motion.

“Plaintiff‟s allegations are patently false and baseless,1 but even taking them as true for
purposes of this Motion, the suit must be dismissed immediately.” (NEXT TIME, BEFORE
REFUTING MY ARGUMENT ABOUT A FOOTNOTE; READ THE FOOTNOTE!) In this
footnote, Mr. Bauer listed the EVIDENCE to support his claims of Mr. Obama‟s eligibility –
again, ineligibility is presumed for the sake of ruling on the Motion to Dismiss – and, adding
hubris to chicanery, asked the judge to take judicial notice of these eligibility „facts.‟
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11514165/Hollister-v-Soetoro-Motion-to-Dismiss-Plaintiffs-Complaint

Did you get that? Attorney Bauer tried to bamboozle Judge Robertson into ruling on the
„evidence‟ – his word that these documents he lists exist in the public record that would
establish his client IS eligible - without having to produce for the court record the actual
documents and thereby risk converting this Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for Summary
Judgment. And why would he try to trick the court into ruling on evidence slipped into a Motion
to Dismiss in this way? Because no documentary evidence exists to establish his client‟s
eligibility which could be produced for the court in a Motion for Summary Judgment.

I proposed to Politijab readers that the quintessential document that would establish Mr.
Obama‟s eligibility – merely by reference or by production – would be this: the Official
Certification of Nomination signed by Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the 2008 DNC Services
Corporation Convention and Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd in line of
Presidential succession. Because Ms. Pelosi swore in this Certification, he was Constitutionally
eligible for the job. And she submitted this Certification to election officials in most of the 50
states in order to get these officials to print the name of the candidate on the general election
ballot.

(For a complete de-construction of Mr. Bauer‟s Machiavellian deceit on the federal court,
PLEASE see COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3-CARD MONTE
for FEDERAL COURT http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/counsel-for-dnc-services-
corporation-performs-3-card-monte-for-federal-court/; and BOB BAUER, RUMORED-TO-BE
NEXT WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL to FEDERAL COURT: F*** YOU!
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/bob-bauer-rumored-to-be-next-white-house-counsel-to-
federal-court-f-you/.

Politijab barristers charged that suggesting Mr. Bauer should have sought judicial notice of Ms.
Pelosi‟s Certification rather than the „word‟ of (Annenberg Political) Fact Check that, his client
was for real; evidenced to them, I didn‟t know the procedural difference between a Motion to
Dismiss and a Motion for Summary Judgment. Well, then, neither does Mr. Bauer.

Icing on the Cake

In sum, my work on both the citizen complaints of election fraud; and proposed civil lawsuit for
the RPT can expose issues related to whether Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible for
office, which would lead to Articles of Impeachment.

Finally, let me point out that, posters at Politijab not only attacked my work – faulting my legal
acumen could have been accomplished without the ridicule and name calling – but also
inspected the physical posts on my blog for information like, numbers of times my PayPal button
was clicked. (They made fun of the „low‟ number they came up with; concluding this proves my
work is virtually worthless.) They also gathered comments I had posted on other people‟s
blogs, over time. However, it appears they scoured the internet for personal information about
jbjd, with the same degree of competence they exhibited in dissecting my work.

It‟s just plain stupid to lob charges of racism to the mother of a black son. (And it‟s really bad
manners to do so on HER blog.)