She whined faxed.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/47768330/jbjd

Mr Shaltz could not have ascertained that Barack Obama is an NBC at any time before August 27 2008

Has anyone in the "birther" camp ever physically examined the birth certificate provided by the Obama campaign? I mean, in person?

Nope... even though all were invited to do so.

In fact, Mr. Berg was offered half his air fare to travel to the campaign headquarters to view it. Yeah, he never even replied.

Heck, no, they haven't seen it, they don't want to see it. Even if they had they would still claim it's fake.

They don't care about any birth certificate... then or now, except if they ever did see one to claim it's a fake... SEE!!!! We told you so.

Damn, and this actually had the little spark of being a valid case for one precious moment...

And in Hawaii, swearing the Presidential nominee of the major political party is a NBC without ascertaining that he is, for the purpose of obtaining a place on the ballot, constitutes election fraud."

State lawmakers failed to enact legislation that would require any state actor to check on the nominee's Constitutional eligibility."

Stefan Cook's and Connie Rhodes' careers thanks you.

So does the person who had to stay in Iraq to cover for Cook.

So does that person's family and loved ones.

I'm sure they ALL thank you for your brillant idea.

Are we allowed to say nasty things about someone who hasn't even logged in since last July?

WHAT’S IN IT FOR ME?

Pieter Nosworthy, an active duty military who originally signed Orly’s inflammatory Release consenting to become a named Plaintiff in her proposed military Complaint seeking to determine BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS and then, appreciating the legal quagmire into which he had just waded, rescinded such consent; posted on his blog this suggestion. Why not identify the top Constitutional law scholars in the country and pool our money to hire these experts to champion the ‘perfect’ case?

Pieter Nosworthy says:
February 27, 2009 at 05:59

I’m pretty dumb when it comes to the law but there must be reasonable alternatives to Professor Tribe. I have absolutely no clue as to the size of the pool of constitutional lawyers that can be sifted for candidates, but I assume it is in the hundreds.

FYI, I wrote the article in anger and with a tongue in cheek aspect. I admit this is not the best way to correct deficiencies or maturely address challenges. Suffice it say, I have really lost faith with the competence and motivation of Dr. Taitz and consequently stated what I did.

Thanks jbjd for your coherent commentary. We need it desperately.

Pieter Nosworthy: I am convinced that, the reason more legal ‘experts’ have not weighed in on the issue of BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS is that, they are as yet unaware a legitimate issue as to whether he is a NBC even exists. And, you are welcome. ADMINISTRATOR

Each delegate to the Republican National Convention shall use his or her best efforts at the convention for the party's presidential nominee candidate from California to whom the delegate has pledged support until the person is nominated for the office of President of the United States by the convention, receives less than 10 percent of the votes for nomination by the convention, releases the delegate from his or her obligation, or until two convention nominating ballots have been taken. Thereafter, each delegate shall be free to vote as he or she chooses, and no rule may be adopted by a delegation requiring the delegation to vote as a body or causing the vote of any delegate to go uncounted or unreported.

jbjd April 18, 2012 at 1:30 pm jbjd

(Quote) # Dr. Conspiracy writes, “I read your blog article and it seemed to me that you failed to made (sic) the argument that Mr. Richie was legally required to undertake some formal process of determining the eligibility of Barack Obama. The place of Obama’s birth was publicly known at the time and that alone should have been sufficient the way that I read it.” Then, let me repeat, under TX law, in order for party candidates for President to be entitled to appear on the ballot, the party Chairs must have filed with the SoS adopted rules that spell out how they verified the candidates are federally qualified for the job. Neither the TDP nor the RPT filed those rules; nor could they have, since these rules do not exist.

Thus, the TDP was already not entitled to have its Presidential candidates – and there are 4 of them – to appear on the ballot. But, the SoS could use her discretion to keep these candidates on the ballot. Only, there is still the problem of swearing as to the candidate’s federal eligibility. Did the party chairs perpetrate fraud by swearing to eligibility without checking? Well, the RPT didn’t respond to a records request for the basis of their certifications. As prescribed by the TX Public Information Act, a formal complaint has been filed with AG Abbott. The TDP did respond, providing only Mr. Obama’s application to appear on the ballot.

@ jbjd

Your article is wrong. You quote the portion from Title 11, Section 192 for the general election and then you say



The “rules” are defined in Section 191.008: “Sec. 191.008. I

"IMPLEMENTATION BY PARTY. (a) The state executive committee of each political party holding a presidential primary election shall adopt the rules necessary to implement this subchapter unless the rules already exist.”

(emphasis added)

This subchapter” is titled SUBCHAPTER A. PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ELECTION. There is no requirement that the parties supply any rules or procedures for ensuring candidates are qualified for a federal office. They just have to submit to the SoS a statement that they are qualified to be placed on the general election ballot. They do not have to tell anyone how they arrived at that conclusion. I am sure Texas has a challenge process like most other states where the burden of proof is on the objector.

So you are mixing the two requirements and in a very deceptive way. The fact that according to your research the chair of the TDP listed all the primary candidates for the presidential primary as well as down ticket candidates in 2008 on one form is completely irrelevant.

Yes, of course, as anyone reading TX law could ascertain; there is no requirement that Presidential candidates must be federally qualified to appear on the primary ballot, but only to appear on the general election ballot. Indeed, that is precisely why I wrote these lines in my article:



I suggested the SoS could use her discretion with the primary ballot, too, based on the logical conclusion, if a candidate for President (or Vice President) cannot be federally qualified to appear on the general election ballot then…

If I understand correctly you now admit that the “federally qualified” wording in the statute only applies to general election for president and vice president. You said exactly the opposite in your article: “On the other hand, 191.003, printed above, requires the chair to submit only the names of candidates federally qualified for the job. And 191.008 requires the party to adopt rules to ensure the section’s implementation.” However, now that you know you were wrong you want SoS Hope Andrade to make up such a requirement and remove the party candidates from the primary ballot? Do you realize how fast an application for an injunction would be filed in Texas and/or federal courts if she did such a stupid thing?

No; you don’t understand, at all. I do not “now” admit anything; on the contrary, I always maintained the fact in question, as evidenced by the quote I ported here, from the article on my blog, which article was posted 3 days ago! You merely misrepresented here, what I had written there and, on the basis of that misrepresentation, called me “deceptive.” Thus, I am not “now” admitting to the fact which I had posted 3 days ago. Instead, I am merely confirming, for the benefit of readers here who have only your charges against me on which to base their opinions of my work; that, all along, as you “now” know, I had printed the truth.

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

I engaged jbjd a in the thread at OCT over her misreading of the Texas election laws.
However, at the beginning of the article the only candidate she thinks should be off the ballot is, you guessed it, Barack Obama.

She used the application for Charles "Buddy" Roemer as an example of a "good" application because the Repube application has the affirmation that the candidate meets the Constitutional requirements for the job. jbjd seems to still think that the federal qualification requirements apply to the primary election (they don't) and therefore the party has to have rules for verifying that candidates are qualified.

The Public Information Act (the " Act") applies only to an entity defined as a "governmental body" as set forth in section 552.003 of the Government Code. The Texas Democratic Party is not an entity that falls within the definition of a "governmental body" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of the Act. Accordingly, this office is unable to assist you in this matter.

Hello old Friend,

Your mixing up your codes and Titles. §191 applies to the Primary and Caucuses/Conventions and it doesn't have the "qualified" for the office language which §192 has.

§161, where you get the idea that you have a right to get the documents states that "(i)f 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."

§161 is under Title 10 and doesn't apply to §191 or §192 which are under Title 11.