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

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.,, “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at 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.’

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.


  1. TeakWoodKite says:

    Love your writing, consider me a layperson, but even from where I stand, three issues stand out.

    1) What ethical responsibility does a lawyer have when he knows a representation is fraudulent?
    2) What legal responsibility does Bauer have as a lawyer, to reconcile the conflict of interest when representing two clients at legal odds?
    3) Does Bauer get to claim executive privilege retroactively, when representing POTUS, Obama as a individual and the DNC in any capacity?
    4)Can Bauer still be a partner in a private law firm when providing counsel to POTUS?
    5) What are the rules of evidence in a RICO proceeding?

    jbjd, The work that Steve Diamond on the removal of Annenburg documents from a Chicago University related to BO’s time on the board ties into this. I do not know how but it does. ie it’s been bugging the crap out of me.

    Standing and discovery are not impossible, but with the current AG, how can state action create a trigger constitutionally?

    Anyway, dam well done. Time to take the chicken of the Barbie.

    TeakWoodKite: Your questions are too insightful. This is really simple; and outside of the scope of AG Holder. This boils down to the complaints of election fraud to state A’sG. They must investigate, given the overwhelming circumstantial evidence, Nancy Pelosi’s Certifications of Nomination are bogus. Even Bob Bauer, who asked the federal court to take judicial notice of that phantom computer image on APFC, did not ask the court to take judicial notice of Nancy Pelosi’s Certifications. The only logical conclusion based on this conduct must be, those Certifications would have implicated NP in election fraud. We must compel our state A’sG – in applicable states – to investigate. Even if we have to grab their attention by alerting the D.C. bar, Mr. Bauer should be disciplined for playing fast and loose with the rules of court. (BB has resigned his ownership in the firm Perkins Coie in order to represent the President; his representation of both BO and NP did not provide a conflict of interest, in that the only way it might have caused a conflict was making him decide whether to lie about her, in his case, to bamboozle the court into ruling in favor of him. But lack of candor to the tribunal is never allowed.)

    As for Annenberg, well, what is significant for the purpose of establishing fraud is that, BB, like everyone else associated with BO, continues to avoid revealing that relationship. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. TeakWoodKite says:

    what I meant regarding the Annenburg papers that were removed, is that somehow there are documents petaining to BO’s “COLB” as represented by Anneburg and the Annenburg Challenge tha BO was on the board of.

    Just proir to Bergs suit, the papers were removed post haste and under funky circumstances. If documentary evidence can be found to show the genisis of the “Fact check” representaion that started with Ayers and BO.
    Another pecular thing is how can judicial notice be affirmed when the “defendent” has had a relationship with the orginization being used as a source?
    Thats like using Halderman to legally confirm Nixon wasn’t a crook.

    TeakWoodKite: Yes, I recall that whole episode of obtaining CAC papers. But I have already established that APFC has no credibility. No other information is required to get them to zero credibility. And the focus should not be on APFC, anyway; they have no privity to the American people. That is, no legal relationship exists that would obligate them to provide anything to us, or that would place in us the expectation they would provide something. BO is the one who keeps using APFC. How ridiculous is that? Your analogy using Haldeman – there is no “r” – is inapposite because, Haldeman was a government employee. (He was Nixon’s Chief of Staff.) One could argue, at least he should not have been committing crimes out of the WH. ADMINISTRATOR

    • ksdb says:

      I like the Halderman/Nixon analogy. Why would any court accept a citation to a self-described Internet fact checking entity as having more legal weight than original, official documents?? Plus, the note doesn’t say take notice that the official document is posted and can be viewed. Instead, they say take notice that amateur fact checkers think the alleged document is real and they have a copy of a birth announcement (that doesn’t indicate a place of birth or child’s name). IIRC, McCain at least offered to show his birth documentation if the court felt it was needed. Such is delibarately avoided in the Hollister case.

      ksdb: Ah, my new commenter, you anticipate the next article, in progress, focusing on Federal Rules of Evidence. (One thing I really resent about these D shenanigans is that de-constructing this conduct is extremely labor intensive and time consuming.) Of course, Bob Bauer refused to produce any documents that could de-bunk this fraud; this fact is made abundantly clear in the complaints of election fraud to state A’sG, posting on the front page of the blog. But unless this critical omission is spelled out, in minute detail, people still promoting the false meme documentary evidence in the public record evidences BO is a NBC; will continue spewing their propaganda to an unwitting public.

      Naturally, any lawyers reading this blog get the massive nature of this fraud. Let’s see whether any of them turn Mr. Bauer in, for his role in enticing (albeit unsuccessfully) the federal court to become an unknowing co-conspirator in his crimes. That is, notwithstanding Mr. Bauer’s hollow Motion, the court refused to take judicial notice of anything.ADMINISTRATOR

      P.S. And, the name is Haldeman, with no “r.”

  3. TeakWoodKite says:

    Oh yeah, can executive privilege be used retro-actively?

    TeakWoodKite: The governing relationship would be lawyer/client privilege. And no privilege exists when the lawyer engages with the client in committing crimes. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. azgo says:

    Oh — My — Gosh! Incredible! Better than I expected !!!

    This will be known as the ‘Hollister Footnote of Judicial Notice’ !!!

    jbjd, you have truly figured out the [election] fraud as expressed in the investigations and analysis of your written material!

    And all of this, after all of the controversy and fraud during the D presidential campaign and nomination of 2008, has to be “specific intent to further the fraud” on behalf of BO, NP, JS, and BB, if not others. Good job !!!

    As to BO and NP, not answering citizen requests and questions, one can only conclude, silence can be just as condemning, if not more, as conveying guilt.

    Also, as in my research, the APFC articles DO talk a lot about ‘citizen’ or ‘citizenship’ and do mention, quietly or as an invisible satisfying theme, the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ but the APFC articles DO NOT explain or define what the ‘natural born citizen’ (or ‘natural born Citizen’ as to be Constitutionally correct), phrase means and the articles also ‘fail to establish, the candidate is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS’ … by any means.

    I hope all of the American people will read your written material and listen to drkate’s ‘Revolution Radio’ shows and archived recordings with you as guest, to grasp the depth of your investigations and analysis of this ‘beyond’ alleged fraud!

    Many thanks!

    azgo: Yeah; I got them. Too bad not that many people come to this blog. Those who do, could spread the word to everyone, including their state and federal elected officials, as well as the D.C. Board of Bar Overseers.

    As for APFC, ignore them. They are nothing to us. The only reason I even mention them is that, Congress wrote to their constituents that the reason they intended to ratify the EC vote for BO was that, APFC said, he was born in HI. (Of course, being born in HI still would not make him a NBC.) As stupid as that basis is – who the hell is APFC, a government agency? – it was their reason. Well, given that APFC ‘credits’ phantom computer screen images stolen from other blogs, I would say, it’s pretty non-sensical to credit them with anything! So now, Congress, on what basis are you saying, BO is a NBC? ADMINISTRATOR

    • azgo says:

      I would love to ignore APFC, but I think it is important for people to know that APFC is not credible and their articles are just articles and ‘fail to establish, the candidate is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS’.

      The problem is millions of people (voters) left the APFC web site feeling satisfied and comfortable to vote for the candidate or at least think the candidate was qualified and this includes state government employees such as Gov’s, AG’s, SoS’s, and their staff. They need to know where it all went wrong such as when Tommy Vietor of the Obama campaign sent the famous digitally scanned image of the birth certificate to APFC so they could post it and write the article for their web site. They need to know that the so called ‘credible source’ did not provide them with the real issues as the computer image, the image itself is not the ‘real thing’ and any proof that the candidate is a ‘natural born Citizen’. And as you know, it’s tough to unwind the damage APFC did by not truthfully, but rhetorically tried to establish or gave the reader the idea that the candidate is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS. APFC tricked the voters!

      How do we know whether Bob Bauer, as the campaign’s legal counsel, didn’t assist in qualifying the candidate through Tommy Vietor? We don’t, yet! We can conclude though, the Obama campaign used APFC to qualify their candidate for POTUS to the voters, but as we know, they only showed the candidate is a ‘citizen’ and born in Hawaii from a questionable computer image.

      Seems to me that by continually and truthfully discrediting and showing the American people what the candidate’s campaign and APFC ‘pulled off’ would make the Work here much more credible. Don’t you?

      And this should also include the credibility of the newspaper ‘birth announcement’ as to continually letting people know where the computer image source came from or didn’t come from.

      Here’s a new tidbit posted today at the ObamaFile.

      Anyway, thank you for replying to my comment!

      azgo: The information you link has been on this blog for a year. In fact, one of the first things I did when “” turned up endorsing that photocopied COLB, was to look up the organization AND the biographies of the people working for the organization. But even assuming documents experts were on staff; or that such experts were consulted by the staff; this had nothing to do with my conclusion they were insignificant but only with how I could persuade other of their insignificance.

      See, I discounted APFC for 2 (two) reasons. 1) BO wrote, they are “independent.” He knows they’re not – Chicago Annenberg Challenge – and, they know they’re not. 2) They have no privity to the American people. That is, no legal relationship exists between us that would obligate them to tell me the truth or would cause me to expect anything from them but lies.

      Let’s assume, APFC is a stellar group of documents experts, government researchers, and the like. And let’s assume, this stellar group, like the ‘real’ APFC, stole an image from a blog, posted it on their blog, and, with no further investigation, proclaimed this was proof of ANYTHING, let alone the fact a man running for POTUS is Constitutionally qualified for the job. This one action alone disqualifies anything that comes out of that group from meriting credibility.

      Plus, the fact that APFC said, the COLB posted on-line is “genuine” coupled with the fact, Bob Bauer refused to admit that COLB into evidence in the federal court, is far more compelling than the fact, APFC staffers are not experts in anything.

      Having said this, certainly, if people need to discredit APFC because they are not documents experts – remember, we are talking about an on-line image only visible through a computer screen – fine.

      As for legislators crediting APFC, of course, I am aware of this. And, it was this misplaced reliance on APFC, whether real or stated merely for convenience sake, that caused me to list those legislators who claimed they ratified the EC vote based only on APFC’s assurances, BO was for real. Then, I pointed out, now that APFC has been discredited and are included in the evidence that would support charges of election fraud submitted to state A’sG; on what basis could they claim, BO is for real? Constituents will demand that Congress, especially these particular members, initiate Articles of Impeachment to investigate BO’s Constitutional qualifications for the job. ADMINISTRATOR

      • Miri says:

        azgo: A very careful reading of the article at APFC blog demonstrates that those two writers do not state that they are the persons who spent time with the COLB in Chicago. Those persons remain anonymous. Where has any NAMED individual publicly admitted that he or she is the person holding the alleged COLB or the person who photographed it? Those individuals remain anonymous FactCheck blog “staffers.”

        Miri: This is the challenge with reading ‘BO-speak.’ If you get to the point where you are parsing words to figure out whether the statement means anything; it doesn’t. I de-constructed the infamous Hollister Footnote, in several articles, only to demonstrate that, as I had been saying for the previous 7 (seven) months, ever since BO posted that redacted COLB in June, that’s all he has to prove he is a citizen, let alone a NBC, notwithstanding the fact Bob Bauer signed those pleadings might have misled people into thinking, there was more to this statement than there was. It is not surprising that the real meaning of any narrative offered by anyone associated with BO to establish his Constitutional eligibility for POTUS must be de-constructed. But first, you have to know how. And obviously, you know how. Nice work, again!

        I swear, sooner or later, people will believe me when I say, ‘this’ is nothing but a simple albeit massive fraud perpetrated by dozens of egotistical flim-flammers who, overcome with hubris, advertised their crimes publicly thinking, they would never get caught. Only, I caught them. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Greg Goss says:

    You have been pinged…good job.

    Greg Goss: Hey Greg. Was your comment “good job” based on the fact, I had been pinged or, on the content of this article? Anyway, what does it mean when someone pings me? ADMINISTRATOR

  6. Greg Goss says:

    Good job on the work you have done. You got pinged because your post was posted on FReeP. That will get it more attention. When you log into FReeP at the top of the page you will see “New Post To You” in red if you were pinged. If no current pings exist the worg “Pings” is in the spot. But I am sure this will draw some comments and will be worth following.

    Greg Goss: Thank you. I posted myself at FR!

    Did you listen to the Revolution Radio shows? These were fabulous, especially the show from the 19th. In fact, drkate’s interaction inspired me to re-visit the Hollister footnote. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Greg Goss says:

    Sorry I didn’t notice you posted it..LOL When I saw you were pinged I assumed that someone was making you aware of the post. I have listened but not of late. My schedule has been pretty hectic.

    Greg Goss: Try to listen to at least the last show, linked on the front of my blog. And tell others; sometimes, hearing the summary of the fraud makes events clearer. Then, people can catch up on the details by reading the blog. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. tzada says:

    Here is some information that may be worthwhile to check into. There may be nothing of interest or help but who knows? It did throw up some “red flags.”

    (links deleted by jbjd)

    tzada: Hello. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the material we – readers and I – post here. In the article before the current post, EASIER SAID THAN DONE, I specifically mention that, in order to forge ahead in our communal quest to expose the fraud of the 2008 election cycle, we need to abandon our diversions of quo warranto; or “certificate” vs. “certification”; or social security numbers. These will not get us to the heart of the matter.

    In fact, try this: assume BO is not Constitutionally qualified for POTUS. Now, what to do? Expose the members of the DNC Services Corporation for election fraud, even if you have to reach that fraud by first reporting to the D.C. Bar, Bob Bauer violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Eventually, one of the A’sG in an applicable state, who has received the citizen complaints of election fraud against members of the DNC and, requested an investigation, will investigate and either at that time or when formal charges are brought, the AG’s office will make the case public. As soon as this happens, Congress must institute Articles of Impeachment. Because if these members of the D party did not establish BO was a NBC when they swore he was to state election officials then, we have to wonder, is he a NBC? Let Congress hold Impeachment hearings, to find out. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. d2i says:

    Well done, jbjd. Very well done.

    Curious question. Virginia, the state I live in, recently held elections and a new Attorney General will be sworn in in January. I do not wish to wait that long to begin corresponding with him regarding the complaint I filed in September to the outgoing Attorney General.

    Therefore, how would you advise me to proceed? I have the new AG’s email address as well as his snail mail info. Given that this is a new AG, I’m thinking I should send to him both a note and the NEW Virginia complaint. If I do this, do I need to re send to the Sec’y of the State Board of Elections and the Pelosi? Or just him? Please advise.

    Thanks much.

    d2i: Thank you. This one is for your brother. (I read the comment you posted on another blog, bemoaning the fact, he just will not hear you and then, excused his ignorance of the information you tried to impart by reminding you, he has a ‘life.’ Ha, don’t we all!)

    Here’s what I propose. Sure, I would love to get these new complaints to the AG. But the way to do it is this. Send in the new complaint to the current AG, along with a note saying, this is a revised complaint, which you think spells out the details and supporting evidence of election fraud in a way that might be easier for investigators in his office to follow. (If I recall, your AG did not indicate to you under what circumstances he would let you know how he decided to proceed. In fact, if I recall, he has not even acknowledged receipt of your first complaint, right?) Anyway, I would send the new complaint to the old AG but since this is your second submission, I would mark this, “Revised.” Ask for some sort of acknowledgment of receipt and processing.

    As to the new AG, I would definitely set up a face-to-face meeting with his staffers at the earliest opportunity, to apprise them in advance of these complaints that VA citizens have filed with his predecessor; and will be petitioning his office to take over. (If possible, don’t go alone.) Then, I would visit the state house press office, drop off a copy of the new complaint, and apprise them of your efforts to get the AG – old and new – to address this issue of election fraud, since September. (Have I given you enough homework?) ADMINISTRATOR

  10. Bdamam says:

    jbjd you should sign up at Newsvine and mirror your articles. I used to do it for Donofrio before he put his copyright into effect. Newsvine is very strict. I could seed the article which means I basically give my thoughts on your article and then point them to your blog. Another way in which others could help would be to go to comment sections where ever they read and just do this.

    By just providing the link without comment at as many comment sections as one can will create some traffic for you.

    If you would like me to seed the article at Newsvine let me know, you have my address.

    Bdamam: Thank you; this sounds great. (Copyright is intact.) Anything to get the word out. People need to read the solutions that appear on this blog. Imagine if only a fraction of the number of people who sent ‘pink slips’ to Congress; would file complaints of election fraud with their A’sG. If people realized the extent of fraud, I would bet they would not have to be coaxed into taking action. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Bdamam says:

    O.K. It’s live, now what I need is for people to click the link below and comment. You have to sign up but it will help push it up the vine. Please visit the link below.

    Also if you visit sites such as drudge, big government ect.ect. submit this article as a tip. Drudge report bottom right of the home page. Big, middle right. Send it over and over, it doesn’t matter. The only thing to fear is fear itself!!!!!

    Goebbel’s “Big Lie” technique:

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    Bdamam: I did it! Let’s see what happens. (I am accustomed to being the idea person; I had little time to become an expert at election law; and macroeconomics; and computer science, simultaneously.) ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Bdamam says:

    By the way your live here to, WOW

    Bdamam: I was getting hits all day from this Ron Paul site! Then, several hours ago, it suddenly stopped. ADMINISTRATOR

  13. Bdamam says:

    And here at the freep

    Bdamam: Yes; I posted on FR today. (I am still getting used to that site.) ADMINISTRATOR

  14. Bdamam says:


    It’s all over the place. You need to contact Ron Paul if he hasn’t contacted you yet. Dude your on fire

    Bdamam: Wow! (You do realize, I am a dudette, right?) ADMINISTRATOR

  15. Bdamam says:

    jb if you really,really want to stir the hornets nest go here

    This goes for everyone else Jonathan Turley Famed constitutional lawyer, appears on the MSNBC circuit. Vince Tearacy is a fierce debater.

    Truth Seeker
    1, November 23, 2009 at 11:02 pm
    If you think the Global Warming Scam was big check this out.

  16. Christine says:

    Dear jbjd, I’ve tried to find the requirements for my state,so far this is what I’ve come up with. Please let me know if this helps you, if not I’ll keep looking. Any particular hints of exactly which wording to google? Loved your recent podcasts, we can do this.

    Click to access running-for-president.pdf

    Christine: Nice work! But this is not what I need. Know what might be helpful? Look at the complaints of election fraud already posted on the blog. Each of these has a section citing to state law. The words you are looking for are laws that explicitly require any candidate whose name the state prints on the general election ballot must be qualified for the job. And, at any time, you could contact the SoS (assuming this person is in charge of ND elections). As you obviously understand, the only states in which we can allege ballot fraud occurred are those states that require the candidate to be qualified; because we are alleging NP signed these Certifications sent to these state election officials BEFORE ascertaining whether BO was qualified for the job.

    Come back with any questions along the way. And yes, “we” can do this. We already know we are dealing with crooks. Now, we just have to convince others of what we know. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. I love these podcasts, too, especially the last one, November 19. In fact, my exchange with drkate inspired this post! Please, pass around the links (in the sidebar, here).

    • Christine says:

      Will do, back to work I go. If I find anything, I’ll get it to you immediately. I’ve also forwarded your site and podcasts to some folks in Texas, hopefully they’ll be downloading and filing. Rock on!

      Christine: Back at you! (I have something special planned for the folks in TX. I mentioned on the last 2 (two) episodes of Revolution Radio with drkate that TX law contains some unique provisions which could provide a venue for redress of these problems of eligibility.) ADMINISTRATOR

  17. drkate says:

    Excellent jbjd. A succinct, and once again, gripping description. You have torn it apart bit by bit. I truly hope that several actions are underway.

    Thank you for the work you do, your honesty, and intelligence. Way to go!

    drkate: You are welcome. My next post is about Bob Bauer, too. If only people understood that the issue of BO’s NBC status can be dispensed with not by our opinions of the authenticity of that COLB; or of APFC’s independence; or of the truth of NP’s sworn Certifications of Nomination; or the meaning of statements issued by various state officials from HI. No; all that really matters is that when it came to presenting the “best evidence” to the federal court that BO is for real, the best BO/BB could come up with were promises that APFC noted a phantom unattributed newspaper birh announcement visible only on a computer screen; and that BO publicly released (that COLB he calls) a “birth certificate,” although they failed to point out, this, too, could only be seen on line.

    I challenged people as early as the summer of 2008, use BO’s own words to catch him. Of course, I had no idea at that time, the words of this now infamous Hollister footnote would fall into my lap. ADMINISTRATOR

  18. John says:

    Of course Bauer knows that the COLB is a fake…Hawaii knows it’s a fake…Hawaii never issued that COLB to Obama…which is why they refuse to authenticate it…AND a COLB is not, and can never be, an “original birth certificate” (as APFC, Politifact, the Obama Administration, Obama for America continue to claim).

    AND…the Obama Campaign NEVER, EVER sent ANY of these alleged “scan images” to AFPC, Politfact, the Daily Kos, or to anyone else.

    The ones who DID are the ones who FAKED the COLB in the first place.

    Guess who…

    John: I agree that all of the people directly involved with this fraud ‘know’ these documents are fake. How ridiculous they sound, basing their expressed belief, BO is a NBC; on a document posted on the internet. But people not directly involved in the fraud – and this would be, most of the American people – appear to be clinging to hope the facts unveiled on this blog, cannot possibly be true. Because they find the alternative too painful to bear. So, I continue to spoon feed the facts, until no reasonable person viewing this blog can maintain plausible deniability.

    (If only more people were viewing this blog.)ADMINISTRATOR

  19. ksdb says:

    What I find preposterous about factcheck is their refusal to actually check facts. Brooks Jackson at factcheck told me by e-mail in 2008 that they accepted Obama’s COLB as the real deal and wouldn’t bother to look at it further unless proof came out about Obama being born in Kenya. A month or so later, they suddenly decided they needed to go look at the COLB in person. Why didn’t they do this immediately if they’re really a fact checking agency?? Why didn’t Politifact ask to see the hard copy. They all knew there were reasonable suspicions since the original scan(s) lacked visible seal and registrar signatures, plus the document was clearly tampered with (the redacted certificate number).

    Then factcheck misses the obvious way to check facts. They had a document with the certificate number but failed to contact the state of Hawaii to see if the document and/or certificate number was legitimate. Also, the photographs they posted had the creation dates embedded, which were three months PRIOR to the scans originally showing up at du and politifact, etc. Were these incompetent fact checkers or were they accessories to the fraud that was being committed??

    Yes, there are obvious reasons why Bauer would not or could not present a physical document. He would have had better luck presenting bigfoot or alien autopsy videos.

    ksdb: See, you are already spending too much time de-bunking either group. Rather, the burden to credit them is on anyone purporting to base decisions on anything these groups have to say. As for me, I always rejected APFC as a source related to BO’s eligibility for POTUS, even before I proved, they print phantom computer images and claim these as historical documentation. Because – and I have written this sentiment several times throughout this blog – APFC has no privity with the American people. That is, no legal basis exists between them and us, that would obligate them to tell us the truth or would create in us a reasonable expectation they would tell us anything but lies. ADMINISTRATOR

  20. ksdb says:

    jbjd, I disagree. Debunking is the only thing we really have that can be effective. Nothing else will get any real traction … at least not in the short term. Sorry to be negative, but all the other stuff about divided loyalties and trying to start a grass roots movement to change ballots is too convoluted for the public at large to digest. The public loves a scandal and the right smoking gun will blow this thing open. Anything else is spinning one’s wheels. You’ve opined that you want more people to veiw this blog. You need to give people a reason to come here.

    ksdb: I have de-bunked the rise of BO into the Oval Office notwithstanding no evidence exists he is a NBC; throughout my blog. Even ignoring any conclusions, the facts are all there. I have said nothing about divided loyalties; indeed, I repeat, no law defines NBC until the federal court rules in a case directly on point, this is what NBC means. I have not advocated changing ballots. Indeed, I only point out, according to existing laws and, given a good faith belief BO might not be Constitutionally qualified for office coupled with a desire to resolve this question of qualification; here is how to resolve the question.

    The reason to ‘come here’ is, I explain how our political system / government works (and not how we wish it worked). You write, “The public loves a scandal and the right smoking gun will blow this thing open.” Knowing what I know about BO’s election, as expressed on this blog, both in writing and through the recordings of my appearances on Revolution Radio, I can identify several “smoking guns” that would expose this fraud, the most convincing of which is, arguably, that infamous Hollister Footnote. ADMINISTRATOR

  21. Ms. Mad says:

    Transparency: an open letter to Barack Obama
    (has link to this in the vid description)

    Ms. Mad: I erased your link to a video directed to BO because I cannot continue to lend any more time or attention to him. This only affords his existence as both a candidate for POTUS and now the CIC more credibility. If you read my “TREASON” articles, I and II, you would see, for the most part, I leave him out of my fraud equation. He could have been anyone; it took NP et al. to elect him, for reasons other than who he is (or ever could be). My focus remains on her and her accomplices. ADMINISTRATOR

  22. pancakes007 says:

    Dear jbjd,

    After listening to your podcasts (great stuff BTW:-)I came across this site and wondered if you know about them. They are some very angry Texas folks there who have apparently been screaming about voter fraud for some time now. It seems it might be well worth your time to contact them as they have first hand knowledge and would probably love to file. I will also email them and direct them to your site. They could be a very valuable resource. I hope this helps. No need to publicly post this to your board, no sense warning the wrong folks:-)

    pancakes007: Of course, I know all about the caucus fraud. But this fraud by itself is not illegal; remember, this is only the manifestation of how the private club called the DNC Services Corporation chooses its club candidate to get onto the general election ballot. (Again, how the Corporation allocated delegates to black and Latino districts IS the subject of a federal lawsuit arising under the Voting Rights Act.) Rather, the caucus fraud evidences a pattern of fraud to install BO into the WH by compelling him to be the club nominee notwithstanding HRC won the primary.

    Nothing I write here is “new” to anyone who perpetrated the fraud. It is too late to plug the holes now; the analysis of eligibility ended on August 2008 when NP signed those bogus Certifications of Nomination. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. Thank you for praising those podcasts. I agree; they are “great stuff.”

  23. Nellie says:

    jbjd – theis is O/T

    I wrote this as the 5th comment down today, as an update to Ani’s article on Martha Coakley yesterday.

    Comment by Nellie | 2009-12-08 15:36:09


    I am writing this here as an update. It appears as if the Mass Dems are screwing with the election!

    I went to vote. When I got to the polling station there were 2 people in front of me and 1 behind me, checking in.

    The first was a male independent. The ladies at check in asked IF he was going to vote Dem or Republican. He stated Republican and they marked a big RED “R” next to his name.

    The second in line was another man also registered Independent. The ladies at the chick in table also asked if he was going to vote Dem or Republican. He stated dem and they just simply checked his name to vote. They did NOT flag his name.

    I planned on voting for Coakley and am a registered independent. Again the ladies asked me how I was going to vote. I interjected and asked why they were putting large red “R”’s next independents who choose to vote Republican. The answer I received was that the State government wanted to know which Independents voted Republican. I was angry so I deliberately took a Republican Ballot and wrote Coakley’s name in.

    This is disturbing on several Levels:

    1. There was also a ballot for Libertarians. The poll workers did not ask ANYONE in the time I was there if they wanted a Libertarian Ballot.

    2. The only people being targeted/flagged were Independents voting Republican. The Lady behind me was an independent who took a Libertarian Ballot and her Name was NOT flagged.

    3, Massachusetts is an Open Primary State that uses paper ballots and scanning machines. Previously they simply checked your name and told you to choose a ballot, which are laying in stacks on the table by party. They did not Flag your name for the type of ballot you took. I now have my doubts they even COUNT write – in votes.

    4. The manner in which this was done struck me as an attempt as Voter Intimidation, Harassment and Suppression.

    5. Will there be retribution? I will have to work a couple of days/wk as a sub teacher to pay for my Medicare starting in June 2010. Will I be blackballed? Also I am being operated on tomorrow and will need a few weeks of VNA care. Will I be able to get it?

    What laws are being violated? I believe there are laws stating we have voting booths so vote are confidential, as they always were until today.

    jbjd what do you say to this practice?

    Hopefully you will address this. Please include what you experienced at yor polling place. Thanks. I strongly believe this behavior should be made widely known

    Nellie: I know; this is horrible. It happened to me, too! I cannot wait to contact SoS Galvin’s office tomorrow. You call, too. This practice of ‘outing’ my ballot preference is outrageous! I am going to demand that the designation be removed ASAP. (I wish I had made a scene at the polling place; I wonder whether they would have allowed me to deposit my ballot, anyway.) ADMINISTRATOR

    UPDATE 12.09.09: Well, turns out, the designation of party is recorded according to state law! Now, to find out the purpose of this law…

  24. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, Hello again. Saw a link at CW that led to an investigation in McHenry County IL looking into voter fraud and Obama’s lack of eligibility to hold any office in Illinois or be on the ballot.

    Maybe you could comment at CW and enlighten everyone.

    Thanks for all you do for America and the people.

    bob strauss: Hello again to you. I read Chalice’s ‘brief.’ While I cannot discern from her often disjointed soliloquy precisely what she is asking the court to permit her to do viz a viz the Grand Jury, one line in particular stood out. Regarding the IL Presidential preference primary, she is alleging she has “indisputable evidence of massive voter fraud” she wants to present to the Grand Jury. If she has such evidence, she should have presented this to the IL AG, for possible prosecution. However, as I have stated before, such accusations even if true do not implicate any rights of primary voters. The general rule would be this: no one has a fundamental right to choose the club nominee of his or her choice. She also rambles on about having exhausted redress of this alleged voter fraud. She equates her failure to obtain relief for this supposed fraud with a denial of Constitutional rights to petition the government for redress. However, she fails to establish any nexus among fraud; attempts at redress; and denial of Constitutional rights. (Just petitioning the court does not mean, the petitioner had a legitimate cause of action to file in the first place.)

    In short, this looks to me like a rather bizarre attempt to create a new forum in which to attack BO, notwithstanding she fails to name him in her text. (I have also read some criticisms of her filing, on the internet. Not surprisingly, she is lumped in with the rest of us as another Birther, and dismissed with scorn and (well-earned) derision.

    The only fraud that exists viz a viz the ballot is the fraud I have outlined in those states whose laws only allow the names of eligible candidates to appear on the ballot; committed by those members of the D party who swore to state election officials BO was such an eligible candidate, without ascertaining beforehand whether this was true. ADMINISTRATOR

  25. Sharing thoughts says:

    I want to share a website called NASED.
    National Association of State
    Election Directors Roster.

    Click to access NASED%20ROSTER%2010-9-2009.pdf

    The roster includes address, phone numbers, e-mail, and links for every state. Looks like they keep the roster up to date. We have got to keep filing complaints.

    If the Attorney General and/or the Secretary Of State do not respond to a submitted election fraud complaint, maybe a letter to the Governor would be in order. They can only ignore us, if we let them. I like your idea of calling the local newspaper to cover the story concerning the election fraud. It would be pretty easy to e-mail a copy of the complaint to the local paper.

    Sharing thoughts: Even though only the state A’sG in applicable states have legal jurisdiction to prosecute past election fraud; certainly, state election officials, authorized by state laws to promulgate whatever rules and regulations are required to carry out state elections, can benefit from knowing how the DNC Services Corporation has operated in other states to circumvent the lawful requirements to getting the name of their candidate onto the ballot. In fact, I believe agency/department rules and regulations can be substituted for statutory mandates, for the purpose of ensuring that the state will only print the names of qualified candidates on the ballot. So, by all means, send copies of these complaints to state election officials even in non-applicable states. The more people who know the DNC Services Corporation perpetrated election fraud in several states to get BO’s name printed on state ballots; the less likely these charlatans will be able to run a Constitutionally ineligible candidate for POTUS, again. ADMINISTRATOR

  26. Right Now says:

    I remember Leo Donofrio was considering a quo warranto lawsuit which would require millions of signatures to bring it forward. I believe only a lawsuit of this magnitude can work. Also, I would like your opinion on the USC Title 44 Ch 22 “Presidential Records”

    and whether there has just been a snow job to the American people concerning availablitiy of records. It appears that these documents suporting his eligiblity are now the property of the goverment and not the POTUS. Therefore, BHO is not the clearing house for these records. Have people been asking in all the wrong places?

    If you have already responded to this point me in the right direction.

    Right Now: Could you please be more specific with your questions regarding Presidential Records? (This refers to documents generated while in office.) Also, I have expressed the opinion several times both on this blog and throughout the blogosphere; BO is lawfully the POTUS, notwithstanding he may not be a NBC. Thus, he can only be removed through the Constitutionally prescribed method of Impeachment. (But as I have also said, I believe, Impeachment is likely, once Congress initiates the process by introducing Articles of Impeachment and commencing its investigation.) ADMINISTRATOR

  27. […] 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 […]

  28. […] (Members of the House are not alone in eschewing the use of the Speaker’s Certification of Mr. Obama’s Nomination as proof he is Constitutionally qualified for the office.  Even when provided with an opportunity to obtain judicial notice his client was ‘for real’ White House Counsel Bob Bauer, then Counsel to Mr. Obama’s Campaign (and the DNC Services Corporation), only asked the federal court to find Mr. Obama had ‘publicly released his “birth certificate,”‘ and not that Speaker Pelosi had sworn to state election officials he was legitimate or that her Certification alone was proof enough for those officials to print his name on the ballot.  COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3-CARD MONTE for FEDERAL COURT) […]

  29. […] only wanted the court to take judicial notice Obama had publicly released his birth certificate!  COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3 CARD MONTE* for FEDERAL COURT (How many times have I advised people, when confronted with claims, this FTS COLB evidences to the […]

  30. Anonymous says:

    Just as a little update, White House general counsel Robert Bauer suddenly resigned June 2, 2011 without giving any notice. Does this have anything to do with so many experts now saying that Obama’s new long form birth certificate is a blatant forgery? Is it just a coincidence that Bauer suddenly resigned the day after Judge Lamberth ruled that Taitz v. Astrue would go forward and that attorney Taitz could now do discovery? Taitz is trying to get the facts regarding the social security number that Obama has been using, a SSN that was issued in Connecticut to a man born in 1890! Taitz is also using the discovery process to follow the trail on Obama’s obviously fake long form birth certificate.

    Anonymous: I have no idea why Attorney Bauer switched jobs; your guess is as good as mine. As for your liberal use of the word “discovery,” especially in the context of legal proceedings involving Attorney Taitz, well, I just did a search for this case; and all I could come up with were claims mimicking yours, without legal citations to the federal case docket. However, that said, I was able to ascertain the nature of this suit, which is an appeal of an agency decision not to provide records requested by Ms. Taitz under the FOIA. Discovery in such case would simply consist of agency documents related to their decision not to produce the records she requested, and would not involve production of the actual records she requested.

    Couldn’t help noticing your email address indicates you are from TX. Let me ask you directly, why aren’t you spending your time and energy organizing fellow Texans to petition AG Abbott to investigate the hundreds of citizen complaints of election fraud filed with his office? ADMINISTRATOR

  31. […] Coie would never have assisted such subterfuge by touting their services! (See, for example, COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3 CARD MONTE* for FEDERAL COURT; and COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3 CARD MONTE* for […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: