I may not be able to explain why Barack Obama attracted support for his crusade to the White

House from tens of millions of citizens notwithstanding he refused to disclose to these same
sovereigns documentary evidence he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.

But I can explain that by refusing to disclose to the citizens of Texas under the Texas Open
Records Act the documentary basis for Certifying to state election officials Mr. Obama was the
eligible Presidential candidate of the Texas Democratic Party; under Texas laws, TDP Chair
Boyd Richie admitted he lied about the candidate’s eligibility for President leaving him
with no other choice but to declare Barack Obama is ineligible for the job.

I pointed out in CLOWNS to the LEFT of ME; JOKERS to the RIGHT (1)
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/clowns-left-jokers-right/) and (2)
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/clowns-left-jokers-right-2/), and on my latest appearance
on Revolution Radio with drkate (podcasts of all 4 (four) shows are linked in the sidebar);
pursuant to Texas state law, the Republican Party of Texas (“RPT”) has standing to sue the
Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) to declare Barack Obama is ineligible for office, and thereby
prevent his name from appearing on the Texas ballot.* (As you know, Texas election law
restricts names on the ballot to only those candidates who are eligible for the job.) (If you
haven‟t read CLOWNS yet, please, at least skim the information on TDP v. RPT.) In order to
prevail in such a suit, the RPT first would have to persuade the court, the record conclusively
establishes, Mr. Obama is ineligible for the job. (Recall that the authority, or party Chair is not a
fact finder on issues of whether the record conclusively establishes eligibility. The record must
conclusively establish ineligibility on its own.) After the court finds such ineligibility, if Mr. Richie
still refuses to declare Mr. Obama ineligible as required by law, then the court can order him to
declare the candidate ineligible through the action called mandamus. (Keep in mind, in Texas,
mandamus applies to both public officials and, under circumstances like this, to Chairs of
political parties.)**

*Recall I also pointed out, TDP v. RPT establishes, an opposing candidate also has
standing to contest a candidate‟s eligibility.

We need not consider additional arguments raised by the TDP in support of its
standing. We note, though, that Texas law provides that suits to challenge a
declaration of ineligibility may be brought by that candidate's competitors. TEX.
ELEC.CODE § 273.081 (providing a right of action to any "person who is being
harmed or is in danger of being harmed by a violation or threatened violation of
this code"); see In re Jones, 978 S.W.2d 648, 651 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1998, orig.
pet.) (candidate had standing to challenge opponent's eligibility); Nixon v. Slagle,
885 S.W.2d 658 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1994, orig. pet.) (considering on the merits a
Republican Party challenge to a Democratic Party declaration of ineligibility).

**Both the supreme court and the courts of appeals “may issue a writ of mandamus to
compel the performance of any duty imposed by law in connection with the holding of an
election or a political party convention, regardless of whether the person responsible for
performing the duty is a public officer.” TEX. ELEC. CODE § 273.061. The Election
Code further provides that a rule on electoral affairs is enforceable by writ of mandamus
in the same manner as if the rule were a statute. Id. at §163.007. http://www.tex-
app.org/articles/cassidy-mandamus.pdf
I assured you in those CLOWNS posts and on the radio, the evidence in the public record that
Mr. Obama is ineligible meets Texas‟ legal standard of “conclusively established.” Here, I‟ll
show you.

TDP v. RPT explains what is meant by “conclusively established.”

The governing standard, “conclusively established,” bears emphasis. Something is

“conclusive” when, by virtue of “reason,” it “put[s] an end to debate or question,” usually
because of its “irrefutability.” WEBSTER‟S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL
DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED (2002).* Accordingly, Texas courts have explained that
public records must leave no factual dispute concerning the conclusiveness of
ineligibility. See In re Jackson, 14 S.W.3d 843, 848-49 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, orig. pet.)
(holding that a state actor under § 145.003 has “no fact-finding authority;” instead, she
may “administratively declare that a candidate is ineligible only when the record
conclusively establishes the candidate‟s ineligibility”) (emphasis in original); Culberson v.
Palm, 451 S.W.2d 927, 929 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1970, orig. pet.) (holding
that ineligibility was not conclusively established where there remained “a fact
question”). Thus refined, the issue is whether, based on the evidence properly before
Benkiser on June 7, 2006, there remained “a fact question” as to whether DeLay would
reside in Texas on election day, November 7, 2006. Palm, 451 S.W.2d at 929.

*See also BLACK‟S LAW DICTIONARY 308 (8th ed.2004) (defining “conclusive” as
“authoritative,” “decisive,” or “convincing”).

Well, I thought about which of the public records I would use in a lawsuit like this, to establish
conclusively Barack Obama is ineligible; from among the several „records‟ that exist – for
example, the AZ Presidential preference primary application to SoS, in which Mr. Obama swore
he is a “natural born citizen” v. his FTS web site, swearing this COLB image proves he is a
“native”; or that fabulous double speaking footnote Attorney Bob Bauer included in his
Defendants‟ Motion to Dismiss (in Hollister) - and which records I have previously successfully
woven into the narrative of his ineligibility. See, for example, 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/; 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/; IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS
IS un-AMERICAN THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/if-drowning-out-opposing-facts-is-un-american-then-
ignoring-unpleasant-facts-must-be-un-american-too/; and RUMORS, LIES, and
UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’ http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/rumors-lies-and-
unsubstantiated-facts/

But wading through all of this information asks too much of the court. No; to achieve success in
the courts, I needed to map a more direct route to ineligibility, as a matter of law. And I found
that several paths could lead to a ruling Mr. Obama is not eligible, based on Mr. Richie‟s
statement, he is.

For example, a court can find a proposition is false when the statute or regulation explicitly
states what conditions must be satisfied to give rise to the legal inference, the proposition is
false. Look at these federal regulations regarding applications or petitions for immigration
benefits. 8 CRF 103.2, Title 8, Aliens and Nationality, CHAPTER I, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; SUBCHAPTER B – IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS; PART 103 –
POWERS AND DUTIES; AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS; 103.2, Applications, petitions, and
other documents; (b) Evidence and processing (1) General.

An applicant or petitioner must establish eligibility for a requested immigration benefit.

An application or petition form must be completed as applicable and filed with any initial
evidence required by regulation or by the instructions on the form. Any evidence
submitted is considered part of the relating application or petition.

(2) Submitting secondary evidence and affidavits(i) General. The non-existence or other
unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. …
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title08/8cfr103_main_02.tpl

See, this law establishes explicitly, where the applicant (for immigration benefits) is required to
produce evidence in order to complete the application process to establish eligibility to obtain
the requested immigration status; by not producing this evidence, s/he is presumed to be
ineligible.

However, in the language of the Texas election laws, I found no comparable means to contest
Mr. Richie‟s Certification of Barack Obama‟s Nomination.

Another way the court can find a proposition is false, even absent the explicit language of
statutes and regulations, is through rulings handed down by other courts. Texas state courts
have consistently ruled, where a duty exists to disclose the truth, deliberate silence is
tantamount to a false representation. Bradford v. Vento is an excellent case in point.

As a general rule, a failure to disclose information does not constitute fraud unless there
is a duty to disclose the information. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Morris, 981 S.W.2d 667, 674
(Tex. 1998). Thus, silence may be equivalent to a false representation only when the
particular circumstances impose a duty on the party to speak and he deliberately
remains silent. SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Doe, 903 S.W.2d 347, 353 (Tex. 1995);
Smith v. Nat'l Resort Cmtys., Inc., 585 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex. 1979). Whether such a
duty exists is a question of law. Ralston Purina Co. v. McKendrick, 850 S.W.2d 629, 633
(Tex. App.--San Antonio 1993, writ denied).

Bradford v. Vento, 48 SW3d 749, 757 (Tex. 2001)

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2001/apr/990966.htm

Silence is equivalent to a false representation where circumstances impose a duty to

speak and one deliberately remains silent.

Amouri v. Southwest Toyota, Inc., 20 S.W.3d 165, 170 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2000, pet.
denied)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-
bin/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=case&no=0010541cv0

DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! Under the Texas Open Records Act, several citizens of
Texas submitted to Chairman Richie requests for any and all documents that were the basis for
his Certification, Mr. Obama is eligible for the job of President! We have proofs of submission.
Mr. Richie „responded‟ by deliberately refusing to identify the documentation! We have multiple
first-hand reports on contacts with his office. All I had to do now to obtain a court ruling that Mr.
Richie lied (as to Mr. Obama‟s eligibility for President) by not disclosing information (which was
the basis for his eligibility Certification); was to persuade the court as a matter of law, he had a
duty to provide this information.

And this duty to disclose information can be found in several places.

For example, a duty to disclose can be found to exist based on the conduct of the parties.

Whether such a duty to disclose exists in this case is "entirely a question of law." See
Bradford, 997 S.W.2d at 725 (quoting Hoggett v. Brown, 971 S.W.2d 472, 487-88 (Tex.
App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ)). Texas courts have found that "a duty to
disclose may arise in four situations: (1) when there is a fiduciary relationship; (2) when
one voluntarily discloses information, the whole truth must be disclosed; (3) when one
makes a representation, new information must be disclosed when that new information
makes the earlier representation misleading or untrue; (4) when one makes a partial
disclosure and conveys a false impression." Id.

Again, establishing a duty under this rubric is too attenuated. (In other words, when it comes to
persuading the court to do what‟s right if not what‟s popular, the less words, the better.)

Or, a duty to disclose can be found in the explicit language of the law governing that interaction.

And, sure enough, under the Texas Open Government Act, certain public officers* are required
to provide information to requestors.

TITLE 5. OPEN GOVERNMENT

ETHICS
SUBTITLE A. OPEN GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 552. PUBLIC INFORMATION
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 552.001. POLICY; CONSTRUCTION. (a) Under the fundamental philosophy of

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

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

SUBCHAPTER D. OFFICER FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION

Sec. 552.203. GENERAL DUTIES OF OFFICER FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION. Each

officer for public information, subject to penalties provided in this chapter, shall:
 (1) make public information available for public inspection and copying;

SUBCHAPTER E. PROCEDURES RELATED TO ACCESS

Sec. 552.221. APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION; PRODUCTION OF

PUBLIC INFORMATION. (a) An officer for public information of a governmental body
shall promptly produce public information for inspection, duplication, or both on
application by any person to the officer. In this subsection, "promptly" means as soon as
possible under the circumstances, that is, within a reasonable time, without delay.

*The application of the Texas Open Records Law to the Chair of the state political party
is clearly indicated both in Texas statutes as well as case law. For example, see
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/clubs-rule/#comment-1839 A formal offer of proof
is outside of the scope of this post.

In sum, following these guidelines, the RPT can immediately file suit in Texas state court to
petition the TDP to “declare” Presidential candidate Barack Obama is not eligible for the job
based on the refusal of Chairman Boyd Richie to disclose to the citizens of Texas, the reason
he is.

P.S. In what could perhaps be characterized as a case of cosmic justice, the Justice of the
Supreme Court of Texas who signed the opinion in Bradford v. Vento finding silence equals
misrepresentation was none other than The Honorable Greg Abbott, presently the Attorney
General of Texas.