the New Blog site at: defendourfreedoms
NOTE: this post is upddated because the defendourfreedoms.us and defendourfreedoms.org were hijacked.
More info on this matter is on the new
site that should be more secure. http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
More False Rumors in regards to the military
I just had a conference call with Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, Attorney Gery Kreep (with whom I work on Dr. Keyes state case in CA)and other plaintiffs and officials. Mr. Kreep has told me and later has forwarded an e-mail from a gentleman that goes by name John Jay, though I don't believe that this is his real name. Mr. John Jay (or whoever he is, probably part of Obama administration) is sending e-mails to different people, saying that I just urge members of the military to disobey orders, that for no reason I am just telling people to disobey orders. This is not true. I am telling that I will be filing an action, seeking a writ of mandate from a judge to get Obama's original birth certificate and other vital records, to see if he is a natural born citizen and if he is a legitimate president and commander in Chief. This is not saying to disobey orders, this is demanding vital information, that every member of the military is entitled to obtain. Who is this man sitting in the White House?. Based on the information we have, this is Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia and Kenya. If members of the military are following orders of somebody, who is a foreigner and not a legitimate President and commander in Chief, they are following illegal orders and can be subject to court martial. You can see below a letter that I received from Mr. Morgan Ward, who honorably served in the military for many years and who now has a show on Plains radio and who is a big supporter of mine. At the bottom of this e-mail is an e-mail from him, where he successfully used rule 138 and you can see my response. As a member of the military that risks his life or risked his life to defend the Constitution of this country against all enemy foreign and domestic you deserve to get some answers. If you feel that Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama owes you to risk one minute of his precious time and sign a consent for release of all of his vital records, then contact me at dr_taitz@yahoo.com and you can become one of the plaintiffs seeking release of such records.
This e-mail is sent in a blind-cc form to members of the military that have related to me interest in becoming plaintiffs in an action aimed in obtaing proper documentation, verifying Mr. Obama's qualifications as a commander in Chief. It is also sent to legal professionals that are assisting me in this endeavor. I would ask members of the military to feel out a grievance under rule 138, stating that they need to get proper documentation verifying that the Commander in Chief Mr. Soetoro-Obama is eligible due to the fact that he needs to be a Natural Born Citizen, and Mr. Obama refused to provide such documentation and kept all his vital records sealed in spite of 42 Legal actions filed in Federal courts alone (according to Justia) and probably similar number of legal actions filed in State courts.Definition of Natural Born Citizen is: One born in the country to parents (plural) that are citizens of that country. Vattel, law of Nations.Natural Born citizens of the US are ones born in the US to parents that don't owe any allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. Per John A Bingham, framer of the 14th amendment.1. At the inauguration ceremony it was stated that Mr. Obama is a son of an African-American immigrant. In reality Mr. Obama's father was here on a student visa and was never an immigrant in this country, and never even had a Green Card. He was Kenyan and since at that time Kenya was a British colony, he was a British citizen and transferred such British citizenship to his son at birth which in itself disqualifies Mr. Obama from Presidency and position of the Commander in Chief, regardless of where he was born: in US or Kenya.2. There are a number of sworn affidavits from Kenya stating that Mr. Obama was born there. State of HI statue 338 allows Foreign Born children of HI residents to get a certification of HI Live birth and it can be received base on a statement of one relative only. Mr. Obama never presented his original birth certificate and it stays sealed in the Health Department in Hi. He showed only a short version of Certification of Life birth issued in 2007, that is usually received when the original BC is not available, or altered, or illegible. HI health department confirmed that they have the original birth certificate, however they refused to provide to the citizens of this Nation any details: is it a BC of a foreign born child of a HI resident, was it obtained base on actual records from a hospital with a signature of a hospital official and the name and signature of the doctor, or was it obtained based on a statement of one relative only, who might be making a false statement in order to avoid going through expense and hassle of immigration procedures.3. Numerous volunteers have searched and checked hospital after hospital and no birthing records or vital records were ever found in any hospital in Hi.4. Additionally, around the age of 5 or 6 y. old Mr. Obama has immigrated to the Nation of Indonesia with his mother and stepfather Lolo Soetoro, and his school records from Indonesia show his name to be Barry Soetoro, citizenship -Indonesian. Since Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, his parents had te relinquish his US citizenship in order to obtain Indonesian citizenship for him.5. When Mr. Soetoro-Obama came back to this country, he studied at Occidental college. Mr.Soetoro-Obama keeps his immigration records, passports and school and university enrollment records sealed, however a number of his former classmates from Occidental college made statements, that they remember him as Barry Soetoro. There is an entry in CA journal of Assembly, showing financial aid given to foreign exchange students among them Soetoro from Indonesia. Mr. Soetoro -Obama has stated that he traveled to Pakistan in 1981, when there was a ban on US citizens to travel to Pakistan and the only reasonable explanation is that he traveled on his Indonesian passport. All of these facts show that as an adult Mr. Soetoro has confirmed his allegiance to Indonesia, while relinquishing his US citizenship.Due to all of the above Mr. Soetoro -Obama is not eligible, not legitimate for the position of the Commander in Chief. Taking orders from an illegitimate commander in Chief will mean taking orders that are not lawful, which would expose the military personal to court martial. The serviceman--------(your name) requests investigation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon of the matter. If members of Joint Chiefs of staff and Pentagon find that indeed Mr. Obama -Soetoro is ineligible, I would ask them to join as my plaintiffs in a legal action to be filed directly in the Supreme Court of the US, seeking removal of Mr. Obama from his position of President and Commander in Chief due to ineligibility and obtaining the position by virtue of fraudulent misrepresentation.Sincerely Dr. Orly Taitz Esq
26302 La Paz ste 211
Mission Viejo Ca 92691
29839 S. Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688
ph. w 949-586-8110 c-949-683-5411
fax 949-586-2082
--- On Sun, 2/1/09, morgan ward wrote:
From: morgan ward
Subject: Follow up on Hotel accomodations in DFW and a suggested remedy for Obama to prove elligibility from the military
To: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Cc: stevewhughes@yahoo.com
Date: Sunday, February 1, 2009, 6:04 AM
Dr Taitz, You had sent me an email as a representative of Plains Radio Network to assist you in locating availability of rooms for your April Conference. I have beed desperately inquiring and what I have come up with is not too positive. There are rooms available but spread all over the Dallas , Ft. Worth area, but not in Mass. I have been told that it would be nearly impossible to arrange such a large gathering in a close radius. I will still try as I want to help you find accomodations. In another matter. I would really like you to read and consider what I am going to share with you regarding an Article 138 UCMJ complaint. I am aware that you and Leo agree to the fact that ACTIVE duty military have the best chance at standing in a suit against Obama. I believe there is another way which would't require but one active duty personnel to initiate, and with NO harm to their Career. This is a little known method but I really believe can grant you huge dividends. Please take the time to consider the following. You may have to tweak the complaint and remedy a little, as I am just giving you the jest of my suggestion. The other part is the actual UCMJ article 138. Orly, I am a retired US Army SFC. Few people in the military are familiar with an Article 138 Investigation. While on Active duty, I felt I was wronged by my Battalion Commanding Officer, so I researched the UCMJ and found this: I filed an Article 138 Investigation upon my Commander and had never seen such a "hot potato". I literally brought my Field Artillery Battalion to a standstill for 2 days while the Battalion Commander decided what to do with my complaint. After my Commander had met with all of his aides and consulted legal advice from the US Army Jag Corps, I was granted exactly what I had demanded in my request for redress. This was both a written and an Oral appology to me by my Battallion Commander, (LTC) in front of 500 fellow officers and soldiers within my battallion. The beauty is that the person filing a grievance MUST be given a final Disposition, so this will eventually get to the Secretary of the Branch of Servive in which it is brought. in my case, it would have been the Secretary of the Army.And all of this without harming or in any way having any detrimental effect upon the person complaining. So, I offer the complaint: As a soldier I do not feel that President Barack Obama has proven his eligibility to be President of the US and therefore can't serve as Commander in Chief. I feel as though any order given to me now would be invalid as he is a Usurper. He has never been properly vetted and thus has never shown a vault copy of his birth certificate. I feel and I believe there is enough evidence to show that President Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen of the US and therefore is not qualified to be President in accordance to Article II of the US Constitution. My request for redress is that President Barack Obama be made to prove his eligibility by showing a certified, forensic proven, long copy of his Vault Copy of his Borth Certificate. This must include as a minimum his place of birth, attending physicians name, parents names and any other pertinent data required by the average citizen necessary in obtaining a US Passport. Below is the Actual Article 138 UCMJ Redress of Grievances: Article 138 of the UCMJ is one of the few provisions of the code that permits the service members to go on the offensive.This provision gives you the right to file a complaint against your Commanding Officer for ANY ( emphasis added by me) grievance you may have including harrassment, violations of your rights, unfair treatment, ect... ( again for ANY reason, added by me). Normally, before filing the complaint, you should seek to resolve the issue with your Commander. If this is not appropriate or not successful, you may file the complaint with the officer exercising General Court-Martial Authority over your Commander. ( In other words, this complaint keeps going upward thru the chain of command till resolved). The Commander MUST9 emphasis added by me) investigate the complaint and forward the results to the office of the Secretary of your Branch of Service, ( ie, The Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, etc). The manual for Court-Martials provide guidance on filing an Article 138 Complaint. In my case Orly, I just hand wrote my grievance and handed it to my Batallion Commander. The legal system took care of the rest. I can't emphsis enough, the Soldier must get an answer in resolving this. It will definately make it to the Secretary of the service originated in. There I know they will take appropriate action with the Joint Chief of Staff or Congress to get a resolution, otherwise the person originating the action would be free to disobey any order given to him/her. I hope you may use this as a basis to get Obama to prove his eligibility. This doesn't require 2000 military in a class action suit. It would only require one. It gets aroung the standing issue and will not harm the career of the person initiating the request. Just another thought as I hope it will help you. morgan ward830-980-2760
This e-mail is sent in a blind-cc form to members of the military that have related to me interest in becoming plaintiffs in an action aimed in obtaing proper documentation, verifying Mr. Obama's qualifications as a commander in Chief. It is also sent to legal professionals that are assisting me in this endeavor. I would ask members of the military to feel out a grievance under rule 138, stating that they need to get proper documentation verifying that the Commander in Chief Mr. Soetoro-Obama is eligible due to the fact that he needs to be a Natural Born Citizen, and Mr. Obama refused to provide such documentation and kept all his vital records sealed in spite of 42 Legal actions filed in Federal courts alone (according to Justia) and probably similar number of legal actions filed in State courts.Definition of Natural Born Citizen is: One born in the country to parents (plural) that are citizens of that country. Vattel, law of Nations.Natural Born citizens of the US are ones born in the US to parents that don't owe any allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. Per John A Bingham, framer of the 14th amendment.1. At the inauguration ceremony it was stated that Mr. Obama is a son of an African-American immigrant. In reality Mr. Obama's father was here on a student visa and was never an immigrant in this country, and never even had a Green Card. He was Kenyan and since at that time Kenya was a British colony, he was a British citizen and transferred such British citizenship to his son at birth which in itself disqualifies Mr. Obama from Presidency and position of the Commander in Chief, regardless of where he was born: in US or Kenya.2. There are a number of sworn affidavits from Kenya stating that Mr. Obama was born there. State of HI statue 338 allows Foreign Born children of HI residents to get a certification of HI Live birth and it can be received base on a statement of one relative only. Mr. Obama never presented his original birth certificate and it stays sealed in the Health Department in Hi. He showed only a short version of Certification of Life birth issued in 2007, that is usually received when the original BC is not available, or altered, or illegible. HI health department confirmed that they have the original birth certificate, however they refused to provide to the citizens of this Nation any details: is it a BC of a foreign born child of a HI resident, was it obtained base on actual records from a hospital with a signature of a hospital official and the name and signature of the doctor, or was it obtained based on a statement of one relative only, who might be making a false statement in order to avoid going through expense and hassle of immigration procedures.3. Numerous volunteers have searched and checked hospital after hospital and no birthing records or vital records were ever found in any hospital in Hi.4. Additionally, around the age of 5 or 6 y. old Mr. Obama has immigrated to the Nation of Indonesia with his mother and stepfather Lolo Soetoro, and his school records from Indonesia show his name to be Barry Soetoro, citizenship -Indonesian. Since Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, his parents had te relinquish his US citizenship in order to obtain Indonesian citizenship for him.5. When Mr. Soetoro-Obama came back to this country, he studied at Occidental college. Mr.Soetoro-Obama keeps his immigration records, passports and school and university enrollment records sealed, however a number of his former classmates from Occidental college made statements, that they remember him as Barry Soetoro. There is an entry in CA journal of Assembly, showing financial aid given to foreign exchange students among them Soetoro from Indonesia. Mr. Soetoro -Obama has stated that he traveled to Pakistan in 1981, when there was a ban on US citizens to travel to Pakistan and the only reasonable explanation is that he traveled on his Indonesian passport. All of these facts show that as an adult Mr. Soetoro has confirmed his allegiance to Indonesia, while relinquishing his US citizenship.Due to all of the above Mr. Soetoro -Obama is not eligible, not legitimate for the position of the Commander in Chief. Taking orders from an illegitimate commander in Chief will mean taking orders that are not lawful, which would expose the military personal to court martial. The serviceman--------(your name) requests investigation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon of the matter. If members of Joint Chiefs of staff and Pentagon find that indeed Mr. Obama -Soetoro is ineligible, I would ask them to join as my plaintiffs in a legal action to be filed directly in the Supreme Court of the US, seeking removal of Mr. Obama from his position of President and Commander in Chief due to ineligibility and obtaining the position by virtue of fraudulent misrepresentation.Sincerely Dr. Orly Taitz Esq
26302 La Paz ste 211
Mission Viejo Ca 92691
29839 S. Margarita Pkwy
Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688
ph. w 949-586-8110 c-949-683-5411
fax 949-586-2082
--- On Sun, 2/1/09, morgan ward
From: morgan ward
Subject: Follow up on Hotel accomodations in DFW and a suggested remedy for Obama to prove elligibility from the military
To: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Cc: stevewhughes@yahoo.com
Date: Sunday, February 1, 2009, 6:04 AM
Dr Taitz, You had sent me an email as a representative of Plains Radio Network to assist you in locating availability of rooms for your April Conference. I have beed desperately inquiring and what I have come up with is not too positive. There are rooms available but spread all over the Dallas , Ft. Worth area, but not in Mass. I have been told that it would be nearly impossible to arrange such a large gathering in a close radius. I will still try as I want to help you find accomodations. In another matter. I would really like you to read and consider what I am going to share with you regarding an Article 138 UCMJ complaint. I am aware that you and Leo agree to the fact that ACTIVE duty military have the best chance at standing in a suit against Obama. I believe there is another way which would't require but one active duty personnel to initiate, and with NO harm to their Career. This is a little known method but I really believe can grant you huge dividends. Please take the time to consider the following. You may have to tweak the complaint and remedy a little, as I am just giving you the jest of my suggestion. The other part is the actual UCMJ article 138. Orly, I am a retired US Army SFC. Few people in the military are familiar with an Article 138 Investigation. While on Active duty, I felt I was wronged by my Battalion Commanding Officer, so I researched the UCMJ and found this: I filed an Article 138 Investigation upon my Commander and had never seen such a "hot potato". I literally brought my Field Artillery Battalion to a standstill for 2 days while the Battalion Commander decided what to do with my complaint. After my Commander had met with all of his aides and consulted legal advice from the US Army Jag Corps, I was granted exactly what I had demanded in my request for redress. This was both a written and an Oral appology to me by my Battallion Commander, (LTC) in front of 500 fellow officers and soldiers within my battallion. The beauty is that the person filing a grievance MUST be given a final Disposition, so this will eventually get to the Secretary of the Branch of Servive in which it is brought. in my case, it would have been the Secretary of the Army.And all of this without harming or in any way having any detrimental effect upon the person complaining. So, I offer the complaint: As a soldier I do not feel that President Barack Obama has proven his eligibility to be President of the US and therefore can't serve as Commander in Chief. I feel as though any order given to me now would be invalid as he is a Usurper. He has never been properly vetted and thus has never shown a vault copy of his birth certificate. I feel and I believe there is enough evidence to show that President Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen of the US and therefore is not qualified to be President in accordance to Article II of the US Constitution. My request for redress is that President Barack Obama be made to prove his eligibility by showing a certified, forensic proven, long copy of his Vault Copy of his Borth Certificate. This must include as a minimum his place of birth, attending physicians name, parents names and any other pertinent data required by the average citizen necessary in obtaining a US Passport. Below is the Actual Article 138 UCMJ Redress of Grievances: Article 138 of the UCMJ is one of the few provisions of the code that permits the service members to go on the offensive.This provision gives you the right to file a complaint against your Commanding Officer for ANY ( emphasis added by me) grievance you may have including harrassment, violations of your rights, unfair treatment, ect... ( again for ANY reason, added by me). Normally, before filing the complaint, you should seek to resolve the issue with your Commander. If this is not appropriate or not successful, you may file the complaint with the officer exercising General Court-Martial Authority over your Commander. ( In other words, this complaint keeps going upward thru the chain of command till resolved). The Commander MUST9 emphasis added by me) investigate the complaint and forward the results to the office of the Secretary of your Branch of Service, ( ie, The Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, etc). The manual for Court-Martials provide guidance on filing an Article 138 Complaint. In my case Orly, I just hand wrote my grievance and handed it to my Batallion Commander. The legal system took care of the rest. I can't emphsis enough, the Soldier must get an answer in resolving this. It will definately make it to the Secretary of the service originated in. There I know they will take appropriate action with the Joint Chief of Staff or Congress to get a resolution, otherwise the person originating the action would be free to disobey any order given to him/her. I hope you may use this as a basis to get Obama to prove his eligibility. This doesn't require 2000 military in a class action suit. It would only require one. It gets aroung the standing issue and will not harm the career of the person initiating the request. Just another thought as I hope it will help you. morgan ward830-980-2760
Somebody Sabotaged this Blog- new blog is DefendOurFreedoms.US
A number of people were reporting that somebody has sabotaged this blog. In order to solve the problem we have built a new blog DefendOurFreedoms.US You will be able to read the new blog and post your comments there
Thank you
Orly
Thank you
Orly
A few good men by EA Leo
Please post as article by EA LEO
A Call for a few Good Men & Women to Unite for Our Country
To find standing the Court need look no further than the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States, “We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect Union… do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Thus, “we the people,” individually, are established as one party among many to a contract binding upon the executors of this contract, our Constitution.
Who then are the executors of this contract with the people?
"We the people" in this cause assert that anyone and everyone who takes Oath to be bound by our Constitution becomes a party to this agreement.
Foremost among the parties counterbalanced upon this executory contract is the President of the United States, the Chief Executive or Executor of the Constitutional Contract.
When is the President bound to this contract, our Constitution? "We the People" contend that he is bound immediately, upon the taking of the Oath. In the instant case, Barack Hussein Obama became bound to our Constitutional Contract on January 20, 2009.
As in the cause of Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1 Crunch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), "We the People" seek fullfillment of our executory contract, our Constitution, by way of a Writ of Mandamus upon the executor by oath of said contract, the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama.
As succinctly stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, “If a persons duty is backed by law and not by political in nature, then he becomes subject of the law and is examinable by the court."
Thus, Barack Hussein Obama, having bound himself contractually by law to our Constitutional Contract is subject to the jurisdiction of the law, in this case the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court.
It is stated in United States v. Butterworth, 18 S. Ct. 441, 169 U.S. 600 at 602 (1898),
The office of a writ of mandamus is to compel the performance of a duty resting upon the person to whom the writ is sent. That duty may have originated in one way or in another. It may, as alleged in the present case, have arisen from the acceptance of an office which has imposed the duty upon its incumbent. But no matter out of what fact or relations the duty has grown, what the law requires, and what it seeks to enforce by a writ of mandamus, is the personal obligation of the individual to whom it addresses the writ.”
Following much good faith research regarding the issue of original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of the United States, "We the People" have found no cases in the history of jurisprudence of the United States of America wherein a Defendant disputed the Constitutional fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over “all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls” as plainly stated in the Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 2.
That being the case, "We the People" respectfully request that the Barack Hussein Obama stipulate to the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; or, in the alternative, that Barack Hussein Obama show good cause why the Supreme Court of the United States shall not have original jurisdiction over our cause.
A Call for a few Good Men & Women to Unite for Our Country
To find standing the Court need look no further than the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States, “We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect Union… do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Thus, “we the people,” individually, are established as one party among many to a contract binding upon the executors of this contract, our Constitution.
Who then are the executors of this contract with the people?
"We the people" in this cause assert that anyone and everyone who takes Oath to be bound by our Constitution becomes a party to this agreement.
Foremost among the parties counterbalanced upon this executory contract is the President of the United States, the Chief Executive or Executor of the Constitutional Contract.
When is the President bound to this contract, our Constitution? "We the People" contend that he is bound immediately, upon the taking of the Oath. In the instant case, Barack Hussein Obama became bound to our Constitutional Contract on January 20, 2009.
As in the cause of Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1 Crunch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), "We the People" seek fullfillment of our executory contract, our Constitution, by way of a Writ of Mandamus upon the executor by oath of said contract, the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama.
As succinctly stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, “If a persons duty is backed by law and not by political in nature, then he becomes subject of the law and is examinable by the court."
Thus, Barack Hussein Obama, having bound himself contractually by law to our Constitutional Contract is subject to the jurisdiction of the law, in this case the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court.
It is stated in United States v. Butterworth, 18 S. Ct. 441, 169 U.S. 600 at 602 (1898),
The office of a writ of mandamus is to compel the performance of a duty resting upon the person to whom the writ is sent. That duty may have originated in one way or in another. It may, as alleged in the present case, have arisen from the acceptance of an office which has imposed the duty upon its incumbent. But no matter out of what fact or relations the duty has grown, what the law requires, and what it seeks to enforce by a writ of mandamus, is the personal obligation of the individual to whom it addresses the writ.”
Following much good faith research regarding the issue of original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of the United States, "We the People" have found no cases in the history of jurisprudence of the United States of America wherein a Defendant disputed the Constitutional fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over “all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls” as plainly stated in the Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 2.
That being the case, "We the People" respectfully request that the Barack Hussein Obama stipulate to the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; or, in the alternative, that Barack Hussein Obama show good cause why the Supreme Court of the United States shall not have original jurisdiction over our cause.
My interview on True News was blocked by Microsoft Internet Explorer- and I thought Bill Gates was a decent guy
Hi Orly
During your interview with Marshall Washburn today, Microsoft Internet Explorer did not allow access to your blog page covering the interview
"http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/02/interview-today-1-est.html"
Please see attached file "ERROR TO TAITZ WEBPAGE 090202.doc" that captured screenshots to document this event.
Michael
cc:
news@trunews.com
marshall@trunews.com
Marshall Washburn
TRUNEWS
Production Manager
www.Trunews.com
Office: 1.561.792.6777
Cell: 1.423.316.9234
Mailing:
P.O. Box 212937
West Palm Beach, FL 33421
During your interview with Marshall Washburn today, Microsoft Internet Explorer did not allow access to your blog page covering the interview
"http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/02/interview-today-1-est.html"
Please see attached file "ERROR TO TAITZ WEBPAGE 090202.doc" that captured screenshots to document this event.
Michael
cc:
news@trunews.com
marshall@trunews.com
Marshall Washburn
TRUNEWS
Production Manager
www.Trunews.com
Office: 1.561.792.6777
Cell: 1.423.316.9234
Mailing:
P.O. Box 212937
West Palm Beach, FL 33421
Re alex Jones show from reader Netty
Alex Jones’ documentary, Endgame, is a MUST WATCH to learn how our elected officials, unable to represent our interests in the current shadow government, are complicit in having created indentured servants of all US citizens with our own money! Please pass on to those you care about.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261 (may need to cut and paste)
Best Regards,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261 (may need to cut and paste)
Best Regards,
Do you want to wronffully end up in a concentration camp on US soil?
Flag this messageBill creates detention camps in U.S. for 'emergencies' to Detain Law-Abiding U.S. CitizensMonday, February 2, 2009 12:02 PM
From: This sender is DomainKeys verified "Phillip Laird"Add sender to Contacts To: lairdpg@yahoo.com
Are you a law abiding American? You want to wrongfully end up in a concentration camp on U.S. soil?
If you are like me, you want to remain free in a free America. America is about to face a big dilemma if we don't united to stop bills like the crazy one below. You might think it has no chance, but if you don't do anything, if you don't stand up and be heard, this bill could pass! While Americans are forced to pay taxes, Obama is filling his cabinet with thugs that didn't pay their taxes but will oversee the agencies that enforce tax collection. On top of that Hillary Clinton and stated her satisfaction that the Law of the Sea Treaty is a good thing. Obama supports replacing our troops with the United Nations troops. Make that UN troops and UN police. Don't for one minute think that a police state is a good idea! Don't give up your freedom to those thugs in Washington, D.C. Please read the story below and then go read the official House of Representatives bill (HR 645) introduced by: Congressman Representative Alcee L. Hastings, D. Florida Phone: 1-202-225-1313FAX: 1-202-225-1171http://www.alceehastings.house.govDistrict Offices:Ft. Lauderdale: 1-954-733-2800West Palm Beach: 1-561-684-0565 Alcee Hastings is a super-liberal Progressive Democrat (Socialist) that has been in office for his 8th term. It is time to run him out of office! H.R. 645, which seeks to allocate $360 million for developing the emergency centers, has been referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and to the Committee on Armed Services. I am asking that each of you call this nut-job's office, FAX him, and email him and demand that he withdraw the bill. If you don't this thing may gain traction really fast. Call your senators and congressmen also and complain about Hastings and his dumb proposed legislation! If anything, America needs detention facilities for 545 congressmen and senators. I've never seen a U.S. Congress so corrupt and arrogant! PLEASE EMAIL THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. IF YOU KNOW FOLKS WITHOUT EMAIL ADDRESSES, PLEASE CALL THEM AND GIVE THEM THE DETAILS! WE SHOULD STOP THIS BILL AS A SHOW OF FREEDOM. LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Bill creates detention camps in U.S. for 'emergencies'
Sweeping, undefined purpose raises worries about military police state
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87757
From: This sender is DomainKeys verified "Phillip Laird"
Are you a law abiding American? You want to wrongfully end up in a concentration camp on U.S. soil?
If you are like me, you want to remain free in a free America. America is about to face a big dilemma if we don't united to stop bills like the crazy one below. You might think it has no chance, but if you don't do anything, if you don't stand up and be heard, this bill could pass! While Americans are forced to pay taxes, Obama is filling his cabinet with thugs that didn't pay their taxes but will oversee the agencies that enforce tax collection. On top of that Hillary Clinton and stated her satisfaction that the Law of the Sea Treaty is a good thing. Obama supports replacing our troops with the United Nations troops. Make that UN troops and UN police. Don't for one minute think that a police state is a good idea! Don't give up your freedom to those thugs in Washington, D.C. Please read the story below and then go read the official House of Representatives bill (HR 645) introduced by: Congressman Representative Alcee L. Hastings, D. Florida Phone: 1-202-225-1313FAX: 1-202-225-1171http://www.alceehastings.house.govDistrict Offices:Ft. Lauderdale: 1-954-733-2800West Palm Beach: 1-561-684-0565 Alcee Hastings is a super-liberal Progressive Democrat (Socialist) that has been in office for his 8th term. It is time to run him out of office! H.R. 645, which seeks to allocate $360 million for developing the emergency centers, has been referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and to the Committee on Armed Services. I am asking that each of you call this nut-job's office, FAX him, and email him and demand that he withdraw the bill. If you don't this thing may gain traction really fast. Call your senators and congressmen also and complain about Hastings and his dumb proposed legislation! If anything, America needs detention facilities for 545 congressmen and senators. I've never seen a U.S. Congress so corrupt and arrogant! PLEASE EMAIL THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. IF YOU KNOW FOLKS WITHOUT EMAIL ADDRESSES, PLEASE CALL THEM AND GIVE THEM THE DETAILS! WE SHOULD STOP THIS BILL AS A SHOW OF FREEDOM. LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Bill creates detention camps in U.S. for 'emergencies'
Sweeping, undefined purpose raises worries about military police state
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87757
Can someone help me get in touch with a writer of Huffington post Jason Linkins, e-mail dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Citizen's grand juries
We need volunteers to coordinate and form citizen's grand juries all over the country. Evidence of Barry Soetoro-Barack Obama's ineligibility/illegitimacy for presidency will be presented to those Citizen's Grand Juries for their decision on indictment or presentment. If you want to coordinate National or state or local effort in this matter, please e-mail me at dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Kanye Blagojevich Obama?
Odd reference in January 8, 2009's Huffington Post. In Jason Linkins' write up of From 'Barry' To 'Barack': Occidental College Video Has The Story
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/08/from-barry-to-barack-occi_n_156418.html?page=4
This photo is captioned:
Here's the President-Elect, during a period of time when he was known as "Kanye Blagojevich Obama." [Not pictured: the Weather Underground.]
What does that mean? Is it a reference to Obama knowing Kenye West and Rod Blagojevich during the 80s? Is it implying that Kenye West and Rod Blagojevich were also Weather Underground? Was this yet another alias Obama had?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/08/from-barry-to-barack-occi_n_156418.html?page=4
This photo is captioned:
Here's the President-Elect, during a period of time when he was known as "Kanye Blagojevich Obama." [Not pictured: the Weather Underground.]
What does that mean? Is it a reference to Obama knowing Kenye West and Rod Blagojevich during the 80s? Is it implying that Kenye West and Rod Blagojevich were also Weather Underground? Was this yet another alias Obama had?
Obama is now an Indian
I just got an obscure article by Sunlen Miller of ABC. According to this article last year Obama was adopted by an Indian couple from a Crow tribe. It gives him two advantages:
1. US citizenship
2.now he and his family can legally own casinos and other gambling operations
I would like to point out, that this trick will not cure his lack of Natural Born Citizen status . At birth he was a British citizen, based on his father's citizenship and he is illegitimate for Presidency of the United States, so he can build a csino on Crow territory, that's fine with me, but he cannot gamble with the future of this country, with the future of my and your children.
Orly
1. US citizenship
2.now he and his family can legally own casinos and other gambling operations
I would like to point out, that this trick will not cure his lack of Natural Born Citizen status . At birth he was a British citizen, based on his father's citizenship and he is illegitimate for Presidency of the United States, so he can build a csino on Crow territory, that's fine with me, but he cannot gamble with the future of this country, with the future of my and your children.
Orly
Interview today 1 EST
Dear Dr. Taitz,
I just wanted to send out this reminder that we were scheduled for an interview today at 1 EST. We appreciate you taking the time today to discuss the latest news concerning Obama’s fraudulent birth status and his secretive meeting with the Supreme Court. I will call you at 1-949-683-5411. Thanks Orly !
Marshall Washburn
TRUNEWS
Production Manager
www.Trunews.com
Office: 1.561.792.6777
Cell: 1.423.316.9234
Mailing:
P.O. Box 212937
West Palm Beach, FL 33421
UPS, FedEx, DHL Deliveries:
10130 Northlake Blvd.
Ste. 214 - 342
West Palm Beach , FL 33412
I just wanted to send out this reminder that we were scheduled for an interview today at 1 EST. We appreciate you taking the time today to discuss the latest news concerning Obama’s fraudulent birth status and his secretive meeting with the Supreme Court. I will call you at 1-949-683-5411. Thanks Orly !
Marshall Washburn
TRUNEWS
Production Manager
www.Trunews.com
Office: 1.561.792.6777
Cell: 1.423.316.9234
Mailing:
P.O. Box 212937
West Palm Beach, FL 33421
UPS, FedEx, DHL Deliveries:
10130 Northlake Blvd.
Ste. 214 - 342
West Palm Beach , FL 33412
Bill creates detention camps in US, from WorldNetDailey
How quickly can you say Hile Hitler, Zig Hile???
Read the article below. If this doesn't make your blood boil and doesn't urge you to fight these communist Nazi thugs and hoodlums that took over our government, then you are either one of them or you are already dead.
Orly
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Bill creates detention camps in U.S. for 'emergencies'
Sweeping, undefined purpose raises worries about military police state
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 01, 2009
7:19 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla.
Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla., has introduced to the House of Representatives a new bill, H.R. 645, calling for the secretary of homeland security to establish no fewer than six national emergency centers for corralling civilians on military installations.
The proposed bill, which has received little mainstream media attention, appears designed to create the type of detention center that those concerned about use of the military in domestic affairs fear could be used as concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany.
Heed the warning of a former Hitler Youth who sees America on the same path as pre-Nazi Germany in "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie" from WND Books!
The bill also appears to expand the president's emergency power, much as the executive order signed by President Bush on May 9, 2007, that, as WND reported, gave the president the authority to declare an emergency and take over the direction of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments without even consulting Congress.
As WND also reported, DHS has awarded a $385 million contract to Houston-based KBR, Halliburton's former engineering and construction subsidiary, to build temporary detention centers on an "as-needed" basis in national emergency situations.
(Story continues below)
According to the text of the proposed bill, the purpose of the National Emergency Centers is "to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster."
Three additional purposes are specified in the text of the proposed legislation:
To provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of federal, state and local first responders;
To provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response and recovery efforts of government, private, not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations;
To meet other appropriate needs, as defined by the secretary of homeland security.
The broad specifications of the bill's language, however, contribute to concern that the "national emergency" purpose could be utilized by the secretary of homeland security to include any kind of situation the government wants to contain or otherwise control.
Rep. Hastings created controversy during the 2008 presidential campaign with his provocative comments concerning Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
"If Sarah Palin isn't enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention," Hastings said, as reported by ABC News. "Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don't care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through."
H.R. 645, which seeks to allocate $360 million for developing the emergency centers, has been referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and to the Committee on Armed Services.
Read the article below. If this doesn't make your blood boil and doesn't urge you to fight these communist Nazi thugs and hoodlums that took over our government, then you are either one of them or you are already dead.
Orly
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Bill creates detention camps in U.S. for 'emergencies'
Sweeping, undefined purpose raises worries about military police state
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 01, 2009
7:19 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla.
Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla., has introduced to the House of Representatives a new bill, H.R. 645, calling for the secretary of homeland security to establish no fewer than six national emergency centers for corralling civilians on military installations.
The proposed bill, which has received little mainstream media attention, appears designed to create the type of detention center that those concerned about use of the military in domestic affairs fear could be used as concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany.
Heed the warning of a former Hitler Youth who sees America on the same path as pre-Nazi Germany in "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie" from WND Books!
The bill also appears to expand the president's emergency power, much as the executive order signed by President Bush on May 9, 2007, that, as WND reported, gave the president the authority to declare an emergency and take over the direction of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments without even consulting Congress.
As WND also reported, DHS has awarded a $385 million contract to Houston-based KBR, Halliburton's former engineering and construction subsidiary, to build temporary detention centers on an "as-needed" basis in national emergency situations.
(Story continues below)
According to the text of the proposed bill, the purpose of the National Emergency Centers is "to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster."
Three additional purposes are specified in the text of the proposed legislation:
To provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of federal, state and local first responders;
To provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response and recovery efforts of government, private, not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations;
To meet other appropriate needs, as defined by the secretary of homeland security.
The broad specifications of the bill's language, however, contribute to concern that the "national emergency" purpose could be utilized by the secretary of homeland security to include any kind of situation the government wants to contain or otherwise control.
Rep. Hastings created controversy during the 2008 presidential campaign with his provocative comments concerning Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
"If Sarah Palin isn't enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention," Hastings said, as reported by ABC News. "Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don't care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through."
H.R. 645, which seeks to allocate $360 million for developing the emergency centers, has been referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and to the Committee on Armed Services.
Open Letter to Senator Warren from Lt.Col. Dr. Earl-Graeff
Chicago Tribune Ad For Obama Records Extended Entries: Open Letter to Senator Warren from Lt.Col. Dr. Earl-Graeff: "Date: 1 Feb 2009,
Dear Senator Warren,
I am in receipt of your letter of 26 Jan 2009. While I thank you for taking the time to respond I can't express in words my disappointment in your response. I have given much thought to this issue and take offense in so much as you would apparently
dismiss my concerns without a thorough investigation into the validity of my questions. So it is that I am again compelled to write to you and ask your re-consideration. Please do not dismiss prima fasciae, as if this has already been addressed, but read what I have to say." Read more.
Dear Senator Warren,
I am in receipt of your letter of 26 Jan 2009. While I thank you for taking the time to respond I can't express in words my disappointment in your response. I have given much thought to this issue and take offense in so much as you would apparently
dismiss my concerns without a thorough investigation into the validity of my questions. So it is that I am again compelled to write to you and ask your re-consideration. Please do not dismiss prima fasciae, as if this has already been addressed, but read what I have to say." Read more.
Formal Request to Senator Cantwell
Download MS Doc Here
1 February 2009 Sunday
U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell, - (D - WA)
Washington, D.C. Office
511 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3441
202-228-0514 - FAX
via Fax: 202-228-0514
Re: U.S. Constitution; FIRST CONGRESS; THIRD CONGRESS
Dear Senator Cantwell:
Your representation as a U.S. Senator is formally requested within this letter. Due to a rapidly growing concern among voters in the State of Washington there appears to be a developing crisis requiring your membership in the U.S. Congress to fully cooperate with the voters and address four questions below.
In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) are margin notes that state "Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3." referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).
The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states,
"...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." [THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415] [Document margin note: "How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents" Document margin note: Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3] (Attachment A)
The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,
"...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." [[FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104] [Document margin note: Their children residing here, deemed citizens. Document margin note: Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.] (Attachment B)
The actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states,
“No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States
at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,
shall be eligible to the office of President…” (Attachment C)
The actual text in a January 26, 2009 letter issued by United States Senator, Mark R. Warner cites
“…the Immigration and Nationality Act (P.L. 82-414) …states that
‘…A person born...after April 30, 1900 is a CITIZEN (emphasis added)
of the United States at birth....’" (Attachment D)
WE, voters in the State of Washington, witness to these four documents cited, i.e.:
The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795
The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790
The actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789
The actual text in a January 26, 2009 letter issued by United States Senator, Mark R. Warner
and we also witness the apparent denial in the current United States Congress to address the phrase “natural born citizen.”
THEREFORE, WE formally request a comprehensive answer from your position as Senator to the following four questions:
ONE
As a U.S. Senator, how did you define the term “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” versus “CITIZENS” in regard to the 2008 U.S. Presidential election; as so stated in the U.S. Constitution, the FIRST and the THIRD Congress of the United States?
TWO
Are children of citizens (plural) of the United States granted citizenship if one parent is not a citizen of the United States; as the phrase “…children of citizens of the United States…” is so stated in FIRST and THIRD Congress of the United States?
THREE
To be a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” of the United States is a person required to be a child of “citizens (plural) of the United States” as the phrase “natural born citizen” is so stated in the U.S. Constitution, and the FIRST Congress of the United States?
FOUR
On behalf of voters in the State of Washington, will you provide us with comprehensive clarification from United States Senator Mark R. Warner regarding the legal difference between the legal term/phrases “CITIZEN of the United States” and “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States?”
In advance, I thank you for your prompt and comprehensive response to these four questions.
Very truly yours,
Michael Angelus
Attachments:
A: Image of original document THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21, 1795, p. 415
B: Image of original document FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.3, 1790, p. 104
C: Image of original document Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789:
D: United States Senator Mark Warner (Virginia) January 26, 2009 letter to Dr. David Earl-Graef
1 February 2009 Sunday
U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell, - (D - WA)
Washington, D.C. Office
511 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3441
202-228-0514 - FAX
via Fax: 202-228-0514
Re: U.S. Constitution; FIRST CONGRESS; THIRD CONGRESS
Dear Senator Cantwell:
Your representation as a U.S. Senator is formally requested within this letter. Due to a rapidly growing concern among voters in the State of Washington there appears to be a developing crisis requiring your membership in the U.S. Congress to fully cooperate with the voters and address four questions below.
In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) are margin notes that state "Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3." referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).
The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states,
"...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." [THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415] [Document margin note: "How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents" Document margin note: Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3] (Attachment A)
The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,
"...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." [[FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104] [Document margin note: Their children residing here, deemed citizens. Document margin note: Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.] (Attachment B)
The actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states,
“No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States
at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,
shall be eligible to the office of President…” (Attachment C)
The actual text in a January 26, 2009 letter issued by United States Senator, Mark R. Warner cites
“…the Immigration and Nationality Act (P.L. 82-414) …states that
‘…A person born...after April 30, 1900 is a CITIZEN (emphasis added)
of the United States at birth....’" (Attachment D)
WE, voters in the State of Washington, witness to these four documents cited, i.e.:
The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795
The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790
The actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789
The actual text in a January 26, 2009 letter issued by United States Senator, Mark R. Warner
and we also witness the apparent denial in the current United States Congress to address the phrase “natural born citizen.”
THEREFORE, WE formally request a comprehensive answer from your position as Senator to the following four questions:
ONE
As a U.S. Senator, how did you define the term “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” versus “CITIZENS” in regard to the 2008 U.S. Presidential election; as so stated in the U.S. Constitution, the FIRST and the THIRD Congress of the United States?
TWO
Are children of citizens (plural) of the United States granted citizenship if one parent is not a citizen of the United States; as the phrase “…children of citizens of the United States…” is so stated in FIRST and THIRD Congress of the United States?
THREE
To be a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” of the United States is a person required to be a child of “citizens (plural) of the United States” as the phrase “natural born citizen” is so stated in the U.S. Constitution, and the FIRST Congress of the United States?
FOUR
On behalf of voters in the State of Washington, will you provide us with comprehensive clarification from United States Senator Mark R. Warner regarding the legal difference between the legal term/phrases “CITIZEN of the United States” and “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States?”
In advance, I thank you for your prompt and comprehensive response to these four questions.
Very truly yours,
Michael Angelus
Attachments:
A: Image of original document THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21, 1795, p. 415
B: Image of original document FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.3, 1790, p. 104
C: Image of original document Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789:
D: United States Senator Mark Warner (Virginia) January 26, 2009 letter to Dr. David Earl-Graef
Formal Request to Senator Murray
Download Copy Here
1 February 2009 Sunday
U.S. Senator Patty Murray, (D - WA)
Washington, D.C. Office
173 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2621
Fax: (202) 224-0238
via Fax: (202) 224-0238
Re: U.S. Constitution; FIRST CONGRESS; THIRD CONGRESS
Dear Senator Murray:
Your representation as a U.S. Senator is formally requested within this letter. Due to a rapidly growing concern among voters in the State of Washington there appears to be a developing crisis requiring your membership in the U.S. Congress to fully cooperate with the voters and address four questions below.
In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) are margin notes that state "Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3." referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).
The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states,
"...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." [THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415] [Document margin note: "How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents" Document margin note: Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3] (Attachment A)
The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,
"...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." [[FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104] [Document margin note: Their children residing here, deemed citizens. Document margin note: Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.] (Attachment B)
The actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states,
“No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States
at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,
shall be eligible to the office of President…” (Attachment C)
The actual text in a January 26, 2009 letter issued by United States Senator, Mark R. Warner cites
“…the Immigration and Nationality Act (P.L. 82-414) …states that
‘…A person born...after April 30, 1900 is a CITIZEN (emphasis added)
of the United States at birth....’" (Attachment D)
U.S. Senator Patty Murray, (D - WA)
1 February 2009 Sunday
Page Two
WE, voters in the State of Washington, witness to these four documents cited, i.e.:
The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795
The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790
The actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789
The actual text in a January 26, 2009 letter issued by United States Senator, Mark R. Warner
and we also witness the apparent denial in the current United States Congress to address the phrase “natural born citizen.”
THEREFORE, WE formally request a comprehensive answer from your position as Senator to the following four questions:
ONE
As a U.S. Senator, how did you define the term “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” versus “CITIZENS” in regard to the 2008 U.S. Presidential election; as so stated in the U.S. Constitution, the FIRST and the THIRD Congress of the United States?
TWO
Are children of citizens (plural) of the United States granted citizenship if one parent is not a citizen of the United States; as the phrase “…children of citizens of the United States…” is so stated in FIRST and THIRD Congress of the United States?
THREE
To be a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” of the United States is a person required to be a child of “citizens (plural) of the United States” as the phrase “natural born citizen” is so stated in the U.S. Constitution, and the FIRST Congress of the United States?
FOUR
On behalf of voters in the State of Washington, will you provide us with comprehensive clarification from United States Senator Mark R. Warner regarding the legal difference between the legal term/phrases “CITIZEN of the United States” and “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States?”
In advance, I thank you for your prompt and comprehensive response to these four questions.
Very truly yours,
Michael Angelus
Attachments:
A: Image of original document THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21, 1795, p. 415
B: Image of original document FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.3, 1790, p. 104
C: Image of original document Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789:
D: United States Senator Mark Warner (Virginia) January 26, 2009 letter to Dr. David Earl-Graef
1 February 2009 Sunday
U.S. Senator Patty Murray, (D - WA)
Washington, D.C. Office
173 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2621
Fax: (202) 224-0238
via Fax: (202) 224-0238
Re: U.S. Constitution; FIRST CONGRESS; THIRD CONGRESS
Dear Senator Murray:
Your representation as a U.S. Senator is formally requested within this letter. Due to a rapidly growing concern among voters in the State of Washington there appears to be a developing crisis requiring your membership in the U.S. Congress to fully cooperate with the voters and address four questions below.
In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) are margin notes that state "Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3." referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).
The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states,
"...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." [THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415] [Document margin note: "How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents" Document margin note: Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3] (Attachment A)
The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,
"...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." [[FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104] [Document margin note: Their children residing here, deemed citizens. Document margin note: Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.] (Attachment B)
The actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states,
“No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States
at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,
shall be eligible to the office of President…” (Attachment C)
The actual text in a January 26, 2009 letter issued by United States Senator, Mark R. Warner cites
“…the Immigration and Nationality Act (P.L. 82-414) …states that
‘…A person born...after April 30, 1900 is a CITIZEN (emphasis added)
of the United States at birth....’" (Attachment D)
U.S. Senator Patty Murray, (D - WA)
1 February 2009 Sunday
Page Two
WE, voters in the State of Washington, witness to these four documents cited, i.e.:
The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795
The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790
The actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789
The actual text in a January 26, 2009 letter issued by United States Senator, Mark R. Warner
and we also witness the apparent denial in the current United States Congress to address the phrase “natural born citizen.”
THEREFORE, WE formally request a comprehensive answer from your position as Senator to the following four questions:
ONE
As a U.S. Senator, how did you define the term “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” versus “CITIZENS” in regard to the 2008 U.S. Presidential election; as so stated in the U.S. Constitution, the FIRST and the THIRD Congress of the United States?
TWO
Are children of citizens (plural) of the United States granted citizenship if one parent is not a citizen of the United States; as the phrase “…children of citizens of the United States…” is so stated in FIRST and THIRD Congress of the United States?
THREE
To be a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” of the United States is a person required to be a child of “citizens (plural) of the United States” as the phrase “natural born citizen” is so stated in the U.S. Constitution, and the FIRST Congress of the United States?
FOUR
On behalf of voters in the State of Washington, will you provide us with comprehensive clarification from United States Senator Mark R. Warner regarding the legal difference between the legal term/phrases “CITIZEN of the United States” and “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States?”
In advance, I thank you for your prompt and comprehensive response to these four questions.
Very truly yours,
Michael Angelus
Attachments:
A: Image of original document THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21, 1795, p. 415
B: Image of original document FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.3, 1790, p. 104
C: Image of original document Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789:
D: United States Senator Mark Warner (Virginia) January 26, 2009 letter to Dr. David Earl-Graef
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Open Letter to Senator Warren from Lt.Col Dr. Earl-Graeff
From: Dr. David A. Earl- Graef LtCol. USAFR
Date: 1 Feb 2009,
Dear Senator Warner,
I am in receipt of your letter of 26 Jan 2009. While I thank you for taking the time to respond I can’t express in words my disappointment in your response. I have given much thought to this issue and take offense in so much as you would apparently dismiss my concerns without a thorough investigation into the validity of my questions. So it is that I am again compelled to write to you and ask your re-consideration. Please do not dismiss prima fasciae, as if this has already been addressed, but read what I have to say.
The requirement to be a “Natural Born” citizen is very specific as you point out in Article II, Section 1, and Clause 5 as it applies to the office of the POTUS. The Framers in their construct recognize there IS a difference between a Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. The requirement was instituted to provide a safeguard that the POTUS would have undivided loyalty to the United States. I share the opinion of Attorneys Orly Taitz and Phil Berg who are among the Constitutional Attorneys bringing these cases to the State, Federal and Supreme Court that Natural Born status also requires that BOTH parents be citizens; a condition we know is NOT the instance in the case. This is not a trivial question left for Legal Academics to debate, it is about our Constitution and a matter for Congress and our Supreme Court.
To date, no case challenging the qualifications of President Obama to hold that Office has been heard on its merits. I have pleaded with Chief Justice Roberts to answer on the merits of the case and will continue barring action by the Congress to address my concerns. Most of the lawsuits are brought by concerned Citizens rightfully questioning if our Constitution is being followed and have been dismissed on lack of standing allowing questions to remain. The same lawsuits President Obama or those speaking for President Obama have referred to as Garbage!
I ask you now; is this the response you would also give the citizens addressing their concerns? Would you tell us our concerns are Garbage? I will trust in your integrity and believe it is not how you yourself would respond, if informed, as evidenced by your response to me to date. I believe you would simply give us what we need to reassure us. Given this could be put to rest by easily producing the supporting documents President Obama has sealed, do you think this is an appropriate response for a person in a position of public trust ?
There is much misinformation in the media. Even during the Inauguration, I heard it stated by Rick Warren that President Obama’s father was an “immigrant” from Kenya, yet it is known he was NOT an “immigrant “ and never had U.S. Citizenship at any time of his life. There are many other legitimate questions regarding the Constitutional qualifications of the POTUS. This is being aggravated by the President spending hundreds of thousands of dollars by reasonable estimates and using teams of attorneys to block the release of documents to support his qualifications. This includes the vault copy of the Official Birth Certificate held by the State of Hawaii you mentioned in your letter.
While I believe you answered my inquiry in good faith, I believe you misstate the facts in your letter. To my knowledge, at no point has the Hawaii Department of Health stated that he was actually BORN there. They stated they have his official Hawaii Birth Certificate on file and nothing more. Are you aware that Hawaii Statute allows one to obtain a Certificate of Live Birth ( i.e. the one Mr. Obama submitted as his ONLY “proof” to us on HIS web site ) on the unsubstantiated information provided by a single parent ? Are you aware that one may obtain this for a specified period of time even if born outside the US? Are you aware that if President Obama was born in Kenya, as some assert , his mother did not meet the legal requirements to even confer US citizenship on her son? Who was it that provided the information for the Hawaii certificate? Is there a Physicians signature on the original or not ? What was the Hospital where he was born? Not what his SISTER says but what is on the official document.
Does it not stand to reason President Obama should make it public so that competent authority can verify its authenticity? Does it not stand to reason that if everything is in order and there is nothing to hide this would have been done long before the election when this became a question rather than fight in the courts? Do you yourself not want to know the answers to these questions? Does the Constitution still matter ?
This situation by analogy would be like me giving a Hospital my Medical School Diploma and when they ask for my transcripts as a source document, I hire teams of attorneys to block the Hospital from getting it and start taking care of patients anyway. Then to make matters worse I tell them their efforts to require me to produce my transcripts are Garbage. How much more important is it that the person who has control of our military to produce supporting documents when asked ? This is absolutely absurd and an outrage to those of us who are informed, place our very lives at the feet of Liberty and are simply asking to have this issue settled. There are many other questions that remain unanswered which my attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz, would be happy to discuss with you.
I can’t imagine the demands currently placed upon your time and I am sympathetic to you. Nevertheless, you must also realize the potential catastrophic consequences to our Country if indeed we are already into a Constitutional crisis. This is a National disgrace if we allow our Constitution to be ignored simply because someone, perhaps in the DNC , did not do their job in properly vetting the candidates in this last election.
Please understand, I do not intend to convey any disrespect to you in any way, but I can’t contain my sense of betrayal that to date elected officials seem willing to let this pass without reasonable due process. It is also disappointing to me that you do not seem to appreciate the tremendous difficulty that this issue places upon each and every American soldier. Although I have over 15 years of credible military service I am at this moment struggling to decide if I must resign my commission as I can’t reconcile my Oath to defend the Constitution while being in doubt that those above me have respected it in word and deed. I know that I am only one Officer but there must be more, as they learn of this and they will, they will be faced with the same impossible decision. This is a classic Hobson’s choice for which the only hope of redemption is to know the truth.
Our History is replete with the memoirs of American soldiers and Statesman who have, due to the failure of their leaders or at the hand of destiny itself faced similar difficult decisions. One such soldier was Robert E. Lee who found himself divided between family loyalties to the South and loyalty to his Oath of Office. He then under extreme duress resigned his commission so that he would not be conflicted. As you know he chose his FAMILY heritage for which to take a stand.
Make no mistake, while the particular situation facing Gen. Lee was different in circumstance, in essence it is the same as we now face in the military and the same as is at the heart of the Natural Born Citizen requirement . I do not believe abandoning our Constitution is our destiny to forward the interests of a partisan Government but instead the failed actions of our leaders to address a legitimate issue regarding our Constitution.
My loyalty to the Constitution of the United States as per my Oath is and has been un-wavering. I have to this point and will continue to act in good faith as a United States Air Force Officer. I am only asking that this Constitutional issue be resolved, so that I may be able to continue in my service to my country and my President freely, without doubt or reservation.
If there is no problem with the qualifications of the POTUS this can be discovered very quickly by a full investigation by the Congress and we can all go about the business of daily life. Furthermore, the decisions you must make regarding the problems we face will actually have meaning and will not have to be redressed. They are difficult enough, I should think you would not what to have do make them again.
I continue to trust and it is my hope, as is the case with most Americans, you have a trusting heart and nature and that you have simply been misled. I implore you to bring this before the Congress. You have the right and I believe the responsibility to do this as I watched the proceedings on 8 Jan 2009 and as a Point of Order the Constitution was not followed for the opportunity to voice objections to the Electoral College was not given. This is too important to ignore and hope it will go away because it will NOT. If for any reason our concerns have merit with each stroke of the pen we get deeper and deeper as none of the actions of POTUS will have the force of law. Have you read some of the foreign press who are aware of this and may question the validity of treaties that may be signed? I have seen it myself. The potential harmful implications are staggering.
I do not believe you want in any way to have not acted and to make absolutely certain beyond any doubt we are not in the very midst of a Constitutional crisis. I do not believe you would want this, if the worst is true, to be the legacy of YOUR service to our Country. As difficult as this may be for you to bring to the attention of the Congress, it also is nothing less than the opportunity for you to take a stand and be counted among the Great Leaders of our Nation who have come before and risked their fortunes and their lives for the sake of Liberty and our sacred Constitution.
I heard it said many times during the long Campaign to the Presidency that if ever in our History we needed leadership it is now ! I am convinced that this is true. We need our Leaders to possess not only the wisdom of our Founding Fathers but the strength of conviction to see the challenges through in the face of daunting opposition if we are to survive as a sovereign Nation . Please investigate this more. I am confident that when you do you will appreciate the gravity of the situation and be compelled to act in defense of our Constitution.
Very Respectfully,
Dr. David A. Earl-Graef USAFR MC
Date: 1 Feb 2009,
Dear Senator Warner,
I am in receipt of your letter of 26 Jan 2009. While I thank you for taking the time to respond I can’t express in words my disappointment in your response. I have given much thought to this issue and take offense in so much as you would apparently dismiss my concerns without a thorough investigation into the validity of my questions. So it is that I am again compelled to write to you and ask your re-consideration. Please do not dismiss prima fasciae, as if this has already been addressed, but read what I have to say.
The requirement to be a “Natural Born” citizen is very specific as you point out in Article II, Section 1, and Clause 5 as it applies to the office of the POTUS. The Framers in their construct recognize there IS a difference between a Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. The requirement was instituted to provide a safeguard that the POTUS would have undivided loyalty to the United States. I share the opinion of Attorneys Orly Taitz and Phil Berg who are among the Constitutional Attorneys bringing these cases to the State, Federal and Supreme Court that Natural Born status also requires that BOTH parents be citizens; a condition we know is NOT the instance in the case. This is not a trivial question left for Legal Academics to debate, it is about our Constitution and a matter for Congress and our Supreme Court.
To date, no case challenging the qualifications of President Obama to hold that Office has been heard on its merits. I have pleaded with Chief Justice Roberts to answer on the merits of the case and will continue barring action by the Congress to address my concerns. Most of the lawsuits are brought by concerned Citizens rightfully questioning if our Constitution is being followed and have been dismissed on lack of standing allowing questions to remain. The same lawsuits President Obama or those speaking for President Obama have referred to as Garbage!
I ask you now; is this the response you would also give the citizens addressing their concerns? Would you tell us our concerns are Garbage? I will trust in your integrity and believe it is not how you yourself would respond, if informed, as evidenced by your response to me to date. I believe you would simply give us what we need to reassure us. Given this could be put to rest by easily producing the supporting documents President Obama has sealed, do you think this is an appropriate response for a person in a position of public trust ?
There is much misinformation in the media. Even during the Inauguration, I heard it stated by Rick Warren that President Obama’s father was an “immigrant” from Kenya, yet it is known he was NOT an “immigrant “ and never had U.S. Citizenship at any time of his life. There are many other legitimate questions regarding the Constitutional qualifications of the POTUS. This is being aggravated by the President spending hundreds of thousands of dollars by reasonable estimates and using teams of attorneys to block the release of documents to support his qualifications. This includes the vault copy of the Official Birth Certificate held by the State of Hawaii you mentioned in your letter.
While I believe you answered my inquiry in good faith, I believe you misstate the facts in your letter. To my knowledge, at no point has the Hawaii Department of Health stated that he was actually BORN there. They stated they have his official Hawaii Birth Certificate on file and nothing more. Are you aware that Hawaii Statute allows one to obtain a Certificate of Live Birth ( i.e. the one Mr. Obama submitted as his ONLY “proof” to us on HIS web site ) on the unsubstantiated information provided by a single parent ? Are you aware that one may obtain this for a specified period of time even if born outside the US? Are you aware that if President Obama was born in Kenya, as some assert , his mother did not meet the legal requirements to even confer US citizenship on her son? Who was it that provided the information for the Hawaii certificate? Is there a Physicians signature on the original or not ? What was the Hospital where he was born? Not what his SISTER says but what is on the official document.
Does it not stand to reason President Obama should make it public so that competent authority can verify its authenticity? Does it not stand to reason that if everything is in order and there is nothing to hide this would have been done long before the election when this became a question rather than fight in the courts? Do you yourself not want to know the answers to these questions? Does the Constitution still matter ?
This situation by analogy would be like me giving a Hospital my Medical School Diploma and when they ask for my transcripts as a source document, I hire teams of attorneys to block the Hospital from getting it and start taking care of patients anyway. Then to make matters worse I tell them their efforts to require me to produce my transcripts are Garbage. How much more important is it that the person who has control of our military to produce supporting documents when asked ? This is absolutely absurd and an outrage to those of us who are informed, place our very lives at the feet of Liberty and are simply asking to have this issue settled. There are many other questions that remain unanswered which my attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz, would be happy to discuss with you.
I can’t imagine the demands currently placed upon your time and I am sympathetic to you. Nevertheless, you must also realize the potential catastrophic consequences to our Country if indeed we are already into a Constitutional crisis. This is a National disgrace if we allow our Constitution to be ignored simply because someone, perhaps in the DNC , did not do their job in properly vetting the candidates in this last election.
Please understand, I do not intend to convey any disrespect to you in any way, but I can’t contain my sense of betrayal that to date elected officials seem willing to let this pass without reasonable due process. It is also disappointing to me that you do not seem to appreciate the tremendous difficulty that this issue places upon each and every American soldier. Although I have over 15 years of credible military service I am at this moment struggling to decide if I must resign my commission as I can’t reconcile my Oath to defend the Constitution while being in doubt that those above me have respected it in word and deed. I know that I am only one Officer but there must be more, as they learn of this and they will, they will be faced with the same impossible decision. This is a classic Hobson’s choice for which the only hope of redemption is to know the truth.
Our History is replete with the memoirs of American soldiers and Statesman who have, due to the failure of their leaders or at the hand of destiny itself faced similar difficult decisions. One such soldier was Robert E. Lee who found himself divided between family loyalties to the South and loyalty to his Oath of Office. He then under extreme duress resigned his commission so that he would not be conflicted. As you know he chose his FAMILY heritage for which to take a stand.
Make no mistake, while the particular situation facing Gen. Lee was different in circumstance, in essence it is the same as we now face in the military and the same as is at the heart of the Natural Born Citizen requirement . I do not believe abandoning our Constitution is our destiny to forward the interests of a partisan Government but instead the failed actions of our leaders to address a legitimate issue regarding our Constitution.
My loyalty to the Constitution of the United States as per my Oath is and has been un-wavering. I have to this point and will continue to act in good faith as a United States Air Force Officer. I am only asking that this Constitutional issue be resolved, so that I may be able to continue in my service to my country and my President freely, without doubt or reservation.
If there is no problem with the qualifications of the POTUS this can be discovered very quickly by a full investigation by the Congress and we can all go about the business of daily life. Furthermore, the decisions you must make regarding the problems we face will actually have meaning and will not have to be redressed. They are difficult enough, I should think you would not what to have do make them again.
I continue to trust and it is my hope, as is the case with most Americans, you have a trusting heart and nature and that you have simply been misled. I implore you to bring this before the Congress. You have the right and I believe the responsibility to do this as I watched the proceedings on 8 Jan 2009 and as a Point of Order the Constitution was not followed for the opportunity to voice objections to the Electoral College was not given. This is too important to ignore and hope it will go away because it will NOT. If for any reason our concerns have merit with each stroke of the pen we get deeper and deeper as none of the actions of POTUS will have the force of law. Have you read some of the foreign press who are aware of this and may question the validity of treaties that may be signed? I have seen it myself. The potential harmful implications are staggering.
I do not believe you want in any way to have not acted and to make absolutely certain beyond any doubt we are not in the very midst of a Constitutional crisis. I do not believe you would want this, if the worst is true, to be the legacy of YOUR service to our Country. As difficult as this may be for you to bring to the attention of the Congress, it also is nothing less than the opportunity for you to take a stand and be counted among the Great Leaders of our Nation who have come before and risked their fortunes and their lives for the sake of Liberty and our sacred Constitution.
I heard it said many times during the long Campaign to the Presidency that if ever in our History we needed leadership it is now ! I am convinced that this is true. We need our Leaders to possess not only the wisdom of our Founding Fathers but the strength of conviction to see the challenges through in the face of daunting opposition if we are to survive as a sovereign Nation . Please investigate this more. I am confident that when you do you will appreciate the gravity of the situation and be compelled to act in defense of our Constitution.
Very Respectfully,
Dr. David A. Earl-Graef USAFR MC
Why did BO's lawyer get such unbridled powers? Any guesses?
Please read the article attached. Yesterday I called BO's lawyer Robert Bauer- Der Gebbels Machine as a joke , but now I see it becoming a reality. How can a Democrat party still call themselves Democratic? Beats me.
Obama's lawyer consolidates power - Kenneth P. Vogel - Politico.com
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18232.html Obama's lawyer consolidates powerKenneth P. Vogel, Politico.com President Barack Obama has installed his personal and political attorney, Bob Bauer, as the Democratic Party’s new lawyer, a move that gives Bauer unmatched power in Democratic legal circles and marks him as a top behind-the-scenes player in the president’s inner circle.
In addition to representing Obama in personal matters, such as the federal investigation of disgraced former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, and political matters stemming from Obama’s presidential campaign, Bauer will also play that role for Obama’s new political network, Organizing for America, and the Democratic National Committee, which is administering the network.
The added work will mean a big pay day for Bauer, a leading election lawyer known for his shrewd but confrontational style, and his law firm, Perkins Coie, which becomes the preeminent Democratic firm. It already represents the Democrat’s Senate and House campaign committees.
It has reaped nearly $1.5 million in payments from Obama’s presidential campaign and an earlier political group since Bauer started representing Obama in 2005.
The move also completes the reshaping of the DNC in Obama’s image, a process that saw Obama allies take the reins at the highest levels of the party – including new chairman Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine and new executive director Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, formerly a top Obama campaign aide.
Perhaps the closest recent parallel to Bauer’s broad reach is Republican lawyer Ben Ginsberg. In 2000, he was counsel for the Bush-Cheney campaign and in the Florida recount, then for Bush’s effort at a post-election political network, Progress for America. But he did not serve as the top outside lawyer for the Republican National Committee at the time.
Bauer brushed off questions about whether there’s precedence for a single political attorney having such broad influence. And he asserted that his many hats did not pose a potential conflict, because "in representing the president, his campaign organization, and the DNC, I am representing his interests as a Democratic president and leader of his party."
But the confluence of duties could pose something of a challenge, because of potentially overlapping needs of his clients and because of his reputation for pushing the bounds of campaign finance law.
Over the years, he has expressed skepticism about the implementation and enforcement of campaign finance rules and sued the Federal Election Commission on behalf of a client challenging the commission’s restrictions on so-called “soft money.”
Obama, on the other hand, has cast himself as an ardent supporter of stricter campaign finance rules. And the DNC this month sought permission to fight a Republican lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of soft money restrictions.
Bauer, representing the DNC, in a recent court filing in the matter alleged that Republicans are "callously attempting to dismantle needed reforms to make up for their fundraising deficiencies."
The DNC’s stance jibed with the concerns of advocates for stricter campaign rules, who worked closely with Obama during his days in the Senate and maintain high hopes he’ll champion their agenda as president.
Yet, they also blasted candidate Obama for a campaign maneuver in which Bauer played a central role: Obama’s reversal of a pledge to participate in the public financing system if his Republican opponent agreed to do the same. Campaign finance advocates predicted the move likely killed the system, which was intended to reduce the role of big-money in politics, but it also gave Obama a huge cash advantage over his Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain, who accepted the $84 million public grant and its spending limits.
In explaining Obama’s decision to opt out of the system, Bauer claimed McCain’s top lawyer, Trevor Potter, rebuffed efforts to negotiate an agreement under which the two candidates would both participate in the system.
But Potter, rejected that characterization, alleging Bauer never tried to negotiate a deal.
Obama has pledged to fix the system as president. But Bauer in a 2005 post on his influential blog, suggested efforts to fix the system face tough prospects because public “support is needed and not forthcoming.”
It would be a good thing if Bauer convinced Obama to proceed cautiously on campaign finance reforms, said Brad Smith, a former FEC chairman who now heads the anti-regulation Center for Competitive Politics. He praised Bauer as “an exceptionally skilled lawyer” and asserted he “understands many of the ways in which campaign finance reform has failed.”
In many ways, Bauer’s role in Obama’s presidential campaign transcended the traditional general counsel role. He helped craft lines of attack and once famously ambushed a press conference call held by rival Hillary Clinton’s campaign to challenge her campaign’s accusations that Obama supporters violated caucus rules.
Bauer’s wife, Anita Dunn, was also a top adviser to Obama’s campaign.
Obama's lawyer consolidates power - Kenneth P. Vogel - Politico.com
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18232.html Obama's lawyer consolidates powerKenneth P. Vogel, Politico.com President Barack Obama has installed his personal and political attorney, Bob Bauer, as the Democratic Party’s new lawyer, a move that gives Bauer unmatched power in Democratic legal circles and marks him as a top behind-the-scenes player in the president’s inner circle.
In addition to representing Obama in personal matters, such as the federal investigation of disgraced former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, and political matters stemming from Obama’s presidential campaign, Bauer will also play that role for Obama’s new political network, Organizing for America, and the Democratic National Committee, which is administering the network.
The added work will mean a big pay day for Bauer, a leading election lawyer known for his shrewd but confrontational style, and his law firm, Perkins Coie, which becomes the preeminent Democratic firm. It already represents the Democrat’s Senate and House campaign committees.
It has reaped nearly $1.5 million in payments from Obama’s presidential campaign and an earlier political group since Bauer started representing Obama in 2005.
The move also completes the reshaping of the DNC in Obama’s image, a process that saw Obama allies take the reins at the highest levels of the party – including new chairman Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine and new executive director Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, formerly a top Obama campaign aide.
Perhaps the closest recent parallel to Bauer’s broad reach is Republican lawyer Ben Ginsberg. In 2000, he was counsel for the Bush-Cheney campaign and in the Florida recount, then for Bush’s effort at a post-election political network, Progress for America. But he did not serve as the top outside lawyer for the Republican National Committee at the time.
Bauer brushed off questions about whether there’s precedence for a single political attorney having such broad influence. And he asserted that his many hats did not pose a potential conflict, because "in representing the president, his campaign organization, and the DNC, I am representing his interests as a Democratic president and leader of his party."
But the confluence of duties could pose something of a challenge, because of potentially overlapping needs of his clients and because of his reputation for pushing the bounds of campaign finance law.
Over the years, he has expressed skepticism about the implementation and enforcement of campaign finance rules and sued the Federal Election Commission on behalf of a client challenging the commission’s restrictions on so-called “soft money.”
Obama, on the other hand, has cast himself as an ardent supporter of stricter campaign finance rules. And the DNC this month sought permission to fight a Republican lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of soft money restrictions.
Bauer, representing the DNC, in a recent court filing in the matter alleged that Republicans are "callously attempting to dismantle needed reforms to make up for their fundraising deficiencies."
The DNC’s stance jibed with the concerns of advocates for stricter campaign rules, who worked closely with Obama during his days in the Senate and maintain high hopes he’ll champion their agenda as president.
Yet, they also blasted candidate Obama for a campaign maneuver in which Bauer played a central role: Obama’s reversal of a pledge to participate in the public financing system if his Republican opponent agreed to do the same. Campaign finance advocates predicted the move likely killed the system, which was intended to reduce the role of big-money in politics, but it also gave Obama a huge cash advantage over his Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain, who accepted the $84 million public grant and its spending limits.
In explaining Obama’s decision to opt out of the system, Bauer claimed McCain’s top lawyer, Trevor Potter, rebuffed efforts to negotiate an agreement under which the two candidates would both participate in the system.
But Potter, rejected that characterization, alleging Bauer never tried to negotiate a deal.
Obama has pledged to fix the system as president. But Bauer in a 2005 post on his influential blog, suggested efforts to fix the system face tough prospects because public “support is needed and not forthcoming.”
It would be a good thing if Bauer convinced Obama to proceed cautiously on campaign finance reforms, said Brad Smith, a former FEC chairman who now heads the anti-regulation Center for Competitive Politics. He praised Bauer as “an exceptionally skilled lawyer” and asserted he “understands many of the ways in which campaign finance reform has failed.”
In many ways, Bauer’s role in Obama’s presidential campaign transcended the traditional general counsel role. He helped craft lines of attack and once famously ambushed a press conference call held by rival Hillary Clinton’s campaign to challenge her campaign’s accusations that Obama supporters violated caucus rules.
Bauer’s wife, Anita Dunn, was also a top adviser to Obama’s campaign.
US Attorney Coordinator
Jean Kulig-Tucker, Founder, http://www.wethepeopleusa.ning.com/ is coordinating visits to the US Attorney's.
Please email Jean through her web site or at msjkulig430@aol.com and put US Attorney in the subject line.
Copy of her letter:
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Matthew W. Friedrich
U.S. Department of Justice - Criminal Division Public Integrity Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/
January 6, 2009 (sent via email w/confirmation received)
Dear Mr. Friedrich,
I am requesting a written response from you that specifically provides answers to the following important questions that I have outlined in this letter. In particular, I am most interested in finding out the answer to the following question, "Who is actually responsible for verifying "presidential eligibility" when the Secretaries of State, State Election officials, the Federal Election Commission and the Judiciary ALL fail in their duty to protect the election process, the Constitutional rights of American Citizens/Voters and their fiduciary and sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America?"
It appears that there is mounting, if not conclusive, documentary evidence that Barack H. Obama, aka, Barry Soetoro, is not a "natural born" citizen, as provided by Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution, and therefore, is Constitutionally ineligible to hold the Office of President of the United States.
As an attorney, I am sure that you are aware that every American has what lawyers call "an implied cause of action"--directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution--to require that anyone standing for "the Office of President" must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible.
If Obama is not "a natural born citizen" or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for "the Office of President" (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be "elected" by the voters. So, if Obama dares to take the Presidential "Oath or Affirmation" of office on January 20, 2009, knowing that he is not "a natural born Citizen," he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for "the Office of President, he cannot "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States," or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the "Oath or Affirmation" will be a violation thereof!
If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country would be likely destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed--irretrievably.If the "Oath or Affirmation" being perjured from the beginning, Obama's every subsequent act in the usurped "Office of President" will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.
Most importantly, since Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy "the Office of President." The Constitution provides that "[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States" (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as "the President of the United States," but to the true and rightful President.
For an analysis of the pending and imminent Constitutional Crisis, please read the following article written by Dr. Edwin Viera, Ph.D., J.D., titled, "Obama Must Stand Up or Step Down" at the following link. http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
I am writing to you today because I wish to clarify that my understanding of the law, in that, ultimately, it is my understanding that the DOJ's Criminal Division's Public Integrity has the authority to take the required actions to protect the Constitutional rights of American voters and to safeguard the election process by making absolutely certain that only an "eligible" Presidential candidate is sworn in on inauguration day.
Please note that information that I have outlined below has been taken from the DOJ's own Manual on how to prosecute "election" fraud and other related crimes concerning the election process. Also note that I did not even touch upon the issue of illegal "campaign" funds that Mr. Obama has purportedly received, as this letter is intended to address Presidential eligibility. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/pin/docs/electbook-rvs0807.pdf
To keep on topic, and to make my questions easier for you to understand and answer, I have copied and pasted key paragraphs directly from the DOJ's own manual in "italics." I have also added my comments and concerns at the end of key paragraphs and I have outlined my questions in bold. I am respectfully requesting that you provide a written response all 30 Questions that appear in bold, as these are the most pressing questions on my mind and on the minds of a growing number of American citizens.
As you know, the DOJ Manual states that, "The federal government asserts jurisdiction over an election offense to ensure that basic rights of United States citizenship, and a fundamental process of representative democracy, remain uncorrupted. The prosecution of all federal election crimes represents an important law enforcement objective. These enhanced enforcement efforts have not only served to protect a cornerstone of American democracy against corruption and abuse, they also have helped federal law enforcement attain an investigative foothold against other criminal activities that election crimes are often committed to foster or protect.
The ultimate goal in an election crime is to move up the ladder of culpability to candidates, political operatives, public officials, and others who attempted to corrupt, or did corrupt, the public office involved and Federal jurisdiction over election fraud is easily established in elections when a federal candidate is on the ballot. In such cases, the federal interest is based on the presence of a federal candidate, whose election may be tainted, or appear tainted, by the fraud, a potential effect that Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate under Article I, Section 2, clause 1; Article I, Section 4, clause 1; Article II, Section 1, clause 2; and the Seventeenth Amendment.
In 2002, the Department of Justice established a Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative to spearhead its increased efforts to address election crimes and voting rights violations. Under the ongoing Initiative, election crimes are a high law enforcement priority of the Department.The Constitution confers upon the states primary authority over the election process. Accordingly, federal law does not directly address how elections should be conducted. However, local law enforcement often is not equipped to prosecute election offenses. Federal law enforcement might be the only enforcement option available.
The federal prosecutor's role in matters involving corruption of the process by which elections are conducted, on the other hand, focuses on prosecuting individuals who commit federal crimes in connection with an election.
1. What preventative measures has the DOJ or other governmental organizations/political campaigns taken (systems of checks and balances) to make certain that Presidential Candidates are indeed, Constitutionally "eligible" to be POTUS?
Determining whether an election fraud allegation warrants federal criminal investigation and possible prosecution requires that federal prosecutors and investigators answer two basic questions.
(1) Is criminal prosecution the appropriate remedy for the allegations and facts presented? Criminal prosecution is most appropriate when the facts demonstrate that the defendant's objective was to corrupt the process by which voters were registered, or by which ballots were obtained, cast, or counted.
(2) Is there potential federal jurisdiction over the conduct? Answering this question requires determining whether the conduct is cognizable under the federal criminal statutes that apply to election crimes. These generally allow for the prosecution of corrupt acts that occur in elections when the name of a federal candidate appears on the ballot, that are committed "under color of law," that involve voting by non-citizens, that focus on registering to vote, and when the election fraud is part of a larger public corruption problem reachable using general anti-corruption statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 666, 1341, 1346, 1951, and 1952.
Justice Department supervision over the enforcement of all criminal statutes and prosecutive theories involving corruption of the election process, criminal patronage violations, and campaign financing crimes is delegated to the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section. This Headquarters' consultation policy is set forth in the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. ATTORNEYS' MANUAL (USAM), Section 9-85.210.
The Public Integrity Section and its Election Crimes Branch are available to assist United States Attorneys' Offices and FBI field offices in handling election crime matters. This assistance includes evaluating election crime allegations, structuring investigations, and drafting indictments and other pleadings. The Election Crimes Branch also serves as the point of contact between the Department of Justice and the FEC, which share enforcement jurisdiction over federal campaign financing violations.
A Historic background regarding the election process details many early Enforcement Acts that were put in place to ensure that elections were free from corruption for the general public. Many of the Enforcement Acts had broad jurisdictional predicates that allowed them to be applied to a wide variety of corrupt election practices when a federal candidate was on the ballot. In Coy, the Supreme Court held that Congress had authority under the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause to regulate any activity during a mixed federal/state election that exposed the federal election to potential harm, whether that harm materialized or not. Coy is still applicable law. United States v. Carmichael, 685 F.2d 903, 908 (4th Cir. 1982); United States v. Mason, 673 F.2d 737, 739 (4th Cir.1982); United States v. Malmay, 671 F.2d 869, 874-75 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Bowman, 636 F.2d 1003, 1010 (5th Cir.1981).
After Reconstruction, federal activism in election matters subsided. The repeal of most of the Enforcement Acts in 1894 eliminated the statutory tools that had encouraged federal activism in election fraud matters. Two surviving provisions of these Acts, now embodied in 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, covered only intentional deprivations of rights guaranteed directly by the Constitution or federal law. The courts during this period held that the Constitution directly conferred a right to vote only for federal officers, and that conduct aimed at corrupting nonfederal contests was not prosecutable in federal courts. See United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476 (1917); Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915). Federal attention to election fraud was further limited by case law holding that primary elections were not part of the official election process, Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1918), and by cases like United States v. Bathgate, 246 U.S. 220 (1918), which read the entire subject of vote buying out of federal criminal law, even when it was directed at federal contests.
In 1941, the Supreme Court reversed direction, overturning Newberry. The Court recognized that primary elections are an integral part of the process by which candidates are elected to office. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941). Classic changed the judicial attitude toward federal intervention in election matters and ushered in a new period of federal activism. Federal courts now regard the right to vote in a fairly conducted election as a constitutionally protected feature of United States citizenship. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). In 1973, the use of Section 241 to address election fraud began to expand. See, e.g., United States v. Anderson, 481 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1973), aff'd on other grounds, 417 U.S. 211 (1974). Since then, this statute has been successfully applied to prosecute certain types of local election fraud. United States v. Wadena, 152 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 1998); United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir.1985); United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Stollings, 501 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1974).
Over the past forty years Congress has enacted new criminal laws with broad jurisdictional bases to combat false voter registrations, vote buying, multiple voting, and fraudulent voting in elections in which a federal candidate is on the ballot. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973i(c), 1973i(e), 1973gg-10. These statutes rest on Congress's power to regulate federal elections (U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4) and on its power under the Necessary and Proper Clause (U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 18) to enact laws to protect the federal election process from the potential of corruption. The federal jurisdictional predicate underlying these statutes is satisfied as long as either the name of a federal candidate is on the ballot or the fraud involves corruption of the voter registration process in a state where one registers to vote simultaneously for federal as well as other offices. United States v. Slone, 411 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. McCranie, 169 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Garcia, 719 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1983); United States v. Mason, 673 F.2d 737 (4th Cir. 1982); United States v. Malmay, 671 F.2d 869 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Bowman, 636 F2d 1003 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Barker, 514 F.2d 1077 (7th Cir. 1975); United States v. Cianciulli, 482 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Pa. 1979).
My comments: As we can see, although election laws may have changed and evolved over the years, Congress has already granted authority to the DOJ to look into and resolve matters that may take away someone's opportunity to vote for an "eligible" candidate of their choice or to verify that there is no corruption, conspiracy, misinformation or other irregularities that may taint an election, whether proven or not.
To date, there is an enormous amount of evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, or the alternative, that he was born in Hawaii, but that the COLB shown on his web site, http://www.fightthesmears.com/ is actually a forgery. Or, alternatively, that the COLB issued actually registered an oversees birth. Please note that Mr. Obama has steadfastly refused to provide the vault or long-form copy of his birth certificate and has spend upwards of one million dollars fighting legal battles to prohibit the release of the birth certificate the Hawaiian DOH has stated is on file in Hawaii, but did not verify/state conclusively that Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii. Additionally, it has also been posted by Obama himself on his web site, that he held dual citizenship at birth since his father was a Kenyan national, thereby making him ineligible to serve as POTUS. Further evidence suggests that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship status when he was adopted or acknowledged by his stepfather, Loro Soetero in Indonesian, that he reaffirmed his Indonesian citizenship as an adult when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 on an Indonesian passport, that he never officially went through a naturalization process to regain U.S. Citizenship and that he never officially changed his name from Barry Soetoro to Barack H. Obama.
2. Therefore, if the DOJ is tasked to act on the possibility to corrupt or taint the election "whether proven or not" what is the DOJ's position on the aforementioned issues; has each issue been thoroughly investigated and if investigated, by whom, and what are the end results of the investigations?
Election fraud involves a substantive irregularity relating to the voting act which has the potential to taint the election itself. activity intended to interfere corruptly with any of the principles indicated below may be actionable as a federal crime:
1. All qualified voters have the right to have their votes counted fairly and honestly. 3. Is a vote for a usurper a legally valid vote? 4. Is a vote for a known usurper a criminal offense?
2. Invalid ballots dilute the worth of valid ballots, and therefore will not be counted. 5. Are ballets that do not have the name of an eligible candidate automatically invalid?
Simply put, then, election fraud is conduct intended to corrupt. For example:
• The process by which ballots are obtained, marked, or tabulated.
• The process by which election results are canvassed and certified. (invalid ballets/votes for a usurper can not be certified as valid ballots or votes)
The following is a basis for federal prosecution under the statutes referenced in each category:
• Conspiring to prevent voters from participating in elections in which a federal candidate is on the ballot, or when done "under color of law" in any election, federal or nonfederal (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). 6. Is tricking voters into thinking that an eligible candidate is on the ballot a conspiracy to defraud?
• Malfeasance by election officials acting "under color of law" by performing such acts as diluting valid ballots with invalid ones (ballot-box stuffing), rendering false tabulations of votes, or preventing valid voter registrations or votes from being given effect in any election, federal or nonfederal (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242), as well as in elections in which federal candidates are on the ballot (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973i(c), 1973i(e), 1973gg-10(2)). 7. Doesn't the FEC and Secretaries of State have a fiduciary duty to make sure that when questions come up regarding a candidates eligibility to be on the ballot, they have an obligation to make certain that the candidate is indeed eligible?
Although under the Constitution, the states retain broad jurisdiction over the elective process. When the federal government enters the field of elections, it does so to address specific federal interests. For example:
(1) the protection of the federal election process against corruption.(this must occur when states fail to act)
(2) the protection of the voting process from corruption accomplished.(this must occur when states fail to act)
In the Conspiracy Against Rights. 18 U.S.C. § 241, Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to "conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States" under color of law. The Supreme Court long ago recognized that the right to vote for federal offices is among the rights secured by Article I, Sections 2 and 4, of the Constitution, and hence is protected by Section 241. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Ex parte Yarborough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884). 8. Is a vote for a usurper still a vote? 9. Can a citizen exercise his/her voting right, if there is no equalized candidate to vote for in the same way as a citizen can not sell you his/her neighbor's car if he/she does not hold the title to the car? 10. Doesn't the DOJ have an obligation to the American people to make certain that before AND after a federal election that a presidential candidate is eligible to hold office?Section 241 has been an important statutory tool in election crime prosecutions. Originally held to apply only to schemes to corrupt elections for federal office.
Section 241 embraces conspiracies such as to injure, threaten, or intimidate a voter in the exercise of his right to vote, Wilkins v. United States, 376 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1967); Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544 (4th Cir. 1955). Section 241 does not require that the conspiracy be successful, United States v. Bradberry, 517 F.2d 498 (7th Cir. 1975), nor need there be proof of an overt act. Section 241 reaches conduct affecting the integrity of the federal election process as a whole, and does not require fraudulent action with respect to any particular voter. United States v. Nathan, 238 F.2d 401 (7th Cir. 1956). 11. Does section 241 embrace conspiracies intended to injure because an injury does NOT really even need to occur? 12. Does the DOJ have to have conclusive proof of an overt act before they will act? 13. In the case of Obama, doesn't just the question have to be raised (no conclusive proof required) that he "may not" meet the "eligibility" requirements to become fairly and rightfully elected to the office of POTUS to prompt the DOJ to become involved?
In election fraud cases, this public official is usually an election officer using his office to dilute valid ballots with invalid ballots or to otherwise corrupt an honest vote tally in derogation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Haynes, 977 F.2d 583 (6th Cir. 1992) (table) (available at 1992 WL 296782); United States v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070 (8th Cir. 1988); United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Stollings, 501 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1974); United States v. Anderson, 481 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1973), aff'd on other grounds, 417 U.S. 211 (1974). 14. In failing to fulfill his/her fiduciary duties, did our Secretaries of State and Federal Election Commission officials allow an "invalid" candidate to be placed on the ballot, thereby, corrupting an honest vote and violating the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
My Comments: Please note that is also my contention that John McCain was also an "ineligible" presidential candidate. Please see the analysis written by Gabriel J. Chin in the Michigan Law Review titled, "Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship," at the following link: http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/chin.htm
Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law 18 U.S.C. § 242. Section 242, also enacted as a post-Civil War statute, makes it unlawful for anyone acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive a person of any right, privilege, or immunity secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Prosecutions under Section 242 need not show the existence of a conspiracy. However, the defendants must have acted illegally "under color of law," i.e., the case must involve a public scheme, as discussed above. This element does not require that the defendant be a de jure officer or a government official; it is sufficient if he or she jointly acted with state agents in committing the offense, United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966), or if his or her actions were made possible by the fact that they were clothed with the authority of state law, Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97 (1951); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941). 15. Would this law make it a CRIME for ANYONE who knowingly acted in concert with Obama to cover up his scheme to defraud the American people, by posing as an "eligible" candidate? 16. If so, would they be subject to prosecution to the fullest extent of the law?
False Information in, and Payments for, Registering and Voting. 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(c) Section 1973i(c) makes it unlawful, in an election in which a federal candidate is on the ballot, to knowingly and willfully conspire with another person to vote illegally. Congress added Section 1973i(c) to the 1965 Voting Rights Act to ensure the integrity of the balloting process in the context of an expanded franchise. In so doing, Congress intended that Section 1973i(c) have a broad reach. 17. If Obama or his co-conspirators knowingly registered voters by promising Change and Hope, knowing full well that he was NOT "eligible" to hold office, would this mean that not only did he commit fraud, but that he committed a crime against 42 U.S.C?
Section 1973i(c) has been held to protect two distinct aspects of a federal election: the actual results of the election, and the integrity of the process of electing federal officials. United States v. Cole, 41 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 1994). In Cole, the Seventh Circuit held that federal jurisdiction is satisfied so long as a single federal candidate is on the ballot - even if the federal candidate is unopposed - because fraud in a mixed election automatically has an impact on the integrity of the federal election process. See also United States v. Alone, 411 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2005); and United States v. McCranie, 169 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1999) (jurisdiction under Section 1973i(c) satisfied by name of unopposed federal candidate on ballot). 18. Would it be true that ANY conduct that violates the "integrity" of an election is a CRIME? 19. Therefore, doesn't the DOJ have an obligation to act, as the integrity of the presidential election has already been called into question by a silent majority of Americans?
Section 1973i(c) is particularly useful for two reasons: (1) it eliminates the unresolved issue of the scope of the constitutional right to vote in matters not involving racial discrimination, and (2) it eliminates the need to prove that a given pattern of corrupt conduct had an actual impact on a federal election. 20. Since the law states that the DOJ can get involved in any matter not involving racial discrimination and it also eliminates the NEED TO PROVE that a corrupt conduct had an actual impact on the election, shouldn't this be an issue for the DOJ to vigorously pursue?
Conspiracy to cause illegal voting. The second clause of Section 1973i(c) criminalizes conspiracies to encourage "illegal voting." The phrase "illegal voting" is not defined in the statute. On its face it encompasses unlawful conduct in connection with voting. 21. Because the phrase "illegal" voting has not been defined by statute, does this mean that a vote for candidate you know or suspect does not meet the eligibility requirements could be considered an "illegal" vote," because, if proven, that this is indeed the case, that the person actually casting an "illegal" vote would be committing a CRIME?
Conspiracy against rights and deprivation of constitutional rights. 18 U.S.C. § 241 and § 242 Section 241 makes it a ten-year felony to "conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate" any person in the free exercise of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States" - including the right to vote. 22. Wouldn't that mean that another CRIME was committed by Mr. Obama and parties at the DNC if they conspired to prohibit Americans from exercising their rights under law?
False claims of citizenship. 18 U.S.C. § 911 Section 911 prohibits the knowing and willful false assertion of United States citizenship by a noncitizen. See, e.g., United States v. Franklin, 188 F.2d 182 (7th Cir. 1951); Fotie v. United States, 137 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1943). Violations of Section 911 are punishable by up to three years of imprisonment.
As noted, all states require United States citizenship as a prerequisite for voting. Section 911 requires proof that the offender was aware he was not a United States citizen, and that he was falsely claiming to be a citizen. Violations of Section 911 are felonies, punishable by up to three years of imprisonment. 23. If Mr. Obama presented himself as a U.S. Citizen and he is NOT, did that mean that when Obama voted in this past election, that he committed yet, another CRIME?
"Honest services" fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1346 As summarized above, prior to McNally nearly all the circuits had held that a scheme to defraud the public of a fair and impartial election was one of the "intangible rights" schemes covered by the mail and wire fraud statutes. McNally repudiated this theory in an opinion that not only rejected the intangible rights theory of mail and wire fraud, but did so by citing several election fraud cases as examples of the kinds of fraud the Court found outside these criminal laws.
The following year, Congress responded to McNally by enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which defined "scheme or artifice to defraud" to include "the intangible right of honest services." However, this language did not clearly restore the use of these statutes to election frauds. This is because Section 1346 encompasses only schemes to deprive a victim of the intangible right of "honest services," and most voter fraud schemes do not appear to involve such an objective. Moreover, jurisprudence in the arena of public corruption has generally confined Section 1346 to schemes involving traditional forms of corruption that involve a clear breach of the fiduciary duty of "honest services" owed by a public official to the body politic, e.g., bribery, extortion, embezzlement, theft, conflicts of interest, and, in some instances, gratuities. 24. Would it be fair to assume that, whether knowingly or not, elected officials and other public servants have breached their fiduciary duty to provide "honest services" to American citizens in this last election?"
Cost-of-election" theory. 18 U.S.C. § 1341 One case, United States v. DeFries, 43 F.3d 707 (D.C. Cir.1995), has held that a scheme to cast fraudulent ballots in a labor union election, which had the effect of tainting the entire election, was a scheme to defraud the election authority charged with running the election of the costs involved. DeFries was not a traditional election fraud prosecution. Rather, it involved corruption of a union election when supporters of one candidate for union office cast fraudulent ballots for that candidate. When the scheme was uncovered, the United States Department of Labor ordered that a new election be held, thereby causing the union to incur an actual pecuniary loss. The D.C. Circuit held that the relationship between that pecuniary loss and the voter fraud scheme was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of McNally. 25. Isn't it reasonable to state that the fraud that Barack Obama and John McCain perpetrated on the American people, if indeed, both are found to have been "ineligible" to be POTUS, that their actions would have caused Ralph Nader, the Presidential candidate with the third most votes to lose the Presidential election to two candidates that should have never been placed on the Presidential ballot in the first place? 26. If both Barack Obama and John McCain were, indeed, ineligible to be POTUS, wouldn't this automatically make a Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin presidential ticket completely invalid, thereby, negating any votes for the Vice Presidential candidates? 27. Would this mean that another Presidential election should be held? 28. Or. does this mean that the Nader-Gonzalez ticket should be the certified as the winner, since Nader-Gonzalez was the only "eligible" candidates with the most "valid" votes?
Election-related allegations range from minor infractions, such as campaigning too close to the polls, to sophisticated criminal enterprises aimed at ensuring the election of corrupt public officials. Such matters present obvious and wide disparities in their adverse social consequences. As the Department has long strived to achieve a nationally consistent response to electoral fraud, it is important that federal investigators and prosecutors avail themselves of the expertise and institutional knowledge that the Public Integrity Section possesses in this sensitive area of law enforcement.
Lastly, Interference in election by employees of federal, state, or territorial governments: 18 U.S.C. § 595 Section 595 was enacted as part of the original 1939 Hatch Act. The statute prohibits any public officer or employee, in connection with an activity financed wholly or in part by the United States, from using his or her official authority to interfere with or affect the nomination or election of a candidate for federal office. This statute is aimed at the misuse of official authority. Section 595 applies to all public officials, whether elected or appointed, federal or nonfederal. For example, an appointed policy-making government official who bases a specific governmental decision on an intent to influence the vote for or against an identified federal candidate violates Section 595. 29. Does this code mean that those officials who used public computers to find "dirt" on Joe The Plumber, with the intent to discredit Joe and thereby interfere with or "affect" the election process should also be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?
All in all, with more questions, than answers, is seems obvious why Congress' approval ratings are in the single digits. It also seems like the DOJ has a lot of work to do with the FEC, Congress, the DNC and RNC before Obama is sworn in on January 20th. The American people place a tremendous amount of faith in their government and elected officials to protect the integrity of the election process and to defend the Constitutional Rights of American Citizens and Voters. Ultimately, when these officials fail in their duty, I ask the last and final question, 30. Is it the DOJ's Criminal Division Public Integrity's responsibility to investigate and verify that only eligible candidates are sworn into the office of POTUS, when the Secretaries of State, State Election Officials, the Federal Election Commission and the Judiciary fail in their sworn duty to protect the election process, to protect the rights of American citizens and to defend the Constitution of the United States of America?
I would appreciate a reply within 10 days, preferably by email, as this is an extremely important matter on the minds of a growing number of American citizens across our great Country. Many of whom, have dedicated months to finding the answers to the questions that I pose here. In addition, please do not hesitate to contact me by email or phone if you have any questions regarding my request. I can be reached at xxx-xxx-xxxx. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter and your timely reply.
Respectfully,
Jean Kulig-Tucker
A Concerned American Citizen
For your reference, supplemental materials and investigative information can be found on the following web sites:
http://www.yourfellowcitizen.com/
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/
http://www.investigatingobama.blogspot.com/
http://http://www.drorly.blogspot.com/
http://http://www.obamacrimes.com/
http://americamustknow.com/default.aspx, http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLawsuits.htm, http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLawsuits.htm
http://www.marchreport.com/Certifi-Gate.html
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/
Natural Born Citizen Information:
http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/page/defining-naturalborn-citizen-1
http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profiles/blogs/why-our-founding-fathers
Please email Jean through her web site or at msjkulig430@aol.com and put US Attorney in the subject line.
Copy of her letter:
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Matthew W. Friedrich
U.S. Department of Justice - Criminal Division Public Integrity Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/
January 6, 2009 (sent via email w/confirmation received)
Dear Mr. Friedrich,
I am requesting a written response from you that specifically provides answers to the following important questions that I have outlined in this letter. In particular, I am most interested in finding out the answer to the following question, "Who is actually responsible for verifying "presidential eligibility" when the Secretaries of State, State Election officials, the Federal Election Commission and the Judiciary ALL fail in their duty to protect the election process, the Constitutional rights of American Citizens/Voters and their fiduciary and sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America?"
It appears that there is mounting, if not conclusive, documentary evidence that Barack H. Obama, aka, Barry Soetoro, is not a "natural born" citizen, as provided by Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution, and therefore, is Constitutionally ineligible to hold the Office of President of the United States.
As an attorney, I am sure that you are aware that every American has what lawyers call "an implied cause of action"--directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution--to require that anyone standing for "the Office of President" must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible.
If Obama is not "a natural born citizen" or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for "the Office of President" (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be "elected" by the voters. So, if Obama dares to take the Presidential "Oath or Affirmation" of office on January 20, 2009, knowing that he is not "a natural born Citizen," he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for "the Office of President, he cannot "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States," or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the "Oath or Affirmation" will be a violation thereof!
If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country would be likely destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed--irretrievably.If the "Oath or Affirmation" being perjured from the beginning, Obama's every subsequent act in the usurped "Office of President" will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.
Most importantly, since Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy "the Office of President." The Constitution provides that "[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States" (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as "the President of the United States," but to the true and rightful President.
For an analysis of the pending and imminent Constitutional Crisis, please read the following article written by Dr. Edwin Viera, Ph.D., J.D., titled, "Obama Must Stand Up or Step Down" at the following link. http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
I am writing to you today because I wish to clarify that my understanding of the law, in that, ultimately, it is my understanding that the DOJ's Criminal Division's Public Integrity has the authority to take the required actions to protect the Constitutional rights of American voters and to safeguard the election process by making absolutely certain that only an "eligible" Presidential candidate is sworn in on inauguration day.
Please note that information that I have outlined below has been taken from the DOJ's own Manual on how to prosecute "election" fraud and other related crimes concerning the election process. Also note that I did not even touch upon the issue of illegal "campaign" funds that Mr. Obama has purportedly received, as this letter is intended to address Presidential eligibility. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/pin/docs/electbook-rvs0807.pdf
To keep on topic, and to make my questions easier for you to understand and answer, I have copied and pasted key paragraphs directly from the DOJ's own manual in "italics." I have also added my comments and concerns at the end of key paragraphs and I have outlined my questions in bold. I am respectfully requesting that you provide a written response all 30 Questions that appear in bold, as these are the most pressing questions on my mind and on the minds of a growing number of American citizens.
As you know, the DOJ Manual states that, "The federal government asserts jurisdiction over an election offense to ensure that basic rights of United States citizenship, and a fundamental process of representative democracy, remain uncorrupted. The prosecution of all federal election crimes represents an important law enforcement objective. These enhanced enforcement efforts have not only served to protect a cornerstone of American democracy against corruption and abuse, they also have helped federal law enforcement attain an investigative foothold against other criminal activities that election crimes are often committed to foster or protect.
The ultimate goal in an election crime is to move up the ladder of culpability to candidates, political operatives, public officials, and others who attempted to corrupt, or did corrupt, the public office involved and Federal jurisdiction over election fraud is easily established in elections when a federal candidate is on the ballot. In such cases, the federal interest is based on the presence of a federal candidate, whose election may be tainted, or appear tainted, by the fraud, a potential effect that Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate under Article I, Section 2, clause 1; Article I, Section 4, clause 1; Article II, Section 1, clause 2; and the Seventeenth Amendment.
In 2002, the Department of Justice established a Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative to spearhead its increased efforts to address election crimes and voting rights violations. Under the ongoing Initiative, election crimes are a high law enforcement priority of the Department.The Constitution confers upon the states primary authority over the election process. Accordingly, federal law does not directly address how elections should be conducted. However, local law enforcement often is not equipped to prosecute election offenses. Federal law enforcement might be the only enforcement option available.
The federal prosecutor's role in matters involving corruption of the process by which elections are conducted, on the other hand, focuses on prosecuting individuals who commit federal crimes in connection with an election.
1. What preventative measures has the DOJ or other governmental organizations/political campaigns taken (systems of checks and balances) to make certain that Presidential Candidates are indeed, Constitutionally "eligible" to be POTUS?
Determining whether an election fraud allegation warrants federal criminal investigation and possible prosecution requires that federal prosecutors and investigators answer two basic questions.
(1) Is criminal prosecution the appropriate remedy for the allegations and facts presented? Criminal prosecution is most appropriate when the facts demonstrate that the defendant's objective was to corrupt the process by which voters were registered, or by which ballots were obtained, cast, or counted.
(2) Is there potential federal jurisdiction over the conduct? Answering this question requires determining whether the conduct is cognizable under the federal criminal statutes that apply to election crimes. These generally allow for the prosecution of corrupt acts that occur in elections when the name of a federal candidate appears on the ballot, that are committed "under color of law," that involve voting by non-citizens, that focus on registering to vote, and when the election fraud is part of a larger public corruption problem reachable using general anti-corruption statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 666, 1341, 1346, 1951, and 1952.
Justice Department supervision over the enforcement of all criminal statutes and prosecutive theories involving corruption of the election process, criminal patronage violations, and campaign financing crimes is delegated to the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section. This Headquarters' consultation policy is set forth in the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. ATTORNEYS' MANUAL (USAM), Section 9-85.210.
The Public Integrity Section and its Election Crimes Branch are available to assist United States Attorneys' Offices and FBI field offices in handling election crime matters. This assistance includes evaluating election crime allegations, structuring investigations, and drafting indictments and other pleadings. The Election Crimes Branch also serves as the point of contact between the Department of Justice and the FEC, which share enforcement jurisdiction over federal campaign financing violations.
A Historic background regarding the election process details many early Enforcement Acts that were put in place to ensure that elections were free from corruption for the general public. Many of the Enforcement Acts had broad jurisdictional predicates that allowed them to be applied to a wide variety of corrupt election practices when a federal candidate was on the ballot. In Coy, the Supreme Court held that Congress had authority under the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause to regulate any activity during a mixed federal/state election that exposed the federal election to potential harm, whether that harm materialized or not. Coy is still applicable law. United States v. Carmichael, 685 F.2d 903, 908 (4th Cir. 1982); United States v. Mason, 673 F.2d 737, 739 (4th Cir.1982); United States v. Malmay, 671 F.2d 869, 874-75 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Bowman, 636 F.2d 1003, 1010 (5th Cir.1981).
After Reconstruction, federal activism in election matters subsided. The repeal of most of the Enforcement Acts in 1894 eliminated the statutory tools that had encouraged federal activism in election fraud matters. Two surviving provisions of these Acts, now embodied in 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, covered only intentional deprivations of rights guaranteed directly by the Constitution or federal law. The courts during this period held that the Constitution directly conferred a right to vote only for federal officers, and that conduct aimed at corrupting nonfederal contests was not prosecutable in federal courts. See United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476 (1917); Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915). Federal attention to election fraud was further limited by case law holding that primary elections were not part of the official election process, Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1918), and by cases like United States v. Bathgate, 246 U.S. 220 (1918), which read the entire subject of vote buying out of federal criminal law, even when it was directed at federal contests.
In 1941, the Supreme Court reversed direction, overturning Newberry. The Court recognized that primary elections are an integral part of the process by which candidates are elected to office. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941). Classic changed the judicial attitude toward federal intervention in election matters and ushered in a new period of federal activism. Federal courts now regard the right to vote in a fairly conducted election as a constitutionally protected feature of United States citizenship. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). In 1973, the use of Section 241 to address election fraud began to expand. See, e.g., United States v. Anderson, 481 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1973), aff'd on other grounds, 417 U.S. 211 (1974). Since then, this statute has been successfully applied to prosecute certain types of local election fraud. United States v. Wadena, 152 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 1998); United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir.1985); United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Stollings, 501 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1974).
Over the past forty years Congress has enacted new criminal laws with broad jurisdictional bases to combat false voter registrations, vote buying, multiple voting, and fraudulent voting in elections in which a federal candidate is on the ballot. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973i(c), 1973i(e), 1973gg-10. These statutes rest on Congress's power to regulate federal elections (U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4) and on its power under the Necessary and Proper Clause (U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 18) to enact laws to protect the federal election process from the potential of corruption. The federal jurisdictional predicate underlying these statutes is satisfied as long as either the name of a federal candidate is on the ballot or the fraud involves corruption of the voter registration process in a state where one registers to vote simultaneously for federal as well as other offices. United States v. Slone, 411 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. McCranie, 169 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Garcia, 719 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1983); United States v. Mason, 673 F.2d 737 (4th Cir. 1982); United States v. Malmay, 671 F.2d 869 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Bowman, 636 F2d 1003 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Barker, 514 F.2d 1077 (7th Cir. 1975); United States v. Cianciulli, 482 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Pa. 1979).
My comments: As we can see, although election laws may have changed and evolved over the years, Congress has already granted authority to the DOJ to look into and resolve matters that may take away someone's opportunity to vote for an "eligible" candidate of their choice or to verify that there is no corruption, conspiracy, misinformation or other irregularities that may taint an election, whether proven or not.
To date, there is an enormous amount of evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, or the alternative, that he was born in Hawaii, but that the COLB shown on his web site, http://www.fightthesmears.com/ is actually a forgery. Or, alternatively, that the COLB issued actually registered an oversees birth. Please note that Mr. Obama has steadfastly refused to provide the vault or long-form copy of his birth certificate and has spend upwards of one million dollars fighting legal battles to prohibit the release of the birth certificate the Hawaiian DOH has stated is on file in Hawaii, but did not verify/state conclusively that Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii. Additionally, it has also been posted by Obama himself on his web site, that he held dual citizenship at birth since his father was a Kenyan national, thereby making him ineligible to serve as POTUS. Further evidence suggests that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship status when he was adopted or acknowledged by his stepfather, Loro Soetero in Indonesian, that he reaffirmed his Indonesian citizenship as an adult when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 on an Indonesian passport, that he never officially went through a naturalization process to regain U.S. Citizenship and that he never officially changed his name from Barry Soetoro to Barack H. Obama.
2. Therefore, if the DOJ is tasked to act on the possibility to corrupt or taint the election "whether proven or not" what is the DOJ's position on the aforementioned issues; has each issue been thoroughly investigated and if investigated, by whom, and what are the end results of the investigations?
Election fraud involves a substantive irregularity relating to the voting act which has the potential to taint the election itself. activity intended to interfere corruptly with any of the principles indicated below may be actionable as a federal crime:
1. All qualified voters have the right to have their votes counted fairly and honestly. 3. Is a vote for a usurper a legally valid vote? 4. Is a vote for a known usurper a criminal offense?
2. Invalid ballots dilute the worth of valid ballots, and therefore will not be counted. 5. Are ballets that do not have the name of an eligible candidate automatically invalid?
Simply put, then, election fraud is conduct intended to corrupt. For example:
• The process by which ballots are obtained, marked, or tabulated.
• The process by which election results are canvassed and certified. (invalid ballets/votes for a usurper can not be certified as valid ballots or votes)
The following is a basis for federal prosecution under the statutes referenced in each category:
• Conspiring to prevent voters from participating in elections in which a federal candidate is on the ballot, or when done "under color of law" in any election, federal or nonfederal (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). 6. Is tricking voters into thinking that an eligible candidate is on the ballot a conspiracy to defraud?
• Malfeasance by election officials acting "under color of law" by performing such acts as diluting valid ballots with invalid ones (ballot-box stuffing), rendering false tabulations of votes, or preventing valid voter registrations or votes from being given effect in any election, federal or nonfederal (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242), as well as in elections in which federal candidates are on the ballot (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973i(c), 1973i(e), 1973gg-10(2)). 7. Doesn't the FEC and Secretaries of State have a fiduciary duty to make sure that when questions come up regarding a candidates eligibility to be on the ballot, they have an obligation to make certain that the candidate is indeed eligible?
Although under the Constitution, the states retain broad jurisdiction over the elective process. When the federal government enters the field of elections, it does so to address specific federal interests. For example:
(1) the protection of the federal election process against corruption.(this must occur when states fail to act)
(2) the protection of the voting process from corruption accomplished.(this must occur when states fail to act)
In the Conspiracy Against Rights. 18 U.S.C. § 241, Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to "conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States" under color of law. The Supreme Court long ago recognized that the right to vote for federal offices is among the rights secured by Article I, Sections 2 and 4, of the Constitution, and hence is protected by Section 241. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Ex parte Yarborough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884). 8. Is a vote for a usurper still a vote? 9. Can a citizen exercise his/her voting right, if there is no equalized candidate to vote for in the same way as a citizen can not sell you his/her neighbor's car if he/she does not hold the title to the car? 10. Doesn't the DOJ have an obligation to the American people to make certain that before AND after a federal election that a presidential candidate is eligible to hold office?Section 241 has been an important statutory tool in election crime prosecutions. Originally held to apply only to schemes to corrupt elections for federal office.
Section 241 embraces conspiracies such as to injure, threaten, or intimidate a voter in the exercise of his right to vote, Wilkins v. United States, 376 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1967); Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544 (4th Cir. 1955). Section 241 does not require that the conspiracy be successful, United States v. Bradberry, 517 F.2d 498 (7th Cir. 1975), nor need there be proof of an overt act. Section 241 reaches conduct affecting the integrity of the federal election process as a whole, and does not require fraudulent action with respect to any particular voter. United States v. Nathan, 238 F.2d 401 (7th Cir. 1956). 11. Does section 241 embrace conspiracies intended to injure because an injury does NOT really even need to occur? 12. Does the DOJ have to have conclusive proof of an overt act before they will act? 13. In the case of Obama, doesn't just the question have to be raised (no conclusive proof required) that he "may not" meet the "eligibility" requirements to become fairly and rightfully elected to the office of POTUS to prompt the DOJ to become involved?
In election fraud cases, this public official is usually an election officer using his office to dilute valid ballots with invalid ballots or to otherwise corrupt an honest vote tally in derogation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Haynes, 977 F.2d 583 (6th Cir. 1992) (table) (available at 1992 WL 296782); United States v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070 (8th Cir. 1988); United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Stollings, 501 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1974); United States v. Anderson, 481 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1973), aff'd on other grounds, 417 U.S. 211 (1974). 14. In failing to fulfill his/her fiduciary duties, did our Secretaries of State and Federal Election Commission officials allow an "invalid" candidate to be placed on the ballot, thereby, corrupting an honest vote and violating the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
My Comments: Please note that is also my contention that John McCain was also an "ineligible" presidential candidate. Please see the analysis written by Gabriel J. Chin in the Michigan Law Review titled, "Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship," at the following link: http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/chin.htm
Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law 18 U.S.C. § 242. Section 242, also enacted as a post-Civil War statute, makes it unlawful for anyone acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive a person of any right, privilege, or immunity secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Prosecutions under Section 242 need not show the existence of a conspiracy. However, the defendants must have acted illegally "under color of law," i.e., the case must involve a public scheme, as discussed above. This element does not require that the defendant be a de jure officer or a government official; it is sufficient if he or she jointly acted with state agents in committing the offense, United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966), or if his or her actions were made possible by the fact that they were clothed with the authority of state law, Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97 (1951); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941). 15. Would this law make it a CRIME for ANYONE who knowingly acted in concert with Obama to cover up his scheme to defraud the American people, by posing as an "eligible" candidate? 16. If so, would they be subject to prosecution to the fullest extent of the law?
False Information in, and Payments for, Registering and Voting. 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(c) Section 1973i(c) makes it unlawful, in an election in which a federal candidate is on the ballot, to knowingly and willfully conspire with another person to vote illegally. Congress added Section 1973i(c) to the 1965 Voting Rights Act to ensure the integrity of the balloting process in the context of an expanded franchise. In so doing, Congress intended that Section 1973i(c) have a broad reach. 17. If Obama or his co-conspirators knowingly registered voters by promising Change and Hope, knowing full well that he was NOT "eligible" to hold office, would this mean that not only did he commit fraud, but that he committed a crime against 42 U.S.C?
Section 1973i(c) has been held to protect two distinct aspects of a federal election: the actual results of the election, and the integrity of the process of electing federal officials. United States v. Cole, 41 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 1994). In Cole, the Seventh Circuit held that federal jurisdiction is satisfied so long as a single federal candidate is on the ballot - even if the federal candidate is unopposed - because fraud in a mixed election automatically has an impact on the integrity of the federal election process. See also United States v. Alone, 411 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2005); and United States v. McCranie, 169 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1999) (jurisdiction under Section 1973i(c) satisfied by name of unopposed federal candidate on ballot). 18. Would it be true that ANY conduct that violates the "integrity" of an election is a CRIME? 19. Therefore, doesn't the DOJ have an obligation to act, as the integrity of the presidential election has already been called into question by a silent majority of Americans?
Section 1973i(c) is particularly useful for two reasons: (1) it eliminates the unresolved issue of the scope of the constitutional right to vote in matters not involving racial discrimination, and (2) it eliminates the need to prove that a given pattern of corrupt conduct had an actual impact on a federal election. 20. Since the law states that the DOJ can get involved in any matter not involving racial discrimination and it also eliminates the NEED TO PROVE that a corrupt conduct had an actual impact on the election, shouldn't this be an issue for the DOJ to vigorously pursue?
Conspiracy to cause illegal voting. The second clause of Section 1973i(c) criminalizes conspiracies to encourage "illegal voting." The phrase "illegal voting" is not defined in the statute. On its face it encompasses unlawful conduct in connection with voting. 21. Because the phrase "illegal" voting has not been defined by statute, does this mean that a vote for candidate you know or suspect does not meet the eligibility requirements could be considered an "illegal" vote," because, if proven, that this is indeed the case, that the person actually casting an "illegal" vote would be committing a CRIME?
Conspiracy against rights and deprivation of constitutional rights. 18 U.S.C. § 241 and § 242 Section 241 makes it a ten-year felony to "conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate" any person in the free exercise of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States" - including the right to vote. 22. Wouldn't that mean that another CRIME was committed by Mr. Obama and parties at the DNC if they conspired to prohibit Americans from exercising their rights under law?
False claims of citizenship. 18 U.S.C. § 911 Section 911 prohibits the knowing and willful false assertion of United States citizenship by a noncitizen. See, e.g., United States v. Franklin, 188 F.2d 182 (7th Cir. 1951); Fotie v. United States, 137 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1943). Violations of Section 911 are punishable by up to three years of imprisonment.
As noted, all states require United States citizenship as a prerequisite for voting. Section 911 requires proof that the offender was aware he was not a United States citizen, and that he was falsely claiming to be a citizen. Violations of Section 911 are felonies, punishable by up to three years of imprisonment. 23. If Mr. Obama presented himself as a U.S. Citizen and he is NOT, did that mean that when Obama voted in this past election, that he committed yet, another CRIME?
"Honest services" fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1346 As summarized above, prior to McNally nearly all the circuits had held that a scheme to defraud the public of a fair and impartial election was one of the "intangible rights" schemes covered by the mail and wire fraud statutes. McNally repudiated this theory in an opinion that not only rejected the intangible rights theory of mail and wire fraud, but did so by citing several election fraud cases as examples of the kinds of fraud the Court found outside these criminal laws.
The following year, Congress responded to McNally by enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which defined "scheme or artifice to defraud" to include "the intangible right of honest services." However, this language did not clearly restore the use of these statutes to election frauds. This is because Section 1346 encompasses only schemes to deprive a victim of the intangible right of "honest services," and most voter fraud schemes do not appear to involve such an objective. Moreover, jurisprudence in the arena of public corruption has generally confined Section 1346 to schemes involving traditional forms of corruption that involve a clear breach of the fiduciary duty of "honest services" owed by a public official to the body politic, e.g., bribery, extortion, embezzlement, theft, conflicts of interest, and, in some instances, gratuities. 24. Would it be fair to assume that, whether knowingly or not, elected officials and other public servants have breached their fiduciary duty to provide "honest services" to American citizens in this last election?"
Cost-of-election" theory. 18 U.S.C. § 1341 One case, United States v. DeFries, 43 F.3d 707 (D.C. Cir.1995), has held that a scheme to cast fraudulent ballots in a labor union election, which had the effect of tainting the entire election, was a scheme to defraud the election authority charged with running the election of the costs involved. DeFries was not a traditional election fraud prosecution. Rather, it involved corruption of a union election when supporters of one candidate for union office cast fraudulent ballots for that candidate. When the scheme was uncovered, the United States Department of Labor ordered that a new election be held, thereby causing the union to incur an actual pecuniary loss. The D.C. Circuit held that the relationship between that pecuniary loss and the voter fraud scheme was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of McNally. 25. Isn't it reasonable to state that the fraud that Barack Obama and John McCain perpetrated on the American people, if indeed, both are found to have been "ineligible" to be POTUS, that their actions would have caused Ralph Nader, the Presidential candidate with the third most votes to lose the Presidential election to two candidates that should have never been placed on the Presidential ballot in the first place? 26. If both Barack Obama and John McCain were, indeed, ineligible to be POTUS, wouldn't this automatically make a Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin presidential ticket completely invalid, thereby, negating any votes for the Vice Presidential candidates? 27. Would this mean that another Presidential election should be held? 28. Or. does this mean that the Nader-Gonzalez ticket should be the certified as the winner, since Nader-Gonzalez was the only "eligible" candidates with the most "valid" votes?
Election-related allegations range from minor infractions, such as campaigning too close to the polls, to sophisticated criminal enterprises aimed at ensuring the election of corrupt public officials. Such matters present obvious and wide disparities in their adverse social consequences. As the Department has long strived to achieve a nationally consistent response to electoral fraud, it is important that federal investigators and prosecutors avail themselves of the expertise and institutional knowledge that the Public Integrity Section possesses in this sensitive area of law enforcement.
Lastly, Interference in election by employees of federal, state, or territorial governments: 18 U.S.C. § 595 Section 595 was enacted as part of the original 1939 Hatch Act. The statute prohibits any public officer or employee, in connection with an activity financed wholly or in part by the United States, from using his or her official authority to interfere with or affect the nomination or election of a candidate for federal office. This statute is aimed at the misuse of official authority. Section 595 applies to all public officials, whether elected or appointed, federal or nonfederal. For example, an appointed policy-making government official who bases a specific governmental decision on an intent to influence the vote for or against an identified federal candidate violates Section 595. 29. Does this code mean that those officials who used public computers to find "dirt" on Joe The Plumber, with the intent to discredit Joe and thereby interfere with or "affect" the election process should also be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?
All in all, with more questions, than answers, is seems obvious why Congress' approval ratings are in the single digits. It also seems like the DOJ has a lot of work to do with the FEC, Congress, the DNC and RNC before Obama is sworn in on January 20th. The American people place a tremendous amount of faith in their government and elected officials to protect the integrity of the election process and to defend the Constitutional Rights of American Citizens and Voters. Ultimately, when these officials fail in their duty, I ask the last and final question, 30. Is it the DOJ's Criminal Division Public Integrity's responsibility to investigate and verify that only eligible candidates are sworn into the office of POTUS, when the Secretaries of State, State Election Officials, the Federal Election Commission and the Judiciary fail in their sworn duty to protect the election process, to protect the rights of American citizens and to defend the Constitution of the United States of America?
I would appreciate a reply within 10 days, preferably by email, as this is an extremely important matter on the minds of a growing number of American citizens across our great Country. Many of whom, have dedicated months to finding the answers to the questions that I pose here. In addition, please do not hesitate to contact me by email or phone if you have any questions regarding my request. I can be reached at xxx-xxx-xxxx. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter and your timely reply.
Respectfully,
Jean Kulig-Tucker
A Concerned American Citizen
For your reference, supplemental materials and investigative information can be found on the following web sites:
http://www.yourfellowcitizen.com/
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/
http://www.investigatingobama.blogspot.com/
http://http://www.drorly.blogspot.com/
http://http://www.obamacrimes.com/
http://americamustknow.com/default.aspx, http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLawsuits.htm, http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLawsuits.htm
http://www.marchreport.com/Certifi-Gate.html
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/
Natural Born Citizen Information:
http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/page/defining-naturalborn-citizen-1
http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profiles/blogs/why-our-founding-fathers
Senator Mark Warner from Virginia
Yet another person in the public trust who uses interchangebly the terms Citizen and a Natural born Citizen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
