State Lawmaker Joins Quest for Information on Obama

On a day where we’re supposed to be a little scared, this certainly is an encouraging sign.

I’m with Rep. Metcalfe. This isn’t just a Barack Obama-centric issue. This is a constitutional issue. Let’s have the documentation from all candidates, and let’s make sure there’s oversight as to eligibility in the future.

– Jeff

After Obama, McCain Rulings, State Rep. Wants Presidential Candidates to Prove Citizenship, Place of Birth
By Alex Roarty,

A week after a Pennsylvania lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s right to run for president was thrown out of court, a state lawmaker has authored a bill that would force presidential candidates to prove they’re a United States citizen before being placed on state ballots.

“As a veteran and an elected official who takes an oath of office, just like every past and future President of the United States, to uphold and defend the Constitutional rights of the citizens I represent, it is greatly perplexing and beyond troubling that a political candidate can ascend to the White House without providing sufficient documentation verifying his or her place of birth or American citizenship,” state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler County) said in a statement. “This legislation is intended to send the message that even those candidates who are running for our nation’s highest office are not above the law.”

Former Chairman of the Montgomery County Democratic Committee Philip Berg filed the suit against Obama, saying the candidate did not provide an authentic birth certificate. The judge ruled against him, saying harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was “too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.”

In an interview with, Metcalfe said many of his constituents came to his office asking him about the validity of the lawsuit against Obama. When he and his staff researched the issue, Metcalfe said they were shocked to find out presidential candidates in Pennsylvania don’t have to prove that they were born in the United States, or that they are a citizen.

Every other elected office in the state must provide proof they are eligible to run, he said.

“I think the majority of citizens would be shocked there isn’t more oversight of candidates by state government,” Metcalfe said.

The lawmaker argues he is only trying to close a loophole that will put voters’ minds at ease about the candidates on the ballot. Even with the intense scrutiny a presidential candidate must endure, the state must have a system of checks and balances, he said.

“It would really be the greatest hoax in U.S. history if somebody did get past the scrutiny,” he said.

Still, it’s almost impossible to separate his stated intention and the questions some Republicans have about Obama’s origins. Rumors have spread that Obama was actually born outside the country and that his birth certificate is a fake. That birth certificate proves he was born in Hawaii in 1961.

Asked if he thinks the Democratic presidential nominee was born in the United States and is a citizen, Metcalfe didn’t equivocally answer “yes.”

“You would certainly think someone is, having held office as a state senator and U.S. senator,” Metcalfe said. “I think every American would think that.

“This has not been a question I’ve been involved in trying to investigate, as far as where he was born,” he added.

Metcalfe also said his bill will obviously not take effect by Nov. 4.

John McCain’s right to run for president has also been challenged by some. The Republican presidential nominee has born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was stationed there with the U.S. Navy.

A U.S. District Judge in California in September threw out a similar lawsuit against McCain, saying both his parents were U.S. citizens and recognizing a law passed a year after McCain’s birth retroactively making those born in the zone “natural-born citizens.”

Metcalfe is at times a controversial figure in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. During the summer he opposed a state House resolution that would have sponsored a Muslim’s group’s convention in Philadelphia.

His high-profile stances on positions like abortion, immigration and marriage have prompted his opponent in the 12th Legislative District to accuse him of not focusing enough on local issues.



  1. Anonymous says:

    Definitely a comfort!

  2. Anonymous says:

    The same one I left on another article. The world got unglued about the validity of Chinese gymnasts
    birth certificates for gold medals but is completly ignoring whether
    Barack Obama is really a ‘natural born’ citizen.
    If he is not Mr. Berg is right, it will be a constitutional crisis.
    Contrast Obama’s stone walling with the way McCain handled it: He allowed Constutional lawyers to again discuss and descide wheather he met the requirement in the constitution because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. In an article on 23 march 08 CBS: entitled
    ‘Lawyers Conclude McCain Is “Natural Born”‘ he put it to rest. Another example of how MCCain is up front and Obama hides his past because it will sink him!!1

  3. Bob says:

    Every state in this country needs a Representative like Mr. Metcalf, to get this to be a country-wide verified candidate from here on. Hopefully, Mr. Berg and the Supreme Court will be able to handle this current crisis. Maybe that brilliant Dr. Vieira will offer to help.

  4. Anonymous says:

    OK, Jeff help me here…what does this mean in the context of the BHO birth certificate? Does Rep. Metcalfe have any supporters? This clearly can’t be processed in a vacuum, so the rest of the House must (or will) know about it at some point in the near future. Also, Metcalfe has to state why he wants this passed (I would presume) doesn’t he?

    Also, will this pass in time for the inauguration? Does this help Berg at all in terms of “Standing” or in any other manner?

    I know… a lot of questions, but I think this is the best chance at getting to the BC that anyone has had to date…at least it’s a chance to get MSM attention…wouldn’t you agree?

  5. Kristi says:

    The point becomes, regardless of who wins the election, that the states individually and the federal government must pass laws to enforce the state and US constitution. How absurd this is? Who would have ever thought NO ONE would vet a candidate for the senate or president? Has the media been the watchdog? Have politicians counted on the media being our truth bearers so that they, the politicians, could keep their PERSONAL agendas on track? Then, the MSM becomes a giant editorializing, campaigning machine. Then, come to find out, Prince Alwaleed tin Talal owns voting shares of Fox. Fox OBVIOUSLY has someone setting the parameters of what can be reported, otherwise those times we've been alerted that Fox is going to air a story on the lawsuit, or Barack’s citizenship, or who paid his college tuition, etcetera, would have happened.
    Someone might be interested in how the state of Washington justifies our ballot. I wrote the following letter and received the following response:
    “Mr. Reed,
    I am holding my ballot as long as possible in hopes of a response from you. If you chose to do the right thing, you have my vote.
    If elected officials think the bailout made the citizens angry, let them know that the bailout doesn’t compare to the outrage we have that the DNC and FEC did not vet out Barack Obama, and refuse to do so to this day. As I’m sure you are aware, Berg v Obama & the DNC has been dismissed due to lack of standing. If the voters are deceived into believing, by silence and omission, that the candidates meet the constitutional requirements to run for the highest office in the US, and a private citizen (albeit an attorney) cannot sue a candidate or the DNC for lack of vetting to prove qualification, the United States of America is in a serious position of potential anarchy. The laws of the land become wildcards in the hands of politicians if any candidate swears to the oath of office that he has already violated. The Constitution of America is under constant attack by interpreters vs. enforcers and this precedent will be used in court cases from here on out, a frightening thought. If Obama is legally running for office, then there is nothing to hide and he should release any and all documents requested. His refusal to release documents speaks loud and clear that there IS something to hide.
    I consider the lawsuit against you a privilege giving you the platform to have Barack Obama PROPERLY AND COMPLETELY vetted. You have the responsibility to provide the citizens of Washington a ballot with lawfully qualified candidates only.
    I pray you will be someone who demonstrates that government accepts the God-given mandate to first and foremost protect the righteous and punish the wicked, and that you will fulfill your duties in accordance with such. Respectfully…”
    The response from the executive assistant to the Secretary of State:
    “Thank you very much for writing.
    Washington State law asserts that major parties’ Presidential nominees will appear on our General Election ballot, and we are following that law. Our office does not have the authority to exclude anyone who files for office from the ballot unless we receive a court order to do so. As you are probably aware, the King County lawsuit that challenged Senator Obama’s qualifications was dismissed this morning.
    I hope this information helps to clarify things. Please let me know if this brings up any more questions for you. Sincerely…”
    Yes, I had a question. So, I wrote the following and have received no response.
    “I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I can appreciate this is a busy time.
    If the Secretary of State does not have the authority to make sure all candidates on the ballot have the legal right to be running, the DNC and FEC won’t, what IS the course of action that can be taken that would demand that, in this case, a presidential candidate meets the U.S. Constitutional requirements? As a citizen I believe in being involved, but I don’t know where adequate pressure from law abiding citizens should be directed. Your direction will be appreciated. Thank you.”
    It feels like we’re in a horror movie with no end in sight. Can you imagine that it might take citizens standing outside grocery stores with clipboards collecting signatures to get a law passed that the Constitution must be enforced?

  6. Malcolm says:

    Good for him!
    It’s just too bad no one thought of that earlier so it would have already been in effect for one or more states.
    If a candidate was required to submit proof of eligibility to appear on a state ballot, and instead choose not to appear on the ballot, that would be a pretty good hint that they’re not qualified to be president.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Good to hear about Metcalf. However, AOL is calling this(the issue of Obamas birth location and birth certificate) one of the greatest unfounded rumors of the election. Unfortunately as its basis for the disparaging remarks is Mr. Bergs involvement with the World Trade Center case.
    Funny how Mr. Berg suffers from Associations and deeds of the past, but Obama-teflon!

  8. Jim says:

    My question is how does anyone verify a “true and certified” copy of a birth certificate from a web page? For example, my “true and certified” copy of my birth certificate was provided in hard copy. The state didn’t do digital files, scans, or images. The reason I learned this is I had to have one to apply for a passport in 2000.

    If a candidate had applied for a passport, there is a physical “true and certified” copy of the candidate’s birth certificate in their file.

    Maybe someone in the State department could take a moment from their busy schedule and write a letter to the candidate stating that according to their file, the candidate is over 35 and a natural born citizen.

  9. MaryAlice says:

    Thank you Mr. Metcalfe. We need oversight on many issues and many levels. This is one major issue for all United States Citizens.

  10. Phil says:

    Thanks so much for the great reporting, Jeff. I’m referencing this story with due credit to you as well.


  11. Anonymous says:

    from Mainemom

    this is a great development, but I didn’t get from the article the impression that Metcalf was pressing for further vetting of the current candidates, but was focusing on prevention of future debacles.

    Also, I have a link to another article that’s out there today.

    this writing is pretty much debunking the whole citizenship issue for O.

    Anybody want to comment on the birth announcement in the Honolulu observer?

  12. Anonymous says:



  13. Anonymous says:

    Call me sentimental to the Constitution if you like but I think I read somewhere that it established three seperate, but equal, branches of government. Wouldn’t you think that when one of those branches of government could be compromised in violation of the Constitution, that one of the other branches would exercise it’s authority to step in and right the ship? Or is that too conservative to think that?

    check out a Reagan speech video that he gave for Goldwater at It’s a speech that reaches through time and is as pertinent for us today as it was over 40 years ago.

  14. Anonymous says:

    QUOTE==> "This is a constitutional issue. Let's have the documentation from all candidates, and let's make sure there's oversight as to eligibility in the future."
    “Hallelujah!” May common sense reign supreme!

    Happy Halloween to all!

  15. Anonymous says:

    This is a good sign. Every state needs proof of natural born citizenship prior to being placed on the ballot.

    I’m still amazed that Obama had the Gov. of Hawaii seal his birth information. Hopefully the reason will come out after Obama concedes the race. Then we should press charges against Obama.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Just a random thought… Can you imagine how embarrassing it would be to our government if Obama was exposed. I mean, the fact that he got through the Illinois state senate, The U.S. Senate, and to the doorstep of the white house with sham credentials? That would have to be the ultimate slap in the face. Maybe more to it?

  17. Anonymous says:

    Hello Jeff, I ran across this article last night thats really a great read. Not sure if you have seen it yet. I have been praying so hard for our Country and would advise everyone to do the same thing. Our God is bigger than all of this!!!!

    Michael from Fort Worth

  18. Anonymous says:

    from Mainemom

    something interesting from the Drudge:

    I guess if you can’t take the heat you just get rid of the kitchen.

  19. Ted Park says:

    Nobody wants to touch this story because it seems too preposterous and there is no proof of malfeasance, just FUD.

    I wish there were a way we could take the high ground here and get somebody important (a high profile person, a court, MSM, etc.) to bite on these two facts and just follow where this leads:

    1. FACT. Obama has of yet provided no documents in evidence of his citizenship or natural born status. No official birth certificate, no passport, no selective service records, no applications, no credentials, nada.

    2. FACT. Legimate requests from the media and through court proceedings have resulted in extreme pusback from the Obama campaign. Not only that they have specifically and actively prevented release of information.

    This are not inflammatory, they bear no accusations, and are certainly newsworthy as simple coverage of the election landscape.

    Why,oh why, won’t anybody report on these things. At a minimum they are passing curious and highly unusual – i.e. newsworthy.

  20. Anonymous says:

    as far as I’m concerned, a little to late. The LEAST someone, ANYONE could do is investigate and prosecute Obama’s hand in voter fraud and campaign contributions. This country is making me sick watching it let Obama break every law on the books

  21. says:

    David Neal’s case in Ohio was dismissed by the courts today.

  22. Eugene says:

    Natural born citizens are defined in 8 USC section 1401. The pertinent section for Obama is (g) which states:

    “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…”

    Unless Obama’s mother renounced her citizenship prior to his birth, he is a natural born citizen. (Unless Obama renounced his citizenship, and there is the issue of his Indonesian identy papers but that is a very week argument) Because of this the court could thrown the case out as being unfounded.

    The interesting thing is that the court claimed US citizens have no standing to sue to enforce the constitutional requirements for president. This defies logic and common sense. US citizen necessarily have such a right wich is an inherent out growth of their right to vote fore and elect leaders who fill positions described in the constitution, especially when the eligability for such positions is described in that document. This is not the case of someone sueing to invalidate a law which does not affect him. Rather it directly affects our right to be governed by validly elected leaders who will have authority over us. If we do not have this right, then we are little better than slaves, who do not have the right to choose the people controlling their lives.

    As a final argument against the lack of standing argument, the Constitution states in amendments 9 and 10 the following:

    “Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    In other words, the right to enforce the provisions of the Constitution have been specifically retained by the people.

    While I don’t think the case will succeed on its merits, it should be reversed on the standing issue. Failure by the Supreme Court to do so will set a dangerous presedent.

  23. btw77 says:

    A letter to PAC with

    Subject: Getting VIDEO “October Surprise” on National TV. Uphold Constitution

    was sent to

    The National Republican Trust PAC
    (PAC – Political Action Committee)
    (there is a contact form on the site)

    and later placed here
    Oct 30, 2008 10:21PM

    and here
    Posted by: btw77
    Oct 30, 2008 08:45 PM PST

  24. msjkulig430 says:

    This is in response and my analysis to a recent article that was posted written by By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. “OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN” on Oct 29, 2008. (analysis below)

    It appears that if what Mr. Vieira says is true, “that there is conclusive documentary evidence, that he Mr. Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” of the United States everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing as “the President” but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the President.”

    As Dr Vieira points out, “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 could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People.”

    Dr. Vieira states 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, 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 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.

    If Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. especially will obviously cause constitutional crisis and will have deprived voters of their constitutional right to vote for a qualified candidate.

    So, the perplexing question seems to be:

    A. Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section/DOJ

    The following information is taken form the DOJ manual on prosecuting Election fraud. It appears that ultimately, it is the DOJ’s Criminal Division’s Public Integrity has the authority to step in and sort out this mess. Full Manual / Talking points below as they pertain to Obama.

    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 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. (This DOES NOT mean that preventative measures have never be taken by the DOJ, they have!)

    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. DEP’T 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).

    (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.)

    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. (a vote for a usurper is not a vote. In fact, voting for a usurper may be treason and/or a criminal offence.)
    2. Invalid ballots dilute the worth of valid ballots, and therefore will not be counted. (ballets that do not have the name of an eligible candidate are 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).
    (Tricking voters into thinking that an eligible candidate is on the ballot is 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)). (surely the FEC and Secr. of State have a fiduciary duty to make sure that when a questions comes 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). (Remember, a vote for a usurper is NOT a vote! A citizen can not 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. Therefore, the DOJ has an obligation to make certain before a federal election that a presidential candidacies 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). (Notice section 241 embraces conspiraces intended to injure. In this case, an injury does NOT even need to occur, nor does anyone have to have conclusive proof of an overt act. In the case of Obama, only the question has to be raised that he “may not” meet the “eligiblity” requirements to become fairly and rightfully elected to the office of POTUS.)

    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). (In failing to fulfill his/her fiduciary duties, our Secr. of State and Federal Election Commission officials who allow “invalid” candidates to be placed on ballots corrupts an honest vote and violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause of the Fourteeth Amerdment.)

    Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law18 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). (This law would make it a CRIME for ANYONE who knowing acted in concert with Obama to cover up his scheme to defraud the American people, by posing as an “eligible” candidate.”

    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. (If Obama or his co-conspirators knowingly registered voters by because he promised Change and Hope, knowing full well that he was NOT “elibible” to hold office, not only did he commit fraud, but 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.Slone, 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). (Any conduct that violates the “integrity” of an election is a CRIME. Obviously, the integrity of this election has been comprimised as more internet blogs pick up the story becausae of Obama’s failure to provide the mysterious “vault copy” of his birth certificate. Therefore the DOJ has an obligaion 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. (This is a big one, because this 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.)

    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. (This is important, because the phrase “illegal” voting has not been defined by statute. Surely, a vote for candidate you know or suspect does not meet the eligibility requirements could be considered an “illegal” vote,” because, if it is proven, that this in deed IS the case, the person voting 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. (Another CRIME committed by Mr. Obama, in conspiring with the DNC and the rest of his cronies by prohibiting Americans to exercise 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. (If Mr. Obama presents himself as a U.S. Citizen and he is NOT, when he votes in this election, he is committing 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. (Obviously, whether knowingly or not, elected officials and other public servants have breached their fiduciary duty to provide “honest services” to American citizens.)

    “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. (The fraud that Mr. Obama would have perpetrated on the American people if he is later found out to be ineligible for president will have indeed caused John McCain the presidential election. Worse yet, if it is found out AFTER the election that Obama did not meet the eligibility requirements to hold office, off votes for Obama/Biden would be “illegal” and “invalid” votes and would therefore should not be counted. Therefore, Biden can not be President either if a an “illegal” and “invalid” vote was cast for a Obama/Biden ticket. In this case, the presidential election will, most likely, have to be reheld and/or John McCain would be declared the winner, because the McCain/Palin ticket would have received the most “valid” and “legal” 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 policymaking 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. (This Code may certain apply to those officials who used public computers to find “dirt” on Joe The Plumber, if it can be proved, that the intent was to discredit Joe to interfere or “affect” the election process.)

    All in all, it looks like the DOJ has a lot of work to do before November 4th. I would be interested in finding out why no lawsuits have been filed against the DOJ or if any contacts have been made to the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section to ask for clarification and/or action on any of these issues/offences.

  25. toto says:

    if nothing else, this will at the very least make this never happen again. Hopefully though, it will come into effect much sooner than that.

    On a little tangent here, but I got to thinking, here we have someone running for president who won’t show his REAl birth certificate, nor will his college records be shown. What I have been thinking is is this: If the colleges he went to recieve any federal funding, either by grants to students or otherwise, than we have a right to know if Obama received any grants to attend as a foreign student. If so Obama has a real problem as either way, he is committing fraud, or has committed fraud. Its like this, either he defrauded the federal government by receiving grants from the feds for school, or he is defrauding all of us now. He can’t be a foreign entity in circumstance, and be a citizen in another. Someone needs to press the FOIA to open his college records.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Speaking of upholding the Constitution-I believe that it was in a 2003 interview released about two days ago, with a Chicago Public radio station that Obama stated and complained that the Constitution is a document of “negative rights” As the purpose of the Constitution was to preserve rights of and to the people-the only way it could be conceived to be a document of negative rights would be from the perspective of one who believes that Government should control the people. All I can say is Dangerous-and it truely reveals what this guy is all about-we’ve been warned-a little late but the real and clear truth is out there-what we do with it is up to us! Good Luck

  27. Ted Park says:

    All of the supposed debunkers miss the critical point. Posting a picture of a BC on the web has never been taken as “proof” by anyone anywhere for any serious purpose. One must produce actual physical evidence. For something like an election, any and all evidence must be auditable. For instance, a valid media request needs to be honored. The media is supposed to be providing the checks and balances over everything. The reason our media is not a single organization and not government controlled is for the express purpose of providing this kind of eyes and ears for the public. We don’t want or need anything new and improved posted on the web. We simply ask that Obama ungag the relevant organizations so that the process can work. Instead he continues to tighten the strength of the gag. The burden is not on us to prove malfeasance. The burden IS on him to prove eligibility.

  28. woof says:

    Seems to me the courts are getting close to saying that in order to challenge a candidates NBC status in court, you have to have substantial evidence that he does NOT have NBC rather than calling upon the candidate to prove he does. I think it should become standard practice for candidates to demand of each other than vault documents be released and that his happen in both parties back in the primary season. An alternative is for states to pass laws empowering citizens to sue candidates who refuse.

    I personally have never understood why this is not a mandamus issue. I, as a voter, have a right to know if a candidate is eligible and the candidate has a duty to prove he is.

  29. Joe says:

    If Obama is not qualified to be president you can bet your britches the power-brokers know it, therefore several reasons why Obama has not been ousted yet, imo; 1) the P.B.s want Biden to take over immediately after Obama is deemed unqualified; 2) the P.B.s want Obama in office, doing their bidding, using blackmail and other means for carrying out their own agenda; 3) the P.B.s want racial turmoil in the streets of every major city in the US after Obama is ousted so that BushCo can declare Martial Law and use his already stationed Brigade of soldiers to usher in a new era of Pax Americana.

  30. Anonymous says:

    Unfortunately the Constitution and Federal law already covers that subject. States cannot usurp Federal law and therefore cannot make a law reqquiring candidates to prove citizenship as it is supposedly done so at the Federal level via background investigations by FBI and other agencies.

  31. MIDDLE CLASS GUY says:

    I do not understand why Berg’s filing with the SCOTUS calls for a response date of December 01, 2008. Is this another date error in Berg’s filings? Should the date not be be November 1, 2008 if he was looking for emergency intervention by the court?

  32. Anonymous says:

    I can’t believe that valid proof of citizenship isn’t standard operating procedure, especially for the office of the President. It is pretty sad when you have to provide a BC to be able to enroll your child in Kindergarten, but not to run for president. Also, why not whip that baby (BC) out and rub it in everyone’s face, in less of course you are hiding something!!!!! If in fact it ends up to be a fake, the whole election should be deemed invalid, no VP taking over for the impeached president.

Speak Your Mind