Thursday, January 8, 2009

Ms J. Kulig's Letter to Matthew W. Friedrich, Acting Asst. AG

I just received a copy of her letter from Ms. J. Kulig.

>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/

>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 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" 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, 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 that Obama was born in Hawaii. Additionally, it is 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 offence?

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 is 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 has an obligation to the American people to make certain that before AND after 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). 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 would 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 because he promised 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 630-745-1707. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter and your timely reply.

Respectfully,

J Kulig,


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:www.drorly.blogspot.com, 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

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

"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)."

Obama has no reason to think he isn't natural born. He has a HI issued document declaring his birth there. No law or court has ever shed a doubt on his status. Fringe groups having obscure opinions means nothing to the law.

Ted said...

Obama can't be POTUS.

Since no congressman and senator objected on 1/8/09 to Congress' count and certification of the electoral vote which would have turned resolution of Obama's eligibility issue over to Congress, rendering moot both the Berg and Lightfoot cases, Berg finally does achieve standing on the issue of actual harm, to be addressed at the 1/9/09 SCOTUS Conference on Writ of Certiorari. Obama's failure to submit evidence of his constitutional qualification for the 1/9/09 conference will mean he cannot thereafter challenge Berg's request to enjoin the 1/8/09 Congressional electoral count and certification, albeit retroactive, scheduled for SCOTUS conference 1/16/09. Moreover, Chief Justice Roberts has scheduled a full Court conference on the Lightfoot case 1/23/09 in the event there needs to be a Constitutionally mandated action, the Inauguration itself, to enjoin retroactively.

Checkmate! (WHERE IS THE NEWS MEDIA?)

Starbeau said...

Obama knows he is ineligible. He knows precisly the definition of natural born and both parents must be citizens at birth for him to be natural born. His father was subject to the UK at birth of Obama. It has nothing to do with his BC in Hawaii. (If there is one...many more problems if there is not, but natural born he is not!)

Ted said...

The nation owes more than thanks to three unlikely modern day patriots: professional poker player, musician, and retired attorney, Leo Donofrio; life long Democrat and former Pennsylvania assistant attorney general, Phil Berg; and Soviet emigree and attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz (she’s also a dentist).

While Mr. Donofrio painstakingly established the airtight case that BHO could not be an Article II “natural born citizen” (at BHO’s birth, dad was British/Kenyan, not American, citizen) Leo’s Stay of the 12/15/08 electoral college vote was denied by SCOTUS as procedurally unripe.

Nevertheless, since no congressman and senator objected on 1/8/09 to Congress’ count and certification of the electoral vote which would have turned resolution of Obama’s eligibility issue over to Congress — rendering moot the Berg and Taitz (Lightfoot) cases — Berg finally does achieve standing on the issue of actual harm, to be addressed at the Friday 1/9/09 SCOTUS Conference on Writ of Certiorari. Obama’s failure to submit evidence of his constitutional qualification for the 1/9/09 conference will mean he cannot thereafter challenge Berg’s request to enjoin the 1/8/09 Congressional electoral count and certification, albeit retroactive, scheduled for SCOTUS conference Friday 1/16/09. Moreover, Chief Justice Roberts has scheduled a full Court conference on the Lightfoot case Friday 1/23/09 in the event there needs to be a Constitutionally mandated action, the Inauguration itself, to enjoin retroactively.

Now that BHO is in checkmate and cannot be POTUS, he can be a patriot as well. He need not subject the nation to the expense and trauma of requiring SCOTUS to overrule his ‘Presidency’. BHO can and should voluntarily step down with Biden becoming Acting POTUS under the 20th Amendment, and under the agreement all potential claims by the Government for itself and on behalf of others against BHO are released.

Starbeau said...

WASHINGTON MOB TRAMPLES FLAG AND CONSTITUTION

WHILE ONLOOKERS WATCH AND APLAUD

While watching television this week we all watched the jubilant events going on in Oakland, CA as a mob smashed windows and stomped on and set fire to vehicles and applauded others as they went about the same types of lawless actions. Police were called and attempted to arrest the lawbreakers.

We also watched similar jubilant events on January 8 when a 541 member gang stomped and trashed our Flag and Constitution in Washington, DC. The gang (and onlookers) applauded and had what appeared to be a very good time as they broke the Supreme Law of the land by certifying as President Elect a man who is not eligible for that position. No police were called to apprehend the lawbreakers.

Couched in biblical syntax the law states:

THOU SHALL NOT ELECT A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES UNLESS HE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.


It is the first and great commandment in the Constitution of the United States.

Yet, the 541 gang members of the 111th Congress did exactly that! Two days after taking a Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and a sworn oath to defend the Constitution, “....,so help me God”.

As badly as we deplore the actions of the lawbreakers in Oakland, their actions pale in comparison to the crime committed by Congress in certifying a candidate they all knew was ineligible. And applauded the crime as they committed it! The actions of Congress in their lawlessness affects 300 million people and will continue to affect millions more, perhaps forever. The crimes committed by Congress, by the very people who have recently taken a Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and sworn to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States, is the most deplorable action ever taken by any Congress.

Abraham Lincoln stated the following long before he became President:

“--let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap--let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation;”

How can our leaders have come so far that they do not recognize that there is no difference between the lawbreakers of Oakland and the lawbreakers in Congress.

God help us all!

Anonymous said...

Dear Stabeau, You say "Obama knows he is ineligible. He knows precisly the definition of natural born and both parents must be citizens at birth for him to be natural born. His father was subject to the UK at birth of Obama. It has nothing to do with his BC in Hawaii."

Where does our Constiution or even major Supreme Court case declare this in precise terms? Obama could not know it if it exists in YOUR unschooled interpretation.

Every voter knew or had every chance to know Mr. Obama Sr. was not American. Every Elector and Congressman who ratified it also. The Supreme Court turned down several cases grasping at your theory. Mr. Obama thought he was eligible and all of that validated him for thinking so.