H/t Don Rubenstein who e-mailed this:
A MODERN PARABLE . . .
A Japanese company ( Toyota ) and an American company (Ford) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.
On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.
The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.
Their conclusion was the Japanese had eight people rowing and one person steering, while the American team had eight people steering and one person rowing.
Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.
They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.
Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to four steering supervisors, three area steering superintendents, and one assistant superintendent steering manager.
They also implemented a new performance system that would give the one person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners, and free pens for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes, and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses.
The next year the Japanese won by two miles.
Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year's racing team was out-sourced to India.
The End.
Here's something else to think about:
Ford has spent the last thirty years moving most of its factories out of the US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages.
TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US. The last quarter's results:
TOYOTA makes $4 billion in profits while Ford racked up $9 billion in losses.
Ford folks are still scratching their heads.
------------
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Exchange on Possible Hyper-Inflation Due to Bush, Bernanke and Obama
Jim:
Tripling the money supply! Really?
How... what's the word here... "nice".
Mitchell, then kindly explain how this would not lead to really rapid and really massive price increases as the currency is devalued because it is 3x less scarce. Even gold will go down in value if suddenly huge hoards of it are suddenly found laying in the ground. This is what happened to the Spanish when they started import/stealing all the gold from the New World. Suddenly, it wasn't worth as much back in Europe.
My response:
A couple of points. The monetary base is not the same as the money supply. The Fed deposits cash in banks. The banks then can lend out a multiple of the reserves. The banks can lend out five or six times the deposits, but they haven't been lending out that much. The money stock is about 2-3 times the reserves. So a tripling of reserves can triple the money supply but it won't if the banks don't lend out a multiple of 3 times that amount. The question is, are the banks really in trouble or have they cried wolf?
If they are in trouble and need this large infusion of reserves, will the Fed remove the reserves once the trouble passes? If the answer is "No, the banks are not in trouble, they are just crying wolf," or "No, the Fed won't remove the reserves once the trouble (if any) passes" (and have you heard a clear description of the trouble--or have you just heard over and over that there is trouble but no one says clearly what it is?) then, yes, there could be a tripling of prices.
A better analogy than the Spanish is the Germans in the 1920s or the post-Revolutionary War Continentals, which ended up being worth 2 cents on the dollar. America, believe it or not, invented paper money inflation back in 1776. We can do it again, yes we can, yes we can.
Tripling the money supply! Really?
How... what's the word here... "nice".
Mitchell, then kindly explain how this would not lead to really rapid and really massive price increases as the currency is devalued because it is 3x less scarce. Even gold will go down in value if suddenly huge hoards of it are suddenly found laying in the ground. This is what happened to the Spanish when they started import/stealing all the gold from the New World. Suddenly, it wasn't worth as much back in Europe.
My response:
A couple of points. The monetary base is not the same as the money supply. The Fed deposits cash in banks. The banks then can lend out a multiple of the reserves. The banks can lend out five or six times the deposits, but they haven't been lending out that much. The money stock is about 2-3 times the reserves. So a tripling of reserves can triple the money supply but it won't if the banks don't lend out a multiple of 3 times that amount. The question is, are the banks really in trouble or have they cried wolf?
If they are in trouble and need this large infusion of reserves, will the Fed remove the reserves once the trouble passes? If the answer is "No, the banks are not in trouble, they are just crying wolf," or "No, the Fed won't remove the reserves once the trouble (if any) passes" (and have you heard a clear description of the trouble--or have you just heard over and over that there is trouble but no one says clearly what it is?) then, yes, there could be a tripling of prices.
A better analogy than the Spanish is the Germans in the 1920s or the post-Revolutionary War Continentals, which ended up being worth 2 cents on the dollar. America, believe it or not, invented paper money inflation back in 1776. We can do it again, yes we can, yes we can.
What is An American?
I just received the following e-mail from Chaim Rosen, an outstanding Brooklyn College student.
>>Written by an Australian Dentist
To Kill an American
You probably missed this in the rush of news, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper, an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American.
So an Australian dentist wrote an editorial the following day to let everyone know what an American is . So they would know when they found one. (Good one, mate!!!!)
'An American is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish , Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani or Afghan.
An American may also be a Comanche, Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, Seminole or one of the many other tribes known as native Americans.
An American is Christian , or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them chooses.
An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.
An American lives in the most prosperous land in the history of the world.
The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God given right of each person to the pursuit of happiness.
An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need, never asking a thing in return.
When Afghanistan was over-run by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country!
As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan .
The national symbol of America , The Statue of Liberty , welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, temp est tossed. These in fact are the people who built America
Some of them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11 , 2001 earning a better life for their families. It's been told that the World Trade Center victims were from at least 30 different countries, cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abetted the terrorists.
So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo , and Stalin , and Mao Tse-Tung, and other blood-thirsty tyrants in the world. But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself . Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.
Please keep this going! Pass this around the World. Then pass it around again.
It says it all, for all of us. Please do not just delete. Pass it on first.
Thanks!
>>Written by an Australian Dentist
To Kill an American
You probably missed this in the rush of news, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper, an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American.
So an Australian dentist wrote an editorial the following day to let everyone know what an American is . So they would know when they found one. (Good one, mate!!!!)
'An American is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish , Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani or Afghan.
An American may also be a Comanche, Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, Seminole or one of the many other tribes known as native Americans.
An American is Christian , or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them chooses.
An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.
An American lives in the most prosperous land in the history of the world.
The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God given right of each person to the pursuit of happiness.
An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need, never asking a thing in return.
When Afghanistan was over-run by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country!
As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan .
The national symbol of America , The Statue of Liberty , welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, temp est tossed. These in fact are the people who built America
Some of them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11 , 2001 earning a better life for their families. It's been told that the World Trade Center victims were from at least 30 different countries, cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abetted the terrorists.
So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo , and Stalin , and Mao Tse-Tung, and other blood-thirsty tyrants in the world. But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself . Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.
Please keep this going! Pass this around the World. Then pass it around again.
It says it all, for all of us. Please do not just delete. Pass it on first.
Thanks!
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
>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
BREAKING: Chief Justice Roberts to Hear Orly Taitz BOBC case
I received Ms. Taitz's press release earlier this evening concerning Lightfoot v. Bowen. Chief Justice Roberts has agreed to hear the case she is brining, Lightfoot v. Bowen.
Press Release from Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
01.07.09.
Good news,
Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to hear my case Lightfoot v Bowen, challenging eligibility for presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. He distributed the case to the full conference of the Supreme Court. The timing of this decision by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is absolutely remarkable. On January 7, one day before the January 8 vote by Congress and Senate, whether to approve or object to the electoral vote of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, as president of the United States, Chief Justice Roberts is sending a message to them: "Hold on, not so fast, there is value in this case, read it. Hawaiian statue 338 allows Foreign Born children of Hawaiian Residents to obtain Hawaiian Birth Certificates, it allows one to get Hawaiian Certification of Life birth based on a statement of one relative only, without any corroborating evidence. You need to investigate, you need corroborating evidence. If only one Congressman or one Senator presents a written objection, then there has to be a formal investigation by the joint session of Congress and Senate. During this investigation original birth certificate from Hawaii will be subpoenaed. All other pertinent documents will be subpoenaed: Obama's immigration records, any and all passports from Indonesia, Kenya and Great Britain; University enrollment records, showing if he was enrolled in US schools and universities and received financial aid as a foreign exchange student from Indonesia or Kenya. All of it can be subpoenaed and obtained within a day or two. Each and every member of US Congress and Senate owes it to 320 million American citizens to do his due diligence and demand all necessary records. When American servicemen are told to risk their lives defending Constitution of this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, each and every Congressman and each and every Senator can spend a day or two of their time defending this Constitution, reviewing necessary documents, in order to see if Barack Hussein Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, if he is a citizen at all." This is the message that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is sending to them, and if they are not listening, there has to be a massive petition drive to recall them. Truth will come out, no matter how many millions Obama is spending to hide it.
Dr.Orly Taitz, ESQ
drorly.blogspot.com
dr_taitz@yahoo.com
No. 08A524
Title: Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.: (S168690)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Orly Taitz 26302 La Paz (949) 683-5411
Counsel of Record Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.
Press Release from Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
01.07.09.
Good news,
Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to hear my case Lightfoot v Bowen, challenging eligibility for presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. He distributed the case to the full conference of the Supreme Court. The timing of this decision by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is absolutely remarkable. On January 7, one day before the January 8 vote by Congress and Senate, whether to approve or object to the electoral vote of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, as president of the United States, Chief Justice Roberts is sending a message to them: "Hold on, not so fast, there is value in this case, read it. Hawaiian statue 338 allows Foreign Born children of Hawaiian Residents to obtain Hawaiian Birth Certificates, it allows one to get Hawaiian Certification of Life birth based on a statement of one relative only, without any corroborating evidence. You need to investigate, you need corroborating evidence. If only one Congressman or one Senator presents a written objection, then there has to be a formal investigation by the joint session of Congress and Senate. During this investigation original birth certificate from Hawaii will be subpoenaed. All other pertinent documents will be subpoenaed: Obama's immigration records, any and all passports from Indonesia, Kenya and Great Britain; University enrollment records, showing if he was enrolled in US schools and universities and received financial aid as a foreign exchange student from Indonesia or Kenya. All of it can be subpoenaed and obtained within a day or two. Each and every member of US Congress and Senate owes it to 320 million American citizens to do his due diligence and demand all necessary records. When American servicemen are told to risk their lives defending Constitution of this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, each and every Congressman and each and every Senator can spend a day or two of their time defending this Constitution, reviewing necessary documents, in order to see if Barack Hussein Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, if he is a citizen at all." This is the message that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is sending to them, and if they are not listening, there has to be a massive petition drive to recall them. Truth will come out, no matter how many millions Obama is spending to hide it.
Dr.Orly Taitz, ESQ
drorly.blogspot.com
dr_taitz@yahoo.com
No. 08A524
Title: Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.: (S168690)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Orly Taitz 26302 La Paz (949) 683-5411
Counsel of Record Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
'Tis a Small Town, But There Are Those Who Love It--Woodstock, NY 1/6/09
To quote a t-shirt of twenty years ago: "the concert wasn't here. It was in White Lake, 30 miles away!" I took these while I was doing the laundry.
Let the Dems' Corruption Begin
Jim Crum just forwarded a link to about a Human Events article concerning Speaker Pelosi's rules changes in the House. The article reads:
>House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
>Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”
>In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi...
Human Events posts the letter here.
>House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
>Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”
>In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi...
Human Events posts the letter here.
Monday, January 5, 2009
The Coming Civil War in America
America has evolved into two broad cultures. This was observed in the 1950s by sociologists like C. Wright Mills and David Riesman. In recent years the gap between the two cultures has intensified. The two cultures might be called traditional and other-directed. I included in traditional the intermediate type that Riesman discusses, inner-directed, in part because it is difficult to distinguish between other-directed people with goals or achievement orientation that David McClelland discusses in his book, written in the 1960s, the Achieving Society, and people for whom inner-direction and achievement orientation predominate. It may be impossible to distinguish the types with sufficient specificity. Also, the discussion has been muddled by the eschatological or teleological character of much twentieth century social science. Marx reinvented messianism for the other-directed mass, and social scientists have been prone to inject a degree of Marxist mysticism into almost all of their work. That is, they assume that other-direction involves evolution or "progress" beyond inner direction or tradition or that the propagandistic term "progressive" is more than vacuous of meaning.
The reassertion of religious values in America, particularly in the states that were christened "red" in the millennial election, is evidence of a serious breach in the values of the two Americas. This was not new in 2000, because by the 1950s Riesman had already noted that urban, higher income Americans had devolved from the inner direction or goal orient of the nineteenth century into a group-concerned "other direction" that in many ways was similar to the tribal traditionalism of primitive cultures but in other ways was different. It was different because it was dependent upon mass media and culture to define its values. However, both Riesman and Mills fixated on urban mass culture and did not explore the differences between rural Americans and the urban ones whom they emphasized.
It took Americans about two generations, between 1932 when Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected and 1980 when Ronald Reagan was elected to reject the New Deal policies that were associated with the mass media and other-directed trends. However, this rejection was far from consistent. In the "blue states" most people disliked Reagan, and disliked the Republican ascendancy between 1980 and 2006. The balance was almost equal, with the margin of difference depending on the ebb and flow of the economy and incumbents' corruption.
The differences between the two cultures, the inner and other directed intensified because the other-directed resented their displacement. The other-directed never resolved the key social problems that their experts claimed qualified to resolve. Issues concerning poverty, the economy, international relations, urban planning, even warfare (as represented by the tragi-comic Robert McNamara) were hardly resolved by the other-directed or "liberal" media-based elites. Indeed, the more they tried, the worse the problems seemed to become. It is even arguable that the Great Depression, the bugaboo of the other-directed "liberal" culture, was in fact a product of that culture's inability to grasp fundamental monetary issues and its groupthink-based emphasis on governmental solutions and high taxes (during the FDR administration and later) that blocked normal economic recovery.
In short, the other-directed culture has been short-sighted, narrow minded and arrogant. At the same time, many Americans have rejected this other-directed culture in favor of a rediscovery of traditional and religious values. This rediscovery is resented by the other-directed, who sense that it represents a rejection of the fundamental structure of their culture. They should not be surprised, however, because their culture has not proven to produce results. Nor should they be surprised that many Americans continue to have faith.
C. Wright Mills, a left-wing sociologist, identified the role of media in the inculcation of mass psychology in what is now called the blue states back in 1956 in his book The Power Elite. Mills identifies mass communication as the source of elite power. Therefore, the evolution of evangelical television broadcasts, cable television, the Internet, and other alternative communication methods would seem to have presented the other-directed power elite with a threat to its control. These technological changes had the unpredictable effect of enhancing traditional values and culture in the red states and among those who are still inner-directed or traditional in value orientation and so able to think for themselves.
Mills writes of a modern mass media, which is now a thing of the past. Media is no longer centrally controlled, and it is becoming less so. The newspapers and broadcast television stations of the 1950s are now being replaced by Internet bloggers, cable and Internet-based television stations that are not centrally controlled and so facilitate a sharing or equalization of culture. Thus, the modern tendency toward other-direction is thwarted by the sheer number of choices of information outlets. This in turn facilitates reliance on traditional values rather than the babel of alternative information sources as a basis. Information overload permits tradition to reassert itself, and the Godly values of traditional America have benefited.
There is a reversal of the trend that Mills described in 1956:
"there is a movement from widely scattered little powers to concentrated powers and the attempt at monopoly control from the powerful centers, which, being partially hidden, are centers of manipulation as well as authority. The small shop serving the neighborhood is replaced by the anonymity of the national corporation; mas advertisement replaces the personal influence of opinion between merchant and customer. The political leader hooks up his speech to a national network...in the mass society of media markets, competition if any goes on between the manipulators with their mass media on the one hand, and the people receiving their propaganda on the other. Under such conditions, it is not surprising that there should arise a conception of public opinion as a mere reaction--we cannot say 'response' to the content of mass media. In this view, the public is merely the collectivity of individuals each rather passively exposed to the mass media and rather helplessly opened up to the suggestions and manipulations that flow from these media. The fact of manipulation from centralized points of control constitutes, as it were, an expropriation of the old multitude of little opinion producers and consumers operating in a free and balanced market."
Riesman emphasizes that other-directedness, which he considers to be characteristic of the modern world, is predominantly associated with urban professionals.
Neither Mills nor Riesman (nor anyone else of the 1950s) could have anticipated the evolution of telecommunication methods that dissolve central dominance of the power elite, i.e., the marketers of other-directedness and "liberal" ideology. This has led to the unthinkable: a reassertion of individualism and traditional belief in the heartland of America.
This is not to say that the urban, other-directed culture has disappeared. Rather, that it no longer predominates to the degree it once did, even with the aid of left-dominated universities and an education system that sees its role as the inculcation of ideology in the form of "social justice learning" and political correctness. Not only are many Americans beginning to question the value of public education and to engage in home schooling, but also are questioning the cultural hegemony of universities and supposed experts: cancer experts who cannot cure cancer; economics experts who bungle the economy; psychological experts who cannot cure mental illness or who define it and redefine it in absurd ways; and sociological experts who claim to cure poverty but whose cures precede massive drug addiction, intensification of segregated northern cities and entrenched poverty.
The reaction of the "liberal" other-directed culture has been to intensify its ideological and cultural commitment to "liberal" solutions and other-directedness. The hostitility toward George W. Bush and Sarah Palin exemplify the intensification of anger and hostility toward those who look to tradition, to inner direction and specifically American values. This hostility is likely to increase as information sources continue to fragment. America is becoming a multi-cultural nation, and the cultures are at loggerheads. The conflict will become more overt.
The reassertion of religious values in America, particularly in the states that were christened "red" in the millennial election, is evidence of a serious breach in the values of the two Americas. This was not new in 2000, because by the 1950s Riesman had already noted that urban, higher income Americans had devolved from the inner direction or goal orient of the nineteenth century into a group-concerned "other direction" that in many ways was similar to the tribal traditionalism of primitive cultures but in other ways was different. It was different because it was dependent upon mass media and culture to define its values. However, both Riesman and Mills fixated on urban mass culture and did not explore the differences between rural Americans and the urban ones whom they emphasized.
It took Americans about two generations, between 1932 when Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected and 1980 when Ronald Reagan was elected to reject the New Deal policies that were associated with the mass media and other-directed trends. However, this rejection was far from consistent. In the "blue states" most people disliked Reagan, and disliked the Republican ascendancy between 1980 and 2006. The balance was almost equal, with the margin of difference depending on the ebb and flow of the economy and incumbents' corruption.
The differences between the two cultures, the inner and other directed intensified because the other-directed resented their displacement. The other-directed never resolved the key social problems that their experts claimed qualified to resolve. Issues concerning poverty, the economy, international relations, urban planning, even warfare (as represented by the tragi-comic Robert McNamara) were hardly resolved by the other-directed or "liberal" media-based elites. Indeed, the more they tried, the worse the problems seemed to become. It is even arguable that the Great Depression, the bugaboo of the other-directed "liberal" culture, was in fact a product of that culture's inability to grasp fundamental monetary issues and its groupthink-based emphasis on governmental solutions and high taxes (during the FDR administration and later) that blocked normal economic recovery.
In short, the other-directed culture has been short-sighted, narrow minded and arrogant. At the same time, many Americans have rejected this other-directed culture in favor of a rediscovery of traditional and religious values. This rediscovery is resented by the other-directed, who sense that it represents a rejection of the fundamental structure of their culture. They should not be surprised, however, because their culture has not proven to produce results. Nor should they be surprised that many Americans continue to have faith.
C. Wright Mills, a left-wing sociologist, identified the role of media in the inculcation of mass psychology in what is now called the blue states back in 1956 in his book The Power Elite. Mills identifies mass communication as the source of elite power. Therefore, the evolution of evangelical television broadcasts, cable television, the Internet, and other alternative communication methods would seem to have presented the other-directed power elite with a threat to its control. These technological changes had the unpredictable effect of enhancing traditional values and culture in the red states and among those who are still inner-directed or traditional in value orientation and so able to think for themselves.
Mills writes of a modern mass media, which is now a thing of the past. Media is no longer centrally controlled, and it is becoming less so. The newspapers and broadcast television stations of the 1950s are now being replaced by Internet bloggers, cable and Internet-based television stations that are not centrally controlled and so facilitate a sharing or equalization of culture. Thus, the modern tendency toward other-direction is thwarted by the sheer number of choices of information outlets. This in turn facilitates reliance on traditional values rather than the babel of alternative information sources as a basis. Information overload permits tradition to reassert itself, and the Godly values of traditional America have benefited.
There is a reversal of the trend that Mills described in 1956:
"there is a movement from widely scattered little powers to concentrated powers and the attempt at monopoly control from the powerful centers, which, being partially hidden, are centers of manipulation as well as authority. The small shop serving the neighborhood is replaced by the anonymity of the national corporation; mas advertisement replaces the personal influence of opinion between merchant and customer. The political leader hooks up his speech to a national network...in the mass society of media markets, competition if any goes on between the manipulators with their mass media on the one hand, and the people receiving their propaganda on the other. Under such conditions, it is not surprising that there should arise a conception of public opinion as a mere reaction--we cannot say 'response' to the content of mass media. In this view, the public is merely the collectivity of individuals each rather passively exposed to the mass media and rather helplessly opened up to the suggestions and manipulations that flow from these media. The fact of manipulation from centralized points of control constitutes, as it were, an expropriation of the old multitude of little opinion producers and consumers operating in a free and balanced market."
Riesman emphasizes that other-directedness, which he considers to be characteristic of the modern world, is predominantly associated with urban professionals.
Neither Mills nor Riesman (nor anyone else of the 1950s) could have anticipated the evolution of telecommunication methods that dissolve central dominance of the power elite, i.e., the marketers of other-directedness and "liberal" ideology. This has led to the unthinkable: a reassertion of individualism and traditional belief in the heartland of America.
This is not to say that the urban, other-directed culture has disappeared. Rather, that it no longer predominates to the degree it once did, even with the aid of left-dominated universities and an education system that sees its role as the inculcation of ideology in the form of "social justice learning" and political correctness. Not only are many Americans beginning to question the value of public education and to engage in home schooling, but also are questioning the cultural hegemony of universities and supposed experts: cancer experts who cannot cure cancer; economics experts who bungle the economy; psychological experts who cannot cure mental illness or who define it and redefine it in absurd ways; and sociological experts who claim to cure poverty but whose cures precede massive drug addiction, intensification of segregated northern cities and entrenched poverty.
The reaction of the "liberal" other-directed culture has been to intensify its ideological and cultural commitment to "liberal" solutions and other-directedness. The hostitility toward George W. Bush and Sarah Palin exemplify the intensification of anger and hostility toward those who look to tradition, to inner direction and specifically American values. This hostility is likely to increase as information sources continue to fragment. America is becoming a multi-cultural nation, and the cultures are at loggerheads. The conflict will become more overt.
John Maynard Keynes on Inflation
"Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become 'profiteers,' who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflation has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.
"Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."
--John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, New York: Harcourt Brace, 1919, 235-6.
"Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."
--John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, New York: Harcourt Brace, 1919, 235-6.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Is the Global Warming Theory Falsifiable?
One of the marks of science is falsifiability. If a theory cannot be proven false, it is not scientific. It is incumbent upon the advocates of the theory that the earth is warming to define how their theory can be proven false. If it cannot, it is not a scientific theory. I watched the Al Gore video and do not recall him mentioning how his theory could be proven false.
Bob Robbins just forwarded this from the Astute Blogger. The Astute Blogger quotes a number of articles suggesting that this winter is colder than usual in several places, including Wales, India, Sri Lanka and Alaska.
Global warming theorists might reply that the fact that there are swings in temperature is indeed evidence of global warming. If that is so but the swings in temperature fail to reject the null hypothesis of greater variability (this would involve an F test)then the theory of global warming is rejected. Otherwise, I am having trouble understanding how cooler temperatures in various countries can be consistent with "global" warming.
>FUNERAL directors in Swansea have revealed they are holding more services than usual following a rise in deaths.
They say there has been an increase in the death rate and Assembly-based health experts confirmed the freezing temperatures could be responsible.
... Latest provisional figures for winter 2007/08 reveal there were around 1,500 excess deaths in Wales — a seven per cent rise on the previous winter.
>At least 31 people have died in India's northern state of Uttar Pradesh as severe cold weather continues in the region.
>A severe cold wave is hitting the Nuwara Eliya district, thus affecting tea and other plantations in the low lying areas.
>Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.
Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
Bob Robbins just forwarded this from the Astute Blogger. The Astute Blogger quotes a number of articles suggesting that this winter is colder than usual in several places, including Wales, India, Sri Lanka and Alaska.
Global warming theorists might reply that the fact that there are swings in temperature is indeed evidence of global warming. If that is so but the swings in temperature fail to reject the null hypothesis of greater variability (this would involve an F test)then the theory of global warming is rejected. Otherwise, I am having trouble understanding how cooler temperatures in various countries can be consistent with "global" warming.
>FUNERAL directors in Swansea have revealed they are holding more services than usual following a rise in deaths.
They say there has been an increase in the death rate and Assembly-based health experts confirmed the freezing temperatures could be responsible.
... Latest provisional figures for winter 2007/08 reveal there were around 1,500 excess deaths in Wales — a seven per cent rise on the previous winter.
>At least 31 people have died in India's northern state of Uttar Pradesh as severe cold weather continues in the region.
>A severe cold wave is hitting the Nuwara Eliya district, thus affecting tea and other plantations in the low lying areas.
>Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.
Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
David's Proposal Re Obama Certificate
I just received the following e-mail:
Per your efforts to examine Obama's qualifications, may I encourage you to seek "verification" of Obama's "certificates", particularly focusing on what you KNOW is on those certificates. The privacy issue is only over what primary vital information you do NOT know.
[§338-14.3] Verification in lieu of a certified copy. provides for verification of what you think you DO know.
e.g., Based on school records citing "Barry Soetoro", adopted by "Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo"
Also known as Lolo Sutoro Mangundikardjo
Since they will only verify exact wording, it may take multiple tries, but eventually you can verify multiple items.
David L. H---n
See:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html
"Letters of Verification
Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.
Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.
The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter."
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0014_0003.htm
" [§338-14.3] Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
(c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.
(d) The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy shall be one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued.
(e) Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1]"
In HRS 338-0018 see especially:
" (g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is: . . .
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]"
--
About Vital Records | Marriage License | Marriage Performers | Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationships
How to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records
All applications requesting certified copies of birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates must generally be made in writing (application forms may be downloaded from this site - see below). Requests may also be placed for birth and marriage certificates on a limited basis through the Internet (www.ehawaiigov.org/ohsm). Telephone, FAX, or e-mail requests are not accepted.
Fees for certified copies of birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates are identical:
$10.00 for the first copy of each certificate, and
$4.00 for each additional copy of the same certificate ordered at the same time.
There is an additional fee for requests made through the Internet as follows:
$1.50 for a request of one (the first) copy of each certificate, if the requested certificate is found, or for the cost of conducting the search, if the requested certificate is not found, and
$0.25 for each additional copy of the same certificate ordered at the same time.
Fees may be paid by cash (except for applications made by postal mail), money order, certified check, or cashier’s check - make money order and checks payable to the State Department of Health.
PERSONAL CHECKS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
Fees must be paid by a charge to a credit card for requests made through the Internet.
All fees for certified copies are payable in advance and nonrefundable. If no record is found after a search is conducted, the fees are retained to cover the cost of the search.
Once an order has been received and processed, a $10.00 fee will be charged for any request to make changes to the order.
Apply In Person
Walk-in service is available:
Days - Monday through Friday (excluding holidays)
Hours - 7:45 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Location - Room 103 (1st floor) of the Health Department building, 1250 Punchbowl Street (corner of Beretania and Punchbowl Streets)
When applying in person, the applicant must show a valid government-issued photo ID, such as a State ID, driver's license, etc.
Certified copies are usually not issued on the day the application is made. Same-Day service may be provided upon presentation of written documentation establishing the need for urgency. Certified copies will normally be available for pick-up about 10 working days after the request is approved. The pick-up time may be extended for records that are very old, because the search to locate the record may take longer, or in the process of being filed, because the official record is still being created.
Application forms are available in the building’s lobby area and should be filled in prior to coming to the counter in Room 103.
Apply by Mail
Send mail-in applications to the following address:
State Department of Health
Office of Health Status Monitoring
Issuance/Vital Statistics Section
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
When applying by mail, the applicant must include a photocopy of his/her government-issued photo ID, such as a State ID, driver's license, etc.
PERSONAL CHECKS WILL BE REJECTED AND RETURNED WITH THE APPLICATION TO THE APPLICANT.
Certified copies will normally be sent out within 5-8 weeks after receipt and approval of the application. The return time may be extended for records that are very old, because the search to locate the record may take longer, or in the process of being filed, because the official record is still being created.
What Information You Should Be Prepared to Provide
An applicant/requestor must provide the information needed to 1) establish his/her direct and tangible interest in the record and 2) locate the desired record. This will normally include:
Applicant's name, address, and telephone number(s);
Applicant's relationship to the person named on the certificate;
Reason why you are requesting the certificate;
Full name(s) as listed on the certificate;
The certificate’s file number (if known);
Month, day, and year of the event; and
City or town and the island where the event occurred.
For birth certificates, also provide the full name of the father and the full maiden name of the mother.
If you are applying for a certificate on behalf of someone else, you must provide an original letter signed by that person authorizing the release of their certificate to you.
Letters of Verification
Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.
Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.
The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter.
Application Forms
Application forms are available in a “fillable” Adobe Acrobat portable document format (PDF). The Adobe Acrobat Reader 7 (or later) is required for using the fillable forms feature.
The Adobe Acrobat Reader 7 is free to download and install on your computer by clicking on the button:
Download Request For Certified Copy of Birth Record
Download Request For Certified Copy of Death Record
Download Request For Certified Copy of Marriage Record
Download Request For Certified Copy of Divorce Record
Further Information and Assistance
If you require further information about applying for certified copies of vital records or want to check on the status of an accepted request for certified copies of vital records, call (808) 586-4539 or (808) 586-4542 during regular business hours.
Per your efforts to examine Obama's qualifications, may I encourage you to seek "verification" of Obama's "certificates", particularly focusing on what you KNOW is on those certificates. The privacy issue is only over what primary vital information you do NOT know.
[§338-14.3] Verification in lieu of a certified copy. provides for verification of what you think you DO know.
e.g., Based on school records citing "Barry Soetoro", adopted by "Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo"
Also known as Lolo Sutoro Mangundikardjo
Since they will only verify exact wording, it may take multiple tries, but eventually you can verify multiple items.
David L. H---n
See:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html
"Letters of Verification
Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.
Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.
The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter."
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0014_0003.htm
" [§338-14.3] Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
(c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.
(d) The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy shall be one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued.
(e) Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1]"
In HRS 338-0018 see especially:
" (g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is: . . .
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]"
--
About Vital Records | Marriage License | Marriage Performers | Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationships
How to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records
All applications requesting certified copies of birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates must generally be made in writing (application forms may be downloaded from this site - see below). Requests may also be placed for birth and marriage certificates on a limited basis through the Internet (www.ehawaiigov.org/ohsm). Telephone, FAX, or e-mail requests are not accepted.
Fees for certified copies of birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates are identical:
$10.00 for the first copy of each certificate, and
$4.00 for each additional copy of the same certificate ordered at the same time.
There is an additional fee for requests made through the Internet as follows:
$1.50 for a request of one (the first) copy of each certificate, if the requested certificate is found, or for the cost of conducting the search, if the requested certificate is not found, and
$0.25 for each additional copy of the same certificate ordered at the same time.
Fees may be paid by cash (except for applications made by postal mail), money order, certified check, or cashier’s check - make money order and checks payable to the State Department of Health.
PERSONAL CHECKS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
Fees must be paid by a charge to a credit card for requests made through the Internet.
All fees for certified copies are payable in advance and nonrefundable. If no record is found after a search is conducted, the fees are retained to cover the cost of the search.
Once an order has been received and processed, a $10.00 fee will be charged for any request to make changes to the order.
Apply In Person
Walk-in service is available:
Days - Monday through Friday (excluding holidays)
Hours - 7:45 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Location - Room 103 (1st floor) of the Health Department building, 1250 Punchbowl Street (corner of Beretania and Punchbowl Streets)
When applying in person, the applicant must show a valid government-issued photo ID, such as a State ID, driver's license, etc.
Certified copies are usually not issued on the day the application is made. Same-Day service may be provided upon presentation of written documentation establishing the need for urgency. Certified copies will normally be available for pick-up about 10 working days after the request is approved. The pick-up time may be extended for records that are very old, because the search to locate the record may take longer, or in the process of being filed, because the official record is still being created.
Application forms are available in the building’s lobby area and should be filled in prior to coming to the counter in Room 103.
Apply by Mail
Send mail-in applications to the following address:
State Department of Health
Office of Health Status Monitoring
Issuance/Vital Statistics Section
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
When applying by mail, the applicant must include a photocopy of his/her government-issued photo ID, such as a State ID, driver's license, etc.
PERSONAL CHECKS WILL BE REJECTED AND RETURNED WITH THE APPLICATION TO THE APPLICANT.
Certified copies will normally be sent out within 5-8 weeks after receipt and approval of the application. The return time may be extended for records that are very old, because the search to locate the record may take longer, or in the process of being filed, because the official record is still being created.
What Information You Should Be Prepared to Provide
An applicant/requestor must provide the information needed to 1) establish his/her direct and tangible interest in the record and 2) locate the desired record. This will normally include:
Applicant's name, address, and telephone number(s);
Applicant's relationship to the person named on the certificate;
Reason why you are requesting the certificate;
Full name(s) as listed on the certificate;
The certificate’s file number (if known);
Month, day, and year of the event; and
City or town and the island where the event occurred.
For birth certificates, also provide the full name of the father and the full maiden name of the mother.
If you are applying for a certificate on behalf of someone else, you must provide an original letter signed by that person authorizing the release of their certificate to you.
Letters of Verification
Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.
Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.
The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter.
Application Forms
Application forms are available in a “fillable” Adobe Acrobat portable document format (PDF). The Adobe Acrobat Reader 7 (or later) is required for using the fillable forms feature.
The Adobe Acrobat Reader 7 is free to download and install on your computer by clicking on the button:
Download Request For Certified Copy of Birth Record
Download Request For Certified Copy of Death Record
Download Request For Certified Copy of Marriage Record
Download Request For Certified Copy of Divorce Record
Further Information and Assistance
If you require further information about applying for certified copies of vital records or want to check on the status of an accepted request for certified copies of vital records, call (808) 586-4539 or (808) 586-4542 during regular business hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
