October 30, 2008
� 2008 - NewsWithViews.com
While the disgraced mainstream media continues to ignore the constitutional crisis regarding Obama's birth certificate, we the people will not be deterred from getting the truth.
Over the past two weeks I have received thousands of emails (which I cannot respond to one on one) from enraged Americans over Judge R. Barclay Surrick's decision in Berg v. Obama, et al (see here). Americans are energized and faxed their state officials demanding Obama's eligibility for ballot qualification be investigated. The responses from these elected public servants all provided basically the same response, here are just two:
"While the Secretary of State certifies candidates for the ballot, each political party is legally responsible for choosing the candidate they wish to place on the ballot." Sincerely, Legislative and Constituent Affairs Secretary of State (California)
"The Florida Department of State does not have investigative or enforcement authority to ensure that major parties candidates are properly qualified to be President of the United States. The U.S. Constitution establishes the qualifying requirements for President. Under Florida law, the way in which a major party's candidate is placed on the ballot is that the state executive committee of each political party submits its slate of presidential electors for its candidate before September 1st of each presidential election year; then, by law, the names of candidates are printed on the ballot. Those candidates are not required to provide any documents to the State that they meet the qualifications for office.
"The Florida Secretary of State performs only a ministerial function. So, the Secretary has no authority or duty to look beyond the filing documents to determine if a candidate is eligible. If a candidate (or the party in the case of a major political party nominating someone as a Presidential candidate) files the necessary paperwork, which papers are complete on their face, the Secretary must qualify the candidate. Any challenge to the qualifications of a U.S. Presidential candidate should be made in a court of competent jurisdiction." Gary J. Holland, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of State
As Dr. Edwin Vieira pointed out in my conversation with him yesterday, an individual applying for a hunting license in Virginia must provide a real birth certificate, but an applicant for president of these united States of America doesn't have to prove citizenship? Excellent point and it appears the states of the Union are willing to allow the DNC to defraud their citizens the right to vote for a legally eligible candidate because they fear riots by a certain race of voters.
The idiom, possession is nine tenths of the law, is EXACTLY what Obama is gambling on right now. If he can stall until November 4th when vote fraud will "elect him" if he's the choice of the shadow government, Obama figures he's home free. No doubt Obama is feeling empowered from the extreme bias by corporate media with one newspaper in New Mexico already declaring him the "winner." In his bloated arrogance, Obama believes that if he's "declared" the winner, he can just waltz into the Oval office because law enforcement, public officials and federal judges are scared black Americans will burn cities to the ground. In my opinion, they do an injustice to Americans of color. No doubt there are areas in some major cities which have the potential to go off the track, but not everyone of a certain race believes riots are the way to resolve an issue.
Obama's gamble is that since this big hoax called an election is already underway with early voting, if he "wins" and is sworn into office, possession is nine tenths of the law and the hell with the Constitution. He's now a step closer. One of the nine lawsuits filed at the state level has now been thrown out:
Judge tosses lawsuit over Obama citizenship
SEATTLE — "A King County judge said Monday that a lawsuit challenging Sen. Barack Obama's qualifications to be president "may be a positive idea," but threw it out because the law clearly prevents the secretary of state from getting involved.
"Washington's Secretary of State Sam Reed does not have the authority to inquire into Obama's birth certificate and determine if it is valid or not, said Superior Court Judge John Erlick. Therefore, Reed is obliged to accept the nomination and keep Obama's name on the state ballot, Erlick said. Doing any external fact-finding "is not authorized by the state constitution or state law or administrative rule," he said. "The 2008 general election is already in progress; ballots have been issued and a substantial number of voters have voted," said the order signed by Erlick."
Obama was in Hawaii from the afternoon of October 23rd to the morning of October 25th, ostensibly to visit his ailing grandmother. Hawaii is also the state Obama claims is his birthplace. In June, Obama released a copy of a birth certificate which was printed off a laser printer. It carries no state seal and cannot be verified.
While Obama was in Hawaii last week, he could have simply gone down to the Hawaii Department of Health on Friday, October 24th, requested a copy of the state sealed birth certificate, gone outside where the world's media would be waiting since they follow him everywhere and presented the birth certificate for the world to see. Over, done, finished.
Instead, Obama flies back to the mainland leaving the issue unresolved. WND reports they were told by government authorities in Kenya that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4, 2008. What's the big secret? Perhaps to black mail Obama down the road should he succeed in getting sworn in would be my guess. After all, Obama has a very cozy relationship with Odinga.
No sooner did Obama's plane lift off the ground to return stateside, Hawaii "Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate's birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances." The State of Hawaii says a birth certificate can be requested by the individual, authorized family members, authorized legal representative or by a court of law; see here.
When Phil Berg filed his lawsuit over two months ago, Obama could very easily have requested and obtained a 'vault certificate'. That would have ended all this speculation and lawsuits to get to the truth. Instead, his high paid lawyers, along with defendants DNC and FEC, fought to get Phil's lawsuit thrown out of court.
Obama's campaign has been the most corrupt of my lifetime, surpassing even the Clinton duo. According to an investigation done by Kenneth R. Timmerman (see here): "More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose." I predict once investigations are underway by the FBI, we will see just how much money came in from unlawful sources - especially foreign donors. Obama doesn't care at this point, he only need make it to coronation day and pay FEC fines later. After all, it's not his money.
This brings me around to the issue of possible crimes being committed by both Gov. Lingle and Obama. If Gov. Lingle has seen a birth certificate or has been told by an official at the Hawaii Department of Health that "a" document will prove Obama does not meet eligibility requirements under Art. II, Sec.1 of the U.S. Constitution and she remains silent, is she guilty of defrauding the American people? She is the chief law enforcement officer for the State of Hawaii. If Gov. Lingle knows Obama is committing fraud by presenting himself as a natural born U.S. Citizen, isn't she obligated under the law to expose such fraud?
I consulted with a friend who is a constitutional attorney with 30 years experience in federal court rooms about this very issue. If Obama has knowingly withheld his legal citizenship status in order to run for the presidency and has collected nearly a half billion dollars by perpetrating fraud, can he be charged and indicted? Obama's campaign released digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to kill any more inquiries into his citizenship. The 'image' is not proof and Obama knows it and so does his high paid legal representatives. During this period and as I write this column, Obama continues to solicit money. This is my friend's expert legal analysis:
"In the late 70s and early 80s, federal prosecutors often sought to indict and convict corrupt state officials by contending that such officials engaged in a “scheme to defraud” the citizens of a particular state of those public servants' honest services. But in 1987, the Supreme Court held in McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), that the mail and wire fraud statutes could not be stretched to encompass such a legal theory. In response, Congress adopted 18 U.S.C. §1346 to cure this defect in statutory language. Lots of corrupt local officials have been indicted and convicted for using the mails and wires to carry out a "scheme to defraud" the public via their "dishonest services." See, as an example, United States v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999).
"A great controversy now exists regarding the constitutional qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Obama, aka Barack Dunham, aka Barry Dunham, to become President. The Constitution requires that any candidate for the office of President must be a natural born citizen. Yet, there is abundant evidence that this candidate is not natural born and thus is unqualified for that office. To address this specific problem, the Obama campaign has posted on its web site an alleged certified copy of his birth certificate (certificate of live birth?), thus clearly via use of interstate wires informing the American public that Obama does indeed possess the qualifications for President. It cannot be denied that this statement constitutes a loud proclamation and representation that Obama is qualified, and this representation undoubtedly plays a substantial role in raising funds for Obama. It is reported that just in September alone, Obama raised some 150 million dollars from the American public.
"The wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §1343, provides as follows:
“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.”
As Dr. Edwin Vieira wrote in his legal analysis, October 29, 2008:
"Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.
"Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States."
I urge you to read Edwin's full column because he shreds Judge Surrick's absurd decision.
Lawsuit update (Hawaii), October 28, 2008: Andy Martin, J. D. and Professor of Law (Adj.):
Dear Judge Ayabe and Hon. Mark Bennett, Attorney General: "I spoke with the court's judicial assistant on Monday, and today I am FedExing the original Order to Show Cause back to the court so I can obtain a new date. The court has indicated it will not hear me by phone on November 7th, so I must purchase airline tickets and clear several days to make a personal trip to Honolulu. That is a complicated process, particularly given the approaching holiday season. If I am assigned a new hearing date on October 29th (Wednesday), I can arrange to appear in person at a hearing in Honolulu on November 11th-14th (later in the week, Thursday or Friday, is better for me). I am also available November 18-21."
As you can see, this is well after the massive vote fraud "election" coming up in a few short days.
I spoke briefly with Phil Berg yesterday. He and his colleague did not file their Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court due to time constraints, but will file today. He also mentioned some actions post Nov. 4th, but until we see the "declared" outcome I don't feel I should comment on that right now. Phil also reinforced that there is no doubt in his mind that there is no birth certificate which will prove Obama's citizenship and the Governor of Hawaii should be more careful with her choice of words.
While I wanted to send a fax, the FBI operators wouldn't give me a number, so I sent a letter, along with Edwin's column (printer friendly) to James Burrus, Chief Investigator of Election Fraud, Federal Bureau of Investigation, J. Edgar Hoover Building, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20535-0001. Because time is of the essence, I sent it over night mail; it should arrive in Burrus' hands by Monday. My letter was short and to the point: Barack Obama refuses to provide proof of citizenship, which he could have done in less than an hour when he was in Hawaii last week. This issue is building into a constitutional crisis and if no one else will investigate, then the FBI has a duty to determine if Obama is committing federal crimes as outlined above. If enough pressure is brought to bear on the FBI, let them issue a subpoena for whatever documents are being held by the Hawaii Department of Health and then let's see what Obama has to say.
Jefferson's Account of the Declaration of Independence
2 - The Declaration of Independence