An attorney whose legal brief in a case challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility revealed a Supreme Court can remove an ineligible chief executive now has released an analysis confirming that if Obama isn’t eligible, he could be charged under a number of felony statutes.
And that’s just on the federal level; any state charges would be in addition, as would charges against individuals who may have helped him in the commission of any of the acts, according to Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.
Kreep has been involved in several of the cases that have raised challenges to Obama’s occupancy of the Oval Office, including two in California. One is on appeal in the state court system and names California Secretary of State Debra Bowen as defendant. The other, in the federal court system, is on appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Both make claims on behalf of individuals and political candidates in California over Obama’s presence on the 2008 election ballot.
North Dakota Gov. Thomas Moodie, removed from office when the state Supreme Court found him ineligible
WND several weeks ago reported when Kreep’s legal research revealed two precedents he believes would be applicable in the Obama case. In one, state officials arbitrarily removed a candidate from an election ballot because it was not proven the candidate was qualified for office. In another, the North Dakota Supreme Court removed the sitting governor from office when it was documented he was not eligible under the state’s requirements.
Now Kreep has released an analysis of the federal laws he believes could be applied should Obama ultimately be shown to be ineligible.
“If he is not eligible, he could be charged not only with these crimes, but potentially with crimes in a number of states where he falsely represented that he was qualified to run, as well as people who helped him,” Kreep told WND.
Further, there could be any number of challenges to virtually anything he did as president: his nominations, his executive orders and his signing of legislation.
“This is completely uncharted territory,” Kreep told WND. “It could all be challenged as invalid. There has to be a sitting president for [actions] to be valid. If he’s not qualified, if he’s not the president, it isn’t valid.”
The research, done on Kreep’s behalf by USJF staff attorney Chris Tucker, cited the following statutes that could apply:
- False Personation of Officer or Employee of the United States (18 U.S.C. § 912).
It states: “Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
The USJF analysis said, “Basically this statute calls for 1) Fraudulent intent, and 2) an overt act to accomplish the inducement of one giving over a thing of value. If it were found that Barack Obama was not a natural born citizen, as required by the U.S. Constitution Art. II § 1, he will have assumed the office of president fraudulently to obtain money (among other things) by way of his annual salary. The Supreme Court has upheld convictions for False Personations in U.S. v. Lepowitch, (63 S.Ct. 914), and Lamar v. U.S., (36 S.Ct. 535).”
- Conspiracy to Commit Offense or to Defraud United States (18 U.S.C. 371).
It states: “If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.”
The USJF analysis said, “As in all conspiracies, there must be two or more persons working in concert to achieve an illegal act, so the president would need a co-conspirator for this statute to apply. The state of Hawaii is being very secretive about the whereabouts or even existence of Mr. Obama’s supposed birth certificate. If the officials in charge of keeping these records know of its non-existence, then they would be co-conspirators with the objective of defrauding the United States as to the citizenship status of Barack Obama. There, however, must be an ‘in concert’ element met, meaning that these officials are withholding the proof at the direction of Mr. Obama. Is it possible that these officials love Barack Obama so much that they are withholding these documents out of the goodness of their own hearts? Yes, possibly, however unlikely. It is reasonable to infer that the Hawaiian officials are working ‘in concert’ with Mr. Obama to suppress this information, since each would face both civil and criminal suits, not to mention the loss of furthering their own political goals.”
- Activities Affecting Armed Forces During War (18 U.S.C. 2388(a)).
It states: “(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
“Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”
The USJF analysis said: “Intent is fully at issue here; however, President Obama made it clear during his campaign that his full intent when entering office would be to scale down the conflict with Afghanistan and Iraq, eventually leading to a full withdrawal. His statements of being a natural born citizen to obtain the office of commander in chief were in effort to interfere with the attempts by the former commander in chief’s attempt at engaging the enemy in these two countries, for the purpose of national security.
“In the case of Schulze v. U.S. (259 F. 189) Petitioner was convicted under this statute, and the question of intent was at issue. The court stated, ‘It is true that in charging the offense it is unnecessary to allege the intent; the offense being one whose very definition necessarily includes intent. In such a case it is necessary only to aver in apt terms the acts done. The intent will be inferred. The charge is not unlike that of treason, the indictment for which needs go no further than to follow the language of the statute which defines the offense. (United States v. Greathouse, 2 Abb.U.S. 364, Fed. Cas. No. 15,254)…
“This means that intent is inferred from the act itself. Mr. Obama has already announced that the efforts in Afghanistan will be scaled back, and a full withdrawal is planned for 2011. Furthermore, the announcement of this strategy works to the aid of our enemy, who now knows to sit in caves and wait out the U.S. for only a year or so. This certainly works interrupt our operations and promote the success of our enemy.”
- False Statement in Application and Use of Passport (18 U.S.C. 1542).
It states: “Whoever willfully and knowingly makes any false statement in an application for passport with intent to induce or secure the issuance of a passport under the authority of the United States, either for his own use or the use of another, contrary to the laws regulating the issuance of passports or the rules prescribed pursuant to such laws; or
“Whoever willfully and knowingly uses or attempts to use, or furnishes to another for use any passport the issue of which was secured in any way by reason of any false statement—Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929 (a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both.”
The USJF analysis said: “To obtain a U.S. passport one must show a valid birth certificate or some other form of identification showing U.S. citizenship. Barack Obama would have to have furnished some sort of birth certificate or other document showing he is a citizen. Of course, even if he was not a natural born citizen, he could show naturalization or some other citizenship papers. However, if these documents are spurious, then he would be guilty pursuant to the first paragraph, and to then use his illegally obtained passport, he would also be guilty under the second paragraph as well.”
- False Personation of Citizen of the United States (18 U.S.C. 911).
It states: “Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
The analysis said: “If Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen, then he must have other proof of United States citizenship. If he has neither of these, then as acting head of state he is holding himself out to be a citizen of the United States, and is therefore liable under this section as well.”
- Perjury (18 U.S.C. 1621).
It states: “Whoever—(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
“(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.”
The USJF analysis said: “Mr. Obama has taken the oath of office of POTUS, in front of Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, in which he promises to ‘defend the Constitution’. As an illegal alien, or even a non-natural born citizen, he would be acting as an ineligible president. Furthermore, as an attorney, and a former professor of constitutional law, Barack Obama would have full knowledge of the requirements for an eligible candidate for the office of POTUS. This shows that he has willfully stated that he will and is acting contrary to his presidential oath.”
The USJF document showed that all of the charges require a specific intent.
“Mr. Obama knows, or at least should know, the place of his birth and the status of his citizenship, as all, or nearly all, adults in the world do. He has, therefore, willfully and knowingly made repeated false claims as to his citizenship, and this makes him absolutely liable for the above mentioned crimes,” the analysis said.
The organization’s earlier research, now included in its appeal documentation, found that in 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president of the United States.
The then-California Secretary of State, Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver’s birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president. Jordan, using his administrative powers, threw him off the ballot.
The other is a court precedent in which the governor of North Dakota was removed from office after the state Supreme Court determined he did not meet the state constitution’s eligibility requirements.
“Even though Obama was elected to this office, this ineligibility constitutes a legal disability for the office of president of the United States,” the USJF brief states. “In ‘State ex rel. Sathre v. Moodie,’ after Thomas H. Moodie was duly elected to the office of governor of the state of North Dakota, it was discovered that Thomas H. Moodie was not eligible for the position of governor, as he had not resided in the state for a requisite five years before running for office, and, because of that ineligibility, he was removed from office and replaced by the lieutenant governor,” the brief explains.
North Dakota’s historical archives document the case.
The Democrat was nominated by his party for governor in 1934 and beat his Republican opponent, Lydia Langer.
“As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed,” the state’s archives report. “After Moodie’s inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935,” the state reports.
The president’s lawyers in many of the cases have said, and judges have agreed so far, that the courts simply don’t have jurisdiction over a question of eligibility because of the Constitution’s provision that president’s must be removed by impeachment, which rests with Congress.
In one case, the president’s lawyers prominently argued, “The Constitution’s commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the president includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office.
“The examination of a candidate’s qualifications is an integral component of the electors’ decision-making process. The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate’s eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with Congress,” the president’s lawyers argued.
WND has reported on the multiple legal cases challenging Obama’s eligibility in addition to efforts to raise the question at the state and national levels.
Several state legislatures are working on proposals that would require presidential candidates to submit proof of their eligibility. And a similar proposal has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.
The claims are that Obama does not meet the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.” The lawsuits have asserted he either was not born in Hawaii as he claims or was a dual citizen because of his father’s British citizenship at the time of his birth.
The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
However, none of the cases filed to date has been successful in reaching the plateau of legal discovery, so that information about Obama’s birth could be obtained.
The White House has not replied to numerous requests for comment.
Besides Obama’s actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
Another significant factor is the estimated $1.7 million Obama has spent on court cases to prevent any of the documentation of his life to be revealed to the public.
“Where’s The Birth Certificate?” billboard helps light up the night at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip.
Because of the dearth of information about Obama’s eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: “Where’s the birth certificate?”
The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 490,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.
The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Your donation – from as little as $5 to as much as $1,000 – can be made online at the WND SuperStore. (Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000 can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM. If you would prefer to mail in your contributions, they should be directed to WND, P.O. Box 1627, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Be sure to specify the purpose of the donation by writing “billboard” on the check. In addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted, as will significant contributions specifically targeted for geographic locations.)
If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.