API Chief Editor Korir Goes “On the Record” NoDinga NoBama


Why I do not support Barack Obama to become US President – His leadership will not be good for Kenya


I am not American. I do not vote. So what I think or want will not stop him if he the American people want to have him as their President. The sure fact is that he will not be my ruler in any way.

My problem is that he will put his nose in Kenyan affairs during his presidency because of his Kenyan roots. His Presidency will be bad for many tribes in Kenya but good for the groups that support Raila Odinga’s wishes to become Kenya’s President in 2012 Kenya Presidential elections.

If Obama’s roots came from another African country, I most probably would have considered my support for him. Many Africans from other countries who support him do so because they do not know that he will most probably destroy Kenya by forcing on the Kenyans Raila presidency.

Every one has a right to make his own decision on matters that matter. There are those who think there should be uniformity in voting for Obama simply because some of his blood i s from a black man. I do not follow people blindly. I like to see what may happen to Kenya if the man far way in the US with Kenya blood will help destroy Kenya and those who do not support ODM party and Raila Odinga.

Last year’s Kenya Presidential elections caused many lives to perish, so we say! Give Obama the US Presidency and you give Kenya bloodshed in 2012. If you love Kenyan people save them from bloodshed because there is now way Obama as President will allow any other politician to become Kenya’s President other than his distant cousin.

I do not hate Raila Odinga. We lived, dined and drunk together when he was a refugee in Norway. That is beside the point. I simply do not like his silent authoritarian style of leadership. It takes time for people to notice this. Most people do not see that at all, but when you have lived with someone in a foreign country you become connected and you start talking deep together about things that matter. Raila and I, had many long talks in Norway whenever we were out in the Night Clubs to enjoy ourselves. Our discussions centered on how Kenya should be governed.

Can Raila deny that such discussions took place a number of times whenever we went out on Friday Nights in the city of Oslo?

People love to doubt, but should the truth really be doubted? Some will now say this is not true and yet it is very true, just like the issue of Michelle Obama tape.

The good thing, however, that may save Kenya from Obama is the fact that if he gets the Presidency now, in 2012, he himself may be campaigning for re-election in the US and may not have time to go to Kenya and campaign for Raila Odinga. If elected, Obama will be in Office for 4 years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Kenya elections takes place December 2012. So God may help Kenya on this and then I have to stop worrying.

One should not forget, however, that any man willing can do many harmful things in a period of 4 years that may cause disorganization in another country.

This should enlighten some readers who think I am not willing to let the tape out, a tape so important that if released on time will save the Kenyan majority who do not want Raila Odinga to be handed the Presidency by Obama if he were to win the American elections and of course, if nothing happens to him – recently we saw there were some who were planning to assassinate him, and please do not get me wrong , I do not wish anything as this to happen to him, but we must understand that the possibility is there. Even the White President, JF Kennedy was murdered and Ronald Reagan was short and almost killed by his own white brothers. So we must understand that any person who seeks that highest office in any country is also putting his own life on the line.

So do not blame me for being a black man who does not want to join in that chorus saying, history must be made now by those who rejoice so much for a probable Obama Presidency.

To understand where I am coming from in my thöughts, read the story below and try to understand what I said MANY months ago!

Read this link:


By Chief Editor Korir

africanpress Says:
November 1, 2008 at 6:46 pm

Remember we have 42 different tribes, each tribe with its own language that the other one does not undersatand at all.

Unity is such a case i very difficult if something makes people to explode.

It then becomes tribe against tribe and when they are calling one another to attack the neighbors do not understand .

At least in America, if someone shouts – let us start attacking this or that family, you will understand the language.

In Kenya you will sit there and someone is callin his friends to come and they kill you.

You will be there because yolu do not understand what they are shouting.

That is how many people died this time around. It will not be different if it happens again in 2012.

Chief Editor Korir

Michelle Obama Chief Editor Korir African Press International API

3 Responses to “API Chief Editor Korir Goes “On the Record” NoDinga NoBama”

  1. Music for Waiting Version 2.0 « Rosettasister’s Weblog Says:

    […] Rosettasister’s Weblog Just another WordPress.com weblog « API Chief Editor Korir Goes “On the Record” NoDinga NoBama […]

  2. msjkulig Says:

    A. Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section/DOJ http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/

    This is in response and my analysis to a recent article that was posted written by By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. “OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN” on Oct 29, 2008. http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

    (my analysis below background info. The information in taken verbatim from the 384 page DOJ manual that prosecutors are given on how to prosecute “election crimes. My analysis appears at the end of some oth the pertainant paragraphs in parenthesis.)

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

    As Dr Vieira points out, “If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People.”

    Dr. Vieira states that “Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible.”

    If Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters. So, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof!

    If the “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.

    Most importantly, since Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President.

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

    So, the perplexing question seems to be:

    A. Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section/DOJ

    The following information is taken form the DOJ manual on prosecuting Election fraud. It appears that ultimately, it is the DOJ’s Criminal Division’s Public Integrity has the authority to step in and sort out this mess. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/pin/docs/electbook-rvs0807.pdf Full Manual / Talking points below as they pertain to Obama.

    The federal government asserts jurisdiction over an election offense to ensure that basic rights of United States citizenship, and a fundamental process of representative democracy, remain uncorrupted. The the prosecution of all federal election crimes represents an important law enforcement objective. These enhanced enforcement efforts have not only served to protect a cornerstone of American democracy against corruption and abuse, they also have helped federal law enforcement attain an investigative foothold against other criminal activities that election crimes are often committed to foster or protect.

    The ultimate goal in an election crime is to move up the ladder of culpability to candidates, political operatives, public officials, and others who attempted to corrupt, or did corrupt, the public office involved and Federal jurisdiction over election fraud is easily established in elections when a federal candidate is on the ballot. In such cases, the federal interest is based on the presence of a federal candidate, whose election may be tainted, or appear tainted, by the fraud, a potential effect that Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate under Article I, Section 2, clause 1; Article I, Section 4, clause 1; Article II, Section 1, clause 2; and the Seventeenth Amendment.

    In 2002, the Department of Justice established a Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative to spearhead its increased efforts to address election crimes and voting rights violations. Under the ongoing Initiative, election crimes are a high law enforcement priority of the Department.

    The Constitution confers upon the states primary authority over the election process. Accordingly, federal law does not directly address how elections should be conducted. However, local law enforcement often is not equipped to prosecute election offenses. Federal law enforcement might be the only enforcement
    option available.

    The federal prosecutor’s role in matters involving corruption of the process by which elections are conducted, on the other hand, focuses on prosecuting individuals who commit federal crimes in connection with an election. (This DOES NOT mean that preventative measures have never be taken by the DOJ, they have!)

    Determining whether an election fraud allegation warrants federal criminal investigation and possible prosecution requires that federal prosecutors and investigators answer two basic questions.

    (1) Is criminal prosecution the appropriate remedy for the allegations and facts presented? Criminal prosecution is most appropriate when the facts demonstrate that the defendant’s objective was to corrupt the process by which voters were registered, or by which ballots were obtained, cast, or counted.

    (2) Is there potential federal jurisdiction over the conduct? Answering this question requires determining whether the conduct is cognizable under the federal criminal statutes that apply to election crimes. These generally allow for the prosecution of corrupt acts that occur in elections when the name of a federal candidate appears on the ballot, that are committed “under color of law,” that involve voting by non-citizens, that focus on registering to vote, and when the election fraud is part of a larger public corruption problem reachable using general anti-corruption statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 666, 1341, 1346, 1951, and 1952.

    Justice Department supervision over the enforcement of all criminal statutes and prosecutive theories involving corruption of the election process, criminal patronage violations, and campaign financing crimes is delegated to the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section. This Headquarters’ consultation policy is set forth in the U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, U.S. ATTORNEYS’ MANUAL (USAM), Section 9-85.210.

    The Public Integrity Section and its Election Crimes Branch are available to assist United States Attorneys’ Offices and FBI field offices in handling election crime matters. This assistance includes evaluating election crime allegations, structuring investigations, and drafting indictments and other pleadings. The Election Crimes Branch also serves as the point of contact between the Department of Justice and the FEC, which share enforcement jurisdiction over federal campaign financing violations.

    A Historic background regarding the election process details many early Enforcement Acts that were put in place to ensure that elections were free from corruption for the general public. Many of the Enforcement Acts had broad jurisdictional predicates that allowed them to be applied to a wide variety of corrupt election practices when a federal candidate was on the ballot. In Coy, the Supreme Court held that Congress had authority under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause to regulate any activity during a mixed federal/state election that exposed the federal election to potential harm, whether that harm materialized or not. Coy is still applicable law. United States v. Carmichael, 685 F.2d 903, 908 (4th Cir. 1982); United States v. Mason, 673 F.2d 737, 739 (4th Cir.1982); United States v. Malmay, 671 F.2d 869, 874-75 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Bowman, 636 F.2d 1003, 1010 (5th Cir.1981).

    After Reconstruction, federal activism in election matters subsided. The repeal of most of the Enforcement Acts in 1894 eliminated the statutory tools that had encouraged federal activism in election fraud matters. Two surviving provisions of these Acts, now embodied in 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, covered only intentional deprivations of rights guaranteed directly by the Constitution or federal law. The courts during this period held that the Constitution directly conferred a right to vote only for federal officers, and that conduct aimed at corrupting nonfederal contests was not prosecutable in federal courts. See United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476 (1917); Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915). Federal attention to election fraud was further limited by case law holding that primary elections were not part of the official election process, Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1918), and by cases like United States v. Bathgate, 246 U.S. 220 (1918), which read the entire subject of vote buying out of federal criminal law, even when it was directed at federal contests.

    In 1941, the Supreme Court reversed direction, overturning Newberry. The Court recognized that primary elections are an integral part of the process by which candidates are elected to office.United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941). Classic changed the judicial attitude toward federal intervention in election matters and ushered in a new period of federal activism. Federal courts now regard the right to vote in a fairly conducted election as a constitutionally protected feature of United States citizenship. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). In 1973, the use of Section 241 to address election fraud began to expand. See, e.g., United States v. Anderson, 481 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1973), aff’d on other grounds, 417 U.S. 211 (1974). Since then, this statute has been successfully applied to prosecute certain types of local election fraud. United States v. Wadena, 152 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 1998); United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir.1985); United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Stollings, 501 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1974).

    Over the past forty years Congress has enacted new criminal laws with broad jurisdictional bases to combat false voter registrations, vote buying, multiple voting, and fraudulent voting in elections in which a federal candidate is on the ballot. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973i(c), 1973i(e), 1973gg-10. These statutes rest on Congress’s power to regulate federal elections (U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4) and on its power under the Necessary and Proper Clause (U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 18) to enact laws to protect the federal election process from the potential of corruption. The federal jurisdictional predicate underlying these statutes is satisfied as long as either the name of a federal candidate is on the ballot or the fraud involves corruption of the voter registration process in a state where one registers to vote simultaneously for federal as well as other offices. United States v. Slone, 411 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. McCranie, 169 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Garcia, 719 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1983); United States v. Mason, 673 F.2d 737 (4th Cir. 1982); United States v. Malmay, 671 F.2d 869 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Bowman, 636 F2d 1003 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Barker, 514 F.2d 1077 (7th Cir. 1975); United States v. Cianciulli, 482 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Pa. 1979).

    (As we can see, although election laws may have changed and evolved over the years, Congress has already granted authority to the DOJ to look into and resolve matters that may take away someone’s opportunity to vote for an “eligible” candidate of their choice or to verify that there is no corruption, conspiracy, misinformation or other irregularities that may taint an election, whether proven or not.)

    Election fraud involves a substantive irregularity relating to the voting act which has the potential to taint the election itself. activity intended to interfere corruptly with any of the principles indicated below may be actionable as a federal crime:
    1 All qualified voters have the right to have their votes counted fairly and honestly. (a vote for a usurper is not a vote. In fact, voting for a usurper may be treason and/or a criminal offence.)
    2. Invalid ballots dilute the worth of valid ballots, and therefore will not be counted. (ballets that do not have the name of an eligible candidate are invalid.)

    Simply put, then, election fraud is conduct intended to corrupt. For example:
    • The process by which ballots are obtained, marked, or tabulated.
    • The process by which election results are canvassed and certified. (invalid ballets/votes for a usurper can not be certified as valid ballots or votes)

    The following is a basis for federal prosecution under the statutes referenced in each category:

    • Conspiring to prevent voters from participating in elections in which a federal candidate is on the ballot,
    or when done “under color of law” in any election, federal or nonfederal (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242).
    (Tricking voters into thinking that an eligible candidate is on the ballot is a conspiracy to defraud)
    • Malfeasance by election officials acting “under color of law” by performing such acts as diluting valid ballots with invalid ones (ballot-box stuffing), rendering false tabulations of votes, or preventing valid voter registrations or votes from being given effect in any election, federal or nonfederal (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242), as well as in elections in which federal candidates are on the ballot (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973i(c), 1973i(e), 1973gg-10(2)). (surely the FEC and Secr. of State have a fiduciary duty to make sure that when a questions comes up regarding a candidates eligibility to be on the ballot, they have an obligation to make certain that the candidate is indeed eligible)

    Although under the Constitution, the states retain broad jurisdiction over the elective process. When the federal government enters the field of elections, it does so to address specific federal interests. For example:
    (1) the protection of the federal election process against corruption. (this must occur when states fail to act)
    (2) the protection of the voting process from corruption accomplished.(this must occur when states fail to act)

    In the Conspiracy Against Rights. 18 U.S.C. § 241, Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States” under color of law. The Supreme Court long ago recognized that the right to vote for federal offices is among the rights secured by Article I, Sections 2 and 4, of the Constitution, and hence is protected by Section 241. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Ex parte Yarborough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884). (Remember, a vote for a usurper is NOT a vote! A citizen can not exercise his/her voting right, if there is no equalized candidate to vote for in the same way as a citizen can not sell you his/her neighbor’s car if he/she does not hold the title to the car. Therefore, the DOJ has an obligation to make certain before a federal election that a presidential candidacies is eligible to hold office.)

    Section 241 has been an important statutory tool in election crime prosecutions. Originally held to apply only to schemes to corrupt elections for federal office. Section 241 embraces conspiracies such as to injure, threaten, or intimidate a voter in the exercise of his right to vote, Wilkins v.United States, 376 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1967); Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544 (4th Cir. 1955). Section 241 does not require that the conspiracy be successful, United States v. Bradberry, 517 F.2d 498 (7th Cir. 1975), nor need there be proof of an overt act. Section 241 reaches conduct affecting the integrity of the federal election process as a whole, and does not require fraudulent action with respect to any particular voter. United States v. Nathan, 238 F.2d 401 (7th Cir. 1956). (Notice section 241 embraces conspiraces intended to injure. In this case, an injury does NOT even need to occur, nor does anyone have to have conclusive proof of an overt act. In the case of Obama, only the question has to be raised that he “may not” meet the “eligiblity” requirements to become fairly and rightfully elected to the office of POTUS.)

    In election fraud cases, this public official is usually an election officer using his office to dilute valid ballots with invalid ballots or to otherwise corrupt an honest vote tally in derogation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Haynes, 977 F.2d 583 (6th Cir. 1992) (table) (available at 1992 WL 296782); United States v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070 (8th Cir. 1988); United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Stollings, 501 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1974); United States v. Anderson, 481 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1973), aff’d on other grounds, 417 U.S. 211 (1974). (In failing to fulfill his/her fiduciary duties, our Secr. of State and Federal Election Commission officials who allow “invalid” candidates to be placed on ballots corrupts an honest vote and violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause of the Fourteeth Amerdment.)

    Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law18 U.S.C. § 242. Section 242, also enacted as a post-Civil War statute, makes it unlawful for anyone acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive a person of any right, privilege, or immunity secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Prosecutions under Section 242 need not show the existence of a conspiracy. However, the defendants must have acted illegally “under color of law,” i.e., the case must involve a public scheme, as discussed above. This element does not require that the defendant be a de jure officer or a government official; it is sufficient if he or she jointly acted with state agents in committing the offense, United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966), or if his or her actions were made possible by the fact that they were clothed with the authority of state law, Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97 (1951); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941). (This law would make it a CRIME for ANYONE who knowing acted in concert with Obama to cover up his scheme to defraud the American people, by posing as an “eligible” candidate.”

    False Information in, and Payments for, Registering and Voting. 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(c) Section 1973i(c) makes it unlawful, in an election in which a federal candidate is on the ballot, to knowingly and willfully conspire with another person to vote illegally. Congress added Section 1973i(c) to the 1965 Voting Rights Act to ensure the integrity of the balloting process in the context of an expanded franchise. In so doing, Congress intended that Section 1973i(c) have a broad reach. (If Obama or his co-conspirators knowingly registered voters by because he promised Change and Hope, knowing full well that he was NOT “elibible” to hold office, not only did he commit fraud, but he committed a crime against 42 U.S.C.)

    Section 1973i(c) has been held to protect two distinct aspects of a federal election: the actual results of the election, and the integrity of the process of electing federal officials. United States v. Cole, 41 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 1994). In Cole, the Seventh Circuit held that federal jurisdiction is satisfied so long as a single federal candidate is on the ballot – even if the federal candidate is unopposed – because fraud in a mixed election automatically has an impact on the integrity of the federal election process. See also United States v.Slone, 411 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2005); and United States v. McCranie, 169 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1999) (jurisdiction under Section 1973i(c) satisfied by name of unopposed federal candidate on ballot). (Any conduct that violates the “integrity” of an election is a CRIME. Obviously, the integrity of this election has been comprimised as more internet blogs pick up the story becausae of Obama’s failure to provide the mysterious “vault copy” of his birth certificate. Therefore the DOJ has an obligaion to act, as the integrity of the presidential election has already been called into question by a silent majority of Americans.)

    Section 1973i(c) is particularly useful for two reasons: (1) it eliminates the unresolved issue of the scope of the constitutional right to vote in matters not involving racial discrimination, and (2) it eliminates the need to prove that a given pattern of corrupt conduct had an actual impact on a federal election. (This is a big one, because this states that the DOJ can get involved in any matter not involving racial discrimination and it also eliminates the NEED TO PROVE that a corrupt conduct had an actual impact on the election.)

    Conspiracy to cause illegal voting. The second clause of Section 1973i(c) criminalizes conspiracies to encourage “illegal voting.” The phrase “illegal voting” is not defined in the statute. On its face it encompasses unlawful conduct in connection with voting. (This is important, because the phrase “illegal” voting has not been defined by statute. Surely, a vote for candidate you know or suspect does not meet the eligibility requirements could be considered an “illegal” vote,” because, if it is proven, that this in deed IS the case, the person voting would be committing a CRIME.)

    Conspiracy against rights and deprivation of constitutional rights. 18 U.S.C. § 241 and § 242 Section 241 makes it a ten-year felony to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” any person in the free exercise of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States” – including the right to vote. (Another CRIME committed by Mr. Obama, in conspiring with the DNC and the rest of his cronies by prohibiting Americans to exercise their rights under law.)

    False claims of citizenship. 18 U.S.C. § 911 Section 911 prohibits the knowing and willful false assertion of United States citizenship by a noncitizen. See, e.g., United States v. Franklin, 188 F.2d 182 (7th Cir. 1951); Fotie v. United States, 137 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1943). Violations of Section 911 are punishable by up to three years of imprisonment As noted, all states require United States citizenship as a prerequisite for voting. Section 911 requires proof that the offender was aware he was not a United States citizen, and that he was falsely claiming to be a citizen. Violations of Section 911 are felonies, punishable by up to
    three years of imprisonment. (If Mr. Obama presents himself as a U.S. Citizen and he is NOT, when he votes in this election, he is committing yet, another CRIME.)

    “Honest services” fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1346 As summarized above, prior to McNally nearly all the circuits had held that a scheme to defraud the public of a fair and impartial election was one of the “intangible rights” schemes covered by the mail and wire fraud statutes. McNally repudiated this theory in an opinion that not only rejected the intangible rights theory of mail and wire fraud, but did so by citing several election fraud cases as examples of the kinds of fraud the Court found outside these criminal laws.

    The following year, Congress responded to McNally by enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which defined “scheme or artifice to defraud” to include “the intangible right of honest services.” However, this language did not clearly restore the use of these statutes to election frauds. This is because Section 1346 encompasses only schemes to deprive a victim of the intangible right of “honest services,” and most voter fraud schemes do not appear to involve such an objective. Moreover, jurisprudence in the arena of public corruption has generally confined Section 1346 to schemes involving traditional forms of corruption that involve a clear breach of the fiduciary duty of “honest services” owed by a public official to the body politic, e.g., bribery, extortion, embezzlement, theft, conflicts of interest, and, in some instances, gratuities. (Obviously, whether knowingly or not, elected officials and other public servants have breached their fiduciary duty to provide “honest services” to American citizens.)

    “Cost-of-election” theory. 18 U.S.C. § 1341 One case, United States v. DeFries, 43 F.3d 707 (D.C. Cir.1995), has held that a scheme to cast fraudulent ballots in a labor union election, which had the effect of tainting the entire election, was a scheme to defraud the election authority charged with running the election of the costs involved. DeFries was not a traditional election fraud prosecution. Rather, it involved corruption of a union election when supporters of one candidate for union office cast fraudulent ballots for that candidate. When the scheme was uncovered, the United States Department of Labor ordered that a new election be held, thereby causing the union to incur an actual pecuniary loss. The D.C. Circuit held that the relationship between that pecuniary loss and the voter fraud scheme was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of McNally. (The fraud that Mr. Obama would have perpetrated on the American people if he is later found out to be ineligible for president will have indeed caused John McCain the presidential election. Worse yet, if it is found out AFTER the election that Obama did not meet the eligibility requirements to hold office, off votes for Obama/Biden would be “illegal” and “invalid” votes and would therefore should not be counted. Therefore, Biden can not be President either if a an “illegal” and “invalid” vote was cast for a Obama/Biden ticket. In this case, the presidential election will, most likely, have to be reheld and/or John McCain would be declared the winner, because the McCain/Palin ticket would have received the most “valid” and “legal” votes.)

    Election-related allegations range from minor infractions, such as campaigning too close to the polls, to sophisticated criminal enterprises aimed at ensuring the election of corrupt public officials. Such matters present obvious and wide disparities in their adverse social consequences. As the Department has long strived to achieve a nationally consistent response to electoral fraud, it is important that federal investigators and prosecutors avail themselves of the expertise and institutional knowledge that the Public Integrity Section possesses in this sensitive area of law enforcement.

    Lastly, Interference in election by employees of federal, state, or territorial governments: 18 U.S.C. § 595 Section 595 was enacted as part of the original 1939 Hatch Act. The statute prohibits any public officer or employee, in connection with an activity financed wholly or in part by the United States, from using his or her official authority to interfere with or affect the nomination or election of a candidate for federal office. This statute is aimed at the misuse of official authority. Section 595 applies to all public officials, whether elected or appointed, federal or nonfederal. For example, an appointed policymaking government official who bases a specific governmental decision on an intent to influence the vote for or against an identified federal candidate violates Section 595. (This Code may certain apply to those officials who used public computers to find “dirt” on Joe The Plumber, if it can be proved, that the intent was to discredit Joe to interfere or “affect” the election process.)

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

  3. Stacy Says:

    Larry Sinclair’s website has the original, unedited audiotape of Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother stating that she was present in the delivery room for his birth in Kenya, along with the sworn affidavit of the witness as submitted in his Supreme Court filing on Friday.

    Click here to listen:


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: