I received the following comment on this blog from James Schneller:
“Submitted on 2008/12/08 at 11:45pm
I’ve filed a petition for review No, 199 MM 2008, to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, seeking a writ of mandamus and an immediate injunction ordering the Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth to demand proof from Senator Barack Obama of his sworn statement, filed with his application for placement on the ballot, that he is qualified as a natural born citizen under the United States Constitution.
The petition seeks urgent attention to the requested injunction and additionally requests an injunction preventing the certification of the vote and of the Pennsylvania electors ballot, by the Secretary, including any certification to Pennsylvania’s Governor, and postponing of the scheduled meeting of the electors, which by law usually occurs on the third Monday of December.
I seek in the request for injunction, a submitting of proof of birthplace and of any additional elements required to be a natural born citizen, by Senator Obama, prior to the certification of the electors’ vote by the State to the Governor, and prior to certification that would then occur to the Joint Session of Congress, which would convene for the purpose of formalizing the electoral vote in early January.
If the candidate has not shown his eligibility under the Constitution, the electors should not have their votes certified, their votes should not be tallied in the traditional meeting before the Governor, nor should the certified ballots be lodged with the President of the Senate, nor the joint session of Congress early in January.
It is astounding that no official has demanded proof of this gentleman’s eligibility under what is a most simple and basic requirement for the Presidency. A bare statement by the Hawaii Health Director that they have a valid birth certificate is completely insufficient, and the fact that Senator Obama apparently has placed a doctored “certificate of live birth” on the internet, and may have falsely sworn in his candidate affidavits in thirty or more states, should put every American on notice that the Presidency may be being sought invalidly.
Under my request, the Secretary of the Commonwealth should be ordered to quickly demand proof. If Mr. Obama’s birth certificate is as he says, he has 20 days to produce it, and the Pennsylvania officials will still have 10 days to transmit the ballot to Washington.”
Citizen WElls 
Pingback: The Right Side of Life » Blog Archive » Schneller v. Cortes: PA Supreme Court Case
Citizen —
I started writing to my Congressman, and the more I wrote, the more I realized that the nation is heading straight into a Constitutional Train Wreck!
I now disagree with MOST other commenters — I know now that both Obama and McCain have already FULLY DISCLOSED their ‘Citizenship Status,’ and the real problem is that everyone else has kept their ’emotional blindfolds’ on, covering their faces with their hands over their eyes (while shrieking) perhaps even SCOTUS!
Dick Cheney is the guy who needs to understand this, because he’s standing right in the middle of the tracks!
Here’s what I came up with —
——————————————————-
The Great Train Wreck of January 8, 2009
The train has already left the station, but a broken “bridge is down on the track ahead,” somewhere between December 15, 2008 and January 20, 2009 — and this will affect all Electors, all Senators and all Representatives from every State in the Nation.
We can see far enough ahead now so the ‘gap in the line’ has caught the attention of the national media. It’s not complicated. What that means is that when a wider audience finally grasps what’s going on here, the political fallout is likely to be “NUCLEAR!”
This is what happened: both major parties in every State have elected Electors, but both major parties have offered Presidential candidates who are NOT ELIGIBLE to serve.
This has been done out in the open, and both Presidential campaigns have understood that their candidates may be NOT ELIGIBLE, and both campaigns have taken steps to notify the public that it may be possible their candidates are NOT ELIGIBLE to serve.
But, this is what both campaigns failed to see: They are asking Electors, Senators, and Representatives from every State in the Nation to violate the Law.
And that’s the broken bridge that’s down on the tracks ahead,’ between the Electoral College and Inauguration Day. It’s a bridge neither party or candidate can cross! So, the House of Representatives is likely have to elect our next President.
* * * * * * * *
What both major parties have now to explain is why they spent so much time and treasure (much of it in taxpayer dollars) to nominate and promote TWO candidates, neither of whom was ever eligible to serve!
This will be the scene of the “train wreck:”
On Tuesday, January 6, 2009 the 111th Congress will meet, and all Members will take their Oath to support and defend the Constitution and to faithfully discharge their duties. On Thursday, January 8, 2009, at 1:00 PM, a Joint Session is scheduled to count the Electoral College votes of the 2008 Presidential election.
At that moment, the President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, and all Members of Congress will know that they are required under Article II of the Constitution to elect only a “natural born Citizen . . . to the Office of President.” And, that Citizen will be neither Senator John McCain nor Senator Barack Obama, because by Law neither is eligible and cannot serve, and both of them know it; and both have disclosed that fact to the public that there is this possibility, so they can not be criticized for not informing all parties.
They will both be asked to withdraw their names from consideration. And, at that moment the political fallout is likely to be “NUCLEAR!”
* * * * * * * *
How did this happen? The Republican Party questioned the eligibility of Senator John McCain, and so asked Laurence Tribe of Harvard and former U. S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson to offer a legal opinion. They did – finding that Senator John McCain was indeed a “natural born Citizen, under legal precedent and historical practice.” They attempted to meet head on a 1964 Supreme Court decision that ‘natural born Citizen’ meant ‘born inside the United States.’ What they failed to address were the full ramifications of all Acts of Congress, so their analysis was challenged, and that disclosed the fact that Congress had already acted years ago (under its authority) to address McCain’s Citizenship Status. That contradicts the legal opinion of Tribe and Olson.
It has always been known that the rights of citizenship of the ‘native Citizen’ and of the ‘naturalized Citizen’ are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only a ‘natural born Citizen’ (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5) is eligible to be President; and you can’t be a ‘natural born Citizen’ if your Citizenship is achieved through Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, the authority of Congress to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization, because you are then a ‘naturalized Citizen,’ and that is how McCain’s citizenship was achieved.
To his credit, Senator John McCain knows that the opinion offered by Tribe and Olson has been challenged as falling short. However, it’s no longer consequential, because his Electoral votes have also fallen short. His major concern now is the audit by the Federal Election Commission (which will take about three years to complete), and whether the Commission will raise this issue, in order to recoup taxpayer matching funds.
This is Senator Barack Obama’s obstacle: The 111th Congress will know that never in the history of the United States has a Citizen who has ‘Dual or Multiple Nationality’ on his or her ‘Date of Birth’ (subject to the laws of the United States) been considered by any Act of Congress, legal precedent or historical practice to be anything other than a ‘naturalized Citizen’ under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, regardless of where he or she was born. Why? Because ‘Dual or Multiple Nationality’ is addressed by an Act of Congress, and Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, specifically excludes it.
Most Senators and Representatives have received letters from constituents about the Citizenship Status of Senator Obama and have replied by saying they are willing to accept assurances from Senator Barack Obama that he was born in the State of Hawaii, in Honolulu. Most letters have discussed the files of the Office of Health Status Monitoring, because Senator Obama seems unwilling to open them to the public. It’s irrelevant!
Why? Senator Obama has posted on his website, “Fight the Smears,” and this information has been confirmed by FactCheck.org: Senator Obama is the son of a British subject, one who (at the time) owed his allegiance to the Queen, and this status governed all of Obama Sr.s’ children. Senator Obama has disclosed that he was a ‘Dual National’ on the ‘Date of Birth,’ (the only day that counts). Therefore, under the laws of the United States, he is a ‘naturalized Citizen’ no different from Senator John McCain.
* * * * * * * *
One thing to observe: If, at any time or under any circumstance, your Citizenship Status needs to be “clarified,” you are NOT a ‘natural born Citizen.’ So, there’s no mention of ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Code of Federal Regulations, except in passing.
Congress made the mistake once in 1790. Five years later, in 1795, they repealed the Act, realizing that to pass an Act regulating ‘natural born Citizen,’ they would need to amend the Constitution. And, they have not made this mistake again since!
FactCheck.org: “Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship.”
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act ‘governed the status’ of Obama Sr.’s children.
Let me repeat that last line again:
“That same act ‘governed the status’ of Obama Sr.’s children . . .”
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies ‘at the time of the birth.’
That is the FULL DISCLOSURE by the Obama Campaign that Great Britain ‘governed the status’ of Barack Obama at the time of his birth.
That begs the question: Is he responsible for the fact that voters of his party nominated him for the Presidency of the United States, even though he has FULLY DISCLOSED his Citizenship Status — and many voters still want to check out his Birth Certificate?
His party is willing apparently to ignore the FULL DISCLOSURE, believing perhaps that Congress can cure the disability. However, other members of the public have shown themselves to be unwilling to ignore the FULL DISCLOSURE, and so it is the subject of legal challenges currently before the Supreme Court of the United States.
* * * * * * * *
However, because Barack Obama achieved his Citizenship Status through Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, as understood by the Framers of the Constitution, his disqualification to serve as President of the United States is ‘incurable’ by the Congress, or the Courts.
That word ‘incurable’ is an advance description of the train wreck!
Never before has this come up during his career, because ‘naturalized Citizens’ legally are equal in almost all respects to natural born Citizens. The single distinction is the disqualification of ‘naturalized Citizens’ for the offices of President and Vice President.
Is it unfair?
It’s the Law.
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., (Illinois) IS qualified for the office of President: Sen. Barack Obama, Jr. (Illinois) IS NOT!
There are (in fact) FIVE obstacles standing in Senator Obama’s way:
1. The ‘natural born Citizen’ clause applies to his ‘date of birth’ (so his Kenyan and Indonesian ‘Dual Citizenships’ and what he has done about them are noteworthy, but not really relevant;
2. ‘Dual and Multiple Citizenship’ is addressed by the Code of Federal Regulations, subsequent to an Act of Congress, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended through 1994, and is our current law;
3. The 14th Amendment clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” usually is understood to mean “subject to the laws” of the United States” (therefore, subject to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended);
4. Obama’s particular form of ‘Dual Citizenship’ (British) was specifically precluded by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 (and therefore is ‘incurable’ by Congress or the Courts);
5. The constitutional duty of the President is to take care that the laws of the United Stated be faithfully executed. That is not possible to do, if the President is already disqualified from entering upon his office.
* * * * * * * *
Here is some history about this: We need to go back to the 39th Congress, where Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, father of the 14th Amendment, commenting on March 9, 1866 on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C., Section 1982), said that the first sentence of the 1866 Act means:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents ‘not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty’ is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born Citizen.”
Then, late 19th Century, the Supreme Court decided in United States v Wong Kim (169 U.S. 649 (1898)) (my summation) that on the basis of the 14th Amendment that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States is a ‘Citizen,’ but stopped short of declaring Kim a ‘natural born Citizen’ [because to do that would require still another amendment to the Constitution].
Finally, we go all the way back to the Constitutional Convention, where according to James Madison’s notes, Mr. Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania said:
“As to those philosophical gentlemen, those ‘Citizens of the World’ as they call themselves, He owned he did not wish to see any of them in our public Councils. He would not trust them. The men who can shake off their attachments to their own Country can never love any other.”
Today, these words might be considered the words of a bigot!
* * * * * * * *
Now here is the Act of Congress: Justice Rehnquist (later Chief Justice) said the Constitution is “a political document noted for its brevity,” but it contains 11 instances addressing the ‘Citizen’ distinction: Art. 1, S 2, c 2; S 3, c 3, S 8, c 4; Art. 2, S 1, c 5, Art. 3, S 2, c 1; Art. 4, S 2, c 1, and in the 11th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments.
The Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, gives Congress authority to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization, and as a result, the 82nd Congress passed The McCarran-Walter Act, that is called “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.”
The 82nd Congress was controlled by a Democratic majority in both houses and that President Harry Truman vetoed the McCarran-Walter Act, but Congress overrode the veto and the Act became law.
The Act was the product of the most extensive Congressional study in the nation’s history of the subject of Immigration and Nationality. It brought together and codified for the first time successive laws and decisions on immigration and naturalization.
In the Act, Congress decided that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General were authorized, in their discretion and on a basis of reciprocity, to severally prescribe regulations implementing the Act. Those regulations are now codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.
The Secretary of State codified her regulations concerning Citizens “born . . . in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (Consular Affairs), in order to advise U.S. nationals about their Citizenship: 7 FAM 1100 deals with the Acquisition and Retention of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality; 7 FAM 1110 deals with Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States, including specifically ‘Dual or Multiple Nationality’ (7 FAM 1111.4).
* * * * * * * *
Before the “McCarran-Walter Act,” there was ‘common law:’ Under common law, as is clear from the comments made by Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ means “birth to parents who are Citizens,” and “subject to the laws of the United States.” The phrase was so understood by William Blackstone’s Commentaries, “Natural-born subjects are such as are born . . . within the allegiance of the king . . .”
It should be obvious that the applicable phrase in first sentence of the 14th Amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is a substitute for the phrase, “within the allegiance of the king,” in Blackstone’s Commentaries.
That same word, “allegiance,” is used by Rep. John Bingham of Ohio when he says above that “every human being” born to parents “not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereign is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born Citizen.”
The common law was displaced in full when the Secretary of State codified her regulations concerning ‘Dual or Multiple Nationality’ (7 FAM 1111.4), in fulfillment of the McCarran-Walter Act. Therefore, any Citizen whose Citizenship Status is subject to the Act is by Law a “naturalized Citizen,” and also disqualified for the Presidency.
* * * * * * * *
What can be done? All Electors can object. All Members of Congress can object. Then the House and Senate will withdraw to their respective Chambers to consider the merits of objections according the procedure set out under 3 U.S.C. Section 15.
Before the list of the votes are entered on the Journals of the two Houses, the President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, will call for the objections, if any.
“Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same will be received.”
The Electoral College consists of 538 electors (one for each of 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 Senators; and 3 for the District of Columbia.
If, based on any objections, no presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the presidential election shall be decided by the House of Representatives. I’m convinced that this will be the case!
The House will select the President by majority vote, choosing from three candidates who received the greatest number of Electoral Votes. (However, remaining are only two candidates: Senator Joseph Biden (Delaware), and Governor Sarah Palin (Alaska)).
The vote would be taken by State, with each State delegation having ONE VOTE. How many State delegations are Republican, and how many are Democrat?
The House will vote for President, the Senate will vote for Vice President.
So, it’s not impossible that Senator Joseph Biden (D, Delaware), or Governor Sarah Palin (R, Alaska), will be our next President of the United States, and the other will be our next Vice President of the United States.
Well said Bob.
I have been pondering this for weeks.
There are several scenarios that can play out, all scary.
This is why the idiot judges need to step up to the plate.
Bob re The Great Train Wreck
Genius! Well-written, well-researched. And to think how much money Hannity makes on FOX and he is not aware of all this. Very succinctly put, Bob! You deserve many pats on the back but I think your greatest reward would be when you see the right thing done.
I copied and pasted parts of it to make it shorter for someone really busy, like Cheney, to read (although I think his assistants read his mail first and he may never see it at all, but it’s worth a try).
A slightly shorter version of your wonderful post needs to be sent to every Republican Senator and Representative. Please, folks, let’s all get started on a writing campaign. Not emails, but letters. All their addresses are online, just google them with the word contact and they appear.
Here’s one to get us started:
Senator Lindsey Graham
Piedmont Regional Office
140 East Main Street, Suite 110
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Main: (803) 366-2828
Bob,
That is a very good analysis concerning the coming train wreck. There have been many posting similar to yours , but none as good as yours. All are based on the premise that the electors and members of Congress have sworn to uphold the constitution. I have one problem with that, I don’t think they really care, they are going to elect BHO. If nothing changes between now and January, they only way BHO is not going to be elected is if SCOTUS steps in an makes a ruling. I am hoping against hope on that happening.
Eric
A slightly shorter version of your wonderful post needs to be sent to every Republican Senator and Representative—–
Already sent the important part to Rep. Ed Whitfield of Ky. since in his letter stated “the voters have spoken pretty clearly, and so now we move on. I do expect that the news media and the proper authorities will look into any reports which have caused people concern, and any legitimate concern will be appropriately addressed.”
My response to his email–ARE YOU ON DRUGS?? WHAT ISLAND HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING ON THE LAST 6 WEEKS??
Eric —
Electors will have this to worry about —
If anything like we are seeing in Chicago headlines (a week before the Electoral College) happens at the Federal level — it is their names are on the ballots that opened the door to this kind of corruption on the National Scale.
I worked in the Chicago area for more than 35 years, and I talked with these people in the headlines when they were still young and just coming out of college.
I remember when Richie Daley flunked the bar so many times, I can’t remember the count anymore — but it was a lot! He was becoming a laughingstock! His dad finally had to intervene on his behalf!
I’m really distressed at the corruption from these people I knew when they were young and idealistic!
Daley’s dad would actually try to fight criminals, but Richie simply gives them City grants. or contracts from the City budget, and tells them to go make themselves useful! He buys them off!
There is no right, or wrong anymore, just POWER!
Read Larry Sinclair, if you want to see what happens to “outsiders” who stumble into this network of criminal politicians. It makes me want to puke!
That’s Machine Politics!
Back to the Electors —
The Electors? We’ll know where to find them!
That’s what they have to think about — and that is the blessing of the Electoral College that the Framers put into our Constitution: they have to put their names on the line, and swear to uphold the Constitution.
If they are not going to be serious about it, then they should never have allowed themselves to take on this responsibility!
That is why there have been “faithless” Electors, who voted their consciences — for Lincoln, and against Douglas — both candidates from Illinois.
Janet —
I finally decided to revise my email specifically for the people in my home state of Wisconsin, people I know and have dealings with all the time. I tailored it to fit their concerns, and to address them personally. Then sent it to the State Chairs of both parties, Democratic and Republican, because, they put together the Slate of Electors, and they are in daily contact with all the Members of their Congressional Delegations.
That meant that I had to send only 2 e-mails, instead of many!
I cc: their Secretaries, whose names appear on the Party websites. So it ended up that I sent 4 messages statewide.
I thought it would be easy for the Supreme Court to cure John McCain’s citizenship status
— but I discovered that there are about 10 decisions they would have to overturn
— besides there is the fact that the U.S. has deported back to Panama children born to American servicemen stationed in the Canal Zone
— so neither argument works for John McCain.
Senator John McCain is a “naturalized Citizen,” and that is all there is to it!
Bob,
I agree with everything you are saying but I feel that the electors are going to vote BHO in unless something very exterordinary happens.
Possible situations, a Hawaiian birth certificate surfaces showing that he was born in Kenya or he gets named in the Blago investigation. Either way, he would still wage a fight with the help of the Dems in congress and his buds in the MSM.
I don’t expect the Supremes to do anything.
I hope I am wrong.
Eric
Eric:
This should cheer you up —
“Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote in 1952: ‘Electors, although often personally eminent, independent and respectable, officially become voluntary party lackeys and intellectual nonentities to whose memory we might justly paraphrase a tuneful satire: They voted at their party’s call / And never thought of thinking for themselves at all'” (The Electoral College Primer 2000, pg. 110).
I agree with Eric.
The Congress is filled with cowards and crooks.
Our White House will be vacant for the next 4 years.
CW, There is a new entry yesterday to the docket for this case:
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docketsheets/SupremeCourtReport.aspx?docketNumber=199%20MM%202008
I am not a lawyer but I think this means that Obama has hired another one!
Thanks Ladyhawke.
The question still begs to be answered.
Who is paying all of these attornies?
I think that is the main reason he has not stopped fund raising!
This case has been appealed to the Supreme Court on April 6, 2009:
WASHINGTON, DC – Pennsylvanian James D. Schneller has filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking reversal of the denial by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court of Mr. Schneller’s petitions for writ of mandamus and for injunction, for an order the Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro Cortes to demand proof from Barack Obama of his eligibility for office, in particular his standing as a natural born citizen under the United States Constitution. The second petition sought an injunction directly to Mr. Obama, and a stay of the certification of the vote, by Secretary Cortes, including any certification to Pennsylvania’s Governor, and postponing of the scheduled meeting of the electors, pending disposition of the request for writ of mandamus.
Petitioner Schneller claims that since the candidate had not shown his eligibility under the Constitution, it follows that certification of the ballot was improper and fraudulent, that the canvas and certification of the vote was meaningless, that the Pennsylvania electors should not have had their votes certified, nor had their votes tallied in the traditional meeting before the Governor, nor should the certified electoral ballots have been lodged with the President of the U.S. Senate, nor the joint session of Congress.
Schneller says: ” We have witnessed a treasonous coup by the Democratic Party and the Congress. The Supreme Court has had time to consider Mr. Obama’s acts and how his post election activities relate to his subterfuge. How long do we have to pretend that this man is our President ? What may have been novel, or overwhelming, in the realm of political equity, has disappeared, and the gentleman is to most voters an interloper and un-American. The Supreme Court has an urgent duty to stand with the Constitution and with the People ! ”
Unlike in prior Supreme Court cases titled Berg, Donofrio, and Wrotnowski, petitioner Schneller claims abundant standing to sue, for reasons including his personal experiences in the campaign, and his standing as a member of subclasses of citizens deeply affected by the defendant’s improper candidacy, including the religious, and the pro-life. No prior case has resulted in an opinion.
Petitioner Schneller’s state suit raised the fact that Senator Obama had placed a doctored “certificate of live birth” on the internet, and had sworn falsely or in bad faith in his candidate affidavits in thirty or more states. Moreso, suits against ACORN had been filed in numerous states. Hollow and biased judgments in these, as well as the administration’s continual overtures to ACORN since the election, are a warning signal to all who object to open corruption and use of public funds as private favor.
The petition for writ of certiorari also claims that the Pennsylvania Department of State failed to prosecute numerous violations of the Commonwealth’s election law by Mr. Obama, and argues that the election law’s omission of a requirement for presidential candidates to file sworn affidavits is unfair, unequal, and unconstitutional. This omission was inexplicably amended into the statute in 2006.
“The entire country is aware of Obama’s subterfuge, yet no official has demanded proof of this gentleman’s eligibility under what is a most simple and basic requirement for the Presidency. A bare statement by the Hawaii Health Director that they have a valid birth certificate is fatally insufficient. Hawaiian officials have dug the ditch deeper, through various obstructive actions taken by them, and a boycott against Hawaii is in place.”
The petitioner says in regard to Congress: ” Even if Pennsylvania’s certified electoral vote had been delayed past the time of the Joint Session, this could have had the positive effect of fomenting a recess and a resolution, so that the eligibility issue could be properly addressed . Since the Pennsylvania vote arrived in time, I then filed in the Supreme Court for an injunction or writ of mandamus ordering Congress to not count the Pennsylvania vote until resolution of the Schneller v. Cortes case, and ordering Mr. Obama to produce proofs of citizenship. I faxed copies of this to every Senator and Member of Congress prior to the Joint Session, just as I had faxed a copy of the petitions for injunction and mandamus, to every Pennsylvania elector and official, prior to the meeting of the electoral college. What more did any of these leaders need to initiate investigation ? “
Anaconda,
If you are serious place another comment.