Obama GA ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 3, Citizen Wells FEC FOIA, FEC bias?
“Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”…C. S. Lewis
“I am certain that the devil is watching Barack Obama and taking notes.”…Citizen Wells
“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells
WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?
PART 3
Citizen Wells FEC FOIA request reveals FEC bias?
Part 1 in this series documented that Barack Obama opted out of Federal Matching Funds after a pledge to receive them and repeatedly spoke about campaign finance reform.
Part 2 dealt with the legal posturing involving Obama, Robert Bauer, et al with the FEC and the first lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility and Natural
Born Citizen status initiated by Philip J. Berg.
From Part 2:
Philip J Berg files lawsuit in Philadelphia Federal Court
August 21, 2008
Defendants: Obama, DNC, FEC
Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and therefore ineligible to be President.
August 27, 2008
Complaint served on the U.S. Attorney for DNC and FEC
Motion filed by Robert Bauer, et al October 6, 2008
“BRIEF OF DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
AND DEFENDANT SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON
DISPOSITIVE MOTION”
“In his Complaint, plaintiff Berg alleges that Senator Barack Obama, the
Democratic Party’s nominee for President of the United States, is not eligible to serve as President under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution because,
Mr. Berg alleges (falsely), Senator Obama is purportedly not a natural-born citizen. Complaint ¶3. Mr. Berg seeks a declaratory judgment that Senator Obama
is ineligible to run for President; an injunction barring Senator Obama from running for that office; and an injunction barring the DNC from nominating him.
On September 15, 2008, plaintiff Berg served on Senator Obama’s office a
request for production of seventeen different categories of documents, including copies of all of the Senator’s college and law school applications, requests
for financial aid, college and law school papers, and “a copy of your entire presidential file pertaining to being vetted.” Plaintiff also served 56 requests
for admission on Senator Obama. On that same date, plaintiff served on the DNC 27 requests for admission and requests for production of five categories of
documents, including all documents in the possession of the DNC
relating to Senator Obama.1
On September 24, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, on the grounds that, as a matter of law, plaintiff has no standing to challenge the
qualifications of a candidate for President of the U.S. and has no federal cause of action.”
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S OPPOSITION TO
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE INJUNCTION TO STAY
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 4, 2008
October 21, 2008
“II. BECAUSE THE COMMISSION HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE WHETHER CANDIDATES MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY, IT SHOULD BE
DISMISSED FROM THIS CASE
The Commission is the independent agency of the United States government vested with exclusive jurisdiction to administer, interpret and enforce civilly the
FECA. See 2 U.S.C. §§ 437c(b)(1), 437d(a), 437d(e) and 437g. The Commission also exercises jurisdiction over the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26
U.S.C. §§ 9001 et seq., and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9031 et seq.2 These statutes only confer on the Commission
jurisdiction over issues concerning the financing of federal campaigns: regulating the organization of campaign committees; the raising, spending, and
disclosing of campaign funds; and the receipt and use of public funding for qualifying candidates.
None of these statutes delegates to the FEC authority to determine the constitutional eligibility of federal candidates, and Berg does not allege otherwise.
Although the Commission determines whether certain presidential candidates are eligible for public funding, it has no power to determine who qualifies for
ballot access or who is eligible to serve as president. Thus, because the Commission has no authority to take action against Senator Obama as suggested by Berg, the Commission should be dismissed from this case with prejudice.”
The following are FEC statements of policy and law. They reveal at least a grey area and probably black and white in regard to the response that Philip J.
Berg received in 2008 when he challenged Obama’s eligibility.
General duties and procedures.
From the FEC website:
“Election Administration
The FEC’s Office of Election Administration (OEA) serves as a central exchange for information and research on issues related to the administration of
federal elections on the state and local level.”
“Filing a Complaint
Anyone who believes that a violation of the law has occurred may file a complaint with the FEC. The complaint should contain a statement of facts related to the alleged violation and any supporting evidence available.
The complaint must be signed and contain the complainant’s name and address. It must also be sworn to and notarized. A step-by-step description of the
enforcement process is available in the brochure Filing a Complaint.”
“Contested Elections
For information on how to challenge the results of a federal election, contact the Secretary of State in your state capital.”
Statutes
Since the FEC had provided an advisory opinion that Obama had the option to accept matching funds, it appears that Berg’s challenge to the FEC should not
have been dismissed.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle H > CHAPTER 95 > § 9011
§ 9011. JUDICIAL REVIEW
(a) Review of certification, determination, or other action by the Commission
Any certification, determination, or other action by the Commission made or taken pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to review by
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upon petition filed in such Court by any interested person. Any petition filed pursuant to
this section shall be filed within thirty days after the certification, determination, or other action by the Commission for which review is sought.
(b) Suits to implement chapter
(1) The Commission, the national committee of any political party, and individuals eligible to vote for President are authorized to institute such actions,
including actions for declaratory judgment or injunctive relief, as may be appropriate to implement or contrue [1] any provisions of this chapter.
(2) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this subsection and shall exercise the same
without regard to whether a person asserting rights under provisions of this subsection shall have exhausted any administrative or other remedies that may be provided at law. Such proceedings shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28,
United States Code, and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.
[1] So in original. Probably should be “construe”.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_26_00009011—-000-.html
Citizen Wells FOIA request and response.
As reported on Citizen Wells September 30, 2008, I submitted a FOIA request to the FEC on September 13, 2008.
The FEC responses can be viewed here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49423265/FEC-2008-FOIA-request-Philip-Berg-lawsuit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49423694/FEC0002 through FEC0008
The Berg lawsuit was filed on August 21, 2008 and served on the FEC on August 27, 2008. The following email from David Kolker to Rebekah Harvey dated August 22, 2008 is certainly interesting. Rebekah Harvey was the assistant to Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub. Prior to being appointed to the FEC, Weintraub was on the staff of Perkins Coie LLP and a member of it’s Political Law Group. More on Ellen Weintraub later.
“Victory in Berg v. Obama”
You may find the following a bit curious as well:
The letter to the FEC dated August 18, 2008 (Scribd FEC0006).
The individual, redacted, is requesting an advisory opinion from the FEC on Obama’s eligibility to be president. An email was sent with the request. The email
provides information on why Obama is not eligible. It begins with
“It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president, after all, for the following reason:”
It ends with
“Interesting! Now what? Who dropped the ball or are we all being duped? Who do you know whom you can forward this to who might be able to help
answer this question?”
From the FEC response to the inquiry (Scribd FEC0004):
“The Act authorizes the Commission to issue an advisory opinion in response to a complete written request from any person about a specific transaction or
activity that the requesting person plans to undertake or is presently undertaking.”
Philip J. Berg’s challenge in court to Obama’s eligibility appears to meet this requirement.
Had Berg challenged the earlier ruling by the FEC which kept open the option for Obama receiving matching funds, perhaps the outcome would have been
different. However, to be revealed in part 4, the Obama camp and the DNC did their best to quash the effectiveness of the FEC over several years.
Citizen WElls 