Posted by Bridgette
By Mario Apuzzo
Members of Congress Internal Memo
What to tell your Constituents in Answer to Obama Eligibility Questions!
Their Talking Points Internal Memo Revealed!
Nov. 5, 2010
This was the spin that the Members of Congress were given to keep the American electorate at bay and confused in the debate about Obama’s eligibility issues. All the while, Congress did nothing to investigate the matter in a congressional hearing like they did for similar concerns about John McCain.
We have obtained a copy of the talking points memorandum put out by a lawyer for the Congressional Research Service to the Members of Congress back in April 2009 as to what to tell their constituents when they write to the Members of Congress and ask questions about Obama’s eligibility.
Now we know why all the answers coming back to constituents sounded like they were written by the same person and were full of the same obfuscations and half truths and non-truths.
This copy was obtained via the diligent and persistent efforts of a patriot going by the pen name of “Tom Deacon” who obtained it from a Senator’s office. Now we know the talking points the DC insiders and politicians have been groomed with to feed to their constituents who have been asking questions about the eligibility issues.
Thank you Tom.
P.S. The Congressional Research Service is part of the Library of Congress. It theoretically works for the Congressional Committees which means It WORKS FOR THE PARTY THAT CONTROLS CONGRESS (in this case the Progressive controlled Democratic Party). Every report they issue (on the request of COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN who want them), is slanted to the ideology of the committee in charge because lawyers are partisan. Ninety percent ( 90% ) of them on this project are liberal.
They are the same lawyers the White House used to research their legal position in the fight to kill the Citizens United lawsuit when they fought McCain Feingold … L. Paige Whitaker, Legislative Attorney; Erika K. Lunder, Legislative Attorney; Kate M. Manuel, Legislative Attorney; Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney; Michael V. Seitzinger, Legislative Attorney
Here is a the typed transcript of the first 1 1/2 pages of 14, and pertinent paragraphs from page 4, and page 11. I did not include the footnotes or their references. It can be fully read on the link provided.
Congressional Research Service
April 3, 2009
Subject: Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate.
From: Jack Maskell
American Law Division
This memorandum was prepared to enable distribution to more than one
This memorandum addresses inquiries from congressional offices regarding the constitutional qualifications for the office of President of the United States, and the issue of challenges concerning specifically the questioning of President Obama’s “natural born citizenship” status. Many of the inquiries have questioned why then-Senator, and now President, Obama has not had to produce an original, so called “long” version of a “birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, how federal candidates are “vetted” for qualifications generally, and have asked for an assessment of the various allegations and claims of non-eligibility status.
Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States Government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation. Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that “vets” candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to election.
The mechanics of elections of federal officials within the several states are
administered under state law. The quadrennial presidential election, although required since 1845 to be held on the same day in each state is, in an administrative and operational sense, fifty-one separate elections in the states and the District of Columbia for presidential electors. States generally control, within the applicable constitutional parameters, the administrative issues, questions, and mechanisms of ballot placement and ballot access.
State election officials under some state ballot laws might thus require candidate “statements” or “declarations” of candidacy attesting to and/or
certifying certain facts as a condition to be on the ballot; in other states,
representatives of the established political parties may certify names to the
Secretary of State, or the designated elections official may place viable or
“recognized” candidates on the presidential preference ballots. In such cases opposing political candidates or political parties may have “standing ” to legally challenge the placement of a name of an opponent on the ballot, or state law may specifically provide for a procedure for timely protests to be filed concerning the qualifications of candidates.
Page Four (Emphasis is Mine)
Legal Analysis of Natural Born Citizenship Requirements
Because the term “natural born Citizen” is not defined within the Constitution, nor has the Supreme Court ever needed to rule specifically on the terms in this clause, there have been questions raised from time to time as to the precise meaning of the qualifications clause.
As explained by the Supreme Court of the United States over the course of a number of years, it is well settled from common law principles of jus soli (“law of the soil”) extant in England and the Colonies at the time of Independence, as well as from subsequent constitutional provisions, as well as subsequent statutory law, that all persons born “in” the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States “at birth.” As such, any person physically born “in” the United States, regardless of the citizenship of one’s parents (unless such parents are foreign diplomatic personnel not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), would appear to be a “natural born” citizen eligible to the President of the United States.
Page 11 President Obama
In addition to the lawsuits concerning Senator McCain’s eligibility, there had been several allegations and lawsuits brought challenging the status of President Obama as a “natural born” citizen, based on carious theories and assertions.
These cases have uniformly been summarily dismissed, either because of
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, because the plaintiff seeing a stay or an injunction against some future event was deemed “not likely to succeed on the merits,” or because of lack of legal standing of the plaintiff.
Despite the absence of any formal administrative or legal requirement or
oversight at the federal level, or specific state requirement to produce a birth certificate for ballot placement, it may be noted here briefly that the only “official” documentation or record that has been presented in the matter of President Obama’s eligibility has been an official, certified copy of the record of live birth released by the Obama campaign in June of 2008, as an apparent effort by then-candidate Obama to address rumors and innuendos concerning the place of his birth. The copy of this certificate states on its face, as certified by Hawaii health and vital records personnel that President Obama was born in Hawaii, in the city of Honolulu on the Island of Oahu, at 7:24 P.M. on August 4, 1961. Under Hawaii law, an officially certified copy of such health record is to be considered “for all purposes the same as the original,” and is “prima facie” evidence of the facts asserted. Since Hawaii became a state on August 21, 1959, all official documentation available at this time indicates that President Obama was born “in” the United States.
With respect to requests to “evaluate” evidence of a foreign birth, it may be noted briefly that there appear to be no official documentary records, or copies of such records, which might be subject to such evaluation. No official documents or records have been produced or forwarded contradicting the prima facie indications of President Obama’s birth in Hawaii, as provided in the official certification (or certificate) of live birth released by the Obama campaign. No official record of birth from any other jurisdiction or country has been produced, no contradictory health record or hospital record has been forwarded, no official record of travel (such as a passport record or passenger manifest) appears to exist placing President Obama’s mother in a foreign country at the time of the President’s birth. Rather there have been several theories, allegations, and self-generated “questions” concerning the place and circumstances of President Obama’s birth which as noted in court decisions, have been posted on the Internet and “television news tabloid(s),” and upon which several of the lawsuits were based.
Here is the link to the Internal Memorandum:
A party who wants the Supreme Court to review a decision of a federal or state court files a “petition for writ of certiorari” in the Supreme Court. A “petition” is printed in booklet format and 40 copies are filed with the Court. If the Court grants the petition, the case is scheduled for the filing of briefs and for oral argument. A minimum of four of the nine Justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari, referred to as the “rule of four”. The court denies the vast majority of petitions and thus leaves the decision of the lower court to stand without review; it takes roughly 80 to 150 cases each term.
What affiliation do these mentioned lawyers have with the Democrats or Republicans? Who originally requested this research and who was it given to in Congress? The research was completed in April, 2009, so the research on this issue was requested before that. The footnotes cite different lawsuits regarding Obama’s eligibility and answer points raised in those lawsuits. The research also covers John McCain’s eligibility.
What other internal memos might be found in an FOIA request to Congress? It is about time for all of this information to be exposed and Obama’s eligibility investigated. The question remains who are all of the people involved in this conspiracy and who will be the first to break down? Did those reading this memorandum believe they had done their duty and were protected because they relied upon the report? Was this report sent to others outside of Congress?
Is this case being reviewed by the Solicitor General as Elena Kagan did with
many of the other eligibility cases? Neal Katyal is the Acting Solicitor General of the United States. The task of the Office of the Solicitor General is to supervise and conduct government litigation in the United States Supreme Court. Virtually all such litigation is channeled through the Office of the Solicitor General and is actively conducted by the Office.
Do read the memo in full and see what points you find pertinent and important.
UPDATE : November 6, 2010
Respondents Waive the Right to Respond to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court for the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Lawsuit. There is new activity on the U.S. Supreme Court Docket today with an effective date on the docket of 3 Nov 2010.
UPDATE: Nov. 8, 2010
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Distributed for Conference by the Justices on 23 Nov 2010.
UPDATE: Nov. 9, 2010
Attorney Jack Maskell confirmed to World Net Daily that the Memo is authentic! It was never intended for the public.
“Congress report concedes Obama eligibility unvetted
‘There is no specific federal agency’ to review candidates for federal office World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi
A congressional document posted on the Internet confirms no one – not Congress, not the states and not election officials – bothered to check Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, and that status remains undocumented to this day.
It’s because state and federal law did not require anyone in Congress or
elsewhere to check to see if Obama was a “natural born Citizen” under the
meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, according the document.
He explained he wrote it only for distribution to congressional offices, not for public distribution, and it was not posted on any of the CRS report sites where the public might have been able to find it. He suggested one of the congressional offices that got the report facilitated its release, and it ended up posted on the Internet.
Maskell told WND he wrote it because so many members of Congress were
getting questions from constituents about the issue, and they wanted to know how to respond. It would explain why so many mailed and e-mailed responses to constituents on the issue of eligibility sound just alike.” Snip
WHO WILL INVESTIGATE??
Whoever in Congress that received this memo knew that Obama wasn’t vetted and that there were NO records, NO documentation to prove his eligibility, or rather his INELIGIBILITY!
UPDATE: June 1, 2011
MARCH 18 MEMO – The Second Memo Released
I have downloaded both of the Congressional Research Service memos from scribd in PDF form, then run Optical Character Recognition (OCR) on them, and then uploaded them here.
April 3, 2009 Memo with Optical Character Recognition (OCR):
41131059-CRS-Congressional-Internal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-Regarding-Obama-Eligibility-Questions (with OCR)
March 18, 2010 Memo with Optical Character Recognition (OCR):
56676154-Scan-0004 (with OCR)
Qualifications for President and the Natural Born Citizenship Eligibility Requirement. November 14, 2011
Jack Maskell, attorney (the same one that put out the false information in the previous two memos). 53 pages