Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Team Arpaio: New Evidence Will Convince Greatest Skeptic Document Is 100% Forgery
BirtherReport.com ^ | January 27, 2013 | Unattributed/Mike Zullo

Posted on 01/27/2013 7:25:19 AM PST by Seizethecarp

Sheriff Joe Arpaio's lead Obama investigator Mike Zullo appeared on Carl Gallups' radio show Freedom Friday. Zullo repeated that the Obama investigation never stopped and that the only thing that stopped is the media coverage around the investigation....

Zullo says; "We are so convinced... let me go out on limb... I am going to put my reputation out there that we have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt--the higher standard--beyond a reasonable doubt that this document is an utter forgery."

Zullo also says; "the evidence we have acquired, new found evidence that we have never made public at any point in time, and we are not going to make public until we have the right opportunity, will convince even the greatest skeptic that this document is 100% a forgery."


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Military/Veterans; Politics
KEYWORDS: arizona; birthcertificate; birther; certifigate; joearpaio; mikezullo; naturalborncitizen; obama; sheriffjoe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-224 next last
To: butterdezillion

Zullo hasn’t gotten a dime from this, and has spent plenty on it. His motivation is justice and truth.


Not everyone is as selfless as you.

Zullo and Jerome Corsi came out with an e-book at the same time as Arpaio and Zullo held their first press conference. Zullo and Corsi continue to split the profits from sales of that book.


101 posted on 01/27/2013 8:50:08 PM PST by ConstantSkeptic (Be careful about preconceptions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic

All of Zullo’s portion goes to his church. This wasn’t about making money; it was about getting the book on Amazon, in an attempt to not just “preach to the choir”.


102 posted on 01/27/2013 8:55:10 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

If their goal was to spread the information as widely as possible, why charge for the book?


103 posted on 01/27/2013 8:59:34 PM PST by ConstantSkeptic (Be careful about preconceptions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic

They couldn’t get it on Amazon without charging for it.

What they really wanted was for the media to simply report this stuff, but they wouldn’t. Probably had something to do with the fact that Andrew Breitbart dropped dead less than 5 hours after telling Arpaio his evidence was good, and Rush Limbaugh got what was treated as a bomb threat because it referred to 2 famous assassinations - all on the same day as Arpaio’s first presser...


104 posted on 01/27/2013 9:08:42 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

But $9.99?

I still say they’re running a scam. You can be the first to say “I told you so!” if this investigation leads to anything more than press releases, but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting.


105 posted on 01/27/2013 9:27:54 PM PST by ConstantSkeptic (Be careful about preconceptions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic
Your taking the time to provide a well-written comment/rebuttal is to your credit. By the same token however, your handle would appear to be somewhat of a misnomer if you're not highly skeptical of the "Obama" birth and life narrative. Case in point:

"There were legitimate questions raised about Obama’s background when he started running for the presidency, but ultimately I decided that he was born in Hawaii and all the brouhaha over his birth was just a distraction to the real issues facing the nation.

On what basis did you "decide" that, ConstantSkeptic?

"As far as Zullo, he’s a con man. Pure and simple."

So you're saying his boss, Sheriff Joe Arpaio is also a con man, correct? Did you even watch the Cold Case Posse pressers on their findings?

Perhaps you're not an Obot/distruptor and are merely being simultaneously credulous and willfully obtuse regarding the veracity of the "Obama" nativity story. Whatevs. Shaking the dust off my sandals now. . .

106 posted on 01/27/2013 9:28:45 PM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome ("Obama": His entire life is Photoshopped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

> Me too! This whole political thing is just BS and wait, and wait, and wait, nothing but wait.

Donald Trump’s big surprises never amounted to anything much if at all...


107 posted on 01/27/2013 9:31:24 PM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

The fact that the State of Hawaii has repeatedly stated that Obama was born there is sufficient for me. The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution states that that is sufficient proof. I would have to believe in an unbelievable amount of fraud and cover-up to believe that Hawaii is lying. I know that lots of folks believe that there’s a grand conspiracy here. I don’t. There are a lot of conservatives who share my belief that Obama was born in Hawaii. It’s not strictly a liberal belief!

As far as Arpaio, I think he has his own agenda. If he truly had evidence, then why hasn’t it gone anywhere?


108 posted on 01/27/2013 9:58:06 PM PST by ConstantSkeptic (Be careful about preconceptions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

It is becoming obvious that ignoring the “get it right the first time” has not produced a valid plan / strategy / organization / fact collection that will generate a successful solution to the problem. Reasons and excuses for failure will not cut it. Success will be achieved only if correctly addressed up front with full analysis of the potential strategies / actions of the opposing side.


109 posted on 01/27/2013 10:02:11 PM PST by Huskerfan44 (Huskerfan44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

It is becoming obvious that ignoring the “get it right the first time” has not produced a valid plan / strategy / organization / fact collection that will generate a successful solution to the problem. Reasons and excuses for failure will not cut it. Success will be achieved only if correctly addressed up front with full analysis of the potential strategies / actions of the opposing side.


110 posted on 01/27/2013 10:08:52 PM PST by Huskerfan44 (Huskerfan44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic

The full faith and credit clause states that there must be a way of verifying documents and so far, Hawaii has NOT legally verified any alleged birth certificate for Obama NOR have they ever LEGALLY verified he was born in Hawaii. Under Federal Rules of Evidence (one way of satisfying the full faith and credit clause), if someone claims to a fact through a certified document (such as a birth record) then those who challenge it in court have a right to inspect that record. Consider the refusal by Hawaii and Obama to submit an official copy of that record in ANY court of law to be quite telling of what the record does not and cannot prove.


111 posted on 01/27/2013 11:05:13 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic

But $9.99?

I still say they’re running a scam.
*****************************************
It’s marketing , if they sold it for $0.01 people would think it was worth $0.01 .... As to the “scam” remark ,, who would run a scam where all of the money goes to a charity and they KNOW the target of the investigation will at the very least verify that’s where the funds went. Arpaio is a true American hero, read his history...


112 posted on 01/28/2013 3:47:05 AM PST by Neidermeyer (I used to be disgusted , now I'm just amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic

The fact that the State of Hawaii has repeatedly stated that Obama was born there is sufficient for me. The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution states that that is sufficient proof. I would have to believe in an unbelievable amount of fraud and cover-up to believe that Hawaii is lying.
******************************************************
Substitute “global warming” for the subject matter and “scientists/universities/gov’t” for Hawaii see if what you said makes any sense.. it’s not like this is anything new.


113 posted on 01/28/2013 3:53:22 AM PST by Neidermeyer (I used to be disgusted , now I'm just amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic

Au contraire. The Hawaii state registrar has actually indirectly confirmed in a legal document that Obama’s HI BC is legally non-valid and has confirmed in 2 legal documents that the White House image is a forgery.

Which is probably why somebody at the HDOH has deliberately added names from non-valid BC’s onto their 1960-64 birth index - as I’ve proven on my blog by showing that Norman and Nathan Asing are the birth names of adoptees and thus those names are on non-valid records.

In addition, we’ve got 4 1961 BC#’s that the HDOH has put on copies they’ve issued.... that could not have been on those particular BC’s in 1961. IOW, the HDOH has switched around at least 4 Aug 1961 BC#’s, including Obama, Stig Waidelich, Virginia Sunahara, and Johanna Ah Nee. The 2 long-forms have blatant signs of forgery on them - apparently from a resistant HDOH worker or possibly Onaka himself (Obama’s BC has TXE in the certifying statement and a smiley face in Onaka’s signature, and Ah Nee’s BC has 2 BC# digits overlapping and a signature that doesn’t look like Onaka’s handwriting). Sunahara’s BC# was found on a death certificate that had 3 blatant signs of forgery on the same line as the BC# was handwritten on: T. H. for Territory of Hawaii on a death certificate from the State of Hawaii, and mismatched and misaligned fonts for FILE and NO. right next to T. H. ) Virginia Sunahara was born on Aug 4, 1961 and died one day later, and the HDOH is refusing to let her brother see her original birth certificate, claiming that the records are “too fragile” to survive if anybody was allowed to see them. Never mind that the paper records have been microfilmed and scanned so that the paper records don’t have to come into play at all.

The only lawful reason for any one of those people to have a BC# different than the one they were given in 1961 is if law enforcement requested a new BC to be fabricated in order to protect the registrant from imminent harm, in which case a BC is made up which says whatever law enforcement says it should say, and a different BC# is given to the fictitious BC so that the real BC remains in effect and available to somebody who knows what is claimed on it. IOW, Eric Holder or Janet Napolitano probably told the HDOH worker what they had to put on a fabricated BC for Obama. It has no resemblance to what is on the real record for Obama, if there even is one.


114 posted on 01/28/2013 4:44:25 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Seriously? The stupid and uninformed don’t really care who’s legal or what’s forged as long as they keep getting their free stuff. I love Arpaio - but - this will go nowhere just like the rest of the information about the birth certificate.


115 posted on 01/28/2013 4:49:36 AM PST by rockabyebaby (We are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo screwed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyP

“Orly jumped the gun before there was solid verification, no doubt alerting the data scrubbers, so it will be a miracle if there is anything left to uncover.”

How reliable is the data if it can be scrubbed?

SSA has data sharing agreements with state vital statistic records databases, DHS and DoS. Not to mention the fact that SSA records are not scrubbed or deleted. They can be updated and corrected, but there is a data trail.

Obama’s SS-5 application is helpful, but his NUMIDENT File is chronological history of his life.


116 posted on 01/28/2013 6:20:54 AM PST by SvenMagnussen (TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: edge919; butterdezillion

If Obama is ever required to produce his birth certificate in court, I believe that he will produce one from Hawaii stating that he was born there.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires the court to treat that birth certificate with the same respect that the court has to birth certificates of its own state. The birth certificate will be self-authenticating and prima facie evidence. Anyone challenging that birth certificate will have to come up with their own evidence that the facts on the birth certificate are somehow false. A newspaper from Kenya, for example, will not trump the official record of a state. Assertions and speculation won’t do. You need something to PROVE that the state records are false. That’s a mighty tall challenge. What proof do you think a court will accept over its official state records?


117 posted on 01/28/2013 6:47:17 AM PST by ConstantSkeptic (Be careful about preconceptions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

The signs of forgery/fraud were obvious THE DAY it was released.

Examples. Videos released THE DAY the LFBC came out...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eOfYwYyS_c

Layers, clipping mask, identical letters, etc, etc.

Hack fake.


118 posted on 01/28/2013 7:00:57 AM PST by bluecat6 ("All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

So?
When major media can publish a forged document and defend it as “fake, but true” they are not going have a problem with a forced Birth Certificate from the “First Black President.”


119 posted on 01/28/2013 7:10:55 AM PST by Little Ray (Waiting for the return of the Gods of the Copybook Headings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

Another one from the day after it was released.

I like the way this one ends. Its like the end of a high dive. He nails it with his final comment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7k8T7tjTEg

So within hours of release most image oriented computer people knew what was released was a fraud.


120 posted on 01/28/2013 7:24:21 AM PST by bluecat6 ("All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic

The evidence is there to establish a challenge to the Full, Faith And Credit Clause.


121 posted on 01/28/2013 8:16:51 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

What evidence effectively refutes the prima facie evidence of a state certified birth certificate? That is one large hurdle! And, like a said, allegations and speculation don’t count. You need credible records and witnesses.

Think of it like this: You put a candy bar in your bedroom at 1:00. When you got back at 1:30, you discover the candy bar is gone. You go to your mother and tell her than your brother Timmy ate your candy bar. Your mother says, Nonsense, your father tells me that Timmy has been with him from 11:00 until now. He couldn’t have eaten your candy bar. Well, the state record is like your father’s word. It is authoritative and credible. Your mother WILL believe your father. One state, as mandated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause, WILL believe another state. Think about what you would have to do to get your mother to believe something other than what your father says. High hurdle, right? Pointing out that your brother is a known liar and thief isn’t credible proof. You need to prove that the information your father has is incorrect. The same applies when challenging state records. State records are presumed correct. That’s part of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.


122 posted on 01/28/2013 8:49:11 AM PST by ConstantSkeptic (Be careful about preconceptions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic

so what do you need to challenge a computerized copy of a document, does it have full faith and credit? When has the supposed actual document been presented in court?


123 posted on 01/28/2013 8:55:12 AM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic
"What evidence effectively refutes the prima facie evidence of a state certified birth certificate?"

Where is this "prima facie evidence" - a paper document with requisite seals?

NOWHERE

There are only websites with JPEGs, PDF files, and print copies of JPEGs from websites.

We want to see the "prima facie evidence" IN COURT.

You are a lousy skeptic. Illogical and nonsensical.

And as Butterdezillion has shown, Onaka's verification letters are anything BUT verifications. They are completely the opposite. Like double negatives.

124 posted on 01/28/2013 9:07:23 AM PST by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone; ConstantSkeptic

Lets be sure to cite this fact.

The state of Hawaii has never, repeat never, directly released any record in this matter. Never.

The 2008 COLB magically appeared as a key feature in the ‘Fight The Smears’ blog in June 2008. It was also release simultaneously by multiple politically operative blogs.

Even a representative from Hawaii said of the image and physical paper presented by Fact Check in August of 2008 that ‘we may never know what this an image of.’

So Hawaii has never made a claim of authenticity of that document. Ironically, when the WH released the LFBC image in April of 2011 they also posted a black and white image of the infamous COLB. That image was apparently a browser print of the document from the SNOPES website. The footer information at the bottom of the document shows that. If the 2008 COLB was authentic and in safe keeping why was in not re-presented in some manner? Does that specific ‘state-issued’ document still exist? It seems it would have been kept in safe keeping. So for that document it is simple - just present the ORIGINAL ACTUAL document and have officials from Hawaii authenticate it as authentic along with any type of backup that it was actually issued in 2007. A very simple task. Yet never done.

Fast forward to April 2011. The LFBC posted on the WH website is an Adobe pdf electronic file. It was not released by the state of Hawaii. The director of the Health Department did apparently create a cover letter indicating that something was provided - to attorneys from the White House. Assuming the letter is authentic and factually correct what was given to the WH attorneys has not been confirmed. In fact, Hawaii officials have gone out their way in responses to states in 2012 to avoid confirming the Adobe electronic file is a replication of an actual, authentic state-issued document.

So the first fact is - nothing has ever, ever been released with the unqualified and full support of the state of Hawaii.

No actual state-issued document has ever been presented to a court. Never.

Confirming a document as authentic from a digital image is, as properly noted, imppossible. YOU MUST HAVE THE PHYSICAL ACTUAL DOCUMENT TO VALIDATE IS AUTHENTICITY. But is possible to show that a digital image is not a reproduction of any authentic document. This is not difficult. And it has been done for both the COLB and LFBC. Both are clearly not images of official Hawaii documents.

The anti-fraud mechanisms in most state-issue documents are made to hinder the easy reproduction of copy of ACTUAL DOCUMENT. Features that good state document should have include: a) ‘secure-void’ that show the word ‘void’ when a document is photocopied in a standard copier (btw, no present on Hawaii documents apparently), b) micro lettering to include words in what appears as lines (also not used by Hawaii), c) Detailed borders with very intricate designs that do not reproduce well (used by Hawaii at one time as evidenced by the PeterBoy COLB, but not used now), d) watermarks that do not show via photocopying or scanning (also not used by Hawaii now) and e) embossed seals that - by design - do NOT show up or barely show up when photocopied or scanned (the ‘raised seal’ on Hawaii document is an easy to copy de-embossed pin die.), and f)security paper that has a multi-color, unique background (Hawaii uses cheap, easily available paper with a common background.). For an example of a document that does include some of the features simply see Bobby Jindals BC document. The differences are very apparent.

The Hawaii documents are almost designed for enabling fraud. They simple in their construct and simple to manipulate after they are digitized.

But without the actual document one can not say anything presented is authentic. One MUST have the document. And an actual physical document is never come forward.


125 posted on 01/28/2013 9:40:30 AM PST by bluecat6 ("All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic

Not if it’s a non-valid BC. A non-valid BC means that the legal presumption is that it is NOT true, and it is up to Obama to prove that it is. What Onaka has disclosed is that Obama’s Hawaii BC is NON-VALID.

Anything you believe to the contrary is at this point a matter of blind faith, ConstantSkeptic.


126 posted on 01/28/2013 9:48:36 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic

For a ConstantSkeptic you use the words I BELIEVE a lot. Where’s your proof of a real, certified, paper document?

And your analogy is stupid.

You and Mom have never seen the candy bar. You’ve been told there is/was a candy bar. ONLY Dad has said he’s seen the candy bar. The candy bar is supposed to still be someplace WITH Dad. Are you sayin that Obama’s birth certificate was stolen or eaten?


127 posted on 01/28/2013 9:54:56 AM PST by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue

Where is this “prima facie evidence” - a paper document with requisite seals?

NOWHERE


You’re absolutely right that Obama has not been required to present his Certificate of Live Birth in any court. As I said before, it is MY belief that Hawaii would provide him with one stating that he was born in Hawaii. You may believe otherwise. That’s your privilege.

Do you understand how courts work? You can’t just go in and say “I don’t believe you were born in the U.S. Prove it!” If anyone could possibly challenge Obama’s place of birth in court, all Obama would have to do is produce a Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii with the signature and seal, and then the burden of proving that false would be on the accuser. I can’t imagine that anyone can prove fraud regarding that 50 year old event. That is was Arpaio and his posse has to do. Obama or his crew may have somehow committed fraud with the online documents, but that doesn’t negate his eligibility. Can Arpaio prove fraud regarding Hawaii’s records? That’s the challenge he faces.


128 posted on 01/28/2013 10:09:45 AM PST by ConstantSkeptic (Be careful about preconceptions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic

“Can Arpaio prove fraud regarding Hawaii’s records? That’s the challenge he faces.”

_____________________________________

Apario has proven it. Many, many others independently have as well. See videos posted above as small representation of the ‘proof’. The COLB fraud is less obvious but it is still a fraud as well. And with the WH using a browser print-out from SNOPES the possibility this actual ‘document’ still exist must be considered in serious doubt at this point.

The real challenge is probably getting anyone with any sort of authority to care.

Is the AG in Hawaii going to investigate? Of course not. Is the FBI going to formally investigate document tampering and fraud in this matter? Obviously not. Is Congress going to pick up this subject with all the political dynamics that would come it? Hardly.

Using the old saying about the tree in the forest.

The tree fell in the forest and everyone heard it. But will anyone say it fell if no one cares?

Sadly, this is the state of affairs.


129 posted on 01/28/2013 10:24:28 AM PST by bluecat6 ("All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic

So the other states have to trust Onaka when he certified and swore that his letter of verification to AZ SOS Ken Bennett was in compliance with HRS 338-14.3 which requires him to verify any submitted claim that he can certify as “presumed correct”, right?

On that letter of verification Onaka refused to verify these birth facts for Obama: male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama.

As you say, Full Faith and Credit means that every state has to accept that those facts CANNOT legally be presumed as true based on Hawaii’s records.

Right?

Please don’t ignore what I’m saying, as you’ve repeatedly done in the past. I’ve told you several times now, that Onaka indirectly confirmed the legal non-validity of Obama’s HI BC. At this point Full Faith and CRedit works AGAINST Obama, because the HI official responsible for making a sworn statement (certification, which in Hawaii is the same thing) has sworn that his verification refusing to verify the above birth facts for Obama is in compliance with the law.


130 posted on 01/28/2013 10:36:51 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue

And your analogy is stupid.

You and Mom have never seen the candy bar. You’ve been told there is/was a candy bar. ONLY Dad has said he’s seen the candy bar. The candy bar is supposed to still be someplace WITH Dad.


I think you’ll find that my analogy makes more sense if you read its first sentence correctly: “You put a candy bar in your bedroom at 1:00.”


131 posted on 01/28/2013 11:40:58 AM PST by ConstantSkeptic (Be careful about preconceptions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Conserve America Party Information File.


132 posted on 01/28/2013 11:56:21 AM PST by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Commune Obama"care" violates Anti-Trust Laws, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic
If Obama is ever required to produce his birth certificate in court, I believe that he will produce one from Hawaii stating that he was born there.

What do you base this belief on?? He has had dozens and dozens of opportunities, yet he has previously refused to submit it. Georgia advised him to submit evidence in the ballot challenge and he specifically refused. The reason why is pretty obvious.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires the court to treat that birth certificate with the same respect that the court has to birth certificates of its own.

Only if it is submitted to the opposing party so it can be evaluated for authenticity.

The birth certificate will be self-authenticating and prima facie evidence. Anyone challenging that birth certificate will have to come up with their own evidence that the facts on the birth certificate are somehow false.

It is only self-authenticating if it is provided ahead of time to the opposing party and if no objection is raised. Short of this, it is considered to be hearsay.

A newspaper from Kenya, for example, will not trump the official record of a state.

So far, Obama has not presented an official record of a state, and second, newspaper accounts are considered self-authenticating under the rules of evidence.

Assertions and speculation won’t do. You need something to PROVE that the state records are false. That’s a mighty tall challenge. What proof do you think a court will accept over its official state records?

Again, Obama has NEVER presented an official state record of anything, and his alleged B/Cs lack the required certification elements as described on Hawaii's DOH rules and procedures.

133 posted on 01/28/2013 12:00:05 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic

“You need something to PROVE that the state records are false. That’s a mighty tall challenge.”

Barry’s desperate legal gymnastics in HI and federal courts alone betray a near certainty that his HI state records are false in a way that threatens his eligibility.

Mike Zullo has now gone out on a limb and claimed that the new, previously undisclosed evidence that exposes the LFBC forgery (evidence that obviously could NOT have been used to “get it right the first time”) is in the possession of Arpaio’s posse.

Because HI DOH has “authenticated” the LFBC in a way considered legally valid by at least two state SOSs, Zullo must also believe that the new evidence will convince 100% of skeptics that HI DOH is corruptly hiding a flawed original vital record, IMO.

Time will tell whether Zullo is blowing smoke.


134 posted on 01/28/2013 12:18:23 PM PST by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6; Danae; LucyT

On the day the WH LFBC was released Barry’s attorney pointedly refused to let Barry hold the “original” despite a reporter directly stating that this would help preempt accusations that the document was a forgery. The transcript was on the WH website at least until very recently.

This insistence by Barry’s lawyer on maintaining OBVIOUS “plausible deniability” for Barry against any charge that he personally was involved in a forgery by keeping it out of his hands is extremely incriminating.

Corsi, FReeper Danae and Trump were all responsible for backing Barry into a corner where his personal access to his own BC image was proved by Danae as documented by Corsi in his book that was just hitting the bookstores. Trump just piled onto Corsi’s book.

Just before the election (probably in Tampa) I believe that Corsi, Trump and Arpaio were asked to back off because getting rid of Barry at the ballot box was the first priority and also Arpaio needed to get reelected.


135 posted on 01/28/2013 12:27:06 PM PST by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic; butterdezillion

Apparently nothing but giant lightning bolts from the blue, disembodied voices rumbling like thunder and mystic messages in the clouds will convince you.

Noob...with only about 10 comments since last summer, almost all sniping against anyone who is concerned about 0moslem’s non-eligibility.

Troll noob, actually.


136 posted on 01/28/2013 1:06:55 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic
As far as Arpaio, I think he has his own agenda.

Well, it's obvious what yours is.

137 posted on 01/28/2013 1:09:07 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer; ConstantSkeptic

Read ConstantSkeptic’s meager posting history and you will see what scam he’s running.

Leftist troll.


138 posted on 01/28/2013 1:10:20 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic

Again, your analogy is not at all comparable to the situation so:

“You put a candy bar in your bedroom at 1:00.”

is meaningless.

In your analogy, “you” would have to of had possession of the candy bar at some point and now it is missing or eaten.

Only Dad (Hawaii) has the “supposed” candy bar. “You” can’t see it, or access it.

And besides, it’s Dad has only given Mom one LEGAL statement about the “candy bar.”

Mom asks: “Is the candy bar “real?”

Dad answers with a double negative:

“I don’t have no fictitious candy bar.”

Which means:

“I DO have a fictitious candy bar.

Mom is not stupid, knows he used a double negative but since Dad puts money in her bank account, she chooses to BELIEVE that he did not answer her with a DOUBLE NEGATIVE.


139 posted on 01/28/2013 1:29:23 PM PST by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: edge919

So far Obama hasn’t been REQUIRED by any court to submit a birth certificate.

There have been three times in which Hawaii has made official verifications of the information on the birth certificate. I haven’t looked up the ones issued to the secretaries of state, but the one issued for the Mississippi case is pretty clear in stating that the information on record with the State of Hawaii matches the information contained on the copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate which appears on the internet. So yes, if Obama is ever REQUIRED by a court to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate, I believe he will do so.

I am not a lawyer and don’t know the rules of evidence, but I’m sure that there are procedures in place so that all parties are satisfied that an original certified copy from the state is the item submitted into evidence.


140 posted on 01/28/2013 2:46:49 PM PST by ConstantSkeptic (Be careful about preconceptions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

You are sadly mistaken if you think that all conservatives are birthers and that only “Leftist trolls” believe that Obama was born in Hawaii. Maybe in your insular world, but not in the world I live in. My father thinks Fox News is the only reason a person needs to watch TV. He’s NEVER voted for a Democrat. But he believes that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Personally, I find the birther issue interesting, but ultimately a distraction from the real issues facing this country. That’s my own personal belief. I’m not asking you to believe it too.


141 posted on 01/28/2013 2:47:19 PM PST by ConstantSkeptic (Be careful about preconceptions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic; TheOldLady

You’re a transparent flim flam troll. When I looked you had about 10 comments since signup date this summer, all except one or two dissing the non-eligibility issue.

I assume you’re a re-tread, too.

TOL - check it’s posting history. Just for the record.


142 posted on 01/28/2013 2:53:45 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Again, I am not a birther and I don’t pretend to be.

I find the subject fascinating and I especially enjoy reading Butterdezillion’s analyses. She puts so much time and thought into what she writes. I may not agree with her conclusions, but I’m certainly more than willing to consider what she says.

You’re right, I don’t post on other issues. There are already lots of folks posting on those articles so that I don’t feel inclined to add my two cents. And, if I agree with what’s already being said, why just add a “me too” to the comments? Well, apparently, that’s all YOU would like to see, a bunch of yes-men.

I started posting on this thread because I am fed up with folks like Zullo stringing people along. Obama has already run for election and WON! If Zullo had something, why the heck didn’t he reveal it four months ago when it might have made a difference??? At this point, it’s too little, too late.


143 posted on 01/28/2013 4:24:25 PM PST by ConstantSkeptic (Be careful about preconceptions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: bitt; Seizethecarp; Jet Jaguar; Lady Jag; Slings and Arrows; null and void; maggief; Dog; BP2; ...
Arpaio, Zullo, Donofrio, and Apuzzo are two Italians short of a full team. They need Scalia and Alito.

Since both of these black-robed bumkissers, and the rest of their lackadaisical squad refuse to hoist their hindquarters to accept any any of the appeals that have come their way, looks like you-know-who is here to stay. Poor Joe has got the goods, but no prosecutor to go to for a warrant. He can't even arrest Barry in Maricopa County!

The Women, The African-Americans, The LGBTG crowd, The Mexicans, The Children, and the usual suspect left-wing components of urban society wanted a gay Kenyan as POTUS. That apparently makes him as legit as he needs to be.

No surprise. That mob in the Holy Land chose Bar Abbas over Jesus, didn't they?

144 posted on 01/28/2013 4:53:15 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (Say, what the hell happened to Reggie Love? Who's in the playroom with Barry now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic
Sheriff Joe showed his hand ... and it is a strong one. Too damn bad he's playing solitaire and not poker.

Look at it this way. A red light camera catches a guy speeding through a red light, killing a pedestrian, and then later that night the same guy is on surveillance cams holding up a 7-11.

OK, they arrest the suspect. County prosecutor won't issue a warrant, won't charge him, won't even ask the judge for a search warrant of the known perpetrator's residence. What, exactly can a sheriff do? Issue a summons? DA throws it out. Trial judge throws it out.

Sheriff Joe has enough evidence, what he doesn't have is the back-up of the normal criminal prosecution process. He's the Sheriff. Not the DA/Prosecutor, and certainly not the Judge.

145 posted on 01/28/2013 5:06:29 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (Say, what the hell happened to Reggie Love? Who's in the playroom with Barry now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic

Yeah, you’re really “concerned” all right. Troll. I vote retread.


146 posted on 01/28/2013 5:13:07 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: sten

“if election fraud and felony forgery can be shown, he will be impeached”.....who is talkin’ about election fraud? I haven’t heard a peep, and I’ve been listenin’


147 posted on 01/28/2013 8:24:16 PM PST by stickywillie (was that a glimmer of hope, or is it just that Dale Carnegie Course?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: stickywillie

The R party is voluntarily neutered. They say nuttin’ about nuttin’.


148 posted on 01/28/2013 10:08:47 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic
So far Obama hasn’t been REQUIRED by any court to submit a birth certificate.

Sorry, but this is stupid point. Obama wasn't required to ask for judicial notice of third-parties who claim (with no expertise or authority) that his birth certificate is "real." Under the rules of evidence however, any kind of claim that would be supported by available certified legal documentation has to be invalidated unless that documentation is presented to back up the claim.

There have been three times in which Hawaii has made official verifications of the information on the birth certificate.

None of those three rise to standards of the Federal Rules of Evidence in certifying the document as CORRECT.

I haven’t looked up the ones issued to the secretaries of state, but the one issued for the Mississippi case is pretty clear in stating that the information on record with the State of Hawaii matches the information contained on the copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate which appears on the internet.

It doesn't mean anything if the information is not certified as correct. That's how the law is written. A counterfeit dollar bill is going to have information that matches a real dollar bill, but stating the information "matches" does not mean the dollar bill is real.

Also, you're trying to play this two ways. The MDEC was not "required" submit a letter of verification from the state of Hawaii, but they did. But they shouldn't have to ask for a letter of verification to begin with because their buddy and co-defendant Obama should have a spare copy of his alleged certified hard copy of his B/C. He claimed to have obtained TWO copies in April 2011. That's what the extra copy was for, wasn't it?? To submit in court where it has been challenged. Why did he need two if he's not going to use EITHER??

So yes, if Obama is ever REQUIRED by a court to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate, I believe he will do so.

You still haven't explained why you have such an irrational belief. Have you not seen Obama go out of his way to avoid presenting this document in court?? You're like Charlie Brown expecting Obama to actually hold the football for you to kick.

I am not a lawyer and don’t know the rules of evidence, but I’m sure that there are procedures in place so that all parties are satisfied that an original certified copy from the state is the item submitted into evidence.

You don't have to be a lawyer. Google the terms "self-authenticating Federal Rules of Evidence." It's Rule 902. The law is not hard to read or understand. This rule is why the objections board in Kansas did not accept Obama's jpgs and PDFs on his website or the previous letters of verification in Miss. and Ariz. Of course the letter they got still didn't comply with the Rules of Evidence, but they lucked out because the challenge was dropped due to harrassment.

149 posted on 01/28/2013 10:45:15 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: stickywillie

that would be the crime they committed.

pushing the inspector generals office to compel the supervisor of elections to collect the information required by law...

if they don’t then the supervisor has committed the crime


150 posted on 01/28/2013 11:34:48 PM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-224 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson