Posted on 10/05/2014 3:26:07 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Transcript @18:50: Mike Zullo: The press conference was three days away and the 9 code was still not resolved in my mind and we needed to get verification. For two feverish days Jerry Corsi sent his associate and this woman stayed in the lobby of the CDC (in Atlanta) for eight hours a day for two days trying to get the answer to this question. On the third day it was about two and a half hours before the press conference was going to go at that point in time the 9 code at issue was NOT going to be in it. As fate would have it, Attorney Larry Klayman happened to be in Phoenix so he stopped in, wanted to say "Hello" to the Sherrif. Larry Klayman, Larry Klayman's associate, Sherrif Arpaio, myself and Jerry Corsi were all in the conference room when the phone rang from the woman from the CDC, and I have her information who she is and she's NOT a clerk. She's a highly educated individual. Jerry put her on speakerphone. I remember Jerry with his fingers crossed. She confirmed for us that what we were saying and requesting...what the number "9" meant...was in fact what it was! He asked he to repeat it. "Are you saying this "9" in this box yadda yadda yadda means that?" and she said "Yes" and with that verification we put the 9 code back in the press conference.
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
I’m sure most peeps agree that the obama BC is forged, but I don’t believe a court will touch it.. what is needed is absolute proof he is illegal alien. The easy why to spot illegal alien is a false SS# (just like his uncle Omar).. If he were a legal citizen then he would have a legit SS#..It is said that Harrison Bounell was the original owner of the SS#.. Their should be doctor records, or “something” that has Harry Bounell’s social security number on that was used in the past..That’s what they should look into, for some solid evidence that cant be disputed.If the SS# is found used with another name on it— IT’S GAME OVER
So lets recap:
Ray76.
Believes Obama is not President because he’s not eligible to be President.
Believes a President can be removed from office through Judicial Fiat rather then the enumerated method in the Constitution.
Believes that 50+ Secretary’s of state put Obama on the Statewide ballot despite him not being eligible, as well as Congress certifying the electing and the oath of office — despite it happening twice and despite all the lawsuits that where slapped down silly over the matter in the proceeding year.
Believes that anybody that disagrees with them is a member of some grand conspiracy.
Usagi
Believes Obama is the worst President of the United States — but he is President.
Believe Obama was deemed eligible during both 2008 and 2012 elections and was therefor dutifully elected.
Believe that Impeachment is the only constitutional method for removing of a non-incapacitated President is through impeachment.
Believes that the only Judicial participation in removal of a President is that the CJ-SCOTUS presides over the trial in the Senate with the Senate acting as the Jury and the House indictment (impeachment)
And that In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings.
Don’t insert words into my mouth Pal
Okay, so when you lose and are made to look silly because of your apparent lack critical thinking skills you get nasty?
I win, you lose. Buh Bye!
The Judiciary has the exclusive authority to determine questions of law.
Questions regarding provisions of the U.S. Constitution are decided by the U.S. Supreme Court (when a case is brought to the Court).
The definition of the “natural born citizen” provision is a question of law. The question has evaded review and is is capable of repetition. The question must be answered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Legislature’s authority to impeach in no way constrains the Judiciary’s authority to answer questions of law.
A Judicial determination of ineligibility either bars a person from being seated in office or removes a sitting person from office.
Occupancy of office does not confer eligibility.
>> Okay, so when you lose and are made to look silly because of your apparent lack critical thinking skills you get nasty?
It’s offensive when people put words in your mouth that you never uttered.
You keep asserting the the Judiciary determines the Constitutionality of the Constitution.
Let me give you and example of erroneous thinking such as yours but from a different source. This was pulled from an online source having nothing to do with today’s current events. It’s a 2nd grade explanation yet still manages to get it wrong. My comments in []’s
“The U.S. Congress can pass laws that are consistent with constitutional provisions, [Checks okay]
but ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court is charged with interpreting and enforcing constitutional provisions. [SCOTUS cannot enforce anything. It’s enforced by Public Opinion and the political process, the Supreme Court is not ‘Charged’. It assumed the responsibility of judicial review as a fall out from Maybury vs. Madison.]
The Supreme Court’s authority even includes the power to declare Congressional acts unconstitutional” [only common or statue laws written by Congress are deemed unconstitutional, through the assumed Judicial review from Maybury vs. Madison]
Furthermore, In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings — I.E impeachment and subsequent trial.
So, this judicial review is not a provision or an enumeration of the Constitution. It is an inferred provision found in Maybury vs. Madison.
I asked you 3 times for the provision (enumeration) or inference. You could provide neither. One doesn’t exist, and the other you didn’t even know about. So how much credence am I supposed to give you when you don’t even know what you’re talking about ... Pal.
Thanks again. I was somewhat confused and the Troll argument on here is moving readers away from the subject.
Anyone have any idea what the CCP is doing? They have had months since the “biggest announcement in history” was to happen. They claimed it is being vetted and investigated. No way anything takes this long to be investigated. They either have something or they don’t. If they do, I suspect there is nowhere to take the info. I hope this happens before the election. May make a difference in some pivotal States.
So if we think the penciled-in 9’s were from the BC used to forge Obama’s, does that mean it was Virginia Sunhara’s BC that had the 9’s? Would those codes have been appropriate for her? (I’m a new poster but longtime follower of all this)
Just joining the scrum. Hypothetical: Tomorrow (when there’s free beer) someone steps forward and declares that he was paid by the DNC to forge the long form birth certificate put forward for public view by the White House. He produces incontrovertible evidence including a photocopy of the funds transfer to his personal bank account by the DNC treasurer. What if any Judicial or Congressional actions should follow?
I wish i knew, and i dont know.. but if someone could find the BC with the exact pencil marks as the forged one has, that would probally be the original BC most likely. It could have been anybody’s BC, and would probally be almost impossible to find..
>> You keep asserting the the Judiciary determines the Constitutionality of the Constitution.
There you go again. I have never said any such thing.
Nixon v. United States (1993) is not relevant. I have never said that impeachment is subject to judicial review.
You attack strawmen.
Here is my position:
The Judiciary has the exclusive authority to determine questions of law.
Questions regarding provisions of the U.S. Constitution are decided by the U.S. Supreme Court (when a case is brought to the Court).
The definition of the “natural born citizen” provision is a question of law. The question has evaded review and is is capable of repetition. The question must be answered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Legislature’s authority to impeach in no way constrains the Judiciary’s authority to answer questions of law.
A Judicial determination of ineligibility either bars a person from being seated in office or removes a sitting person from office.
Occupancy of office does not confer eligibility.
I think if they did find the original BC with the penciled in numbers, the court still wouldn’t touch it- we need absolute proof- see post 181.. probally a detective is needed to run down the social security number that Obama is using.. We need to find the original owner of the SS# in document form, like tax records, doctor records, or whatever..Anything that shows that his SS# was used before he used it in document form.. with something like that, you just cant hide from that—
He explains the delay here ( starting at 56:30 ) :
Yep, good post. And to add this outstanding 5 minute news video of Zullo being interviewed by the local Phoenix news ABC15 in July, 2012. The flashback covers much ground in little time, and what they confirmed with the CDC that we’ve now found out.
And like all your other statements, the ones that are correct are actually irrelevant. And yes ...
The specific enumeration of Impeachment being in the domain of the Government legislature does in fact prohibit SCOTUS from trying to remove the President. They can’t. The simply cannot. There is no mechanism to do so because it’s been given exclusively to Congress.
And yes, you do keep asserting that the Supreme court gets to judge the constitutionality of the constitution.
This is a post election political fight between Dems and Repubs.
One last time.
1. Is Obama President of the United States?
2. How is a President constitutionally removed from office?
Nothing Judicial can happen until the President is impeached and convicted. Impeached by the house, convicted by the Senate.
Then, and only then can criminal proceedings move forward on the issues of breaking the law and false / forgery documents.
There is no doubt that the Judicial system can be directly involved in ascertaining the validity of the documents and make judgement on the document. Which dozens of attempts have been made to no avail. Either no standing, or no jurisdiction or no case. I don’t even think any case ever proceeded on merits and merely moved forward using ‘appeal abuse’ from people like Orly Taitz, and the YoHos hanging around Sheriff Arapio.
What the Birthers want is to fabricate a coup by circumventing the Constitution by claiming rights for the SCOTUS that simply don’t exist in the political process of elections and in order for them to do so they’re doing what is the equivalent of saying the certain provisions of the Constitution are Unconstitutional.
But the judicial system has been avoiding this precisely because they know that as soon as Obama was elected, took the oath of office that that was it. It left the smooth plains of the legal and into the dark forest of politics.
I covered all of this back in ‘12.
Snips will follow, I did four posts on the codes and I’ll link them in case anyone wants to study that stuff. I was the first “Birther” or non-Birther to publish the 1961 Federal code manual. Dr. Con later posted it, but I do not know if he mentioned that I found it first.
I talked to both Corsi and Zullo about it before I published, Corsi didn’t care that it made them look like they didn’t do the right thing, and Zullo had enough assurance from the CDC to reluctantly go forward with that portion of the material being presented. He had wanted to pull it because he couldn’t confirm it to his satisfaction, but after many hours on the phone with the CDC he felt that he had that confirmation.
Here is, to the uninitiated, the most important thing to understand: “the numerical coding applied (hand written) prior to the birth certificate forms being microfilmed (for Fed use) is used for LOCAL/STATE level statistical purposes. It is possible that the “9” used by the local office did not have the same meaning it would have to the FEDERAL code punchers. I am just as certain that the coding manual at state level may have shared some similarities with the federal coding, but it (HI local codes) was NOT used by the employees who worked from the 1961 Federal VS Instruction Manual.” The Federal coders based the childs race from the race(s) written in the race fields for the parents on the birth certificate. The manual told them how to do this.
The relevant posts:
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/unstated-codes-in-conflict-on-birth-document/
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/corsis-code-conundrum
“What the hell am I talking about? You are welcome to wonder. The most recent post that I did, http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/did-corsi-lie-to-zullo-a-real-1961-vital-statistics-instruction-manual/, featured a 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual link and several screenshots from said manual.
It has been somewhat misrepresented by both sides of the “birther” issue. Big surprise.. The most recent example of this surfaced today : What-Does-the-Number-9-Mean?.”(That was an article written by Diane West)
more:
“After having read, re-read, debated and argued the 1961 VSIM contents V. Corsi and Zullo’s press released “shocker”, I have made some educated assumptions about the FEDERAL punch codes referred to in the 1961 VSIM, versus the penciled codes that appear to have been written directly onto the original paper certificate forms while at the Dept. of Health in Honolulu HI. I will also address the concerns that some people seem to have about the “revision date” of Aug. 14th, 1961 of the (federal) Instruction Manual.
Here is my opinion, based on all of the facts that I do have available.
After reading the entire manual, fortunately only 18 pages, I realized several things. I believe these things are very important and in the interest of honesty, you will surely agree with me.
The first that I would like to get out of the way is this “Revised” date. This particular item may seem to be important, however I find no evidence that the race codes changed FROM using the number “9” indicating “unstated” TO indicating “other non-white” for this manual. It would make little sense to change the coding on this one item in mid-August, 1961 only to change it back later in the decade. In addition, by the time these certificate forms were processed at the local level, then microfilmed, then received at the location for federal coding, at least four weeks would have passed.
On reading the manual it becomes obvious that the code punchers utilizing the instructions were NOT reading the codes that were penciled on at the local level. They were following instructions on how to determine which code to use, and not once in the manual are pre-applied codes even mentioned.
We know that there were indeed codes written on the certificate forms at the local offices. We can know this not only because Corsi confirmed it with Mrs. Lee, but also because these codes were on the certificate forms at the time that the forms were microfilmed. We know that because certified copies of birth certificates from HI (1960’s) show these penciled code numbers. That can only happen if the codes were written prior to microfilming. The point I am making is that the “federal” coders worked from these microfilms. Do I honestly think that by the time the microfilm of births that occurred on Aug. 4 arrived to be processed, the punchers had to handle/code the births occurring prior to the Aug. 14th revision date differently? No, I do not. That is my opinion only.
The next point that I will make concerns the code in box 12b on obamas official long form birth certificate, father’s “Kind of Business or Industry”. As has been pointed out by Zullo (and everyone else) , this too, is a “9”.
What very few realize is that nowhere in the Federal 1961 VS Instruction Manual is a code puncher given instruction on how to code this box 12b.
In fact, there is no mention in the VSIM or in the 1960-1961 summary manuals, of the parents employment status at all. Nothing which indicates that the information in box 12b was collected or compiled by the federal government code punchers.
This indicates the numerical coding applied prior to the certificate forms being microfilmed is used for local/state level statistical purposes. It is very plausible that the “9” used by the local office did not have the same meaning it would have to the federal code punchers. I am just as certain that the coding at state level may have shared some similarities with the federal coding, but it (HI local codes) was not used by the employees who worked from the 1961 Federal VS Instruction Manual.
This also indicates that the number “9” could indeed mean the same “not stated” in both the box 9, and box 12b. But of course that can only be proven if Corsi found a local, Hawaiian DOH 1961 coding instruction manual which spelled that out. That is my hope. More for Zullo’s sake than Corsi’s.
What I am fairly certain of, after having read the manual, and the part 2 geographical coding revision instructions as well as the summaries compiled from the reports, is that “other non-white” (Obama Sr.’s race) is certainly appropriate coding re the federal instruction. Also, that the “9” was not entered on the birth certificate form by the same agency that would have used the ’61 Federal VSIM. That federal agency would not have physically written on the microfilm with a pencil.
That it is very probable there is a state/local coding manual in addition to the federally issued 1961 VSIM.
.
| Point | Agree? | Explain Disagreement |
| The Judiciary has the exclusive authority to determine questions of law. | ||
| Questions regarding provisions of the U.S. Constitution are decided by the U.S. Supreme Court (when a case is brought to the Court). | ||
| The definition of the “natural born citizen” provision is a question of law. The question has evaded review and is is capable of repetition. The question must be answered by the U.S. Supreme Court. | ||
| The Legislature’s authority to impeach in no way constrains the Judiciary’s authority to answer questions of law. | ||
| A Judicial determination of ineligibility either bars a person from being seated in office or removes a sitting person from office. | ||
| Occupancy of office does not confer eligibility. |
FWIW, it seems that the 50 Secretaries of States having been charged with the responsibility to vet the candidates for the highest office in the land were quiescent relying on the public to do its job. And we, the public in 2008, were either asleep at the switch or intimidated by the racial context of the historic election etc., but the question looms why no one could get traction in any State Court for the election of 2012 or was Arizona the test case with the others accepting its decision?
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.