Skip to comments.Presidential Candidate: Meeting with Sheriff Joe Arpaio Yielded “Devastating” Information
Posted on 12/10/2011 9:50:48 PM PST by Seizethecarp
On December 5, 2011, Presidential Candidate John Dummett of California recently traveled 789 miles to Maricopa County, AZ and back to meet with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has been conducting an investigation into questions surrounding the presidential eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama.
"Arpaio was intrigued by Van Irions and my approach of going after the DNC and not attacking Barack Obama or asking any court to decide Obamas eligibility. He told us things that I still have to hold in confidentiality. I can say, because it has already been released to the press and I can verify it, that he will produce a report in February, and it will be devastating. I cant say what it is, but I know what it is.
When we asked Dummett if the devastating part of Arpaios future report was communicated in written or verbal form, he was not at liberty to answer.
"Instead of being there for only 20 minutes, we were there speaking with him for an hour and a half. I was then asked to be an expert witness on the birth certificate issue, and I agreed to do that.
The Post & Email asked, Is that because you have a background in document analysis or something similar? and Mr. Dummett replied, Im a computer programmer staff analyst for the California Department of Fish & Game. Im an expert at the staff level at building databases and dealing with computer-generated documents. I figured out that the birth certificate Obama presented was a phony right after I saw it, because I understand how Adobe works because I have to use that and the applications which I built for the state of California.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
No, that his legitimacy had not been demonstrated.
He may well be, but the officers whose orders Lakin refused to obey were legitimate and the orders were legal.
Lawyer types may be enamored of this sophistry, but as we found out in Nuremburg, Officers are responsible for their own conduct and cannot use the excuse "we were only following orders." It is the Duty of each officer to uphold the Constitution. The fact that those above him shirked their duty does not excuse those below them for shirking theirs.
That is what Lakin was charged with and that's what he admitted he was guilty of.
He admitted he was guilty of it the same way Gallileo admitted the universe was geocentric. Under duress. When he realized that he was facing something like a Volksgerichtshof, he decided to cut his losses.
He thought that he could make it all about Obama. But because of the way he chose to pursue that goal, he gave the Army the opportunity to charge him with crimes that had nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with good order and discipline.
It is not in the interest of good order and discipline to allow the troops to wonder if your forces have been co-opted by an Enemy Agent in a high position of command. Had everyone else not been so tolerant of that obfuscating little snake wiggling his way through the legal technicalities, we would have had the answer BEFORE the ELECTION, and he wouldn't even BE a Precedent.
So Lakin's mistakes started long before he dreamed up his defense.
Lakin's mistake was in assuming that his superiors had honor, rather than being the career whores that they now so obviously are. This is the same problem we ran into in Vietnam. The Officers should have resigned en masse, rather than put up with Johnson and McNamara's sh*t.
They didn't have the guts to stand with Lakin, so they sold the better man down the river.
“Lakin’s mistake was in assuming that his superiors had honor, rather than being the career whores that they now so obviously are.
They didn’t have the guts to stand with Lakin, so they sold the better man down the river.”
Beautiful post. Excellent.
Sharon Rondeau & Presidential Candidate John Dummett should really just be quite and let us all learn sometime in February.
The operant phrase is ‘abstract of a long form BC’. The state of Hawaii has not authorized the INternet ‘abstract’ as exactly what was copied from thier files and carried to the White Hut bassturd, so the abstract was always a ploy to deceive the People. But then what would we the people expect from the criminal enterprise democrap party?
If Gov. Brown's minions tried to take him down, it might give him “standing” to defend his allegation that Obama was illegally placed on state ballots, including CA’s!
For O’Bambi to be a Brit, we must have an authenticated image of his hard copy 1961 LFBC from somewhere (HI?, Kenya?)...which we DO NOT have, IMO.
Therefore we do not know who his legal or biological father (or mother) was at birth (jus sanguinus) or where he was born (jus soli).
Therefore we do not know if O’Bambi is or is not a Brit!
Nor do we know whether he was an NBC.
Without an authenticated 1961 BC (which we do NOT have, IMO) BOTH the birth location AND the citizenship of Obama and his parents at birth are EQUALLY “the real eligibility issue.”
Claims that Obama’s birth location “doesn't matter” are FALSE, because Article II requires “birth in the country” according to Minor v. Happersett’s explicit definition of NBC in addition to parents who are citizens.
I have been wondering whether the delay to February has something to do with waiting until after it would be more difficult in some way for Hillary to get into big state primaries, but I don't think that partisan games are what Joe Arpaio is about.
Investigators are going at it from all angles and the winner is yet to be determined.
If anyone in Congress was honest we wouldn’t have to go through all this.
I have been wondering what type of evidence would require a legitimate delay until February.
Because Arpaio is a straight shooter and not a game player, in my assessment, WITNESS TESTIMONY comes to mind as a possibility, especially testimony from a foreign witness (Kenyan?) who might not be expected to be in a secure location (coming from Kenya to Arizona and the watchful eye of Sheriff Arpaio?) until early February.
A hint that the evidence that Arpaio disclosed to Dummett concerned positive proof of a foreign birth (likely Kenya) comes in this quote from the article: "So theyre most certainly not going to recuse themselves over the impeachment of Obama. So if he gets off scot-free, then everything hes done is set in stone; weve set precedent, and that means that anybody who was born outside of this country can come over here and be president."
Dummett said this RIGHT AFTER seeing or hearing about Arpaio's "devastating" evidence. Note that Kenyan birth documents can ONLY be authenticated by Kenyan authorites who could easily be corrupted by the $ millions available to the Obama cabal...but an incorruptible Kenyan witness with character (what a concept!) if they could make it to a safe location in the US long enough to give a deposition on video and perhaps bring along contemporaneous documentary or photographic evidence, would indeed be devastating. Totally speculative, of course, but I can hope!
The congresscritters will do nothing. The files/info their political enemies have on them is kryptonite.
I wouldn’t say Arpaio had anything to do with Hillary. It’s about Hillary wanting something she can’t have.
Sheriff Arpaio had better move up the release date as the liberal MSM has already started their smear campaign against him. On the front page of our newspaper yesterday (Saturday) an article authored by the NY Times News Service titled "AZ sheriff now under fire for handling of sex crimes" ... the campaign to denigrate him is under way. Giving them nearly two months more to work their poison pen strategy on Arpaio isn't wise. By February Arpaio's credibility will be in tatters.
A simple copy wouldn’t have any layers at all though. Truthfully, I never would have expected fraud as blatant and clumsy as we are seeing today on a regular basis. There seems to be little effort to do a professional job of hiding anything.
I believe that's what Orly Taitz tried in New Hampshire. She was unsuccessful. I don't think Dummert would have any more luck.
Is that what you've been doing?
Lakin was foolish in a whole lot of ways.
That's something an American president would do.
There have been a number of soldiers in recent memory who wound up on the wrong side of court martials for trying to make the president prove something. Lakin. Michael New. Yolanda Huet-Vaughn. Ehren Watada. It doesn't work very well or, apparently, very often.
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.