Skip to comments.Full Affidavit: Sheriff Joe Lead Obama Investigator; New Evidence Submitted In Case (Arpaio)
Posted on 05/15/2013 3:59:44 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
43. Investigators requested an independent review of our findings in respect to the long-form birth certificate image that fell within his field of expertise.
44. Upon the conclusion of our experts examination he issued an independent 40 page forensic report in which he verified our investigational finding and validating conclusion in full agreement with the finds of investigators. He concluded:
based on my observations and findings, it is clear that Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured documented created by utilizing material from various sources. and
In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated.
Authenticity of White House Released Birth Certificate Image
45. Investigators have determined beyond probable cause that the computer image released on April 27, 2011 by the White House, and purporting to be a true computer copy of Mr. Obamas long form birth certificate, is not a scan of an original hard copy document. It is, in fact, an undeniable computer generated forgery created with the sole intent to deceive the public by commission of felonious fraudulent acts.
46. Sheriff Arpaios investigators have determined the document ( the .pdf file released by the White House) was created entirely by human intervention, and not by the actions of random computerization. As such, the White house computer image cannot be relied upon as bona fide factual record of the birth event that it attempts to depict. [...]
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
Lt. Mike Zullo reveals the report on the pdf forgery by the independent forensic digital document examiner in an affidavit in the AL case.
Nice try but Jay Cornball, Hussein’s press-slut says it’s real. And that should be good enough for us!!! Sarcasm off
We all know this. So what?
The timing may be key. This report coincides with an outbreak of WH scandals & the slow but steady erosion of Obama’s poll #s. What may have been a ‘so what’ 2 or 3 mos ago might get traction now.
Part of the reason powerful special interests pooled their resources to put Obama in the WH was to get certain results. The less effective Obama is at achieving those goals, the more dissatisfied even his supporters become. Sooner or later the tipping point is reached.
" it is clear that Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured documented created by utilizing material from various sources.
That thing was created out of whole cloth. Now why would that need to be, unless they didn't even have ANY original 1961 HDOH document to start with?
Indeed. Now that more eyes have been opened to the corrupt liar known as BHS, more people may be willing to consider the possibility that the BC isn’t on the up-and-up.
When do we find out who manufactured Obama?
Many thanks seizethecarp!
Crossposting from other thread; many thanks GregNH for posting this!
To: Fred Nerks; Brown Deer; David; Spunky; LucyT
Clicking on this link will download a Word document that is 57 pages and 5.5MG Zullo Affidavit for AL Supreme Court case number 1120465
Here are some [snips]:
34. I visited Hawaii twice and continued our investigation. After further in-depth computerized testing and discovering additional information,we concluded in mid-2012 that Mr. Obamas identity documents were not only forged beyond the legal standard of probable cause,but due to loop holes in the state of Hawaiis vital statistics reporting laws,there was the distinct evidence suggesting that Hawaiis statutes appeared to be in conflict with federal immigration law and posed an independent threat to the national security of the United States.
45. Investigators have determined beyond probable cause that the computer image released on April 27,2011 by the White House,and purporting to be a true computer copy of Mr. Obamas long form birth certificate,is not a scan of an original hard copy document. It is,in fact,an undeniable computer generated forgery created with the sole intent to deceive the public by commission of felonious fraudulent acts.
53. As such,this computer manipulated fraudulent image cannot be deemed as acceptable legal evidence for the purpose of validation or verification of identity or citizenship,or serve as verification of a birth event by any Secretary of State in the confines of the United States.
54.Mr. Obama has not released any evidence other than a manufactured computer forgery by human intervention and design in an effort to support his claim of his birth taking place at Kapiolani Hospital,Honolulu,Hawaii on August 4,1961.
58. Investigators have also determined that the much touted 1961 newspaper announcements are in fact utterly unreliable as evidence to support verification of the event as depicted in the .pdf image of the manufactured birth certificate released by the White House and attested to my Mr. Obama. In addition the aforementioned announcements can be of no substitute for a Hawaii State Official Birth Certification and or Certificate.
153. Investigators have advised Sheriff Arpaio that several possible crimes may have been committed: 154. First,the fraudulent creation of an official document. 155. Second,the White House characterizing a forgery as an officially-produced governmental birth record; and 156. Third,Mr. Obama represented to the residents of Maricopa County and the American public that a forgery was proof positive of his authentic 1961 Hawaiian long-form birth certificate, thereby deceiving voters and state election commissions across the country into believing he was eligible to become President,have his name appear on Presidential ballots,thereby garnering votes from the public under false pretenses.
163. Investigators concluded that this representation of 80 that appears on Mr. Obama’s selective service card is in fact an altered 2008 pica date stamp. 164. Investigators have advised Sheriff Arpaio that several possible crimes may have been committed:
170. We discovered that data records for the entire week of August 2,1961 through August 7, 1961,were completely missing from the microfilm roll. This included the alleged date of Mr. Obamas birth (August 4,1961).
209. Record not released including the follow: A. Original,long-form 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate. B. Marriage license between Obamas father (Barak Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham) C. Name change (Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama) D. Obamas adoption records E. Records of Obamas and his mothers repatriation as US citizens on return from return from Indonesia F. Obamas baptism records G. Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) H. Punahou School financial aid or school records I. Occidental College financial aid records J. Harvard Law School records K. Columbia senior thesis L. Columbia College records M. Obamas record with Illinois State Bar Association N. Obamas files from career as an Illinois State Senator O. Obamas law client list P. Obamas medical records Q. Obamas passport records
It is pretty comprehensive to say the least.
1,407 posted on Wed May 15 2013 11:21:14 GMT-0500 (CDT) by GregNH (If you can’t fight, please find a good place to hide!) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1405 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
There’s very little Fantasy in what you’ve written.
Valery Jarret runs the WH. She’s the one who nixed the rescues. She is the power behind the puppet. And when the puppet starts to get too raggedy, and his threads begin to unravel, things will go down hill for him.
He isn’t smart enough to know that he’s nothing more than a stooge.
On another note, I wonder how much Jarret has to say about holder, because in my opinion, right now I think he’s increasingly seen to be more of a loose cannon than they want or need.
I’ve always said, the kenyan’s demise will come from the hand of his own “peeps.”
Even Chuckie Wrangle is bailing on him.
For a guy who has written 2 books about himself Obama is not an open book
Zullo destroys John Woodman’s book so loved by Fogblowers and certain Obots on FR:
22. During that meeting, all aspects of the document were examined with the intention of attempting to disprove the allegation that the document had been fabricated. This included a review of the work of an author by the name of John Woodman. John Woodman, a struggling, self-described computer expert, had authored a book putting forth explanations on how computer software automatically caused the anomalies contained in the White House document. Mr. Woodmans work had been cited vigorously by numerous media outlets attempting to disqualify allegations suggesting that the .pdf document offered by Mr. Obama was anything but authentic.
23. The theories set forth in Mr. Woodman’s book were thoroughly tested by investigators and found to be nothing more than pure speculation and supposition. The investigators concluded Mr. Woodman’s work was nothing more than conjecture without any evidentiary proof that his theories could be supported.
24. When investigators put his theories into practical application, they could not successfully reproduce any of the anomalies found in the White House document by automated computerized process. Therefore Mr. Woodman’s work was dismissed as irrelevant and offering zero evidentiary value.
34. I visited Hawaii twice and continued our investigation. After further in-depth computerized testing and discovering additional information, we concluded in mid-2012 that Mr. Obamas identity documents were not only forged beyond the legal standard of probable cause, but due to loop holes in the state of Hawaiis vital statistics reporting laws, there was the distinct evidence suggesting that Hawaiis statutes appeared to be in conflict with federal immigration law and posed an independent threat to the national security of the United States.
“We all know this. So what?”
Yeah, kinda what I’m thinking. On another thread discussing Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president many have stated that if one parent is a US citizen the new born is considered a natural born citizen whether born in the US or not. If this is correct for Cruz then being that Obama’s mother was a US citizen when he was born then isn’t he a natural born citizen, same as Cruz? Btw, not a Obama fan, just trying to sort this out....
Be kinda nice if we didn't sidetrack this thread. It's specifically about Obama's birth certificate forgery, not his eligibility.
That's a separate issue that can easily overwhelm all of the important findings in this release, if we start that conversation here.
These findings appear to have been entered as evidence in the ongoing federal case in Alabama, which makes this a very important development. It's big enough to be the next 'shoe to drop' in the exploding Obama scandals, if played right.
Obama’s mother wasn’t old enough to confer US citizenship if her child was born on foreign soil. If he wasn’t born on US soil then he had to naturalize just to become a US citizen at all. A possible loophole to that could be if she was single when he was born, but I’m not sure about that
At this point the crimes committed to cover up Obama’s lack of documentation are what should land him not only out of the White House but in jail for a very, very long time. If he naturalized and is thus a US citizen now, what he has done is treason, and the Constitutional remedy is the death penalty.
“We all know this. So what?”
For the first timed a COURT CERTIFIED forensic document examiner who has met the extremely high standartd (Daubert Standard) as a federal expert witness has produced a report that, unless successfully challenged meets the Federal Rules of Evidence if a court orders a discovery hearing on the authenticity of the White House pdf:
“42. Taking it a step further, investigators sought an independent authority on forensic document examination that had no previous connection with our inquiry. Investigators commissioned a court certified handwriting analyst and forensic document examiner with over 20 years of experience providing document expertise to legal and law enforcement communities, corporations, financial institutions and private individuals for this task.”
IANAL, but I had to become familiar with the “Daubert standard” that my expert witnesses would be subjected to being challenged on during my jury trail for custody of my son. Here are the key points that came out of the SCOTUS Daubert case:
“The Daubert standard provides a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses’ testimony during United States federal legal proceedings.”
“In 2011, Rule 702 was again amended to make the language clearer. The rule now reads:
RULE 702. TESTIMONY BY EXPERT WITNESSES
“A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) The experts scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.”
“Now that more eyes have been opened to the corrupt liar known as BHS, more people may be willing to consider the possibility that the BC isnt on the up-and-up.”
Exactly. Many of these issues have been off limits in part due to Obama’s relative popularity & to a greater degree to the MSM’s unified, protective phalanx. Now his polls are slipping & the MSM seems genuinely irked w him. Of course they cd & probably wd close ranks again if Obama appears to be seriously vulnerable. But by then it may be too late.
(Hawaii criminal conspiracy)
Arizonas Verification Attempts Thwarted
61. Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett requested verification of Mr. Obamas birth records from the State of Hawaii Department of Health:
62. Please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.
63. However, Hawaii Department of Health State Registrar Dr. Alvin T. Onaka did not verify the White House computer image as a true or accurate representation of the original birth record, only responding, the information in the copy that you attached with your request matches the original record in our file.
64. Hawaii officials cleverly focused on the representation of information depicted in the fraudulent image diverting attention to the foundation of the request of Secretary of State Bennett. Please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.
65. Information is not a verification of the document (.pdf file) as a whole.
66. A fraudulently created document often times contains matching information on some level when compared to some other document of record, however, the fact that some information may match in a file does not verify the legitimacy of the document as a whole.
67. In this case the .pdf image presented by the White House to the public, is in the appearance of what the unsuspecting public would perceived to be a true copy of an official document and therefore accepted on face value. This also includes the fabrication and appearance of green security paper background that one would expect to be used on such an official document. The creation and use of this background would solely be used to give the perception of authenticity in an official capacity.
68. Further, Hawaii has not acknowledged that they ever created or released an electronic computer created .pdf file containing an image of the Barack Hussein Obama II Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth to the White House or to the attorney for Barack Hussein Obama II. They also did not verify how and when information may have been added or deleted for the original file and for what purpose.
Good call, windflier!
We have the criminal aspect of what o and his henchmen have done recently, and continue to do; its a dynamic/changing/ongoing event that can have additional crimes done by the perps.
This is indeed a separate category from an event years in the past, that is more static and is an unchanging thing.
Its not the initial event, its the cover-up.
Governor Abercrombie of Hawaii
104. Mr. Abercrombie has publicly stated that he was present when Mr. Obama was born. There is no evidence to support this claim. No doctor or nurse or persons who attended Mr. Obamas birth has come forward to say so. No one has ever come forward to say he or she recalls having seen either Mr. Obama or his parents together at any social event when he was an infant.
105. It is not surprising; therefore, that Governor Abercrombie later recanted that statement that he had seen Mr. Obamas parents with their new-born so. He acknowledged that he had not seen them at any hospital, although he said he remembered having seen Mr. Obama as a child with his parents at social events.
106. Once Mr. Abercrombie had become Governor, he told the Honolulu Star Advertiser on January 20, 2011, that he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, because he feared the continuing eligibility controversy might hurt the Presidents chances of re-election in 2012.
107. Mr. Abercrombie, who is a member of Mr. Obamas political party, said that the birth certificate issue would otherwise have political implications for the presidential election that we simply cannot have.
108. Mr. Abercrombie did not subsequently report that either he or the Hawaii Department of Health had found Mr. Obamas long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. The governor only suggested his investigation to date had identified an unspecified listing or notation of Mr. Obamas birth that someone had made in the state archives: It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down.
109. This being the case, this document as reported would clearly be out of the chain of custody of the Hawaii Department of Health. Hence, the authenticity of that written record and the integrity of that record cannot be verified or sufficiently secured to prevent tampering.
110. To date, the purported undisclosed birth record in the state archives that Governor Abercrombie has claimed to have discovered and has described as being actually written has never been made public.
Hawaii State Practices Allow Fraudulent U.S. Citizenship
134. Investigators found a high potential for fraud in the registration and issuance of Hawaii birth certification documents. It was discovered to be evident in: 1) lax statutory regulation and 2) through obscure evidentiary requirements in establishing factual verification of the information required in the reporting of legitimate births occurring within the state of Hawaii.
135. In 1982, Hawaii revised a long standing statute (§ 338.17.8) allowing the issuance of birth certificates to children born out of state. Hawaii declares these foreign born children to be American citizens simply by virtue of an application by any adult making representations on behalf of the parents, and simply supplying documentation substantiating the parents had resided in Hawaii and paid income tax to the state Hawaii for one year prior to the birth of the child. Thus, by statutory provision, Hawaii has granted upon itself the unique power to confer citizenship to children not born in the United States, and to children not born to United States citizen parents, but to children actually born on foreign soil.
[§338-17.8] Certificates for Children Born Out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the Director of Health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the Director of Health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the Director of Health in any manner that the Director shall deem appropriate. The Director of Health may also adopt any rules pursuant to Chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
136. The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to Chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
137. These implications of this law is evidenced by the discovery of correspondence between the Department of Health Director George Yuen, in support of the measure, and State Representative Herbert A .Segawa. The March 1st 1982 document clearly shows the effect this proposed Bill H.B. 3016-82 would it have become law. The document recognized the fact that the department would have to issue birth certificates to children worldwide if the childs parents could prove they were in fact legal residents of the Territory or State of Hawaii. Legal residents as categorized by Hawaii tax code, not Untied States citizens.
138. There is nothing in Hawaii Revised Statute § 338.17.8 to require that this birth certificate be marked as the child being born out of state, nor that was the child born within the United States or its territories. There is no requirement in this statute that at least one parent provide proof of United States citizenship.
139. This section only requires a declaration (and proof which is not defined and is based upon requirements deemed appropriate by the Director) that the parents were residents of Hawaii. It does not require that the parents were citizens of the United States.
140. By statutory provision Hawaii has granted upon itself the unique power to confer citizenship to children not born in the United States, and to children not born to United States citizen parents, but to children actually born on foreign soil. Conceivably, the parents and child may never have set foot on United States soil. Hawaii declares these foreign born children American citizens simply by virtue of an application of any adult, making representations on behalf of the parents and simply supplying documentation substantiating the parents had resided in Hawaii and paid income tax to the state Hawaii, for one year prior to the birth of the child.
141. The authority to naturalize persons as citizens of the US is conferred upon the Attorney General only, not the State of Hawaii.
142. It would appear that Hawaii Revised Statute § 338.17.8 is in direct conflict with the Immigration and Nationality Act, in that United States citizenship maybe be conferred to an individual who is not entitled to such citizenship.
143. See I.N.A. §§ 301, et seq., which comprehensively regulates how a child born out of the United States acquires U.S. Citizenship. Even this would require at least on parent be a United States citizen at the time of the birth.
144. This comprehensive regulation would clearly be meant to exclude any regulation in the area by the States. Arizona v. United States, 11-182 (June, 2012).
145. Compulsory registration of births, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-8 requires all births of be registered. It also permits the registration for an unattended birth to be accepted on the representation of only one of the parents. No other witnesses are necessary for a claimed unattended birth. Conceivably, a parent could have given birth outside of the U.S., and claimed that it was an unattended birth (no witnesses) in Honolulu.
146. Local registrar to prepare birth certificate, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-8 is bristling with the fraudulent potential by compelling the local registrar to prepare a birth certificate for an alleged unattended birth based solely uncorroborated testimony from anyone claiming to have had knowledge of the birth taking place.
147. Under this statute, a birth could exist outside of the U.S., and any person could represent false information to the local registrar. The registrar is compelled to file the certificate.
148. Additionally, there is no requirement for a parent or relative, providing identification to be present at time of registration. Any person, a relative, friend or stranger may registrar the birth of a child while both the mother and baby were outside of the country.
149. There is no verification process and no way to be certain of the actual identify of the parents.
H.R.S §338-6, Current Law as of October 25, 2009
150. Delayed or altered certificates, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-18. Utilizing this Statute, a person may apply for a delayed or amended certificate having one year to do so from time of birth. There is no verification to determine why the registration is late. The Statute also allows any person born in the Territory of Hawaii to file or amend a certificate.
151. This would include that any adult could claim their birth was never reported a decade later, file for a birth certificate. The validity of the three types of birth filings were so questionable that even Hawaii would not accept them as Prima Facia Evidence.
152. This Statute would require the birth certificate be plainly marked, Delayed, or Altered and the probative value would determine by the official to whom the certificate was being offered. We believe it is safe to conclude that even the State of Hawaii did not have confidence in the representations on this document.
188. Searching over a several year period, various researchers have found repeated listings of births to Japanese parents as being reported in the newspapers as Hawaiian births, even though the children were found to be born in Japan. These findings tend to reinforce what we learned on our visits to Hawaii: that it was then the widely-recognized practice in Hawaii, later regularized by statute, to certify foreign births to Hawaiian parents as Hawaiian births.
189. In 1961, the Hawaii Department of Health appears to have used local area offices outside Honolulu as reporting centers where parents and other family members could represent children born to the family as Hawaiian births, without submitting any proof the child was actually born in Hawaii. This practice was also statutorily permitted.
190. It is plausible that an original birth record of some type for Mr. Obama may exist in Hawaii. However, as noted elsewhere, our investigation has discovered that at that time Hawaiian law contained a specific provision that permitted a Hawaiian parent of a child born anywhere in the world or any adult purporting to represent that parent, the right to register the child as Hawaiian-born.
191. It is for this reason that two entries in the Births column of the local newspapers at the time do not constitute evidence that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. They are merely evidence suggesting that a birth certificate of some type was issued for him in Hawaii, and they tell us nothing about whether or not he was born there. In particular they do not as the White House document purports to do identify the hospital of birth. Hawaii law permits various forms of registration and supplementation at later dates, with different information. The mere issuance of a birth record does not confirm the birth took place within the state of Hawaii or in the United States.
An open invitation to two things:
To check out this active research thread, link to a comment with Maliks interview about growing up with Barack. Which one, pray tell? Obviously not the one who bears the name now.
Next, an invitation to the brand spanking new Zero’s Background Research Ping list, freepmail me if you want on, it will not be a very busy list. Only new research threads, or existing threads that have important new info on them.
Now with things getting very “interesting” not only with Zullp and Arpaio, but the general house of cards starting to shake a bit, more people may get interested in who the guy in the WH actually is (starting with who he isn’t).
“if a court orders a discovery hearing on the authenticity of the White House pdf”
That is a mighty big if.
This new affidavit was attached to Klayman’s Motion to Strike the Amicus Curiae Brief of the Alabama Democratic Party.
It is being introduced only for that limited issue.
Klayman is asking the Court to strike the ADP amicus brief because it contains new evidence and that is not allowed in an appeals case, but if the Court should decide not to strike the amicus brief then he is asking the court to also consider this new affidavit (even though it too is new evidence).
We’ll just have to wait to see what happens. There are a several of possibilities.
Gotta get back to this later
Thanks for the ping!
Posted on the wrong thread, (cough), wiggle, red faced.
Gosh! I’ve never posted anything on teh wrong thread!
(ahem, I have actually. But I’ve done worse - at least twice, posted something I meant to be freepmail, on the thread. Quite senitive messages, too...)
Please add me to the list.
How about a famous phrase...
“Ich bin ein Birther!”
I've mentioned my theory numerous times. Obama was adopted by Soetoro. When the Adoption was annulled, or redone in 1971, the state created a new replacement birth certificate.
Of course this current document is computer generated, so sometime between 1971 and 2011, Obama had Hawaii create him a new one. I'm betting it's a legal fake.
Totally agree that in 1971 the official records were ‘re-baselined’. Everything before that is likely in the legal worm-hole when it comes to actual facts and records.
But the LFBC (Laughably Fake Birth Certificate) posted at WH is a modern creation. It is certainly not a scan of actual document. Even if the document is a ‘legal fake’.
In this regard the COLB from 2008 was a better forgery. At least someone did create an actual document. And they took trophy pictures of their work in March 2008. And those became the Fact Check ‘Born in the USA’ pictures in August.
The problem for them is they used very high resolution images. They also left the EXIF data in the files - at first. And they took a flat-bed scan. The combination of these makes the determination of fraud rather easy, very easy.
The BCs are sideshows. Lets see the passport records. Passports are considered stronger proof of identity and citizenship than BCs anyway. Obama should have at least 4 or so previous passports dating back to 1968. Notice I did not say US passports!
1968 passport records and 1971 court records. That would clear all this up.
On her website, Orly Taitz is slamming Sheriff Arpaio and Mike Zullo stating the affidavit carries no weight in the appeal.
Taitz should keep her mouth shut. She looks like an attention whore drama queen.
I completely agree Ray. If there was a way for her to get involved with the Alabama Supreme Court appeal and sabotage it, she would.
“On her website, Orly Taitz is slamming Sheriff Arpaio and Mike Zullo stating the affidavit carries no weight in the appeal.”
An appeal is not an evidentiary event, but the Obot lawyers are trying to get the AL Supremes to “take judicial notice” of what they claim is evidence of Barry’s HI birth.
Klayman is properly telling the court that it is improper for any evidence to be introduced in this appeal, but “in the alternative” as the lawyers like to say, should the AL Supremes actually consider the newly fabricated 3rd forgery, Klayman is asking that the court also take judicial notice of Zullo’s affidavit.
Neither the WH pdf (any version of it) nor Zullo’s certified expert finding of forgery have been “proved up” (entered into evidence under the federal rules of evidence) in any proper discovery hearing by a trial court, so neither one should be considered by the court at this time, IMO.
Additionally there is binding precedent in Alabama concerning evidence not introduced at trial being ignored on appeal.
There are several Alabama Supreme Court cases that said that appeals courts will not take judicial notice of new evidence.
EX PARTE BAKER 459 So.2d 873 (1984) In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, this court is bound by the record and cannot consider a statement or evidence in brief that was not before the trial court.
EX PARTE EPHRAIM 806 So.2d 352 (2001) This Court does not review evidence presented for the first time on appeal.
Both the Democrats’ Amicus Brief and the Zullo affidavit are likely to be ignored.
A person can get a copy of his Social Security application for a small fee in a few days.
So, I would think that the President of the United States would have no trouble getting a copy of his Social Security application whenever he wants it.
States: They should require presidential candidates to present a copy of their Social Security application along with their copy of their birth certificates.
What is Obama hiding that is in his Social Security application?
“Both the Democrats Amicus Brief and the Zullo affidavit are likely to be ignored.”
True, but both affidavits are tactical PR stunts from the two camps...but with one BIG difference.
The Zullo affidavit (sworn under penalty of perjury) is a nearly complete criminal indictment of the party or parties that forged Barry’s BC. Zullo claims have a certification of the legal certainty of the forgery by an expert that is court certified (to meet the Daubert standard).
The Zullo affidavit destroys the Obot affidavit which offers NO claim of having any expert certification of authenticity for their BC image.
Therefore the Zullo affidavit is a roadmap for any brave state attorney general or county district attorney to empanel a grand jury to prepare an indictment of the forgers of Barry’s White House pdf BC. If Hawaii were not in the grip of criminal co-conspirators, the Zullo affidavit could be the basis of a criminal forgery investigation there and also of criminal conspiracy by state officials to conceal the original vital records and authenticate the forgery.
Zullo and Arpaio have shown all state and federal officers sworn to uphold the constitution the evidence that will be available in any discovery hearing by a trail court on the merits the next time such a hearing takes place.
The ball is now fully in the court of the Obot legal team to find an equally qualified expert to rebut Zullo’s expert. John Woodman’s embarrassingly inadequate resume obviously doesn’t meet the expert witness requirements for certification under the Daubert standard as explained in detail in Zullo’s affidavit.
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.