Skip to comments.AL Dem Party File 'Opposition To Motion To Strike' Mike Zullo's Affidavit In Obama Ballot Appeal
Posted on 05/22/2013 7:40:21 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Cold Case Posse Commander Mike Zullo of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office on submitted a devastating 57 page 207 paragraph affidavit to the Alabama Obama ballot challenge appeal case that is before the Alabama Supreme Court. He did this at the request of Attorney Larry Klayman representing the appellants. Now Alabama Democratic Party attorney's Barry Ragsdale and Thomas Woodall have fired back with a 'Opposition To Motion To Strike'. They slam Zullo and the Cold Case Posse's evidence confirming Obama's birth certificate and selective service registration card are forgeries. They state in their motion to strike that Mike Zullo's affidavit is nothing but 'rambling screed' and should be disregarded in it's entirety. See footnote 9.
Sorry. The first sentence should have said:
Cold Case Posse Commander Mike Zullo of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office on May 14, 2013.
for ‘rambling screed” it’s pretty coherent and conclusive.
Obama submitted a fraudulent document to the American Public. Why?
Did the Alabama Democratic Party submit a copy of the forged birth certificate to the Alabama Supreme Court?
“for rambling screed its pretty coherent and conclusive.”
Yes but one with a different security paper background.
I can’t keep up with it all (so much Democrat/Obama corruption, so little time) but as I understand it, this case is more about the Sec. of State than Obama but, aren’t they in putting themselves in jeopardy by submitting a forged birth certificate?
Does the Alabama Supreme Court have the ability to do some sort of discovery here since there is a “dispute” about the birth certificate?
These people are so brazen. I guess they will be pleading the 5th in the future too.
Does anyone have a total on just how many social security cards Nobama has?
Anybody but me find it eyebrow raising that the Alabama Democrat party uses the word devastating to describe this affidavit they want to strike?
The diamond security paper background was a Fogbow scam. The image submitted had the green security paper background.
Supreme Courts don’t do discovery.
Also, there has never been a court ruling that the whitehouse.gov version of the birth certificate is forged so there is no risk to using it. The state of Hawaii has issued 3 Certified Letters of Verification in support of its authenticity. The Alabama Democrats also submitted one of those Letters of Verification with their Amicus Brief for the Supreme Court.
They didn't. They called it a "rambling screed."
The third letter of verification was obtained because the first two didn’t comply with rules of evidence in verifying the authenticity of the alleged birth certificate. The third one didn’t comply either. Under the rules of evidence, the plaintiffs have a right to an original certified copy of the alleged document if one actually exists. They don’t have to settle for third-party letters of verification or photocopies submitted by the defendants.
Item 8 on page 6 is eye-opening. The ADP claims they submitted a downloaded photocopy of the alleged birth certificate for “educational” purposes and not as actual evidence of Obama’s eligiblity ... because ... they claim the court doesn’t have the jurisdiction to offer an opinion about Obama’s eligiblity or the authenticity of the birth certificate. Talk about wanting it both ways.
You are incorrect and you are inventing rules of evidence that don’t exist. A judge can accept any exhibit as evidence that he or she deems admissible and it’s up to the judge to decide on its probative value or lack thereof.
The first letter of verification went to Arizona Secretary of State Bennett and he used it to put Obama on the Arizona ballot. The second letter went to Kansas Secretary of State Kobach (as you well know) and he used it to put Obama on the ballot in Kansas. The third letter went to Mississippi US District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate and he has taken it under advisement in a Motion that was received by him a year ago and has not yet been acted upon one way or the other.
The Alabama Democratc Party’s Amicus Brief includes a copy of the whitehouse.gov version of the Obama long form and a copy of the Arizona Letter of Verification for Secretary of State Ken Bennett as exhibits.
The Supreme Count can not ‘do discovery’. But it can review ‘what is on the record’. That is why the effort to remove it ‘from the record’.
If left in, the court could base some its findings and rulings based on the affidavit since it is part of the record. If successfully challenged and tossed out the court CAN NOT use the material of the affidavit.
If it stays in - look out.
Thanks. That’s what I thought.
Nonsense. I've posted the rules several times in other threads. If one side submits a certified document or a document that would be recognized as having official capacity under rules of self-authentication, the opposing party is allowed access to that document. Failure to do this means the document must be treated as hearsay.
A judge can accept any exhibit as evidence that he or she deems admissible and its up to the judge to decide on its probative value or lack thereof.
The judge still has to follow the rules of evidence. It's why the ADP mentions the rule on self-authentication but then immediately backs off on the suggestion that they are submitting an exhibit that complies with that rule. It's an outright admission that they can't stand behind the authenticity of that document and it's why they are insisting that the court doesn't try to rule on Obama's eligiblitity. Based on the accepted facts, Obama is not and cannot be eligible for office. Instead the ADP wants to the court ONLY to focus on whether the state can be compelled to verify a candidate's eligibility. This should be telling.
The first letter of verification went to Arizona Secretary of State Bennett and he used it to put Obama on the Arizona ballot.
No, he used it as political tool to avoid taking OFF the ballot. There's a big difference. Bennett said he made the decision to keep Oama on the ballot without actually reading the letter of verification. IOW, it was nothing more than a CYA.
The second letter went to Kansas Secretary of State Kobach (as you well know) and he used it to put Obama on the ballot in Kansas.
This is false in two ways. The second letter went to the Mississippi Democrat Executive Committee. When confronted by the fact that neither of these letters complies with the rules of evidence, SOS Kobach decided to request his own letter, which makes it the THIRD letter. The objection was withdrawn before he received that letter and by law, he had nothing to rule on. IOW, that third letter was NOT used in an official capacity.
You obviously don't understand the laws or you're purposely trying to mischaracterize them and the sequence of events. It doesn't serve your credibility very well.
The Alabama Democratc Partys Amicus Brief includes a copy of the whitehouse.gov version of the Obama long form and a copy of the Arizona Letter of Verification for Secretary of State Ken Bennett as exhibits.
And BOTH documents are nothing more than hearsay because they lack the required certification elements. Again, this is why the ADP submitted this second motion to back off on placing any probative value on either of these exhibits. The first letter of verification went to Arizona Secretary of State Bennett and he used it to put Obama on the Arizona ballot.
“Under the rules of evidence, the plaintiffs have a right to an original certified copy of the alleged document if one actually exists.”
I get the feeling edge has never studied rules of evidence...
I get the feeling that you post nonsense like this because you don’t have the intelligence to come up with a specific rebuttal to show that I’m wrong. And obviously, you can’t.
Satisfaction of any self-authentication method contained in Rule 902 does not guarantee genuineness. Consequently, nothing in Rule 902 is intended to preclude the offering partys opponent from disputing authenticity. Any document or record offered under Rule 902 must satisfy other evidentiary concerns, such as the hearsay rule and the best evidence rule. See, e.g., Ala.R.Evid. 803(8) (public records exception to the hearsay rule); Ala.R.Evid. 1005 (public records exception to the best evidence rule).
link to source
If the court accepted what Hawaii offered as evidence, then the appeal can cover if the trial judge exceeded his authority in doing so. If it rules the trial judge exceeded his authority in allowing the evidence, they could then decide if that would have changed the outcome of the trial.
But no, a court of appeals (such as a state supreme court) will not take in new evidence. That is not what appeals courts do.
And a trial judge does have latitude in what is accepted or not, depending on a variety of factors. One would think that after a hundred cases or so, birthers would have figured out you can’t just go to court and demand to see anything you want to see...
Ummm, the ADP submitted copies of the LFBC and the AZ LOV recently. The so-called “birthers” responded to this, and THAT is why the ADP is backing off on what it submitted. It helps to understand details like this.
Except that these letters of verification do not contain compelling birth data. Again, re-read the rule I just posted. The self-authentication rule does NOT guarantee genuineness or authenticity. A letter of verification cannot substitute for a certified birth certificate when it fails to include the specific birth data and/or the required certification elements. The Arizona letter is lacking in both departments. Again, this is why the Alabama Democrat Party is walking back any notion that either of these documents comply with the rules of evidence.
There is no indication I can see that the Alabama challenge will consider ANY birth certificate. The issues are 1) is the case moot? and 2) does the Sec of State have a legal duty to investigate a candidate’s qualifications?
There is no issue involving a birth certificate for the supreme court to review.
People can put anything they want in a motion, but the court will review the issues before them - and this appeal is NOT about birth certificates. See page 4:
I do not know how the law is written in Alabama, but in Arizona, the law did NOT support a duty to investigate candidates. I wrote my reps and asked them to change the law, but it did not happen.
In a trial court, the attorney for either side can challenge evidence. In an appeal, the court can review the trial judge’s ruling. I’ve got an 800 page book on my shelf discussing the federal rules of evidence, so it isn’t quite as easy as just reading a sentence off of the Internet and becoming an expert.
However, there is no indication the trial judge considered ANY birth certificate in deciding the case. The reports I’ve seen indicated the ruling was made on lack of jurisdiction, so the case was dismissed with prejudice.
It would be if it were true. But I believe that term was used by the person who opened the thread, and not by the Alabama Democratic Party.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Zullo’s evidence was convincing and unimpeachable what does any of that have to do with the case before the Alabama Supreme Court?
“Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Zullos evidence was convincing and unimpeachable what does any of that have to do with the case before the Alabama Supreme Court?”
Oh come on O.E.O.............why do think Zullo was asked to create a affidavit for the appeals case?
I did use the word devastating because the Zullo affidavit is.
I have no idea. Now please answer the question.
Of course it is. Irrelevant but devastating.
God forbid that they should disrupt their chosen methodology for the sake of accuracy. One of the reasons I find the American court methodology contemptuous.
Also, there has never been a court ruling that the whitehouse.gov version of the birth certificate is forged so there is no risk to using it.
I like how "no ruling" is flipped into a "positive ruling". That is sophist.
The state of Hawaii has issued 3 Certified Letters of Verification in support of its authenticity.
But would they not send these same letters of Verification in support of the authenticity of a replacement birth certificate due to adoption?
The Alabama Democrats also submitted one of those Letters of Verification with their Amicus Brief for the Supreme Court.
A letter is not proof. Proof is more along the lines of an image with a certified statement and State Seal proclaiming a "true and correct copy of the original document" Without the "or abstract thereof" which totally renders it irrelevant as proof.
Even then, given Hawaii's peculiar laws, and apparent habit of issuing these things to people newly arrived off of boats and such, it's difficult to regard even Hawaii's best efforts to convince as above reproach at this juncture.
Much of their credibility was lost when they made such a stink of releasing the original document. Constitutional Requirements ought to trump state privacy laws in EVERY CASE.
There was NO legitimate reason to keep proof from the American people.
The Letters gave them Cover to do what they desperately wanted to do anyway. Make this issue go away while pretending they did their job.
SOS Bennett was actually surprised when he couldn't get cooperation from Hawaii. He made his promise to require proof before he knew that Hawaii really didn't want to give him anything.
He smelled a rat, but he was far more afraid of bringing embarrassment and humiliation to himself than he was in pursuing it. It was another of those "Let this Cup pass before me" events in which he managed to get away from it.
I get the feeling that if you are criticizing someone, most likely THEY are the one who is correct.
Which is why the court system deserves contempt. On such a serious issue, roadblocks to official documents never should have been tolerated. The very effort stinks of some sort of game or corruption, and if the courts were competent, the very first one would have swept aside all efforts to legally block access to a record of VITAL IMPORTANCE to the nation.
Again, the legal system is contemptuous. It produces idiocy regularly, and the victims of it simply have to endure.
“Without the “or abstract thereof” which totally renders it irrelevant as proof.”
What do you mean by this? All birth certificates are abstracts, in that they contain only some of the information required by NIHS standard Certificate of Live Birth form.
And yet they are conspicuous by NOT being a birth certificate. So you're saying we should just all accept this game of three-card-Monty as being clean?
Don't think so chum. One doesn't do so many legal backflips if all is as it ought to be.
Apparently Hawaii has been using the “true copy or abstract” stamp since 1995.
It is my observation that Judges don't really have to follow the law, they can pretty much do anything they want. (and do.) With that in mind, the affidavit can provide sufficient support to whatever it is the judge wants to do, and it will count because he says so.
On this particular issue, more can be accomplished by simply calling into question the legitimacy of the current dictatorship, and producing evidence that he is a lying con man, than any legal result which might come out of it.
A hearing which actually LOOKS at the truth, and concludes Obama stinks, will do more good than a dozen legal technicality rulings. The political damage is what we need right now. Any Legal remedy has long since passed it's expiration date.
“On such a serious issue, roadblocks to official documents never should have been tolerated.”
Sorry, but in our courts, the accused has rights too. And part of that right is not to be harassed by frivolous lawsuits, contesting what no one contests and demanding evidence the law does not allow them to have.
An accusation of embezzlement is serious, but only if there is first evidence of wrongdoing. You cannot just accuse your neighbor and then demand to see their bank records.
You also have to file a case in a court with jurisdiction. A court that has no authority to give you relief is a court that you cannot file in, since they couldn’t do anything even if you proved your case.
I haven’t read Alabama’s law, but in Arizona, the Sec of State is expected to trust the certifying letter from the party. I don’t agree with that, but the legislature still has not changed it. And it is the LAW that controls, not my opinion.
The courts will assume the state government is telling the truth unless there is proof to the contrary. Proof, not accusations. You cannot simply accuse Hawaii of lying and then gain access to records.
In this particular case, I don’t see where a birth certificate will ever emerge as a question, since it is not an issue before the court.
Your contempt for/misunderstaning of the appeals court is duly noted. But the court is still tasked with examining the question before it. In this case the question is, was the circuit court correct in ruling that the Alabama Secretary of State is not required by Alabama law to independently verify the eligibility of presidential candidates prior to allowing their name to be placed on the ballot? Obama’s eligibility or lack thereof is not relevant to that question; one could just as easily file suit over her failure to check Romney’s qualifications as well. Zullo’s affidavit, imaginative and entertaining as it may be, is still irrelevant.
What do I mean by this? I mean that Hawaii has changed it's language of certification from something that was absolute and certain, "A True and Correct copy of the Original Record" to something which is not. "Or an abstract thereof."
Adding the words "or Abstract thereof" makes it possible to hide any and all sorts of manipulations which might have occurred to the original document.
For example, as I've said repeatedly, *I* am adopted. As Such I have an "original" birth certificate, and I also have a "replacement" birth certificate. All references to my birth certificate in any official correspondence deliberately hide the fact that my current "official" document is NOT MY ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE!
Now the ability of the state to lie and mislead in this manner is due to the understandable need to protect children from the circumstances of their adoption, because many of them are unaware of the fact. However, the fact that such legal tricks are permitted for adopted children, also makes them available for abuse in such cases as Obama. (Whom I believe to have been adopted by Lolo Soetoro back in 1965.)
So to sum it up, when you put that bit "*OR* abstract thereof", you have made it impossible to determine if it is fact an original birth certificate, or one that has been subsequently cobbled together by the State DOH to create a replacement document.
Does that clear things up?
That doesn't speak to my objection regarding it. Adding those words makes it impossible to verify that it is true on the face of it. Those are weasel words which might as well say "may or may not be true."
On such a serious issue, roadblocks to official documents never should have been tolerated.
If you disagree, I don't care. It is my belief that CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TRUMPS ALL OTHER LAW.
I am not going to debate this with you. I will not listen to any "reason" on this. There is no argument which will sway me from the truth of this statement, and rather than attempt it, you should merely recognize the truth in it for yourself.
What is the matter with us when we tolerate a petty state law interfering with verification of the credentials for the most powerful office in the world?
How have lesser courts dared to tamper with this principle? We need to burn down the existing court structure and rebuild it so that it is fit for a Free Republic.
There was no difference in states’ responses whether there was a letter of verification from Hawaii or an actual eligibility ballot challenge that was adjudicated. Every state’s Chief Elections Official cleared Obama for the state ballot, in 2008 and in 2012.
In Arizona, the Courts backed up Ken Bennett’s decision:
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
And it was the same in Georgia:
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
In 2012 there were 50 Obama ballot challenges heard in 22 states. No court or state elections board found him ineligible.