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.
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.