AL Dem Party File 'Opposition To Motion To Strike' Mike Zullo's Affidavit In Obama Ballot Appeal

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.

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?

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 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.

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?

Apparently Hawaii has been using the “true copy or abstract” stamp since 1995.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/342937/

And?

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."

I am going to repeat myself.

“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 Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
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
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12

In 2012 there were 50 Obama ballot challenges heard in 22 states. No court or state elections board found him ineligible.

The courts will assume the state government is telling the truth unless there is proof to the contrary.

There are over 100,000 pieces of proof every year that all states lie about birth certificates. Apparently our vaunted legal minds are seemingly oblivious to this fact.

Proof, not accusations. You cannot simply accuse Hawaii of lying and then gain access to records.

All that should be required to gain access to this specific record is the statement "This man is running for President. I have a right to see evidence that he is eligible."

That statement alone should have rendered any Statutory objections irrelevant, but because our Governmental and Judicial officials have become so ignorant and incompetent, they sit around with their thumbs up their a$$e$ instead of protecting the country by doing their jobs.

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.

It is central to the entire issue, so obviously nobody should even consider looking at it. Another example of a court system which is ridiculous and deserving of contempt.

Well what can be expected of it? After all, it is a left over remnant of Monarchy.

“I will not listen to any “reason” on this. There is no argument which will sway me from the truth of this statement...”

Written like a true birther!

“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?”

Yes. What is law doing interfering with your wants? Who is a judge to tell you that you do not understand the law, or the issues? The Mighty DiogenesLamp has opined, and all must bow before him!

Well, sorry. As you may have noticed by now, the courts are not overwhelmed with concern for pleasing your personal interpretation of Constitutional law. They tend to place more emphasis on Original Intent, rather than DiogenesLamp Intent.

“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.”

All hail DiogenesLamp, KING OF THE UNIVERSE! (BTW - that is a GS-100 position...very impressive). He wields the ONE Ring, and ALL must bow before Him!

Well, sorry DL, but you are not supreme ruler, and don’t get to make the rules for the rest of us to live by. Minor things like jurisdiction, ability to provide relief, evidence, authority of statutory law in the activities of elections...those pesky details will continue to provide the framework of our society.

But thank you for being honest enough to admit no argument will persuade you. The problem is not Constitutional Law, but your refusal to accept Constitutional Law and the division of power it provides.

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?

In point of fact, such requirement should be regarded as a matter of common law. It has always been expected by the populace that those responsible for approving ballot access have some responsibility to do it accurately and fairly. Such a question might as well be asked regarding a county Tax Assessor whether they should assess taxes fairly and accurately. It's a "Self Evident" part of their D@MNED JOB!

That being said, the larger question is one to which there is no legal remedy for the last election. It might have some benefit in the future, but for the past it is too late. As I said before, the best which can be hoped is to make an ugly legitimacy stink, and hope some of it reaches enough people to spur calls for defiance of the dictator and perhaps calls for removal if sufficient anger can be achieved.

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.

Let us not fool ourselves. Whatever is the "official" claim, it is simply intended to obscure the fact that it is most certainly about Obama and what he's managed to get away with due to State Election officials not doing their d@mned jobs properly.

In point of fact, such requirement should be regarded as a matter of common law.

The fact before the court is whether it is regarded as a matter of Alabama law.

As I said before, the best which can be hoped is to make an ugly legitimacy stink, and hope some of it reaches enough people to spur calls for defiance of the dictator and perhaps calls for removal if sufficient anger can be achieved.

And you are doing a great job of furthering that cause. Really.

Whatever is the "official" claim, it is simply intended to obscure the fact that it is most certainly about Obama and what he's managed to get away with due to State Election officials not doing their d@mned jobs properly.

So Klayman would like to make this. But to quote Paul Scofield's character in A Man For All Seasons; "The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law." Whether we all like it or not.

“It is a rule of evidence deduced from the experience of mankind and supported by reason and authority that positive testimony is entitled to more weight than negative testimony but by the latter term is meant negative testimony in it’s true sense and not positive evidence of a negative, because testimony in support of a negative may be as positive as that in support of an affirmative…” Blackburn v. State, 254 Pac. 467, 472 (Ariz. 1927)

Your opinion notwithstanding, they are legal documents certifying specific facts under the official seal of the Sate of Hawaii, and are prima facie evidence in any court in the land.

Legal bullshit of sort which this country tolerates far too much. You are arguing that "because we have made it customary to regard documents with these characteristics as "valid", we must not insist on determining the actual truth when presented with such documents."

Alexander the Great Cut the Gordian knot. Super Smart Genius intellectual types tried to untie it.

I have one basic principle regarding this issue, with which you may agree or disagree.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TRUMPS ALL OTHER LAW.

If it is a matter of Compliance with Constitutional law, especially in such a case affecting the lives and futures of so many millions of Americans, it is INSANE to let petty little state laws interfere with efforts to get to the actual truth.

Obama HAS NO RIGHT to keep his eligibility proof secret from "We the People." Those who say he does, as far as I am concerned are enemies of our nation. They aren't defending rights, they are subverting rules so as to obfuscate a potentially serious threat.

If that's not enough to satisfy you, you're entitled to your opinion. But, frankly, your opinion is of no legal consequence whatsoever.

Neither is the truth, and that is THE PROBLEM. It is long past time to take a scythe to our legal system, and then burn the stubble. The ONLY legal opinion which counts is that of the Judges. They are our own little pet Autocracy in this nation. It's long past time for that to change.

You and I have gone around and around about the substitution of "numbers" for "truth." We have also had this same conversation regarding the claim of "Authority" = "Truth." And you're still citing both fallacies. I would be embarrassed.

I have a long held, and simple explanation for this. We have reached a point in our Nation where our Election officials are incompetent. They do not understand the requirements, Nor do they understand their role in enforcing them.

Back to you.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TRUMPS ALL OTHER LAW!

“I will not listen to any “reason” on this. There is no argument which will sway me from the truth of this statement...”

Written like a true birther!

Or a Constitutionalist.

Scr*w You. As usual, you have descended to childish nonsense of the sort unworthy of response.

The fact before the court is whether it is regarded as a matter of Alabama law.

A distinction without a difference. Even under Alabama law, a man hired as a public official is expected to DO THEIR D@MNED JOB! God only knows the level of utter stupidity to which this nation has sunk when it has to be litigated in court to force Governmental officials to do the most self evident aspect of their Jobs.

And you are doing a great job of furthering that cause. Really.

Your mockery notwithstanding, I think that the ship has already hit the iceberg, and it little matters what we do as individuals at this point. We are having an academic discussion, or are you having some misguided presumptions of influence?

So Klayman would like to make this. But to quote Paul Scofield's character in A Man For All Seasons; "The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law." Whether we all like it or not.

And both that and the law are a matter of opinion.

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.