Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 10/31/2011 6:55:28 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Arizona's maverick Sheriff Joe Arpaio promised surprises in his jurisdiction's investigation of Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidential ballot and his Cold Case Posse is delivering – raising questions that touch on the authenticity of the long-form birth certificate issued last April and the possibility Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security Number.
Sources close to the investigation say the posse has decided it needs to see original birth records before it can conclude whether Obama should be eligible for the presidential ballot in 2012, not an electronic file or scanned copies.
The sources say the panel needs to examine the microfilm documenting Obama's birth, as well as the ink-and-paper original 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health is holding in its vault.
The PDF file and various scanned copies of the birth certificate that the White House released April 27 are simply not good enough, the posse has determined.
Earlier this month, WND senior staff reporter Jerome R. Corsi spent 18 hours over a two-day period in Arizona briefing the Cold Case Posse on a wide range of evidence regarding Obama's eligibility.
"The posse wants to see the entire microfilm roll containing Obama's birth certificate, not just a microfilm copy of Obama's long-form birth certificate in isolation," Corsi explained. "An individual microfilm copy could be forged, but forging the entire microfilm reel on which Obama's birth certificate is in sequence would be almost impossible."
Also, Corsi said, the posse wants the ink-and-paper original 1961 Obama birth records still held in vault by the Hawaii Department of Health to be released publicly and subjected to independent court-authorized forensic examination.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
obumpa
Love Sherriff Joe; and all he and Posse trying to accomplish. A larger than life thorn, in someone’s side; no doubt. That said; how long, might one guestimate; that it will take to get/retrieve. . .be allowed to see; per said rightful/legal requests from this most corrupt Administration; all of whom, care not; whose eyes they poke; per defending their illegal/illgotten; private and public, territories..
No more info, due to an acute lack of urgency.
I’m sure it can be found for sure, but I do believe it was for participation in/intentional ignorance of medical insurance fraud....and then she landed that $300K/yr position on that hospital board.
I heard it on a radio talk show, possibly Beck’s.
Perjury statutes would apply.
The people of Arpaio’s county were victims of that perjury.
The crime has widespread enough ramifications that if it was dealt with Arpaio’s county would get the Department of Injustice off their backs so they could actually enforce other laws, so this case should take priority as a prerequisite to be able to do some of the other law enforcement that needs to be done.
Secretaries of State don’t do criminal investigations. And the integrity of both the Arizona US Attorney and AG are compromised already, if I understand correctly. I don’t know if it’s correct or not, but I was told that county sheriffs have jurisdiction over crimes that impact the citizens in their county.
I know of no statute of limitations for perjury.
See, the issues you’re bringing up are exactly what has gotten us into this mess: as long as crooks can manipulate, bribe, threaten, etc the political critter in the place they want to pillage, they have it made because nobody else is ALLOWED to hold anybody accountable to the rule of law. That doesn’t sound like America, where accountability to the rule of law is what made us different than the very tyranny we rebelled against.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Phil Berg is a big democrat donor; he filed a suit claiming that he was defrauded because he donated money to get an eligible candidate but didn’t get one. The judge ruled it was none of his business; he had no standing.
There is no civil case that the courts can’t deny standing for. They denied standing to an opposing candidate (Alan Keyes) because they said he couldn’t have won anyway. With the courts taking up future-telling and basing decisions on that, there is no charge that they can’t skirt in similar fashion.
The courts have amazed even me with their putrid sophistry that basically says, “Go F yourself, little people. We can throw out anything we want. You don’t have standing unless we look upon you with favor. So go away, pesky little gnats.”
That’s why it HAS to come down to CRIMINAL charges. Trial by jury. Due process. Standing. All that stuff.
The courts would have us believe this is a political issue. It’s not. The man has forged 2 different birth certificates - and was so aware that the COLB was forged that his people gave the media in their packet of “documents” a copy of the COLB taken from a Snopes page. They didn’t even pretend to have anything genuine to copy from. Given that he claimed in his book to have seen his birth certificate - and given that HI Gov Neil Abercrombie has said that what they have in HI would not convince skeptics that he was born there (IOW, it ISN’T a “clean”, straightforward birth certificate like the forgeries Obama has presented - the BC Obama has used his entire life was NOT from Hawaii. IOW, Obama has known his whole life that he was not born in Hawaii, because he’s been using a birth certificate from someplace else, not having a legally-valid one from Hawaii even to this day.
That means he is clearly guilty of both forgery and perjury. This is not a political issue; it is a criminal issue. Law enforcement are the proper people to deal with this issue. Of course, Fast & Furious has revealed to us just how much integrity democrat-controlled law enforcement has... And everybody else is too busy saying these crimes are either imaginary or don’t matter, to actually do their jobs and enforce the law.
I’m not a birther, but it raises some major red flags that he chose to spend millions obscuring his history.
Why spend millions fighting the lawsuits when the whole issue could have been resolved with $20 and a SASE?
I honestly want to see his travel records and his college transcripts.
Your right this shi* really is silly. In fact, it's down right astounding any conservative...heck, any supporter/upholder of the Constitution doesn't think what's in the white house (both the usurper and the "document" he released) is categorically absurd. I mean, who's buying this thing? Seriously?
And, of course, this doesn't even touch on the issue of how in the world someone born with foreign citizenship (& thus allegiance owed to a foreign country) could possibly be considered a "natural born Citizen" and therefore Constitutionally eligible to be the Commander in Chief of the military.
It’s about time! Go git ‘em, Sheriff Joe!
Well, then let's see the entire microfilm roll containing the Nordyke twins' birth records. ;')
Capone died in jail because he didn’t pay his taxes, not because he murdered people.
The history of the Arthurs is certainly interesting. Thanks for posting the link.
However, there are some assertions in the narrative that I find odd.
First: the author’s disbelief that parents would name a new baby after a deceased baby. That used to happen all the time. I can cite a couple of instances in my own family in the 1800s. I’ve seen this in both sides of my family when parents had 13-15 children, so i believee that it was common practice.
Second: that Hinman would consider it a matter of disrepute (Dr. Case) that somebody’s mother in the 1800s was only 17. It is my observation that this was not considered a mark of shame at all. So why would Dr. Case lie about the age of his mother? Or, for Hinman to claim that it was a reason to disbelieve Dr. Case about his knowledge of the Arthurs’ family history.
Very odd assertions.
I did not know about Sheriff Joe’s efforts with the dogs! WHat a great story and it saves $$$ too! Good luck with your Weimeraner. Those are such beautiful dogs. I hope he/she has a long, long life for you. (I have had a rescue Golden for 10 years and can’t imagine life without him.)
Sheriff Joe is 84! Wow, he looks great!
I remember when his prison was visited by the Weird US show. When they started talking about how hot it was for the prisoners forced to live in “tent city”, his answer was “who the hell told you guys to come out here in July!”. Gotta love the guy!
I heard it on a radio talk show, possibly Beck’s.
Just wondering. I had been involved in a pretty far ranging discussion on why Michelle and Barry lost their law licenses. I found out Barry voluntarily gave his up rather than face a disciplinary hearing for lying on his bar exam, but I had never heard much information on why Michelle was disbarred.
“There must be absolutely no crime in this guy’s county. Did the people elect him to hunt unicorns?”
The Commie Punk in the Oval Office and his sorry sidekick, Dept. of Injustice Att. Gen. Holder, decided they would poke Sheriff Joe in the eye.
They picked the wrong guy.
“Not normally, no, but I believe he can if he wishes to do so.”
So the Sheriff doesn’t have that power...unless he wishes it so. That’s a rather loose definition of power.
“The Sheriff is the Highest law enforcement officer of a County, and is the only one specifically mentioned in the US Constitution.”
Really? In the US Constitution? I don’t see it:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
I trump your cynicism and pragmatism with eternal wisdom. Proverbs 28:1 The wicked flee when no one pursues, But the righteous are bold as a lion.
It isn't a "definition" of power. It is a function of his office. If he thinks that something going on in his county is illegal, it is his prerogative to injunct it until it can be investigated and examined by a court.
Really? In the US Constitution? I don’t see it:
You are correct. I am wrong. It is Jesus which is specifically mentioned in the constitution, not "Sheriff." You wouldn't know anything about Jesus would you?
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.