Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arpaio Investigation Brings Up Compelling Questions About Obama's Birth Certificate and Eligibility
Hawaii Reporter ^ | Monday, March 26th, 2012 | MICHAEL P. RETHMAN

Posted on 03/28/2012 7:35:29 PM PDT by Kukai

The tough economic times of late 2008 produced an once-in-a-generation leadership opportunity that a talented, attractive and multi-ethnic young president might have exploited to achieve good things for all Americans.

Unfortunately, President Obama has shown over three-plus years that he’s not that leader – unless killing Osama bin Laden is somehow all that matters. Indeed, in light of a record replete with domestic and international fumbles, including a budget deficit driven to unimagined levels and persistently high rates of unemployment/underemployment, Obama ought to be soundly defeated in November.

However, with so many Americans now feeding at the government trough, his defeat is far from a sure thing.

But still lurking in the media shadows is a compelling constitutional question that won’t leave Barack Obama alone. Obama’s long-form birth certificate, released by the White House amid great fanfare last spring, was recently and very publicly derided by a the nationally known Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County (Phoenix) Arizona.

Finally, after four years of media-abetted obfuscation of Obama's ever-changing documents, someone in authority is finally willing put his reputation on the line and publicly ask raise questions that should have been unambiguously answered years ago.

Ironically, a revival of this political sideshow may be what derails the Obama re-election effort in November. Here’s why: Obama’s self-touted long-form birth certificate, forced into the public arena by then-candidate Donald Trump last spring, was almost immediately exposed as a simplistic cut-and-paste construct -- yet this story has gone ignored for almost a year.

Indeed, an Adobe Illustrator pro and video game writer in Atlanta, who goes by the YouTube handle orangegold1, downloaded the document from whitehouse.gov and quickly exposed it as fraudulent. Orangegold1's initial 7-minute YouTube video depicts a step-by-step forensic deconstruction of the document. This video has had nearly 1.3 million hits thus far and its detractors' criticisms have been thoroughly answered in Orangegold1's follow-up videos.

So will legitimate concerns regarding the latest versions Obama's latest birth documentation continue to go unknown to most Americans? Unfortunately, it's hard to count on reporters and editors in the so-called elite American media to do the right thing in lieu baseless of cheer lead for Obama.

Indeed, the Arpaio investigation has been widely reported in other countries, but so far the story has been covered domestically only by the Washington Times and World Net Daily.

But should the story behind Arpaio’s investigation eventually gain media traction in the U.S., Barack Obama's re-election campaign could be in serious trouble.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: arpaio; birthcertificate; certifigate; eligibility; joearpaio; naturalborncitizen; sheriffjoe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-115 next last
To: advertising guy

It’d be nice to meet you. I’ll FReepmail you.


51 posted on 03/29/2012 9:52:43 AM PDT by Kate_Malloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
probably because they are stupid democrats

Nuff said....

52 posted on 03/29/2012 9:56:04 AM PDT by GregNH (>>>>>I am SO ready to join a brigade of pickup trucks to surround DC<<<<<)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; GregNH
Per GregNH:

“The forger is in Hawaii, no document was printed out.”

I think it is highly unlikely that HI officials had anything to do with creating the forgery. There was no logical, legitimate "adoption" scenario involved in justifying this forged pdf. HI officials most likely only received an electronic image from Chicago (the source of all criminal acts behind Barry) with layers of plausible deniability for the transmission of the pdf to protect both the WH and HI.

HI DOH places a printout of the pdf in the archive, then takes it out and makes a copy and “certifies” it for the charade of having a lawyer take that copy back to the WH.

The key screw-up was failure to flatten the pdf file by the person in the WH entrusted with “releasing” the image to the web.

53 posted on 03/29/2012 9:56:40 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

I would agree with you had the forger not put a smiley face on Alvins signature and an X marks the spot possibly indicating Alvin was ordering him/her to create the document.

All I know is this. When the truth comes out you and I, in the collective, will be high fiveing and back slapping each other all over the place!


54 posted on 03/29/2012 10:04:23 AM PDT by GregNH (>>>>>I am SO ready to join a brigade of pickup trucks to surround DC<<<<<)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

I will offer that the forger is not in Hawaii.

Except for Fuddy most of the Hawaiins have tried to walk a tight rope on this.

Brian Schatz would not sign a document that indicated Obama was eligible in 2008. He clearly had the eligibility removed from the 2004 template and tried slide it by the elections staff. When it failed Pelosi had to submit the legally required documentation.

Even Janice Okubo’s statments (or the statements she drafted that went out under Fukino’s letterhead) were carefully worded in November of 2008 and July of 2009. In November of 2008 she just said ‘we have records’ period. And the press praised the resolution of the issue. When that did not work they offered up the more beefy statement in July of 2009 after the House of Representatives passed the resolution for Hawaii’s 50th birthday and included that it was the birthplace of Obama. Even that statement had weasel words like ‘the records indicate...’. Well of course by then some sort of records somewhere said ‘born in Hawaii’. And even the ‘natural born American citizen’ is a careful way of feeding the press what they want without actually using the actual Article II, Section 1 verbiage.

And remember the nominated HDOH doctor who was forced to withdraw due to never confirmed reports of issues in his past. He must have signaled he would not play ball and was toss aside and smeared in the process. Even Abercrombie himself got wishy-washy after promising to clear this up in early 2011.

Fuddy’s behind is hanging out. She clearly provided the cover letter to the White House for the April 27, 2011 event. Unless she is lying - in writing - she probably did provide something to the WH attorneys. Did they fly all the way to Hawaii? Probably not. But if she provided real records that were then altered and manipulated and presented as real by the WH she is guilty of staying silent. But assuming she did provide records she and her lawyer probably have copies as their hidden (hopefully) get out of jail free material.

So the Hawaiians have played ball for the WH...but they obviously have stop short of (most) actions that would send them directly to jail should this blow up - which it now is.

Only when those who have knowledge feel more personally threatened by those on the right side of this and start making deals will the dominoes start to fall. This will put the ‘useful idiots’ and pawns in jeopardy. But this is price of being being a pawn in the game.

The Hawaiians that know are Schatz and Okubo and Atty. William Gilardy - Stanley Ann’s lawyer when she divorced Soetoro. Those three should be put in separate rooms until they come clean.


55 posted on 03/29/2012 10:24:03 AM PDT by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kate_Malloy

good, we’ll meet....BTW....few here yet realize the response is another brick in the bridge.....i.e. the response was needed......hehehehe


56 posted on 03/29/2012 10:32:08 AM PDT by advertising guy (Sarah just jumped..........game on boys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Kate_Malloy

Thank you, SO MUCH!!! Looking forward to hearing from you.


57 posted on 03/29/2012 10:47:29 AM PDT by azishot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
I think it is highly unlikely that HI officials had anything to do with creating the forgery. There was no logical, legitimate "adoption" scenario involved in justifying this forged pdf. HI officials most likely only received an electronic image from Chicago (the source of all criminal acts behind Barry) with layers of plausible deniability for the transmission of the pdf to protect both the WH and HI.

HI DOH places a printout of the pdf in the archive, then takes it out and makes a copy and “certifies” it for the charade of having a lawyer take that copy back to the WH.

What you postulate is a criminal conspiracy with the tacit approval/involvement of the DOH staff in Hawaii, as well as the Governor of Hawaii, and Obama's attorney as well.

Unless there is extraordinary evidence to support this extraordinary claim, I have to believe in the more mundane explanation that the document was created legally through the DOH in Hawaii. The only way I can see such a thing happening is if Obama was legally adopted in the past.

I will mention once again, that *I* am adopted, and *I* have a fake birth certificate created by the DOH in my state. It's fake, but it's a LEGAL fake.

I too can go to court to get my adoption set aside and resume using my original last name.

The key screw-up was failure to flatten the pdf file by the person in the WH entrusted with “releasing” the image to the web.

I agree with you on this.

58 posted on 03/29/2012 10:53:33 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6
William Gilardy

Hasn't attorney client privilege expired with SAD's death?

59 posted on 03/29/2012 10:56:53 AM PDT by GregNH (>>>>>I am SO ready to join a brigade of pickup trucks to surround DC<<<<<)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Not sure...seems that is true for her. But of course they would hide behind Obama as a ‘client’.

But I do not think anyone in Hawaii is willing to ‘take the pipe’ (using an old Chicago sayings) for Obama or the Chicago gang.


60 posted on 03/29/2012 11:53:08 AM PDT by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
“I will mention once again, that *I* am adopted, and *I* have a fake birth certificate created by the DOH in my state. It's fake, but it's a LEGAL fake.”

The fact that you are legaly adopted has nothing to do with this case, unless you were adopted in HI in the early 1960’s. I would advise that you drop your continuing claim that your personal adoption has anything to do with Barry's criminal conspiracy to claim HI birth.

YOu have a legally altered BC, not a forged pdf image of a BC. There is no HI statute under which a pdf would be forged to simulate a 1961 LFBC, and in no case would a legal adoption result in the birth location being moved from Kenya to HI, for example.

61 posted on 03/29/2012 11:58:30 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Kate_Malloy

Thank you!


62 posted on 03/29/2012 11:58:57 AM PDT by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell. Signed, a fanatic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
The fact that you are legaly adopted has nothing to do with this case, unless you were adopted in HI in the early 1960’s. I would advise that you drop your continuing claim that your personal adoption has anything to do with Barry's criminal conspiracy to claim HI birth.

If there is any aspect of it that is likely to be a criminal conspiracy it is the manner in which Hawaii apparently registers births which occur outside of it's borders as having occurred in Hawaii. Did you see this chart? (The Daily Pen does some very good work)

Apparently Hawaii is pretty lenient with it's requirements to register a birth there. Not necessarily a criminal conspiracy, but it might be.

YOU have a legally altered BC, not a forged pdf image of a BC. There is no HI statute under which a pdf would be forged to simulate a 1961 LFBC, and in no case would a legal adoption result in the birth location being moved from Kenya to HI, for example.

I have always operated on the assumption that Hawaii possesses SOME sort of document registering his birth in August of 1961. I have long speculated that this document was likely an affidavit of "at home birth" which was filed by his Grandmother, Madelyn Dunham. Even if he had been born in Kenya (Which I very much doubt) the officials in the Hawaiian registrar's office can hardly be held accountable if they were lied to by a member of a child's family.

Hawaiian law DOES allow someone to register an "at home birth" as having occurred in Hawaii, so if Obama was born in Kenya (again, I highly doubt it,) or Washington State, or Canada, or wherever, an affidavit of home birth would still result in a "record" which CLAIMS birth in Hawaii.

If Obama got his previous adoptions annulled, then he could use the data claimed on his original birth record as the basis for generating a new replacement birth certificate, which nowadays would be pasted together by the Hawaiian DOH out of the database of records which they currently possess.

I ask you, who else has access to all the right sources of data needed to create such a document? The Hawaiian DOH creates replacement birth certificates for any child that gets adopted in Hawaii routinely. The documents they produce only need to pass a cursory inspection, they don't have to be perfect because most people aren't going to scrutinize them once they see the official seal.

The Stuff a DOH produces was never intended to survive the sort of scrutiny which Obama's document has been subjected to, and that is why it was quickly recognized as a fake. It also gives us the answer to one of the questions that so many people have been asking.

"If this is a forgery, why did they do such a poor job of it? You would think Obama could afford to hire professionals to do the job right. "

Again, the DOH produces replacement birth certificates, but they don't expect them to be scrutinized to the extent this one was.

63 posted on 03/29/2012 12:35:41 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: edge919

ping.


64 posted on 03/29/2012 12:37:26 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
“I ask you, who else has access to all the right sources of data needed to create such a document? The Hawaiian DOH creates replacement birth certificates for any child that gets adopted in Hawaii routinely.”

IMO, HI DOH would never forge pdf images of LFBCs.

All that was needed to forge Barry's BC was several 1961 LFBC, which were available on the web. There is considerable evidence, according to some affidavits, that some typed characters were lifted from those known LFBC images.

Arpaio has probable cause to show that there never was a paper LFBC as a source of Barry's LFBC, and Arpaio’s computer forensics experts claim that the pdf was on a MAC in the WH 15 minutes prior to the press conference. At a minimum, the WH would appear to be implicated in the chain of possession of the forged pdf image for which there was no prior paper document. This pretty well excludes any “routine” creation of an adoption paper for Barry...especially now that no new paper LFBCs have been created for a decade now.

65 posted on 03/29/2012 12:58:15 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
IMO, HI DOH would never forge pdf images of LFBCs.

I don't think that's what DL is saying. They probably created two copies of a certified birth certificate as was requested, based on the most recently authorized information and gave them to Obama's courier girl. There's a question as to why Obama would request TWO copies when he has used NEITHER of the two copies for any legal purpose. My suspicion is that one or both were deconstructed and modified perhaps physically and digitally, so as to fabricate the PDF which was further modified to contain information that no longer matches whatever was obtained from the HI DOH. Somewhere along the line they had to have a paper document to scan the security background and some of the text/signatures.

66 posted on 03/29/2012 2:33:49 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

Come to think of it, they wouldn’t know the truth if it smacked ‘em upside the head :)

But Sheriff Joe is dogged and persistent with the spirit of The Lone Ranger, I wouldn’t discount him, he’s a smart man and knows how to get things done even if he is a bit unorthodox ;)

Keeps his enemies off balance.


67 posted on 03/29/2012 2:50:33 PM PDT by eagles_rest ("The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves." ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Sorry, I don’t buy the argument that the forger didn’t think about the layers when they prepared it to show the public and sent the document PDF unaware that it would be posted as is. ANYONE who has working knowledge of any of the Photoshop products knows that a working copy (PSD file, usually) is very large, mine sometimes are 100mg or more in size. It is very easy to flatten the image to reduce the size in mgs, convert it to PDF or jpeg, and the smaller size much easier to send via email or to post to the web.

Whoever did this, left the document as a PSD file (or whatever PI uses) on purpose.

That’s my 2-cents.


68 posted on 03/29/2012 3:10:02 PM PDT by eagles_rest ("The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves." ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Arpaio has probable cause to show that there never was a paper LFBC as a source of Barry's LFBC, and Arpaio’s computer forensics experts claim that the pdf was on a MAC in the WH 15 minutes prior to the press conference. At a minimum, the WH would appear to be implicated in the chain of possession of the forged pdf image for which there was no prior paper document. This pretty well excludes any “routine” creation of an adoption paper for Barry...especially now that no new paper LFBCs have been created for a decade now.

It would be my guess as well that there is no "original" long form birth certificate for Barack Obama. I think one of the directors referred to it as a "birth record" and alluded to it as "half written, half typed." If this is an accurate description, it certainly resembles my conception of what an "at home birth" affidavit might look like.

I have long suspected that Barry cannot even prove he meets 14th amendment citizenship requirements, let alone "natural born citizen" requirements.

69 posted on 03/29/2012 3:24:31 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: edge919

you may need to enlarge this...what you wrote:

My suspicion is that one or both were deconstructed and modified perhaps physically and digitally, so as to fabricate the PDF which was further modified to contain information that no longer matches whatever was obtained from the HI DOH.

...fits with what I see. There's a step missing between (..........unham Obama and Stanley)Ann D......

I am also under the impression there was an original birth certificate lodged with the local registrar (Verna Lee) for the region which included the hospital at which the Sunahara child was born, and the name of the mother was ANN D.....

What was her maiden name? And what was the original date of birth? The Hawaii public birth index shows a BHO2 born between 1960 and 1964. Sunahara is also listed on the index. One might assume that if one was substituted for the other, the Sunhara name would be removed...but there it is, on both the birth and death index.

The listing of BHO2 would appear to relate to a genuine birth event. But once again, ON WHAT DATE and what was the maiden name of the mother? That asian looking girl at the Nachmannofs might well have been the 'wife from whom he was separated, living in the Philippines' remember?

Abercrombie spoke of Ann, whom he maintains he saw with the kenyan at social gatherings. Abercrombie says he 'was here when that child was born' - he well might have been, but he may remember Ann, the filipino, and never set eyes on Stanley Ann Dunham

70 posted on 03/29/2012 4:10:29 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: eagles_rest

The flattening stuff is a red herring. When you build a document in a program like InDesign or QuarkXpress and then convert it to a PDF, you wouldn’t necessarily be aware that the PDF will contain layers. Also, there are ways to convert such files that don’t result in huge files sizes like you mentioned, but they would still contain the different layers. The telltale problem is the security background. As a layer, it goes away completely and that just doesn’t happen with scanned documents. Second, there’s some kind of layer/clipping mask around the perimeter of the security background, that when the layer is hidden, makes the background larger. Again, this just does not happen with scanned documents.


71 posted on 03/29/2012 11:03:40 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
"All I know is this. When the truth comes out you and I, in the collective, will be high fiveing and back slapping each other all over the place!"

You'd better keep the celebration short, because not long after this finally all comes crashing down, and I am increasingly certain that it will (and was meant to all along, but that would make a whole other thread of its own, perhaps), you're going to be very busy protecting you and yours from Watts riots on steroids.

The completely off-the-chain reaction to and coverage of the George Zimmerman vs Treyvon Martin debacle is just a teensy, tiny taste of what's in store when the Historic First Black PresidentTM is outed as an ineligible fraud.

Stand by to stand by.

72 posted on 03/30/2012 4:50:37 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
To sum it up, the document *IS* a forgery, but it is a “LEGAL” forgery created by the State of Hawaii. No other explanation makes any sense.

You have an interesting, implausible theory. My objection is that you claim that “No other explanation makes any sense.” There are a number of other explanations that make more sense to me at least. My father told me many years ago that simple stupidity rules the world. The most likely explanation for the most powerful man in the world releasing such an easily exposed forgery is simple stupidity.

Obama being elected to the presidency is the pinnacle achievement of approximately 80 years of subversive communist activity in this country. This simply stupid forgery is threatening to wash this giant turd back down the toilet that he came from along with a whole lot of the other crap that pushed him to the top of the pile.

73 posted on 03/30/2012 11:42:06 PM PDT by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; bluecat6

The fact that Fuddy has allowed a forgery to be presented as if it was genuine, without saying anything to clarify that, constitutes misprision of forgery and perjury - federal felonies.

I have no doubts whatsoever that the HDOH has engaged in criminal activity. I do agree with bluecat6’s assessment, though, that Fuddy is the one who has jumped in with both feet, although I also believe Okubo could be criminally liable because I believe she knew that Sunahara’s BC# was stolen. I don’t believe they told anybody else that it was, though, because some poor innocent secretary didn’t know to my Sunahara request was related to Obama, so she didn’t send it to Okubo like all the Obama requests were supposed to be and instead followed the proper protocol, checking the database and telling me that there was no birth record under Sunahara’s name in their database at that time. Okubo was the guard-dog who was supposed to intercept anything about Obama and do the necessary obstruction and lying. She knew. Of that I am convinced.


74 posted on 03/31/2012 1:38:58 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Kate_Malloy

Any updates yet? Will it be up on YouTube?


75 posted on 03/31/2012 2:07:07 PM PDT by IM2MAD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Yes. Fuddy must have given them something. And since what was released wad done by the WH the forgery/alteration/modification, etc. could have happened outside of HDOH and by WH staff. But Fuddy can not be allowed stay free if and when it is shown that she stayed silent while a fraud was committed with her letter as cover.

She came in after the iniital nominee for HDOH Director was hustled off and smeared with unsubstantiated claims of wrongdoing. So they went and go a good party person to oversee the coverup at HDOH. Okubo was queen until then. A lifer. Probably tied heavily to the Democratic party since it has ruled Hawaii since 1959. Even thing with Fukinos name were probably done by Okubo. She had a good run going until the Attorney General would not back up her claim that she rain the ‘natural born American citizen’ statement from the July 27, 2009 statement.

I would also put Schatz in the group the that had tried to play this game playing along with the Chicago thugs without ‘directly’ crossing the line.

His submission of an invalid candidate form in 2008 could be construed as attempt to defraud the elections committee. Had it been a simple ‘mistake’ they probably would have kicked it back and said fix it and resubmit. But he intentionally and knowingly submitted legally invalid - and therefor worthless - documents to the election committee. He clearly does not want to be on the record as endorsing that Obama is constitutionally eligible. So he wanted to avoid that. But did he commit fraud in an effort to not commit....fraud.


76 posted on 03/31/2012 2:14:19 PM PDT by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: jcsjcm

You are the first person I know of who has dared to suggest such a scenario. It would make a very intriguing story especially tied to the reason for inaction and obfuscation by the political leaders and the entire court system. I still have in my memory the photograph of Obama hustling the SC judges in Robert’s chambers. I would hope that the military would cut such an act off in the bud stage but with Patreaus(?) playing along with the Obamites I wouldn’t know which way to bet.


77 posted on 03/31/2012 2:51:33 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IM2MAD; hoosiermama; advertising guy; azishot; butterdezillion; null and void; LucyT; ...
Will put down this link which more or less tells everything that Mike Zullo, Sheriff Joe's lead Investigator, related to us this afternoon. Too much detail for me to put down about what they did and how they went about determining that Barack Obama's BC is an absolute forgery. Also tells here about Obama's Selective Service card which they believe is forged.

http://teapartytribune.com/2012

Most is about the same as many FReepers have already determined as to the specifics of the forgeries.

The one inkling that I got was that Mike Zullo stated that they have a pretty good idea who produced the forged BC and that they intend to start with finding the person who actually put the forged paper BC online and work backward from there and hopefully the trail will lead them back to the real instigators who started the whole BC scam.

azishot...your question was answered. Mike said that this is still a very much ongoing investigation and not until it is concluded will Sheriff Joe decide what and who to give the findings to.

Also, all Reps were notified and invited to attend but only my Rep., Judy Burges, attended. No one from the media was there to my knowledge...not one reporter. Mike told us and so did Sheriff Joe, that they are up against a brick wall trying to get this information out to the American citizenry...no one will touch it!

Now some interesting news about our meeting. There were well over 1000 great citizens attending. The Church was filled to fire code and many had to be turned away as there was just no where to put them. I believe everyone that qualified signed the petition.

About the petition..It will be presented Monday to a State Senator and to a State Representative, and hopefully these two will get the Resolution to the floor for a vote in both Houses. This Resolution will BYPASS the Gov. The Resolution will request the AZ State Legislature, in conjunction with our Sec. of State, Ken Bennett's office, take action requesting the Democratic National Committee (Debbie Wasserman Schultz), provide documentation satisfactory to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the Cold Case Posse, the AZ Legislature and the AZ Sec. of State's office to attempt to validate Barack H. Obama's placement on the Arizona 2012 ballot. I believe the Resolution will also state that a private citizen will have "Standing" to challenge any candidate that he or she believes does not meet the qualifications of a particular office they may be running for.

As of this moment, AZ has no law in regards to vetting a candidate...none, and I believe he said that pertains to the whole Country! The Constitution is the only "vetting" we have and we all know how that worked out.

Representative Carl Seel introduced House Bill 2480 and said that 17 members of the Senate support the Bill and it's been through Committee, but he's getting mixed messages from a couple, incl. the Leader of the Senate. Said it is dead unless the Sen. sees fit to bring it up on Monday. Hopefully, with over a 1000 signatures from AZ citizens, our State Sen. will see fit to bring this to a vote!

Sheriff Joe has asked for a Congressional Investigation. Guess we'll see what happens there?

So, that's it and I suggest you all go to the link above and it will give you the same as what was talked about today, except Mike went into great detail on the specifics of how they did things to prove the "papers" (for that is all that they are, papers and not documents), forgeries.

Advertising guy, if you attended, perhaps you can remember something more of interest to all here...and sorry we didn't meet, but who would have thought we'd have such a huge crowd! :o)

78 posted on 03/31/2012 5:36:57 PM PDT by Kate_Malloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Kate_Malloy

One other thing I forgot to mention.. they had a meeting with Trump, and said how gung-ho he was on this issue, then how Trump just all of a sudden dropped it like a hot potato. They thought Trump’s action (or inaction) from that point on was just as curious as we here thought it was.


79 posted on 03/31/2012 5:48:54 PM PDT by Kate_Malloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Kukai

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Arizona Special Event

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/03/sheriff-joe-arpaio-arizona-special.html

Nearly 1200 citizens from Arizona packed into Sun City West “Church on the Green” today to receive a detailed report from Sheriff Arpaio and Lead Investigator Mike Zullo to learn their findings into the birth certificate posted at White House dot gov and Obama’s Selective Service registration card.

They got an ear full…

Article II Super PAC will be posting full coverage of this special event tomorrow, Sunday, April 1, 2012 at the following link, http://www.art2superpac.com/arizonavideo.html

CALLING ALL ARIZONANS – We need everyone, that means YOU, to forward this email onto anyone you know in Arizona. The Surprise & Sun City West Tea Party groups are asking ALL Arizona citizens to sign a petition directed to Ken Bennett, AZ Secretary of State, that states the following:

“Petition Requesting a RESOLUTION as per ARS 41-121-1. The Secretary of State shall: Receive bills and resolutions from the legislature, and perform such other duties as devolve upon the Secretary of State by resolution of the two houses or either of them.”

“We the undersigned Arizona citizens are requesting that the Arizona House, and / or the Arizona Senate pass a RESOLUTION directing Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett to send a certified letter to Democratic National Committee Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, requesting that she produce certified source documents that are satisfactory to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office that positively identify the U.S. natural born citizenship and the Selective Service System Registration of Barack Hussein Obama II. With the recent findings of the MCSO Cold-Case Posse, there is probable cause to believe that Barack Hussein Obama II’s Selective Service System Registration Form and his State of Hawaii Certification of Live Birth Form are criminal forgeries, it is imperative to determine Barack Hussein Obama II’s status regarding his eligibility to be placed on the 2012 Arizona ballot.”

http://www.teapartytribune.com/petition-asr-41-121-1

Sample - http://www.teapartytribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Petition-to-House-and-Senate-and-SoS.pdf

PLEASE FORWARD THIS PETITION TO ANY AND EVERYONE YOU KNOW IN ARIZONA. BE SURE TO POST IT ON YOUR FACEBOOK PAGE AND TWITTER ACCOUNTS. PLEASE, THIS IS CRITICAL. THE POWERS THAT BE NEED TO HEAR FROM EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU THAT YOU DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY.


80 posted on 03/31/2012 6:31:37 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kate_Malloy

Thank you SO MUCH for the detailed report. I had a feeling that no reporters were going to be there. Makes me sick to think our elected officials feel it’s a lost cause to follow the constitution. How many times have we heard that B0 was elected and we can’t overturn an election followed by the tired drivel of *beating him at the ballot box*?

Someone is responsible for this fiasco of having a kenyan (maybe, who knows WHAT he is) and MUST be held accountable.


81 posted on 03/31/2012 7:07:06 PM PDT by azishot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue

btt


82 posted on 03/31/2012 7:09:44 PM PDT by Jane Austen (Boycott the Philadelphia Eagles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: azishot
I know azishot, it's just plain discouraging, but I have to tell you that Sheriff Joe's CCP will not stop their investigation till they are satisfied that they have everything they can get.

As for me, even though I expect this to go down the rabbit hole because no one on either side of the aisle will touch it, it gives me a dang good feeling to actually be DOING SOMETHING!

Having about 1200 TEA Partiers there today, it would be my wish that all TEA Parties connect across this blessed Nation of ours and go to D.C. and rally at the Capitol. We need desparately to show a huge mass of Americans to those elected by us that we mean business!

83 posted on 03/31/2012 7:36:34 PM PDT by Kate_Malloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Kate_Malloy
...I have to tell you that Sheriff Joe's CCP will not stop their investigation till they are satisfied that they have everything they can get.

Of course he will. That's why he's disliked. He says what he means and means what he says. Might sound silly but Sheriff Joe doesn't mess around. Maybe in my lifetime it'll be proven that we were right all along and the powers-to-be chose not to listen.

84 posted on 03/31/2012 7:47:48 PM PDT by azishot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Kate_Malloy

Thank you very very much!


85 posted on 03/31/2012 7:49:35 PM PDT by GregNH (>>>>>I am SO ready to join a brigade of pickup trucks to surround DC<<<<<)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

My pleasure GregNH! :o)


86 posted on 03/31/2012 7:55:24 PM PDT by Kate_Malloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: azishot

I’d like to see that come about also, azishot!


87 posted on 03/31/2012 8:03:49 PM PDT by Kate_Malloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: azishot

I’d like to see that come about also, azishot!


88 posted on 03/31/2012 8:03:49 PM PDT by Kate_Malloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

I’d give a lot to be able to speak honestly with Dr Neal Palafox. And I do wonder if that’s the kind of person who could eventually break this open - if he knew he had protection.

After Breitbart anybody who is gonna talk will need to have protection, and that’s something a state investigation can’t do. That’s why we HAVE to have a federal law enforcement system with integrity. It doesn’t work to have the Chicago mob in charge of the federal law enforcement system.

This is why our Congress-critters NEED to come face to face with the lawlessness - because it was THEY who confirmed Eric Holder, a man of total lawlessness put there as the fox to guard the henhouse. And as a result the entire nation has been hostage. We are hostage because they poo-poohed the significance of Senate oversight. It was THEY who trampled the checks and balances because they favored “bi-partisanship” over accountability.

They need to see the victims so they can repent of what they’ve done and promise that it will never - never - happen again.


89 posted on 03/31/2012 9:09:42 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: fireman15
You have an interesting, implausible theory. My objection is that you claim that “No other explanation makes any sense.” There are a number of other explanations that make more sense to me at least.

I would be very interested in hearing them.

My father told me many years ago that simple stupidity rules the world. The most likely explanation for the most powerful man in the world releasing such an easily exposed forgery is simple stupidity.

My theory incorporates stupidity. I am virtually certain that had Obama or his Lawyer, or any member of his staff been aware that a PDF contains the information used to construct it, they would certainly have not posted it in it's existent form.

Obama being elected to the presidency is the pinnacle achievement of approximately 80 years of subversive communist activity in this country. This simply stupid forgery is threatening to wash this giant turd back down the toilet that he came from along with a whole lot of the other crap that pushed him to the top of the pile.

Consider what you say for a moment. What kind of forger would know how to paste this document together, yet be so foolish as to leave the evidence of it's creation in the same document?

Par for the course for a government bureaucrat.

90 posted on 04/01/2012 11:39:40 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
The fact that Fuddy has allowed a forgery to be presented as if it was genuine, without saying anything to clarify that, constitutes misprision of forgery and perjury - federal felonies.

And this is exactly what I cannot seemingly get through to anybody. If ANYONE ELSE created that document, it *IS* a criminal offense, and the DOH officials CAN be accused of misprision of a felony.

Again, It's Sherlock Holmes all over again.

“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.
- “Silver Blaze”

So why aren't the Dogs in Hawaii barking? Because they know there *IS* no crime in the way this forged document was produced.

91 posted on 04/01/2012 11:49:17 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

If this was a document created to replace an original BC after an adoption it would have been on a piece of paper that was created whenever Obama was adopted.

Do you acknowledge that? Do you acknowledge that if Obama was adopted in 1968, for instance, there would be a paper BC created in 1968 that had all the information on it? Do you acknowledge that that paper would be inserted into the HDOH file and from then on would be copied and copies certified just like any other and thus any scan of a copy actually made by the HDOH would thus act just like any other original or supplemental BC in their office?

If a paper BC was created whenever Obama was adopted and it was photocopied, stamped, and certified in 2011, and then somebody took a scan of that certified copy and posted it online, how and why would that scan act any different than a scan of any other certified BC put out by the HDOH?

If you take a certified copy of your BC - which was created after an adoption - and scan it and post it online do you get a registrar’s stamp that you can move to different spots on the page? Can you do anything to that scanned document to get the registrar’s stamp to act that way?


92 posted on 04/01/2012 2:06:31 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
If this was a document created to replace an original BC after an adoption it would have been on a piece of paper that was created whenever Obama was adopted.

Yes, but that is NOT what I am saying it is. It is a document created after an ANNULMENT (Probably in 2011) of a previous Adoption using information which was already in the file.

Do you acknowledge that? Do you acknowledge that if Obama was adopted in 1968, for instance, there would be a paper BC created in 1968 that had all the information on it? Do you acknowledge that that paper would be inserted into the HDOH file and from then on would be copied and copies certified just like any other and thus any scan of a copy actually made by the HDOH would thus act just like any other original or supplemental BC in their office?

Sure. But do you acknowledge that an Adopted child can petition the court to have their adoption annulled and to ask that a new birth certificate be created which contains information already in their file? Sure, they could ask that the ORIGINAL be unsealed, but if it serves there purpose better to get a new one created which is designed to look like an original, why would they not do such a thing?

If a paper BC was created whenever Obama was adopted and it was photocopied, stamped, and certified in 2011, and then somebody took a scan of that certified copy and posted it online, how and why would that scan act any different than a scan of any other certified BC put out by the HDOH?

It would look exactly the same. The Cold Case posse did exactly that, and their scan had something like 40 layers in it. They regarded this as evidence that the PDF was not produced by scanning a document because it had TOO FEW layers in it.

If you take a certified copy of your BC - which was created after an adoption - and scan it and post it online do you get a registrar’s stamp that you can move to different spots on the page? Can you do anything to that scanned document to get the registrar’s stamp to act that way?

I don't have any adobe software product with which to do this, but I can tell you the cold case posse DID in fact, do this, and it did NOT come out like Obama's PDF "birth certificate."

93 posted on 04/01/2012 2:20:03 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

HI law provides that when an unadoption takes place the original BC takes the place of the supplemental BC. Either one would be a paper document.

Since a real scan of a paper document doesn’t act like Obama’s “scan”, what he showed is not from a paper document. It can’t be from either the original or the supplemental BC at the HDOH. And in fact, it can’t be from ANYTHING certified that Fuddy might have sent him - which to be certified has to be on paper.

There is no way that what Obama posted was a scan of what Fuddy sent him, and that means that Fuddy is deceiving the entire nation - which is misprision of forgery and/or fraud and is a federal felony.

So we already know that AT LEAST Fuddy is engaging in crime to cover for Obama.

And actually, because the fraud perpetrated by Obama was against the people of Maricopa County, Arizona, the misprision of that fraud was also against the people of Maricopa County, Arizona, and Sheriff Joe would presumably be within his jurisdiction to charge her with it...

I wonder how soon they could arrest her.


94 posted on 04/01/2012 2:42:53 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
HI law provides that when an unadoption takes place the original BC takes the place of the supplemental BC. Either one would be a paper document.

What section of Hawaiian law? The Section on adoptions is pretty extensive.

Apart from that, when you have a State Judge involved, It has been my experience that the law means whatever THEY say it means. I have little doubt that an Attorney working with a judge can produce results that can only be described as a "legal miracle."

Of only one thing am I certain regarding What can and cannot be done legally in Hawaii; That nothing is "certain."

If the truth eventually comes out, I think it is very likely that nobody in Hawaii will have been found to have broken any laws. I believe they will all have legal excuses for what they did.

95 posted on 04/01/2012 2:53:10 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I would be very interested in hearing them.

There are numerous theories that have been proposed on these forums repeatedly... some are more believable than others. All one needs to do is review the threads if they want a sampling. I do not think your theory is plausible mostly because if a bureaucrat created this forgery “legally” why wouldn't the person(s) responsible just step forward and say so? In addition the official narrative on this was that a courier was sent on a commercial airliner to pick up two official copies of the document, and that what was published on the Internet was a simple scanned pdf of one of these documents.

My theory incorporates stupidity. I am virtually certain that had Obama or his Lawyer, or any member of his staff been aware that a PDF contains the information used to construct it, they would certainly have not posted it in it's existent form.

We seem to be in agreement on this... I have dabbled for many years with photoshop and illustrator; the first copy of Photoshop I purchased was 2.5x that was bundled with my first scanner 20+ years ago. Soon afterwards I upgraded to 3.x and Adobe has managed to get a lot more money from me over the years. I am very familiar with layers, but I would guess that 99% of the people I work with, even those who dabble with the software have a poor understanding of the mechanics of the program and could easily forget to flatten their image.

The funny thing is if they had saved it as a jpg instead of a pdf the software would have told them that they needed to flatten the image. When I refinanced recently the Mortgage company insisted that all of my documents needed to be either in pdf format or faxed to them. Apparently pdf files are considered more acceptable than jpgs.

Consider what you say for a moment. What kind of forger would know how to paste this document together, yet be so foolish as to leave the evidence of it's creation in the same document?

I know many people who feel that they are very capable of working with both Photoshop and Illustrator who have a poor understanding of the mechanics of the programs. People tend to learn only the features that they feel they need. Before this learning experience I would guess that a high percentage of people who felt that they were capable of producing this kind of forgery were not aware of the proper way to work with layers. This kinde of mediocrity is certainly not reserved for government bureaucrats.

I do not believe that there will ever be a “legal” way to produce a forgery such as this. It sort of boggles my mind that you think that it could ever be considered legal to use scanned copies of stamps and signatures on a document manufactured after the fact.

96 posted on 04/01/2012 6:00:51 PM PDT by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

In any event, anything the HDOH would have following an adoption or unadoption would be on a PIECE OF PAPER. When scanned it would not have parts that could be moved around. What Obama posted was not from any one piece of paper and could thus not be what Fuddy sent. For her to hide that fact from the public is misprision of fraud. There’s just no way to get around that.

I have no doubts they would CLAIM they had legal reasons. Janice Okubo, for instance, has already claimed that the law PROHIBITS their office from reporting known forgeries to law enforcement. But the forgery and misprision laws REQUIRE that crimes be reported. As far as I know the only people who are exempt are attorneys for whom the information is protected by attorney-client privilege.

The law in question regarding BC’s concerning adoption is HRS 338-20, at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0020.htm

It says:

§338-20 Adoption. (a) In case of the adoption of any person born in the State, the department of health, upon receipt of a properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department, shall prepare a supplementary certificate in the name of the adopted person, as fixed or changed by the decree, and seal and file the original certificate of birth with the certified copy attached thereto.

(b) The registrar of births shall show on the supplemental birth certificate the names of parents as stated in the adoption decree pursuant to section 578-14.

(c) Any certified copy of final decree of adoption, or abstract thereof, of persons born in the State, rendered by courts of other states and territories subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or courts of a foreign country, shall be considered properly certified when attested by the clerk of the court in which it was rendered with the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the presiding judge, chancellor, or magistrate that the attestation is in due form.

(d) If no original certificate of birth shall be on file with the department, the department may require such evidence as it deems necessary to establish the facts of birth before preparing a supplementary certificate in the new name of the adopted person; provided that no such certificate shall be filed unless it shall be satisfactorily established that the adopted person was born in the State.

(e) The sealed documents may be opened by the department only by an order of a court of record or when requested in accordance with section 578-14.5 or 578-15. Upon receipt of a certified copy of a court order setting aside a decree of adoption, the department shall restore the original certificate to its original place in the files. [L 1949, c 327, §24; RL 1955, §57-23; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-20; am L 1978, c 50, §1; am L 1979, c 203, §2; am L 1980, c 153, §6 and c 232, §18; am L 1988, c 274, §2; am L 1990, c 338, §2]


97 posted on 04/01/2012 7:05:19 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: fireman15; Danae
There are numerous theories that have been proposed on these forums repeatedly... some are more believable than others. All one needs to do is review the threads if they want a sampling. I do not think your theory is plausible mostly because if a bureaucrat created this forgery “legally” why wouldn't the person(s) responsible just step forward and say so?

This is another example of how I just can't seem to get through to people. Why wouldn't the person(s) responsible just step forward and say so? Are you Kidding me? BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO DO SO! Adoption proceedings are SECRET. By Hawaiian law (and the law in every state as far as I know) it is ILLEGAL to divulge information to any party who does not have a legal interest in the information.

If anyone steps forward and says they created a replacement birth certificate for an adopted child, they will be breaking Hawaiian privacy laws and they can be prosecuted and sentenced for it. It is like divulging medical records, or sealed court documents. It. Is. Illegal. I really thought everyone knew this.

In addition the official narrative on this was that a courier was sent on a commercial airliner to pick up two official copies of the document, and that what was published on the Internet was a simple scanned pdf of one of these documents.

Yes, I know that is the official narrative, and we can believe it is the truth because Obama has never lied to us before, right? *IF* the PDF was a proof file sent to Obama's attorney for approval (or to make sure there were not mistakes with the court order) then it could have easily gotten sent to the White House Web Staff when they asked for a copy to post on the Web site. The Way Obama's attorney guarded the document during his press conference leads me to believe that the actual document wasn't going to be entrusted to anyone else.

We seem to be in agreement on this... I have dabbled for many years with photoshop and illustrator; the first copy of Photoshop I purchased was 2.5x that was bundled with my first scanner 20+ years ago. Soon afterwards I upgraded to 3.x and Adobe has managed to get a lot more money from me over the years. I am very familiar with layers, but I would guess that 99% of the people I work with, even those who dabble with the software have a poor understanding of the mechanics of the program and could easily forget to flatten their image.

Exactly my point. MOST people didn't know about layers, and it was an inadvertent mistake on their part due to their ignorance that allowed us to see this information.

The funny thing is if they had saved it as a jpg instead of a pdf the software would have told them that they needed to flatten the image. When I refinanced recently the Mortgage company insisted that all of my documents needed to be either in pdf format or faxed to them. Apparently pdf files are considered more acceptable than jpgs.

PDF's can be resized to any size and maintain their detail. Jpgs will only show the resolution which they were saved at originally.

I know many people who feel that they are very capable of working with both Photoshop and Illustrator who have a poor understanding of the mechanics of the programs. People tend to learn only the features that they feel they need. Before this learning experience I would guess that a high percentage of people who felt that they were capable of producing this kind of forgery were not aware of the proper way to work with layers. This kinde of mediocrity is certainly not reserved for government bureaucrats.

But is certainly inconsistent with the pool of forger talent available to Chicago Democrat operatives. For THIS job, they wouldn't get a mediocre bureaucrat level of competence to knock them up a fake, they would hire a professional who's work could not possibly be challenged. The fact that the forgery is so poorly done argues greatly on behalf of it being the work of a Hawaiian DOH bureaucrat normally tasked with making replacement birth certificates for adopted children. (Or modifications/annulments, as I suspect this is.)

I do not believe that there will ever be a “legal” way to produce a forgery such as this.

Nobody seems to grasp that the States produce 120,000 forgeries like this every year. (There are 120,000 adoptions every year in the United States.)

It sort of boggles my mind that you think that it could ever be considered legal to use scanned copies of stamps and signatures on a document manufactured after the fact.

I have my own (current) birth certificate sitting on the desk in front of me. It does not have a "Stamp" on it, it is entirely printed. I obtained my current copy in 2000, and if it was entirely printed in my state in 2000, how do you know that other states (such as Hawaii) don't also print the entire document? I propose we ask Danae who has a Hawaiian birth certificate which she obtained in the last year or so, if her birth certificate is completely printed or if it has a section which was stamped after it was printed.

If *HER'S* is completely printed, that proves the stamp was put on electronically. If it is printed then stamped, that does not necessarily prove Hawaii doesn't do it the other way, but it certainly puts a crack in the theory.

How about it Danae, is you birth certificate completely printed, or was it printed then stamped with a hand stamp? (or can you tell? Sometimes printing is so good that it might not be possible to tell for sure.)

98 posted on 04/02/2012 7:20:11 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
I have no doubts they would CLAIM they had legal reasons. Janice Okubo, for instance, has already claimed that the law PROHIBITS their office from reporting known forgeries to law enforcement. But the forgery and misprision laws REQUIRE that crimes be reported. As far as I know the only people who are exempt are attorneys for whom the information is protected by attorney-client privilege.

Exactly my point. They are not ALLOWED to divulge any activity regarding the birth certificate of adopted children, or those who have had their adoptions modified or annulled. They will cheerfully follow whatever the Judge orders them to do.

§338-20 Adoption. (a) In case of the adoption of any person born in the State, the department of health, upon receipt of a properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department, shall prepare a supplementary certificate in the name of the adopted person, as fixed or changed by the decree, and seal and file the original certificate of birth with the certified copy attached thereto.

And there is the Wiggle room right there. As "approved by the Department" Who decides what's approved? The Director, no doubt. That means they have discretionary ability. Further wiggle room is that statement "as fixed or changed by the decree" which pretty much means anything a lawyer can get a judge to agree to, which is exactly what I said before.

It is my belief that both the DOH Director, AND a Friendly Judge, will bend over backwards interpreting the rules in whatever manner is necessary to allow Obama's attorney to get what he wants from them, including a proof copy of their initial work.

99 posted on 04/02/2012 7:36:32 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: jcsjcm

What keeps everyone so intimidated is the East Coast Avengers and their ilk and the FEC threatening to investigate and fire the reporters who cover Certifigate, otherwise the impeachment trials would have started a long time ago. Sheriff Joe has tangible facts that he can prove, and he gets ignored. It’s the things nobody can prove, like the birth certificate from Vancouver, BC, with the Dudley Doright printed on it, like the name change a lawyer named Pidgeon found at the Consulate in British Columbia, just over the US-Canada border, from “Barak Mounir Ubayd” to “Barack Hussein Obama” in 1982—these things demonstrate that the whole Hawaiian birth certificate is an elaborate lie. There is no Hawaiian birth certificate. The birth certificate is hiding up there in Canada, because nobody would think to look there. All the copious research with Obama’s relatives doesn’t mean I believe ‘em.


100 posted on 04/02/2012 8:43:15 AM PDT by gethimoutofthehouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-115 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson