Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: rdcbn; Red Steel; Las Vegas Ron; butterdezillion; Brown Deer

This kind of explains the very curious series of communication between the Arizona Secretary of State a few weeks ago when Arizona was threatening to keep Obama off the 2012 ballot.

The Az Sec of State was very explicit about getting Hawaii to go on record and certify that that particular document was THE document that they had issued with no ambiguity or wiggle room.

Once the Az Sec of State got the certification he backed off in a very weird fashion.

It’s obvious now that his real intent was get the document certified by Hawaii for law enforcement purposes as forged and fraudulent document now that Arpaio has rigorous, unambiguous, unimpeachable and legally admissible evidence that the Obama Administration and the State of Hawaii has presented a false document.

This evidence, combined with work done by the Az Sec of State, is, in the words of our VP, a real BFD which takes things to a whole new legal level, especially from a law enforcement perspective since there is now solid evidence a crime has been committed and the evidence is sufficient to take the case to criminal court.

It also suggests that somebody has an active criminal investigation in progress

Excellent comments by rdcbn.

584 posted on 07/17/2012 5:51:45 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies ]

To: little jeremiah
At first I was really perplexed by Arpaio’s Press Conference.

It was advertised as a BLOCKBUSTER disclosure but the presentation was low key and all the news bimbos and bozos just piled on asking ,”whats the big deal?”.

It's now obvious that the reporters had absolutely no idea what was actually being presented to them and what the significance of the information was since they were neither lawyers or law enforcement personnel.

Up until now there has been no solid, legally admissible evidence regarding Obama’s birth certificate and, given the fact that all of this happened 50 years ago and everyone involved was presumably dead, I figured there never would be.

Sure, you could have tons of experts analyze the Adobe layers in the BC and proclaim it a forgery but no one is going to go after a sitting President based on that kind of evidence.

Consider what has happened.

The Arizona SoS forces the State of Hawaii to go on record and formally take legal ownership of the forged Birth Certificate on the pretext of needing the information to put Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot.

After a lot of hemming and hawing, Hawaii finally certifies, in writing by an authorized responsible public official, that the document came from them and represents Obama’s official BC.

In one of the most bizarre statements I have seen from a public official, the AZ SoS states that he has received an email from the State of Hawaii certifying the authenticity and validity of the BC and it's fine with him despite the fact that he has not actually bothered to read the email.

Immediately after this, Arpaio sends his team to Hawaii to interview VK Lee, the 95 year old woman who not only is was in charge of filling out birth certificates in Hawaii at the time, but was in fact THE ACTUAL PERSON WHO FILLED OUT AND SIGNED the purported Obama BC.

As such she is THE direct, official witness to this event and not only is she alive - she is fully in control of her mental faculties.

Arpaio’s team obviously interviewed her and took a recorded, formal legal affidavit from her as a first person witness to the events which admissible in criminal court.

In it the have formal sworn testimony documenting from the first party direct witness who filled out the document in question that

a) the procedures and policies used at the time of Obama’s birth in detail for the record for background and context, which also documents the ladies recall and mental state.

b) they documented the significance of the penciled in number 9 as unknown in fields showing that the information was unknown and left blank

c) the have the DIRECT, SWORN TESTIMONY by the actual lady that filled out and signed the original BC document 50 years ago that she left those fields blank except for the number 9 when she meticulously filled out the paper work, as was the policy at the time.

d) they have her sworn testimony that there is no way the information added to the fields came from her or any other legitimate source in Hawaii at the time and the words now present in those fields were never any part of the format of any official Hawaiian document of the day.

e) they have her sworn testimony that she did not and could not have made a mistake at the time because the documents would never have passed official review at the time, and that she was very careful and “did not make mistakes” on official documents.

f) based on the above she has identified the document, officially certified by the state of Hawaii and signed by herself, as being altered and forged.

I am stunned that they were able to obtain this level of evidence, which is none other than the duly appointed, official government records keeper who actually filled out and signed that exact birth certificate 50 some years ago officially provide sworn testimony that it is a fraudulent and forged or altered.

It simply does not get any better than that from a criminal prosecution stand point and it also validates all of the evidence of forgery documented by the experts
in the Adobe .pdf Birth Certificate published by the Obama Administration

This really is a big effen’ deal and breaks the case open if anyone can be found to pursue it.

629 posted on 07/17/2012 7:00:15 PM PDT by rdcbn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

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