Obama fraud shocks law men at Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Convention, Mike Zullo presentations June 1, 2013, Biggest fraud in US history, Moving to congressional investigation

Obama fraud shocks law men at Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Convention, Mike Zullo presentations June 1, 2013, Biggest fraud in US history, Moving to congressional investigation

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why does Glenn Beck continue to make uninformed attacks and insults upon Sheriff Joe Arpaio and millions of concerned Americans?”…Citizen Wells

 
“On August 22, 2008, one day after the filing of Philip Berg’s Obama eligibility lawsuit, FEC attorney David Kolker sent an email to Rebekah Harvey, assistant to Ellen Weintraub, formerly of Perkins Coie, with the message “thanks!.” The subject line stated: RE: Victory in Berg v. Obama.”…Citizen Wells 2008 FOIA request

From PP Simmons June 1, 2013.

“Law men and elected officials “SHOCKED” by new evidence Obama Birth credentials fraudulently and criminally fabricated! Biggest FRAUD in US History!”

“Carl Gallups is reporting that he just got off the telephone with Mike Zullo immediately after Mike made his public presentation at the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Convention in St. Charles, Missouri, this morning.

According to Carl, Mike Zullo reports that the overwhelming response of the lawmen and elected officials is that ofabsolute SHOCK.  He said that one official came up to him and said, “I have been purposely ignoring this matter – until NOW! I will ignore it no longer.”  Zullo reports that several constitutional officers, public officials, attorneys, elected officials, and others are now pledging full and personal support in moving this matter to a congressional investigation. Zullo says that the media blackout has kept many of these officials in the dark. He says most of them are now outraged – now that they have seen the evidence that they should have seen from the beginning. Now, Zullo is reporting, the media is being ‘side-stepped.’ “We are making inroads and contacts that we have never made before. This conference is really going to ‘pay off’ in moving things forward. Very important people are now beginning to see the amassed criminal evidence of perhaps the biggest fraud in American history.”

EVEN MORE TO COME TODAY

Remember – this movement Zullo is speaking of -  is the result of the PUBLIC presentation only.The full PRIVATE presentation for lawmen and elected-officials-only (credentials checked at the door) will be made later on this morning. In that two hour meeting, Zullo, with full authority of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, pledges to reveal all the criminal investigation material they possess in this matter. We can only imagine the reaction and outrage that will ensue once these constitution loving, patriotic officials see the pile of criminal evidence.  Mike Zullo and Carl Gallups have been promising for months that we would soon see some forward movement in this case. It is now happening.

Carl emphasized, “This Sheriffs and Peace Officers meeting was just icing on the cake. This was dropped in our laps just 5 weeks ago. We still have other VIPs and other plans being made now that are even bigger than what is happening at the Sheriffs Convention. This matter is finally going to be heard as it should have from the beginning.”

Carl continued, “Very soon, certain members of the media, the courts, and congress are going to look very silly. They have been ignoring this, sitting on it, marginalizing it, and flat-out trashing the matter for years. They will soon be seen for what they are. This matter should have been investigated by Congress years ago. It is their constitutional mandate and they ignored it – purposely. This whole thing could have been resolved one way or the other years back. The media blacked it out. But we don’t need the pundit media anymore. We are going around the MSM. We have other venues now. More and more, very important people of constitutional standing are being enlightened and coming on board. Soon, the world will know that we have been correct in this matter all along.”"

Read  more:

http://www.ppsimmons.blogspot.com/2013/06/law-men-and-elected-officials-shocked.html

Thanks to commenter GORDO.

Florida courts corrupt biased incompetent?, Voeltz v Obama eligibility case, Obama not natural born citizen, AL VT Supreme Courts eligibility hearings, Election officials ignore laws duties

Florida courts corrupt biased incompetent?, Voeltz v Obama eligibility case, Obama not natural born citizen, AL VT Supreme Courts eligibility hearings, Election officials ignore laws duties

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why do state election officials continue to ignore the US Constitution, federal election code and their own state election statutes?”…Citizen Wells

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

I have reported on the Obama eligibility hearings in the Alabama and Vermont Supreme Courts. The reason that I have not written about an eligibility hearing in the Florida Supreme Court is because one has not been scheduled there yet.

Why?

Good question.

The answer appears to be some combination of corruption bias and incompetence.

Here are some crucial points of law and fact. More details will be forthcoming.

Let’s start at the beginning.

The states are responsible for the primaries, general election and events through the Electoral College vote.

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.”

All state officials take an oath to uphold or defend the US Constitution.

In Florida they take the following oath.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of”

From page 2 of the Florida “2012 Federal Qualifying Handbook”

“PART II: PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

Qualifications

1. Must be a natural born citizen of the United States.
2. Must be at least 35 years of age.
3. Must be a resident of the United States for 14 years.”

“Must be” is not a suggestion.

Florida Election statutes

“Title IX

102.168 Contest of election.–
“(1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

(2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

(3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:”

“(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”

AMENDMENT X

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Many of the Secretaries of State or other election officials claim to have only a “ministerial” duty in the elections.

In the recent Vermont Supreme Court hearing with appellant H. Brooke Paige, state attorney Todd Doloz stated that the VT Secretary of State has only a ministerial duty in the elections.

Ministerial defined.

Merriam Webster.

a : being or having the characteristics of an act or duty prescribed by law as part of the duties of an administrative office
b : relating to or being an act done after ascertaining the existence of a specified state of facts in obedience to a legal order without exercise of personal judgment or discretion.

Legal dictionary.

“Ministerial describes an act or a function that conforms to an instruction or a prescribed procedure. It connotes obedience. A ministerial act or duty is a function performed without the use of judgment by the person performing the act or duty.”

Obedience is the common denominator. To a legal order or conforming “to an instruction or a prescribed procedure.”

The US Constitution makes this clear.

The Secretary of State swears an oath to the Constitution.

Florida law explicitly states the requirements for the eligibility of the president.

The attorney for Vermont, in his obfuscation efforts, raised the spectre of each Secretary of State or chief election official proactively verifying the eligibility of each candidate.

No reasonable person is requesting that.

However, there is a clear distinction between that and knowingly, after being alerted of a candidate’s eligibility deficiency, taking no action, ignoring a clear mandate from the US Constitution and allowing a candidate to remain on the ballot potentially disenfranchising thousands if not millions of voters.

This is what should have taken place in FL and all of the states:

Once alerted or challenged on a potential deficiency in eligibility of a candidate, the Secretary of State or other election official should investigate.

In the case of Obama and his natural born citizen status, if there is confusion about the definition, the state attorney general should be queried and if there is still confusion, a court ruling requested.

Passing the buck is dereliction of duty.

In Florida, the situation is much worse.

Not only did the FL Secretary of State fail in their constitutional duty, subsequent court hearings have been delayed and failed in their judicial duties.

Why has the judicial system failed the citizens in Florida?

More details to come.

Obama nomination of John Wyma attorney Zach Fardon to replace Patrick Fitzgerald conflict of interest, More Obama stacking of USDOJ, Wyma Obama involvement in Health Board corruption and senate seat selling

Obama nomination of John Wyma attorney Zach Fardon to replace Patrick Fitzgerald conflict of interest, More Obama stacking of USDOJ, Wyma Obama involvement in Health Board corruption and senate seat selling

“Why did the Illinois Senate Health & Human Services Committee, with Obama as chairman, create and push Bill 1332, “Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act,” early in 2003, which reduced the number of members on the Board from 15 to 9, just prior to rigging by Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“The defense also questioned whether the government fully investigated Rezko’s allegations — which were the subject of recent court filings — that Wyma was involved in a specific bribery scheme at the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board.”…Chicago Tribune November 29, 2011

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

 

Barack Obama and John Wyma are both tied to Chicago corruption scandals including the rigging of the IL Health Planning Facilities Board and the selling of Obama’s senate seat.

Now Obama has nominated John Wyma’s attorney, Zach Fardon to replace Patrick Fitzgerald in the USDOJ.

Pre Obama this was considered a conflict of interest.

In the Obama Big Brother regime this is status quo.

From Citizen Wells December 2, 2011.

“Most of what we are fed from the media about Blagojevich is in regard to the alleged selling of Obama’s senate seat. As I have stated repeatedly, that was a cleverly crafted diversion. The Justice Department has added to this charade by dropping counts 1,2 and 4 against Blagojevich which contain references to much of the earlier corruption tied to Obama, specifically the rigging of the IL Health Planning Board. Today’s hearing is in regard to a motion about the testimony of John Wyma. I was pleased to find that 2 reports out of Chicago did not limit references to just the alleged selling of the senate seat.

From the Chicago Tribune November 29, 2011.

“With one week to go before former Gov. Rod Blagojevich is sentenced for widespread public corruption, his attorneys have asked a federal judge to consider what they say is new evidence regarding a key government witness.”

“In the filing, Blagojevich’s defense team referenced the recent sentencing of Blagojevich fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko. Rezko was sentenced to 10 1/2 years in prison last week.

In their filing, Blagojevich’s attorneys say prosecutors failed to tell the judge who approved wiretaps for the Blagojevich investigation that then-staffer John Wyma, who was a confidential informant for the government, had cut a deal to avoid being investigated.

But Wyma’s attorney denied his client had any agreement with the government in 2008 when he agreed to be a confidential informant.

“There was never any understanding he would not be investigated,” attorney Zach Fardon said. “He cooperated truthfully with no preconditions.”

Wyma later received immunity from the government when he was subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury.

The defense also questioned whether the government fully investigated Rezko’s allegations — which were the subject of recent court filings — that Wyma was involved in a specific bribery scheme at the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board.”

Read more:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-blagojevich-filings-20111129,0,3280336.story

From the Chicago SunTimes November 28, 2011.

“Blago’s lawyers want hearing based on new John Wyma information

Rod Blagojevich’s lawyers are asking for a special hearing to discuss what they say is new information regarding a key witness at the former governor’s trial.

They are asking U.S. District Judge James Zagel for an evidentiary hearing regarding the testimony of onetime Blagojevich friend and lobbyist John Wyma, arguing they weren’t allowed to properly cross examine him at trial. It was Wyma’s cooperation in 2008 that led to FBI wiretaps against the now-convicted ex-governor.

In a weekend filing, lawyers questioned whether the government properly vetted information against Wyma that was provided by a cooperating Tony Rezko. Rezko, a onetime fund-raiser to Blagojevich convicted on 16 counts of corruption, was sentenced to 10 ½ years last week.

In filings regarding Rezko’s sentencing, Wyma’s cooperation with the government is discussed, including that Rezko told prosecutors that he tried to extract a campaign contribution through Wyma from Provena Health, whom Wyma represented as a lobbyist at the time.

Lawyers question whether bribery was involved when Provena was granted a certificate of need from an Illinois hospital board. Rezko told prosecutors in private sessions that Provena had a dispute with someone on the hospital board and resolved it by paying the board member, according to the Blagojevich defense filing. Prosecutors say the charge was unsubstantiated.”

Read more:

http://www.suntimes.com/9114418-417/blagos-lawyers-want-hearing-based-on-new-john-wyma-information.html

Perhaps the effort to throw Obama under the bus is underway.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/john-wyma-testimony-blagojevich-hearing-december-2-2011-wyma-chicago-corruption-ties-media-and-justice-department-protect-obama/

From CNS News May 23, 2013.

The Obama administration has picked a private attorney and former federal prosecutor who helped send former Illinois Gov. George Ryan to prison for corruption to head the U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago, Illinois’ senators announced Thursday.

Zachary Fardon would replace Patrick Fitzgerald, who stepped down last summer to enter private practice. Fitzgerald rose to national prominence during more than a decade in the office and successfully convicted two Illinois governors, including Ryan. The U.S. Senate must confirm President Barack Obama’s nomination of Fardon.

Both of Illinois’ senators, Democrat Dick Durbin and Republican Mark Kirk, support the choice.

“Zachary Fardon will be an exceptional U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois,” Durbin said in a news release announcing the nomination.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/new-federal-prosecutor-nominated-chicago

 

Consider this from chicago1st December 5, 2008.

“All of this follows the recent conviction of Tony Rezko and his apparent cooperation with prosecutors as well as the indictment of William Cellini for extorting campaign contributions for Blago from a film producer. What are the odds Sen. Durbin will be writing President Obama in 2012 or 2016 to commute Blago’s sentence?”

http://chicagoist.com/2008/12/05/blago_gets_snared_in_the_wire.php

Obama nominates Zachary Fardon to replace Patrick Fitzgerald, Fardon represented John Wyma Blagojevich friend crony, Wyma avoided prosecution by being witness

Obama nominates Zachary Fardon to replace Patrick Fitzgerald, Fardon represented John Wyma Blagojevich friend crony, Wyma avoided prosecution by being witness

“Why did the Illinois Senate Health & Human Services Committee, with Obama as chairman, create and push Bill 1332, “Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act,” early in 2003, which reduced the number of members on the Board from 15 to 9, just prior to rigging by Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

 

From CNS News May 23, 2013.

“New federal prosecutor nominated for Chicago”

The Obama administration has picked a private attorney and former federal prosecutor who helped send former Illinois Gov. George Ryan to prison for corruption to head the U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago, Illinois’ senators announced Thursday.

Zachary Fardon would replace Patrick Fitzgerald, who stepped down last summer to enter private practice. Fitzgerald rose to national prominence during more than a decade in the office and successfully convicted two Illinois governors, including Ryan. The U.S. Senate must confirm President Barack Obama’s nomination of Fardon.

Both of Illinois’ senators, Democrat Dick Durbin and Republican Mark Kirk, support the choice.

“Zachary Fardon will be an exceptional U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois,” Durbin said in a news release announcing the nomination. “I spoke to him today and advised him that he’ll have to hit the ground running and immediately focus on daily gang and gun violence plaguing the streets of Chicago.”

Kirk called Fardon “an outstanding pick to continue Patrick Fitzgerald’s tradition of aggressively prosecuting criminal activity that threatens northern Illinois.”

The post is widely regarded as Chicago’s second-most powerful job, after the mayor. The chief prosecutor and around 170 assistant attorneys also have an impact beyond Illinois, including by handling major terrorism cases.

Fardon, a partner at the Chicago law firm Latham Watkins, was on the team of federal prosecutors who secured convictions against Ryan in 2006. In that case and in others, Fardon gained a reputation as an adept, quick-witted cross-examiner.

Fardon also served in the U.S. attorney’s office in Nashville, Tenn., and later entered private practice. Among his clients was John Wyma, a longtime lobbyist and friend of former Illinois Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whose testimony helped convict Ryan of corruption.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/new-federal-prosecutor-nominated-chicago

From the Chicago SunTimes July 27, 2010.

“Sam Adam Jr. has just accused President Barack Obama and his transition team of negotiating with Blagojevich.

The offer came from Rod to Tom Balanoff, Adam says. Balanoff brought it to Valerie Jarrett and word came back from Rahm Emanuel through John Wyma. It’s a negotiation they were in, he said of Obama and Blagojevich.”

Read more:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/blago/2010/07/sam_adam_jr_accuses_barack_oba.html

From ABC News December 12, 2008.

“Blagojevich Confidant Turned Informant”
“For years, John Wyma has been one of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s closest allies. He served as Blagojevich’s chief of staff in Congress and was a key advisor in his 2002 campaign for governor. When his former boss took over the statehouse, Wyma remained a central fundraiser and counselor, but also had Blagojevich’s ear as a lobbyist. But now this longtime advisor and old friend has become one of the most significant cooperators in the government’s efforts to put Blagojevich behind bars.

Wyma, 41, was close to much of the alleged wrongdoing during the feds’ five-year probe, and he remains a subject of the government’s investigation into the Illinois Health Planning Facilities Board, according to the criminal complaint for Blagojevich. But Wyma’s turn from confidant to informant ultimately inched prosecutors to the governor’s most recent — and most brazen — alleged attempts to trade political favors for campaign cash, the complaint states.

A fixture of the Blagojevich’s inner circle, Wyma as a lobbyist routinely traveled with the governor, flying with him during official state trips more than a dozen times during his first term, according to the Chicago Sun Times.

For years, John Wyma has been one of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s closest allies. He served as Blagojevich’s chief of staff in Congress and was a key advisor in his 2002 campaign for governor. When his former boss took over the statehouse, Wyma remained a central fundraiser and counselor, but also had Blagojevich’s ear as a lobbyist. But now this longtime advisor and old friend has become one of the most significant cooperators in the government’s efforts to put Blagojevich behind bars.

A friend of the governor for more than a decade, on the day before his arrest Blagojevich told reporters he and Wyma talked football the Wednesday before Thanksgiving.

“You can’t get much closer than they are to each other,” said Rich Miller who runs the Illinois political insider blog Capitol Fox. “[Wyma's] a lobbyist but he’s almost never in Springfield lobbying legislators. He virtually only lobbies the governor at his home in Chicago.”

Wyma could not be reached for comment, despite multiple calls and visits to his office and addresses listed in his name. His attorney, former federal prosecutor Zachary Fardon, who helped put former Illinois Governor George Ryan in jail, said in an email statement today that “There are news stories indicating that my client, John Wyma, is “Individual A” in the criminal complaint against Governor Rod Blagojevich. Mr. Wyma has made efforts to provide federal investigators with truthful information regarding the matters under investigation and will continue to do so. Out of respect for the ongoing process, we are making no further statements related to these matters at this time.”

Individual A
Those efforts began just months ago, in October, when, according to the criminal complaint released in the wake of the governor ‘s arrest Tuesday, Wyma — believed to be the person identified in documents only as Individual A — began talking with the FBI. The timing hardly seems a coincidence: it dovetails with the weeks, according to published accounts, that Wyma was named in a subpoena sent to former client Provena Health. The hospital company had donated money to the governor ‘s campaign shortly after receiving a favorable ruling.

Whatever his role in the hospital donations, Wyma’s cooperation soon proved fruitful to prosecutors. According to the criminal complaint, Wyma is one of the key sources to the source of the tip that Blagojevich is using the final months of the year to raise funds through payoffs before the new state ethics law goes into effect in January. That law would sharply limit any individual or entity with state contracts worth more than $50,000 from donating to the governor’s campaign coffers.”

Read more:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/ConductUnbecoming/story?id=6444648&page=1#.UZ6fhEA3vhI

From the McHenry County blog October 24, 2008.

“Health Facilities Planning Board Controversy Again”

“Last time it was the Mercy Health System’s attempt to obtain the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board’s approval.

Joseph Levine, Jim Ryan’s biggest fund raiser turned Rod Blagojevich buddy, fixed the favorable outcome after his contractor buddy Jacob Kiferbaum got the nod from Mercy to build the Crystal Lake hospital. Kiferbaum agreed to kick back to Levine and Tony Rezko.

To put it in the words of the U.S. Attorney’s press release on the Tony Rezko indictment:
“Rezko and Levine also were seeking to obtain a kickback of at least $1 million from contractor Jacob Kiferbaum, whose construction company was to build a new facility for Mercy Hospital in Crystal Lake, Illinois, if that facility received approval from the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, on which Levine sat.”

In any event, this time the controversy is down the Fox Valley in Elgin and concerns Provena St. Joe’s being granted permission to conduct open heart surgery after hiring John Wyma.

The gist of the Chicago Tribune story by Ray Long and Jeff Coen is that Provena hired Wyma. About a month after having gotten permission to expand its medical service, Provena’s for-profit arm made a $25,000 contribution to Governor Blagojevich’s campaign fund.”

http://mchenrycountyblog.com/category/john-wyma/

 

Deputy Attorney General James Cole AP phone subpoena, Cole represented Saudi Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, Eric Holder friend, American public Obama or Saudis being protected?

Deputy Attorney General James Cole AP phone subpoena, Cole represented Saudi Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, Eric Holder friend, American public Obama or Saudis being protected?

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”…Barack Obama

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed

–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“Propaganda must not serve the truth, especially not insofar as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent.”… Adolf Hitler

Deputy Attorney General James Cole was nominated by Barack Obama on December 29, 2010.

James Cole represented Saudi Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud.

From The Examiner June 16, 2010.

“Obama nominee defended Saudi terrorist”

“President Barack Obama’s nominee for the number two spot at the U.S. Justice Department served as a lawyer for the Saudi royals who helped finance the 9-11 terrorist attacks and raked in millions of dollars to “monitor” a collapsed insurance company that got a massive government bailout, according to a Washington, DC watchdog group.

According to public-interest group Judicial Watch, the president’s choice — James Cole — to be Deputy Attorney General believes that the Middle Eastern terrorists, who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, are simply domestic criminals who commit crimes such as rape and murder.

This should concern Americans since, as a ranking official at the Justice Department, Cole would play a lead role in decision-making involving terrorism arrests and prosecutions.

Known as a top criminal defense attorney in Washington, D.C. specializing in white-collar crime, Cole is a longtime friend of Attorney General Eric Holder, who served as deputy of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Division under Bill Clinton. It was Holder who brokered the deal to release terrorists who bombed office buildings and killed cops in New York City in the 1970s. The deal was made to garner votes for Clinton’s wife who was running for New York’s U.S. Senate seat.

Obama nominated Cole last month and the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding confirmation hearings this week.

Cole has a shady history that contradicts the president’s assertion that “the American people will be well served by his integrity and commitment to the law,” according to Judicial Watch.

Cole represented Saudi Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud when insurance carriers and September 11 survivors sued him and others for financing terrorists. Treasury Department documents provided evidence of extensive financial support for Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family and Prince Naif ran the Al Haramain Foundation, a Saudi charity that diverted funds to Al-Qaeda before and after September 11, 2001.”

Read more:

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-nominee-defended-saudi-terrorist

From the NY Times May 15, 2013.

“Justice Dept. Defends Seizure of Phone Records”

“Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Tuesday defended the Justice Department’s sweeping seizure of telephone records of Associated Press journalists, describing the article by The A.P. that prompted a criminal investigation as among “the top two or three most serious leaks that I’ve ever seen” in a 35-year career.

“It put the American people at risk, and that is not hyperbole,” he said in an apparent reference to an article on May 7, 2012, that disclosed the foiling of a terrorist plot by Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen to bomb an airliner. “And trying to determine who was responsible for that, I think, required very aggressive action.”

In a statement in response, The A.P.’s president and chief executive, Gary Pruitt, disputed that the publication of the article endangered security.

“We held that story until the government assured us that the national security concerns had passed,” he said. “Indeed, the White House was preparing to publicly announce that the bomb plot had been foiled.” Mr. Pruitt said the article was important in part because it refuted White House claims that there had been no Qaeda plots around the first anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden.

At a news conference at the Justice Department, Mr. Holder also disclosed that he recused himself last year from overseeing the case after F.B.I. agents interviewed him as part of their investigation. His deputy, James M. Cole, approved the subpoena seeking call records for 20 office and personal phone lines of A.P. reporters and editors.

Mr. Pruitt disclosed the seizure of the phone records on Monday in a letter to Mr. Holder protesting the action as overly broad and “a serious interference with A.P.’s constitutional rights to gather and report the news.”

But in a letter to The A.P. on Tuesday, Mr. Cole portrayed the search as justified and disputed a detail in the wire service’s account of the Justice Department action. While the news organization had said that records from “a full two-month period” had been taken, Mr. Cole said that the seizure covered only “a portion” of two calendar months.

“We understand your position that these subpoenas should have been more narrowly drawn, but in fact, consistent with Department policy, the subpoenas were limited in both time and scope,” he wrote. He added that “there was a basis to believe the numbers were associated with A.P. personnel involved in the reporting of classified information. The subpoenas were limited to a reasonable period of time and did not seek the content of any calls.””

“Lucy Dalglish, dean of the journalism school at the University of Maryland, criticized the Justice Department’s broad seizure of phone records, saying it would chill the ability of reporters to report the news. The subpoena came against the backdrop of six prosecutions of officials in leak-related cases under President Obama — twice the number prosecuted under all previous presidents combined.

“The message is loud and clear that if you work for the federal government and talk to a reporter that we will find you,” she said.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/us/politics/attorney-general-defends-seizure-of-journalists-phone-records.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&

We now know from the Benghazi talking point memos that references to Islamic extremists with ties to Al-Qa’ida was scrubbed by the Obama Administration.

So who was Mr. Cole protecting?

The american public, Obama or the Saudis?

Arpaio Cold Case Posse Affidavit, Obama WhiteHouse.gov alleged birth certificate, Alabama Supreme Court Obama eligibility challenge, Mike Zullo prepared and signed

Arpaio Cold Case Posse Affidavit, Obama WhiteHouse.gov alleged birth certificate, Alabama Supreme Court Obama eligibility challenge, Mike Zullo prepared and signed

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“When asked where I believe Obama was born I answer, I don’t know. There is zero proof he was born in Hawaii. The only evidence of his birth location that we have is much circumstantial evidence and that points to Kenya.”…Citizen Wells

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

From PPSimmons May 14, 2013.

“Cold Case Posse Affidavit Now Before Alabama Supreme Court”

“The Cold Case Posse affidavit - prepared and signed by lead investigator, Mike Zullo, is available HERE (doc format) or HERE (PDF format) for download. The document is exactly what is being released to the Alabama Supreme Court for the Obama citizenship and eligibility case that is before it. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office ordered his Cold Case Posse to cooperate with the Alabama Supreme Court case.

Lead investigator, Mike Zullo told PPSIMMONS News, ”This affidavit is the concise stating of the facts pertinent to the Alabama case and the Obama fraud case. The affidavit is thorough and factual – backed up by over a year and half of criminal investigation. The criminal investigation was conducted through the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office and the Cold Case Posse. This is not a ‘birther’ issue. The exact location of his birth is irrelevant at this point. The fact is that right now we have a criminal fraud case emanating from the White House. Someone fabricated a fake birth certificate. Now the questions are - Who did it? and Why did they have to do it? I have a feeling that the world will soon know the answers to those and many more questions.”"

“The affidavit contains over 200 specific points of investigation and information. Some of the information contained in this affidavit has never before been seen by the public. This document contains startling and hard hitting evidence verifying that the Obama long form birth certificate is 100% fraudulently fabricated and a criminally forged document.

It must be stressed that the affidavit submitted to the Alabama Supreme Court civil case by Commander Zullo does NOT contain ALL the information in the case known to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. More information will be revealed as criminal prosecution events unfold in the near future.”

Read more:

http://www.ppsimmons.blogspot.com/2013/05/breaking-ppsimmons-exclusive-read-ccp.html

From the affidavit.

“44. Upon the conclusion of our expert’s examination he issued an
independent 40 page forensic report in which he verified our investigational
finding and validating conclusion in full agreement with the finds of
investigators. He concluded:

• “…based on my observations and findings, it is clear that Certificate of
Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate,
but a digitally manufactured documented created by utilizing material
from various sources.” and

• “In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have
never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many
respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated.””

 

From Citizen Wells April 28, 2011.

The information presented below does not address whether or not the document placed on WhiteHouse.gov yesterday came from the State of Hawaii or not. I am not a document analysis specialist and the issue is not critical to evaluate the credibility of the document, Obama and the persons responsible for placing the document on WhiteHouse.gov. Those in the media and elsewhere accepting this document as a certified copy of a birth certificate to authenticate Obama’s birth in Hawaii have not done their due diligence and once again reveal the sad state of “news” in this country. The information below has a basis in fact and documentation and will no doubt befuddle many.

THE FOLLOWING TOPICS ARE ADDRESSED:

Someone(s) is lying.
Overview of WhiteHouse.gov explanation.
Document presented on WhiteHouse.gov site.
Correspondence from Perkins Coie/Obama with the State of Hawaii.
Long form certified copies of original birth certificate have been available for years.
Summary.

SOMEBODY IS LYING.

Obama? He has consistently lied to the American people about his records, his associations with criminals like Tony Rezko and about the health care bill. Obama is a liar.

Neil Abercrombie? The newly elected Governor of Hawaii suggested in an interview with the Honolulu Star Advertiser that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

Tim Adams ? a elections official in Honolulu in 2008 signed an affifavit stating:

Donald Trump?

OVERVIEW OF WHITEHOUSE.GOV EXPLANATION.

“In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. The state sent the campaign the President’s birth certificate, the same legal documentation provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state, and the campaign immediately posted it on the internet. That birth certificate can be seen here (PDF).”

Factual analysis: No birth certicate was ever presented by the Obama Campaign. Instead they presented a COLB, Certification of Live Birth. A COLB can be obtained in HI for someone born outside the state. It is sufficient proof for many situations, but not natural born citizen status.

“The President believed the distraction over his birth certificate wasn’t good for the country. It may have been good politics and good TV, but it was bad for the American people and distracting from the many challenges we face as a country.”

Factual analysis: If Obama is sincere, why did he not present a certified birth certificate in 2008 instead of using taxpayer dollars and resources to avoid this diversion. And where are his college records?

“Therefore, the President directed his counsel to review the legal authority for seeking access to the long form certificate and to request on that basis that the Hawaii State Department of Health make an exception to release a copy of his long form birth certificate. They granted that exception in part because of the tremendous volume of requests they had been getting. President Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate can be seen here (PDF):”

Factual analysis: This is an outright lie or Orwellian misinformation spin. Obama has always had the right by Hawaii law to obtain a certified copy of an original birth certificate if he has one. Someone acting on his behalf must get authorization.

“At a time of great consequence for this country – when we should be debating how we win the future, reduce our deficit, deal with high gas prices, and bring stability to the Middle East, Washington, DC, was once again distracted by a fake issue.  The President’s hope is that with this step, we can move on to debating the bigger issues that matter to the American people and the future of the country.”

Factual analysis: Once again, the Obama camp tries to make this appear as a waste of time, a “fake issue.” Obama created this issue and still has not proven Hawaiian birth.

DOCUMENT PRESENTED ON WHITEHOUSE.GOV SITE.

You and I have had to present a certified copy of our birth certificate that looks like this.

The document placed on WhiteHouse.gov, purported to be a certified copy, is a document created from information in a database. It is not a copy of an original birth certificate.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

CORRESPONDENCE FROM PERKINS COIE/OBAMA WITH THE STATE OF HAWAII.

Perkins Coie represented the Obama Campaign in 2008 and going forward and Robert F. Bauer represented Obama in keeping his birth certificate, college records and other records hidden beginning with the Philip J. Berg lawsuit in 2008. Bauer was appointed White House General Counsel by Obama.

Judith L. Corley of Perkins Coie assisted Obama in procuring the document placed on WhiteHouse.gov.  Once again we are presented with a confusing scenario smelling of Orwellian spin. Ms. Corley writes on behalf of Obama requesting two certified copies of his certificate of live birth and that she is authorized to do so. Once again, per Hawaii law, and irrespective of any departmental policy, Obama is entiltled to personally request a certified copy of an original birth certificate if he has one.

Loretta J. Fuddy, Director of Health, states that she is making an exception to departmental policy to accomodate Obama. Is that due to the third party, Ms. Corley acting as a go between? Ms. Fuddy then confirms that the copies will be computer generated.

We learned today that Judith L. Corley stated “I will be coming to your offices to pick up the copies of the certificates.”

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2011/04/perkins-coie-judith-corley-got-obamas-birth-certificate.html

LONG FORM CERTIFIED COPIES OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE.

Hawaii law on access to records.

“§338-18  Disclosure of records.  (a)  To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(b)  The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.  The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1)  The registrant;
(2)  The spouse of the registrant;
(3)  A parent of the registrant;
(4)  A descendant of the registrant;
(5)  A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6)  A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7)  A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8)  A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
(9)  A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10)  Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
(11)  A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12)  A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13)  A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
(c)  The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.
(d)  Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.
(e)  The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.
(f)  Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies.  Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.
(g)  The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:
(1)  A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
(2)  A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities;
(3)  A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
(4)  A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5)  An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]“

The 2001 memo that has been misquoted.

The memo addresses privacy concerns which would obviously not apply to Obama or anyone else obtaining their own birth certificate. The memo obviously does not supercede Hawaii Law.

Here is an example of a certified copy of an original 1961 birth certificate from Hawaii.

SUMMARY.

The document presented on the WhiteHouse.gov site yesterday is nothing more than a COLB (Certification of Live Birth) with additional data from a computer database. It is not an original birth certificate or certified copy of one. It most certainly does not prove birth in Hawaii. It is not the certified copy of  a birth certificate like millions of Americans like you and I were required to produce.

Barack Obama is a documented liar who has no regard for the US Constitution, Rule of Law or the American People. Bartle Bull, long time Democrat and civil rights activist, described Obama as a hustler.

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/obama-long-form-birth-certificate-truth-revealed-someone-is-lying-perkins-coie-what-this-document-really-is/

Reported since then and as recently as may 6, 2013 at Citizen Wells.

There is zero legitimate evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Here is the reason.

A person can be born elsewhere and obtain a “birth certificate” in Hawaii that is recognized as legal in that state. Look it up for yourself.

The image placed on Whitehouse.gov is not the kind most of us are used to seeing. Instead of an embossed stamp and certification that this is an official copy, this image has the following at the bottom:

The phrase “or abstract” disqualifies this as proof positive of being an image of an original.

Thanks to commenter GORDO.

Vermont Supreme Court appeal on Obama natural born citizen status, H. Brooke Paige standing, Attorney Todd Daloz flawed arguments, Standing non issue, Constitution and duties ignored

Vermont Supreme Court appeal on Obama natural born citizen status, H. Brooke Paige standing, Attorney Todd Daloz flawed arguments, Standing non issue, Constitution and duties ignored

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

“The Elections division protects the integrity of campaigning and elections in Vermont.”…Vermont Secretary of State website

H. Brooke Paige, whose case challenging Obama’s natural born citizen deficiency was rejected by Washington Superior Court Judge Robert Bent on November 2012, appealed his case before the following Vermont Supreme Court Justices on April 23, 2013.

Honorable Paul Reiber, Chief Justice
Honorable John Dooley, Associate Justice
Honorable Marilyn Skoglund, Associate Justice
Honorable Brian Burgess, Associate Justice
Honorable Beth Robinson, Associate Justice

Assistant Attorney General Todd Daloz represented Secretary of State James Condos.

The issue of standing dominated the hearing. Mr. Paige presented a clear definition of natural born citizen. His documentation was minimal. A further analysis of his argument will be provided later.

It is clear that the majority of citizens, including judges, attorneys and politicians do not understand what a Natural Born Citizen is as included in the
Constitution for presidential eligibility.

It is furthermore clear that status quo is passing the buck instead of fulfilling implied and explicit constitutional duties.

It is also clear that Secretary of State James Condos and other secretaries of state and election officials, when confronted by similar challenges about natural born citizen status should have requested clarification from their Attorney Generals and the courts.

Courts have shirked their responsibility, from the US Supreme Court to the state courts.

Marbury v Madison makes this clear.

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must
decide on the operation of each.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the
constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature;
the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the
case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all
cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention
of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the
constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising
under the constitution should be decided without examining the
instrument under which it arises?  This is too extravagant to
be maintained.”

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?

Assistant Attorney General Todd Daloz makes the argument that Secretary of State James Condos has no power or duty to vet a candidate.

Oh really?

The states are responsible for the primaries, general election and events leading up to the Electoral College vote.

US Constitution
Article II
Section 1

“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under
the United States, shall be appointed an elector.”

Manner of voting

§ 8. The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.

All state election officials swear an oath to uphold or defend the US Constitution.

Article VI of the US Constitution.

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislators, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the
United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;”

Some states explicitly provide for challenges by the secretary of state.

GEORGIA CODE
“*** Current Through the 2012 Regular Session ***

TITLE 21. ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 2. ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES GENERALLY
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5 (2012)

§ 21-2-5. Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications
(a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy
shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

(b) The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate.
Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by
filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public
office for which he or she is offering. Upon his or her own motion or upon a challenge being filed, the Secretary of State shall notify the candidate in
writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and shall advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on
the matter before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Title 50 and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing when such information becomes available. The administrative law judge shall report his or her findings to the Secretary of State.

(c) The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified to seek and hold the public office for which such candidate is offering. If the
Secretary of State determines that the candidate is not qualified, the Secretary of State shall withhold the name of the candidate from the ballot or strike
such candidate’s name from the ballot if the ballots have been printed. If there is insufficient time to strike the candidate’s name or reprint the ballots,
a prominent notice shall be placed at each affected polling place advising voters of the disqualification of the candidate and all votes cast for such
candidate shall be void and shall not be counted.”

Explicit or implied,

Secretary of State James Condos took an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

One of the justices asked if all of the state election officials should be required to vet all of the candidates. That was not the question at hand.

In this case, the Vermont Secretary of State was notified of the problem and refused to act.

Once again, an American courtroom, despite the caution from Marybury v Madison, shirked their duty and tried their best to make this about standing.

Standing is a non issue in this case and they damn well know it!

In fact, at least one justice questioned this.

There are at least 3 reasons why H. Brooke Paige has standing.

1. Vermont election statutes clearly give him standing as a voter. Mr. Paige complied with the protocol.

2. Ruling from a lower court, the Superior Court.

3. The Tenth Amendment. If their argument is that the state does not have the power to challenge, then any citizen does.

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the
people.

Attorney Daloz tries to obfuscate and minimize the VT elections statutes in regard to Mr. Paige having standing.

Quite the contrary. They are crystal clear.

§ 2603. Contest of elections

“(a) The result of an election for any office, other than for the general assembly, or public question may be contested by any legal voter entitled to vote on the office or public question to be contested.

(b) A contest is initiated by filing a complaint with a superior court alleging:

(1) that errors were committed in the conduct of the election or in count or return of votes, sufficient to change the ultimate result;

(2) that there was fraud in the electoral process, sufficient to change the ultimate result; or

(3) that for any other reason, the result of the election is not valid.

(c) The complaint shall be filed within 15 days after the election in question, or if there is a recount, within 10 days after the court issues its judgment on the recount. In the case of candidates for state or congressional office, for a presidential election, or for a statewide public question, the complaint shall be filed with the superior court, Washington County. In the case of any other candidate or public question, the complaint shall be filed with the superior court in any county in which votes were cast for the office or question being challenged.

(d) The Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to contests of elections, except that such cases shall be placed upon a special calendar, and hearings shall be scheduled on a priority basis, as public policy demands that such questions be resolved promptly.

(e) After hearing, the court shall issue findings of fact and a judgment, which shall supersede any certificate of election previously issued. If the court finds just cause, the court shall grant appropriate relief, which may include, without limitation, ordering a recount, or ordering a new election. If during the hearing the court receives credible evidence of criminal conduct, the court shall order a transcript of all or part of the testimony to be forwarded to the proper state’s attorney. If a new election is ordered, the court shall set a date for it, after consulting with the secretary of state; in ordering a new election, the court shall have authority to issue appropriate orders, either to provide for special cases not covered by law, or to supersede provisions of law which may conflict with the needs of the particular situation.

(f) The court shall send a certified copy of its findings of fact and judgment to the secretary of state.”

Here are segments from the court proceedings that relate to Mr. Paige’s argument and compliance and attorney Daloz attempting to prove that Mr. Paige has no standing. Attorney Daloz even further tries to dilute the standing issue by implying that congress should be the arbiter. The states control the election process until the certification of the electoral votes by congress. Only then can congress question eligibility. They have failed to do so.

The entire proceedings can be heard here.

Mr. Paige’s inaccurate statements about Obama’s birth certificate will for the moment be assumed to be based on ignorance and not agenda. This will be explored later.

No proof Obama born in Hawaii, Whitehouse.gov image proves nothing, Sheriff Arpaio investigation found fraud, Judge Parker Alabama Supreme Court no evidence Obama natural born citizen

No proof Obama born in Hawaii, Whitehouse.gov image proves nothing, Sheriff Arpaio investigation found fraud, Judge Parker Alabama Supreme Court no evidence Obama natural born citizen

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

“When asked where I believe Obama was born I answer, I don’t know. There is zero proof he was born in Hawaii. The only evidence of his birth location that we have is much circumstantial evidence and that points to Kenya.”…Citizen Wells

 

There is zero legitimate evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Here is the reason.

A person can be born elsewhere and obtain a “birth certificate” in Hawaii that is recognized as legal in that state. Look it up for yourself.

The image placed on Whitehouse.gov is not the kind most of us are used to seeing. Instead of an embossed stamp and certification that this is an official copy, this image has the following at the bottom:

The phrase “or abstract” disqualifies this as proof positive of being an image of an original.

The Sheriff Joe Arpaio investigation indicates it is worse than that.

From WND May 5, 2013.

“Sheriff Joe injects new life into Obama eligibility”

“A week ago, Democrats quoted late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel in their demand that a challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president be dismissed.

Now, those raising questions about Obama say they are bringing in professional law-enforcement investigators to shed light on the dispute.

It comes in a case brought by attorney Larry Klayman in which 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish are seeking to force Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.

The case, dismissed at a lower level, is now being appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, where strict constitutionalist Roy Moore was elected chief justice last November. The case becomes all the more intriguing because Moore is on record previously questioning Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president.

Last week, the Democratic Party insisted, “In order for one to accept the claim that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery [and that he is ineligible], one has to buy into a conspiracy theory so vast and byzantine that it sincerely taxes the imagination of reasonable minds.”

The document scoffs at “birthers” as a “tiny cabal of zealots” and quotes late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel – not widely recognized as a constitutional expert – to make its case: “These people could have personally witnessed Obama being born out of an apple pie, in the middle of a Kansas wheat field, while Toby Keith sang the National Anthem – and they’d still think he was a Kenyan Muslim.”

Now several blogs whose authors have been documenting the back and forth of the long-running dispute over Obama’s birth place, time – and subsequent eligibility to be president – confirm that Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., and his special Cold Case team lead investigator Mike Zullo will be providing evidence in the arguments.

Arpaio is one of few law enforcement authorities to look into the issue, and he launched his formal Cold Case Posse investigation into Obama’s qualifications at the request of his constituents. Already, Arpaio and Zullo have confirmed that evidence shows the birth documentation released by Obama as proof of his birth in Hawaii is fraudulent.

Their investigation has continued under the radar, and now Cmdr. Charles Kerchner, who brought one of the first legal challenges against Obama during his first term, confirmed that Arizona’s officials will be assisting with evidence in the pending question before the Alabama Supreme Court.

On the site, Zullo is quoted saying, “We recently discovered new irrefutable evidence, which confirms, hands down, the document is a fraud.””

Read more:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/sheriff-joe-injects-new-life-into-obama-eligibility/#cK5D6lWwd2q6E11t.99

Obama update May 3, 2013, Jobs, Birth Certificate, Records, Chicago corruption court cases, Muslim Saudi ties, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, Gunrunner vs gun control

Obama update May 3, 2013, Jobs, Birth Certificate, Records, Chicago corruption court cases, Muslim Saudi ties, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, Gunrunner vs gun control

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Khalid Al-Mansour was “raising money” for Obama.”
“Khalid Al-Mansour was trying to help Obama get into Harvard Law School.”…Percy Sutton

“With a 63.7% labor force participation, “conditions in the labor market are considerably worse than indicated” in July’s report”…economist Joshua Shapiro, WSJ August 3, 2012

Jobs

The (stated) unemployment rate for April is 7.5 percent.
The labor force participation rate is 63.3 percent. That is  2.8 percent lower than when Obama took office.

ADP just reported that 119,000 private sector were added in March. 150,000 were forecast.
The number of people with part time jobs is growing. A direct result of the economy and Obamacare.
Perhaps the best indicator is the fact that 20 %, 1 out of 5 Americans are on food stamps.

Birth Certificate.

A challenge to Obama being on the ballot in Alabama is scheduled to be before the Alabama Supreme Court headed by Judge Roy Moore. It is believed that the Sheriff Joe Arpaio investigation and investigator Mike Zullo will cooperate in the court case.

Records

Obama has still not released his college records.
We know that Saudi ties helped him enter Harvard. His college records should be interesting. Remember, he bowed to the saudi king.

Chicago corruption court cases

Blagojevich appeal.

It is believed that Blagojevich attorney Lauren Kaeseberg requested an extension to file an opening brief. She has not returned my email request.

FDIC vs Amrish Mahajan, et al.

This is the bank that loaned Rita Rezko the money for the lot purchase that was subsequently sold in part to the Obamas. The lawsuit is still open.

Benghazi

Whistleblowers have come forward. Obama has denied attempts to silence them.
A senior US law enforcement official stated that 3 or 4 members of al Qaeda took part in the attack.
The internal panel that probed the Benghazi attack is under investigation.

Gunrunner vs gun control

Obama may be fairing better with Project Gunrunner than he is at federal attempts at gun control.
However, several states are moving forward with legislation.

Blagojevich appeal attorney Len Goodman on Obama drone program, Drone Justice is Blind, There’s no way President Obama can fairly review each drone strike

Blagojevich appeal attorney Len Goodman on Obama drone program, Drone Justice is Blind, There’s no way President Obama can fairly review each drone strike

“Why wasn’t Rod Blagojevich, Governor of IL, prosecuted before Tony Rezko, a businessman?”…Citizen Wells

“Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

I am still awaiting word if the opening brief in the Blagojevich appeal was presented today, April 25, 2013.

Len ( Leonard) Goodman is one of the defense attorneys in the Blagojevich appeal.

From the Len Goodman attorney website.

“Biography

Leonard Goodman is a Chicago criminal defense attorney with a reputation for taking on, and winning, the most difficult cases.  Since graduating from Northwestern University School of Law in 1989, Mr. Goodman has devoted his career to the representation of persons charged with serious crimes and has been a strong advocate for the cause of justice.  He has tried criminal cases in state and federal courts throughout the Midwest.  His appellate practice is nationwide.

Mr. Goodman has the rare distinction of having won major criminal cases at every level of the state and federal court systems, including wins (obtaining the reversal of his clients’ criminal convictions) in the United States Supreme Court (drug conspiracy conviction), the Illinois Supreme Court (first degree murder), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (first degree murder) and the Illinois Appellate Court (two first degree murders and one attempted murder). The appeals that he has briefed and argued have helped change the law and advance the cause of justice (See significant cases).

He has represented high-profile defendants and the indigent, all with equal vigor and has won awards for his work on behalf of the wrongfully convicted and on behalf of an Afghani man detained at Guantanamo Bay without charges or evidence of any wrongdoing.

Mr. Goodman is also an adjunct professor of Law at Depaul University where he teaches Federal Habeas Corpus.”

http://lengoodmanlawoffice.com/wp/biography/

From In These Times April 10, 2013.

“Drone Justice is Blind

There’s no way President Obama can fairly review each drone strike.

BY LEONARD C. GOODMAN

For the first time in history, the United States government has proclaimed its legal right to assassinate any person, anywhere on the globe, as long as our chief executive believes that person to be a terrorist. President Barack Obama has said that most of the people we are incinerating are “al-Qaeda suspects who are up in very tough terrain along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Precise numbers are hard to come by, due to the secrecy under which the drone program operates. But the various groups that track drone strikes agree that since Obama took office, more than 350 strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have killed at least 2,400 people. This means, outside of Afghanistan, U.S. drones are killing on average at least 47 people a month. If you include drone strikes in Afghanistan,the numbers are much larger.

The administration’s claim as to the legality of these strikes relies on the fiction that a rigorous review of evidence takes place before a “terrorist” is targeted. However, no matter how smart and reasonable Obama might be, he is not personally reviewing the evidence against most of the people we are killing. In fact, according to CNN, at least half of drone strike deaths have been the result of “signature strikes,” in which drone operators decide, based on visual evidence of suspicious behavior, to fire on people whose identities they don’t even know. As one government official told the New York Times, to the CIA, “three guys doing jumping jacks” looks suspiciously like a terrorist training camp.

We are told that drone killings neutralize imminent threats to America, but we need only consider the numbers to know we are being lied to. There cannot be 50 people every month who were on the verge of launching an attack on the U.S. until they were “neutralized” by a drone. We therefore must ask: To whom did each targeted person pose a threat? Were they a threat to U.S. military bases or CIA installations located within their country? Were they a threat to corporate interests located within their country? Were they a threat to the regime that governs their country and allows us to fly the drones?”

Read more:

http://inthesetimes.com/article/14835/drone_justice_is_blind/