Judges still haven’t decided challenge to Obama’s tenure
(Tea Party) – A legal challenge to Barack Hussein Obama’s presidential eligibility still lurks in the Alabama Supreme Court. Filed on appeal almost a year ago, at least two judges have expressed an interest in Obama’s eligibility to serve as president.
Attorney Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch, brought about the case remains on the court docket. Klayman recently made headlines for his successful fight against Obama’s NSA spy program.
The case was brought on behalf of Virgil Goode, 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish. They are asking Alabama’s highest court to force the Secretary of State, Beth Chapman, to verify that all of the candidates were eligible to take office.
Although the case has been fully briefed, the two justices have not yet announced whether they will hear arguments regarding the dispute although both have expressed an interest in the truth.
Like dozens of local, state and federal court cases that were heard over Obama’s first term, this case raises some of the same arguments: Obama may be ineligible to be president under the Constitution since the Founders wrote that the president must be born of citizen parents in this country.
Under the parents’ citizenship qualifier Obama would fail since Obama himself reports his father, a Kenyan student, came to the US to study but never became a US citizen. His father, in fact, was already married in Kenya before meeting and marrying Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother.
Klayman argued that the secretary of state, “having the power to certify candidates, can surely de-certify – in effect disqualify – them if they are found to be ineligible.”
In one example, Klayman pointed out that California Secretary of State Debra Bowen rejected Petra Lindsay on the 2012 California primary ballot because she was 27 years old. The U.S. Constitution is clear that the president be at least 35 years of age.
Earlier, the justices in that court denied a petition by McInnish to require Obama submit an original birth certificate before he could appear on the ballot. Justice Tom Parker, however, filed a special, unpublished concurrence in the case arguing that McInnish’s charges of “forgery” were legitimate.
“Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public,” wrote Parker.
Discovery of forged documentation
It was Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio who produced that “certain documentation” during his Cold Case Posse investigation. Arpaio’s investigation concluded, based on hard evidence, that the White House produced fraudulent evidence as “proof positive” of Obama’s eligibility. The birth certificate documentation the White House produced was created on a computer and does not represent an official document.
The possibility of fraud committed on American voters has been raised due to the document and the forgery on the part of those who created it.
Chief Justice Roy Moore is also on record wondering about the truth. In 2010 Justice Moore defended Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin’s demand that Obama prove his eligibility as commander in chief under the condition of obeying deployment orders.
As it turned out, Lakin became another military casualty of Obama’s America when, upon getting new orders, stated he wanted evidence that Obama was legitimately commander-in-chief. If he followed orders that were fake it would be illegal.
Chief Justice Moore stated that Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, but he has a duty.”
“And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.
The interview took place in 2010 with news media WND, and at that time, Moore stated he had not seen any evidence that convinced him that Obama was a “natural born citizen”—as the Constitution requires of presidents—and a great deal of evidence he is not.
“This is the strangest thing indeed,” he said. “The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law.”
The pending case said the Alabama secretary of state failed to verify the eligibility of candidates, which is her constitutional duty.
According to Klayman, the secretary of state “has an affirmative duty that stems from her oath of office under both the U.S. and Alabama constitutions, to protect the citizens from fraud and other misconduct by candidates.”
As a result of her refusal to investigate the candidates qualifications for president, “a person believed to be unqualified for that office has been elected,” states Klayman. He says the remedy, “is to require each candidate to do what every teenager is required to do to get a learner’s permit.”
“It is to produce a bona fide birth certificate … and the Secretary of State is the official to cause that to happen.”
Referring to Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse, Klayman asserts that state officials “gained knowledge from an official source that there was probable cause to believe the Barack Obama had not met a certifying qualification.”
In an earlier filing, Klayman said, “It would be paradoxical beyond measure if the real and grave question of the legitimacy of the de facto president, a question which lies at the very heart of our American constitutional government, were left unresolved for want of the simplest of documents, a birth certificate.”
If a bona fide birth certificate is produced or an admission made that it doesn’t exist, Klayman says “the is most important of legal questions will have been answered, the purity of Alabama’s ballot maintained, and the anxiety of Alabama citizens stilled.”
What if the issue is not resolved? Klayman asserts citizens will be left with the impression “that their government was dysfunctional and has ignored their real concerns.”
Chief Justice Moore has a reputation as being unafraid to call it as he sees it, according to the Constitution, with virtually no regard for consequences. Ten years ago Moore was removed from the very office he holds today for defying a federal court order. That court order required him to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the State Supreme Court building.
Moore has been described by Klayman as “one courageous brave man. There are few in this country.”
Lead investigator of the Cold Case Posse, Mike Zullo, said weeks ago that they are getting close to results. Sheriff’s investigators are now officially helping the Cold Case Posse volunteer group. Zullo cannot currently reveal details because this is an active investigation and it could produce criminal charges.
“When this information is finally exposed to the public, it will be universe-shattering,” Mike Zullo told news media outlet WND. “This is beyond the pale of anything you can imagine.”
Zullo did reveal that the allegations go far beyond a fraudulent birth certificate and that the case “does not hinge on Ms. [Loretta] Fuddy.”
Fuddy recently died in a plane crash. She was the state official in Hawaii who dealt with the questions about Obama’s birth certificate.
“While her death certainly is a tragedy, it in no way hampers our investigation in this matter,” he said. “If people truly believe that her untimely demise was somehow related to an attempt to silence her for ‘what she may or may not know,’ then there are several more people in Hawaii who should be very, very concerned.”
Zullo testified that the computer-image of Obama’s birth certificate the White House produced contains unexplainable anomalies. They cannot be explained unless the document had been fabricated in piecemeal fashion by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document.
“Mr. Obama has, in fact, not offered any verifiable authoritative document of any legal significance or possessing any evidentiary value as to the origins of his purported birth narrative or location of the birth event,” he explained. “One of our most serious concerns is that the White House document appears to have been fabricated piecemeal on a computer, constructed by drawing together digitized data from several unknown sources.”
Not even the governor of Hawaii could produce an original birth document for Obama, which should have been easy to find, says Zullo.
Reed Hayes is another expert challenging the birth certificate, reported Grace Vuoto of the World Tribune. Reed, a certified document analyst, has served as an expert for Perkins Coie, the law firm defending Obama eligibility cases.
“We have obtained an affidavit from a certified document analyzer, Reed Hayes, that states the document is a 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it,” Zullo told the World Tribune.
“Mr. Obama’s operatives cannot discredit [Hayes],” the investigator told the news outlet. “Mr. Hayes has been used as the firm’s reliable expert. The very firm the president is using to defend him on the birth certificate case has used Mr. Hayes in their cases.”
Hayes agreed to take a look at the documentation and called almost immediately saying, “There is something wrong with this,” he said.
In a 40-page report Hayes produced, he said, “based on my observations and findings, it is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured document created by utilizing material from various sources.”
Furthermore, Hayes says in the report, “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.”
In October, an affidavit, under seal, was filed in a court case that reportedly identifies the creator of the Obama birth certificate. This was reported by investigator Douglas J. Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network.
Hagmann reported that an owner and operator of a scanning business—Douglas Vogt—who also has an accounting background, spent two years investigating the document’s authenticity. Along with veteran typesetter, Paul Ivey, Vogt conducted “exhaustive research of the document provided to the White House Press Corps on April 27, 2011–not the online PDF, a critical distinction that must be understood,” Hagmann said.
Hagmann also wrote that “Using their combined experience of 80 years in this realm, they conducted extensive examinations of the ‘copy’ that was used as the basis for the PDF document. They acquired the same type of equipment that was used back in the late 1950s and early 1960s in an attempt to recreate the document presented as an ‘authenticated copy’ proving the legitimacy of Barack Obama. Instead, they found 20 points of forgery on that document and detail each point of forgery in the affidavit.”
“Even more interesting, Mr. Vogt claims to have identified the ‘signature’ of the perpetrator, or the woman who created the forged document, hidden within the document itself. Her identity, in addition to the identity of other conspirators and their precise methods are contained in a sealed document supplementing the public affidavit.”
Hawaiigate is grounds for impeachment
“Hawaiigate” should be “the central ground of impeachment,” wrote WND columnist Christopher Monckton.
“First, the dishonesty is shameless and in your face. Mr. Obama’s advisers, once they realized the ‘birth certificate’ was as bogus as a $3 bill, knew that if they simply went on pretending that $3 bills are legal tender the hard-left-dominated news media would carefully and continuously look the other way, pausing occasionally to sneer at anyone who pointed out that, in this constitutionally crucial respect, the ‘president’ has no clothes,” wrote Monckton.
“Secondly, not one of the numerous agencies of state, as well as federal government, whose duty was and is to investigate the Mickey-Mouse ‘birth certificate’ has bothered even to respond to the thousands of requests for investigation put forward by U.S. citizens.”
Last year in Hawaii Monckton watched “as a senior former state senator called the police and, when they came, handed over to them compelling evidence that the ‘birth certificate’ had been forged.”
“The police, correctly, passed the file to the state’s attorney general, a ‘Democrat,’ who did nothing about it,” reported Monckton.
“In Washington, D.C., I watched as a concerned citizen from Texas telephoned the FBI and reported the ‘birth certificate’ as being a forgery. They said they would send two agents to see him within the hour. No one came,” he said.
Eligibility in question even by ardent supporters
Billionaire Donald Trump has been one of the most avid skeptics when it comes to Obama’s birth certificate and his eligibility.
Trump says he cannot be certain of Obama’s eligibility to be president but also noted that a reporter who was making fun of Trump admitted that he could not be certain either.
Trump has been very vocal about insisting that Obama has not documented his eligibility. In fact, Trump had offered $5 million to a charity or several charities of Obama’s choosing if Obama would release his passport and college applications and records, believing that those documents would show whether Obama ever accepted aid or scholarships are a foreign student. If so, it could preclude him from being a “natural born citizen.”
ABC’s Jonathan Karl took on Trump stating the billionaire businessman took on the “not serious” issue of eligibility.
“Why does that make me not serious?” Trump demanded. “I think that resonated with a lot of people.”
Karl replied: “You don’t still question he was[n’t] born in the United States, do you?”
“I have no idea,” Trump said. “I don’t know. Was there a birth certificate? You tell me. You know some people say that was not his birth certificate. I’m saying I don’t know. Nobody knows, and you don’t know either. Jonathan you’re a smart guy, and you don’t know.”
Karl admitted to being “pretty sure,” at which point Trump jumped on the statement saying, “You just said you’re pretty sure … you have to be 100 percent sure.”
“Jonathan, you said you’re pretty convinced, so let’s just see what happens over time.”
Obama and his camp have refused to release key records that include name change records (Barry Soetero to Barack Hussein Obama), his parent’s marriage license (father Barack, Sr. to Stanley Ann Dunham), adoption records, repatriation records to U.S. citizens from Indonesia for Obama and his mother, elementary school records (Noelani Elementary School, Hawaii), baptism records, financial aid records from various schools and colleges, Harvard Law School records, records from Columbia College including his senior thesis, Illinois State Bar Association records, files pertaining to his term as an Illinois state senator, his client law list, passport records and medical records.
Democrats scoffed at the Alabama case and in a brief asking for dismissal quoted late-night comedian, Jimmy Kimmel. “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 party insisted.
Furthermore, the brief mocks “birthers” as a “tiny cabal of zealots” and quotes Jimmy Kimmel, saying: “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.”
Allegations from the Cold Case Posse which go far beyond the fraudulent birth certificate issue could be public as early as March. Stay tuned. This issue is far from over.