Skip to comments.Team Arpaio: New Evidence Will Convince Greatest Skeptic Document Is 100% Forgery
Posted on 01/27/2013 7:25:19 AM PST by Seizethecarp
click here to read article
Amen. They need to stop with the teasers. Drop the bomb and let the pieces fall where they may.
this when the guy usually gets killed......ask Andrew, Marilyn and a dozen others who said they had something coming.......if you got it put it out or you will never live to tell...
Death to all misplaced apostrophes!!
Forged documents are just part of the totalitarian MO. Who will act on it?
Supreme Court cases that cite natural born Citizen as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term natural born citizen to any other category than those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.
How is it possible to prove a paper document is forged by examining an electronic copy of it?
The information on the document may be proven to be not so, regardless if the document is the original or a fac simile.
If hussein showed up with the forgery pasted to his forehead at noon on CNN and admitted to everything, the sheeple would quote Hillary that is doesn’t matter. He’s been in office too long for congresissies to make him step down much less haul his sorry self off the Lakin’s old cell in Leavenworth.
I’m a born skeptic.
There are folks out there, like Butterdezillion, who spend countless hours and her own money to get the word out that Obama is hiding something. Dr. Taitz spends hours flying around the country with her court cases, trying to bring down Obama and his enablers. While she has a paypal button, she also had related expenses with her court cases.
Zullo? What’s his motivation? At this point, I think it’s just money. What will bring the most money in? By prolonging the investigation, he gets to have meeting after meeting where folks are hit up for money to support the investigation. I’m skeptical enough to highly doubt that they are finding ANY new evidence. I think he’s all talk. He’s not presenting anything because he doesn’t HAVE anything. Other than talk. If they truly had SOMETHING, why didn’t they present it before the election? Mark my words, they will NEVER present anything, they will just keep promising, stringing folks along, taking their money. They are beyond reprehensible.
True, but that’s not what they’ve claimed. They’ve claimed the document itself is a forgery. They’ve said nothing about the birth facts on the document being incorrect.
If Grandma lied about the birth facts and obtained a valid COLB, the original paper document isn’t a forgery.
If Hawaii knowingly fabricated an original paper document for him, the original is a forgery not the electronic copy.
If he changed the information in the electronic copy from what is on the original, then the electronic copy is a forgery.
If the electronic copy matches the original paper document, how is it possible to determine that the original is a forgery by examining the electronic copy?
It doesn’t compute for me, but then I never bought into the Kenyan-born theory. I think he propagated the Kenyan-born persona for personal gain ... until it became a liability.
He’s a liar. Always has been, always will be. He also lied about being a Christian for personal gain when it’s clear from his statements that he doesn’t have a personal relationship with Christ.
Ok....So where is the evidence? Why the delay? ( tired sigh!)
Pretty much sums it up.
Same can be said of his entire political party, and their supporters and enablers. Except of those who are simpy ignorant, and too lazy or comfortable to look into it.
if election fraud and felony forgery can be shown, he will be impeached
otherwise, what’s the point of ‘laws’ if they are not applied equally to all?
If memory serves correctly, Arpaio first was advertised and promoted by the shill Hannity. Pink underwear. Arpaio is a cop, a sheriff that runs a huge jail. He's a jail administrator first and foremost and for that, he deserves little adoration, imo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.