Posted on 02/25/2013 9:25:42 PM PST by Seizethecarp
Today, I had a conversation with an investigator from the Cold Case Posse in AZ. We talked and I expanded on several dossiers filled with evidence for over an hour. They asked for all of my relevant information on Obama, the Harry Bounel alias evidence, and the dossiers I completed on Stanley Ann Dunham, her parents, and Michelle Obama as well. They have it all. BTW they also say that it looks like my information cannot be disproved and will be useful.
I have proof, definitive proof that Stanley Ann Dunham was in WA state in "1961" as per the issuance of a SSN numident in her name with the SSN 535-40-8522. There is no way that she was in HI and I have proof because in the fall she was in college in WA, not HI.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
“The birth announcements are fake.”
Until entered into evidence in a trial on the merits which would include full legal discovery, I will remain skeptical.
Folks claiming that the announcements are fake haven’t explained to my satisfaction how the same microfilm evidence of the announcements has appeared in at least three separate reels in three separate newspaper microfilm repositories (HI, DC, San Fran) IIRC.
The newspaper announcements are 100% consistent with the INS FOIA documents (BHO Sr. impregnated co-ed living with parents at that exact address intending to attend college in WA)...which still leave open the possibility of a Kenya birth registered by the parents.
He certainly did “release a BC”. He did not present one for its validity. He locked all the doors behind him and threw away the keys. He or his Rep should hand deliver or
mail the BC along with any other required docs. This should be attached to his petition to run for office. If he had any talent he could be playing Little League with an extreme advantage.
I noticed that what was posted by Fred Nerks in Post 274 is a 1973 ‘State Of Hawaii’ Tax Return showing Maya claimed as a dependent. Does anyone have in possession a 1973 Federal Tax return for Lolo and Stanley Ann Soetoro that could possibly show who they listed in the dependent section?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2908395/posts?q=1&;page=251
“Since no state excluded him from the ballot, Congress sends him bills to sign into law, the Senate confirms his appointments and the Supreme Court has upheld his policy initiatives as constitutional, under the de facto officer doctrine, he is the president.
“Impeachment/conviction or resignation are the ways to remove him from office.”
IMO if Barry is found to have intentionally gained office by fraudulently hiding his actual birth in Kenya he could be removed without impeachment if convicted of criminal fraud for acts prior to becoming president, but at the same time have all of his acts as president remain valid under the de facto officer doctrine.
It would “offend the conscience” of any honest judge or legislator sworn to uphold the constitution for a person to gain the office of president by criminal fraud. Such a person would never have actually been president due to ineligibility according to one legal theory (as yet untested).
Isn’t impeachment reserved for acts committed while president? Criminal fraud committed to allow and ineligible person to become president would seem to be a totally different legal situation.
As a practical matter if Barry was proved to have hidden a Kenyan birth I expect that many in his own party would demand that he resign and threaten to impeach and convict him if he didn’t resign...perhaps for the in-office crime of knowingly remaining in office while ineligible.
i dont know— fred nerks is a good researcher, he would be the one to ask that.. If a marriage licence could be found of barack obama sr and anna obama, i bet it will show two differ dunhams - one named anna and the the other ann- I do know someone found another ss# of anna dunham obama bout 2 years ago,that was differ than stanley anns proving they were two differ peeps, but cant find it now—
I regard “civil war” talk as childish, and harbor no hope that Obama will be removed from office over eligibility, identity fraud or anything else.
But every piece of evidence developed about Obama’s lies about his identity, his fake birth certificates, fake SSN’s, etc., brings us closer to the day when just maybe something pops out and the wheels of Obama’s credibility come off for all to see. That would reduce his ability to force tax increases, massive deficit spending, gun bans, amnesty schemes, etc. on a weakminded Congress and leaderless GOP. Will we get there? Who knows. How exactly does the “giving up” strategy work?
Mr. Nerks, does anyone that you know of have in possession a 1973 Federal Tax return for Lolo and Stanley Ann Soetoro that could possibly show who they listed in the dependent section? What was listed that I have seen here is a 1973 State Of Hawaii Tax Return for Lolo and Ann. Thanks.
CCPS
What I meant was if it can be proved in a court of law that Obama is ineligible due to birth issues, only then impeachment can become politically possible.
There is no way majority democrats in senate will go along with a house impeachment to remove him unless there is political pressure due to a court case.
The most likely scenario that I see would use the Nixon/Ford precedent. Even an indictment for a crime would lead to a resignation and a pardon by the new president before a trial or conviction could occur. A federal grand jury named Nixon as an “unindicted co-conspirator.” That was enough to cook his goose and force his resignation with a blanket pardon.
I don’t see Joe Biden ever allowing Barack Obama to go on trial if Biden is the new president.
Impeachment, on the other hand, is a political process. A president can be impeached for whatever a majority in the House consider to be “high crimes and misdemeanors,” whenever they occurred, and if 67 Senators vote guilty, that president is removed from office.
Thanks for the info on my last question.
Can you answer the others?
“If he came into the u.s. at Hawaii, why and how did a social services agency from Connecticut get involved?
Is there a link anywhere (or a scan of it) to the family court doc stripping the soetoros of parental rights to 0?
Is there a link (or a scan of it) to the soetoro divorce papers where it discusses 0?”
PING
Lolo Soetoro, Indonesian National, used SSN 575-52-3935, 1973 Federal tax return indicates no dependents/exemptions.
http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/94hl2qbfk011akkj/images/168-94eae5fa1b.jpg
1973 HI Income Tax Return, 1 dependent child identified as “Maya.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2908395/posts?q=1&;page=251
see post 274— only 1 dependent Maya under Exemptions Section.
Both returns prepared by professional tax preparer.
The problem with Catholic Social Services is:
Why would an organization from Connecticut get involved with someone coming into the states at a Hawaii (air)port of entry?
Thank you.
We could use a little chaos...
The reels have been changed out, as evidenced by scratches that disappeared over time (for instance). They also are clearly not reels made by the microfilming companies in 1961, because the microfilming is so badly done There are these anomalies and/or other anomalies in the microfilms in Sacramento, Berkeley, the HI State Library, the University of HI-Manoa library, the Advertiser office microfilm, and the Library of Congress.
The stories we were told about how the announcement images first appeared have been disproven; both the Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin images came from somebody at the Advertiser office who farmed out the Star-Bulletin images to various people with instructions to claim that they had made the copies themselves, from the HSL microfilm. The scratches that would have to have disappeared prove that they didn’t come from there and the SCANS being identical prove that they were not independently-acquired. The full-page Advertiser image was created by somebody in Sweden named Jeena Paradies using Optical Character Recognition. Based on the way OCR did (or didn’t) accurately recognize the letters in each line, it seems evident that the first line of Norman Asing’s announcement was typed in but the second line was scanned in, so that is the point at which the forgery was inserted. It was “leaked” by Jeena Paradies to Wikileaks and then a day or so later somebody at the Advertiser office farmed it out to Michael Rivero at whatreallyhappened.com. Right now the Wikileaks branches that still have it available are 2 in Sweden, and one each in UK, Latvia, Finland, and Tonga.
There is MUCH, MUCH more that could be said about the announcements, but suffice it to say that everything about them is fishy.
“If he came into the u.s. at Hawaii, why and how did a social services agency from Connecticut get involved?”
It is ICE policy to detain Unaccompanied Minor children with foreign nationality. They do not clear customs. Prior to the Obama administration, only foreign nationals were taken into custody. During the Obama administration, the policy for Unaccompanied Minor children was changed to include U.S. Citizens.
Several OBOTS will move all over this with examples of their minor children clearing customs without an accompanied adult and they never lie. Remember, prior to the Obama administration, only foreign nationals were taken into custody.
I do not post evidence in my possession because OBOTS will begin scrubbing the files from government facilities and establishing a narrative to question the veracity of the evidence posted before a Judge has a chance to look at it.
Remember, in a civil suit, the Court must read the complaint from the prospective the allegations in the complaint are true. It is incumbent upon the defendent to prove the allegations are unfounded. The Court considers the allegations true until the Court finds the plaintiff has successfully defended himself/herself from the allegations.
Collection of evidence through subpoena and deposition begins right after the complaint survives a motion to dismiss.
“If he came into the u.s. at Hawaii, why and how did a social services agency from Connecticut get involved?”
It is ICE policy to detain Unaccompanied Minor children with foreign nationality. They do not clear customs. Prior to the Obama administration, only foreign nationals were taken into custody. During the Obama administration, the policy for Unaccompanied Minor children was changed to include U.S. Citizens.
Several OBOTS will move all over this with examples of their minor children clearing customs without an accompanied adult and they never lie. Remember, prior to the Obama administration, only foreign nationals were taken into custody.
I do not post evidence in my possession because OBOTS will begin scrubbing the files from government facilities and establishing a narrative to question the veracity of the evidence posted before a Judge has a chance to look at it.
Remember, in a civil suit, the Court must read the complaint from the prospective the allegations in the complaint are true. It is incumbent upon the defendent to prove the allegations are unfounded. The Court considers the allegations true until the Court finds the plaintiff has successfully defended himself/herself from the allegations.
Collection of evidence through subpoena and deposition begins right after the complaint survives a motion to dismiss.
Lutheran Social Services and Catholic Social Services were the only contractors with DHHS, Office of Refugee and Resettlement, for taking custody of minors with foreign nationality unaccompanied by an adult in 1971. State run child welfare agencies did not have the authority to take custody of minors with foreign nationality who have been abandoned at a border crossing in 1971.
http://www.lssne.org/About-LSS.aspx
Incredible. The next logical step is to get the 1973 State of Hawaii and Federal Tax returns of Madelyn and Stanley Dunham. Has this been done that you are aware of?
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.