Revealed: Maricopa County Attorney's Office Reply To Obama ID Fraud Criminal Complaint

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/05/maricopa-county-attorneys-office-reply.html ^ | 5-28-13

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

From: Bill Montgomery To: Brian Reilly Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 8:30 AM Subject: Website Submission

Dear Mr. Reilly,

Thank you for taking the time to write and for the concerns you have expressed. There are a couple of points of analysis, though, in determining whether a criminal charge can be filed, regardless of the charge or who the suspect might be. The first is whether I have jurisdiction over the case. That requires that some conduct had to have occurred in Maricopa County for me to have jurisdiction. From the Sheriff’s Office investigation into suspect documents produced by the White House to date, that investigation has not revealed any evidence that conduct occurred in Maricopa County. I have discussed this with the Sheriff. As for any issues regarding qualifications or information provided regarding the Presidential Election itself, that is a statewide election. Under Arizona law, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General have jurisdiction over statewide elections. I do not.

I will share with you, as well, that the criminal statute you cited in your message requires additional evidence that the MCSO investigation to date has not uncovered. Specifically, we would need evidence to affirmatively prove that Mr. Obama is not a US citizen. To date, there has been evidence presented leading to speculation that documents have been forged and other documents do not exist. That alone, though, is not sufficient evidence to present to a grand jury and actually have a reasonable likelihood of conviction. I cannot speak for other prosecutors at the state level around the rest of the country or for prosecutors at the federal level but Arizona’s ethics rules do not permit prosecutors to file a charge they can only hope to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt....

[sten]

why not is my question

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"why not is my question

I know; it's mine, also. :)

[thecodont]

Thanks for the ping.

[Brown Deer]

*sigh*

by putting a person’s name on the ballot, the governors office, by way of the supervisor of election, is stating that these names are eligible to take the office...

Really? How so?

of they were to win the election.

But if they don't win the election, it reverses what "the governors office, by way of the supervisor of election" said?

if they do not confirm eligibility... they are perpetrating a fraud just as much as the person origining the fraud.

ONE MORE TIME, according to what law is the state required to confirm eligibility?

it is not up to the party or the federal govt, at that point, to verify eligibility.

but they obviously did sign a notarized certification.

the state must AT LEAST collect the qualifying paperwork to insure the basic integrity of the election

According to you?

[edge919]

Judge Gordon doesn’t provide citations to support either of his claims. The Supreme Court NEVER construed the U.S. Constituion in any fashion that would make the son of a foreign national, non-resident alien a natural-born citizen. Why do you accept a statement that isn’t supported by law??

[Nero Germanicus]

I accept it because under our system of jurisprudence, a ruling by a Trier of Fact stands until and unless it is overturned by a higher court.
In the case of Allen v. Obama, the ruling was backed up by 49 similar rulings or identical rulings in 21 other states plus the District of Columbia.
To date, none have been reversed on appeal.

2012 STATE BALLOT CHALLENGES TO PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY

1) Alaska: Epperly v Obama (REJECTED); Hackney v Obama (REJECTED)
2) Alabama: Hendershot v Mark Kennedy (DISMISSED); McInnish v Chapman (DENIED);
Sorensen v Kennedy (DISMISSED); Thompson v Kennedy (DISMISSED)
3) Arizona: Allen v Obama (DISMISSED); Liberty Legal Foundation v National Democratic Party, et. al.(DISMISSED)
4) California: Dummet v Bowen (DISMISSED); Noonan, et. al. v Bowen and Obama (DISMISSED)
5) Florida: Collette v Obama (DISMISSED); Voeltz v Obama, et. al. (DISMISSED); Voeltz v Obama, et. al #2 (DISMISSED); Voeltz v Obama, et. al. #3 (DISMISSED)
6) Georgia: Farrar v Obama (DENIED); Powell v Obama (DENIED); Swensson v Obama (DENIED); Welden v Obama (DENIED)
7) Illinois: Freeman v Obama (OVERRULED); Jackson v Obama (OVERRULED); Meroni, et. al. v Obama (DENIED)
8) Indiana: Kesler v Obama (DENIED); Ripley v Obama (DENIED); Swihart v Obama (DENIED); Taitz v Obama (REJECTED); Taitz v Indiana Elections Commission (DISMISSED); Weyl v Obama (DENIED)
9) Maryland: Fair v Obama (DISMISSED)
10) Kansas: Montgomery v Obama (OVERRULED)
11) Kentucky: House v Obama (DISMISSED)
12) Mississippi: Taitz v Democrat (sic) Party of Mississippi & Secretary of State, et. al. (Pending)
13) New Hampshire: Taitz v Obama (DISMISSED); Taitz v Gardner & New Hampshire Ballot Commission (DENIED)
14) New Jersey: Galasso v Obama (DENIED); Purpura, et. al. v Obama (DENIED)
15) New York: Dean v Obama (OVERRULED); Garvey v Obama (OVERRULED); Strunk v Board of Elections (OVERRULED); Thompson v Obama (OVERRULED); Van Allen v Obama (OVERRULED); Volodarsky v Obama (OVERRULED)
16) North Carolina: Vestal v Obama (REJECTED)
17) Ohio: Daniels v Husted (DISMISSED)
18) Pennsylvania: Berg v Obama (DISMISSED); Schneller v Obama, et. al. (DISMISSED); Schneller v Corbett, et. al. (DISMISSED)
19) Tennessee: Liberty Legal Foundation v Obama (DISMISSED)
20) Vermont: Paige v The State of Vermont, et. al. ((DISMISSED)
21) Virginia: Tisdale v Obama (DISMISSED)
22) Washington D.C.: ex-rel. Sibley v D.C. Board of Elections (DISMISSED)
23) Washington: Jordan v Reed (DISMISSED)

Fifty ballot challenges denied, overruled, dismissed or rejected; Three are still pending.

[edge919]

Your No. 10 is incorrect. That was objection withdrawn, not overruled. It’s one of the stains on Obama’s record and it’s the one objection that shifted the burden of proof, and proved that the legal precedent does NOT support any notion that Obama is eligible for office. If the Arizona citation you gave earlier was seen as compelling, then that objection would have been immediately denied. It wasn’t.

[Nero Germanicus]

From the Wichita Eagle:
‘I have no doubts now,’ Kobach says of Obama’s birthplace
By BRENT D. WISTROM
Eagle Topeka bureau
Published Monday, Sep. 17, 2012

TOPEKA – It was all over but the shouting.

After the State Objections Board somewhat clumsily disposed Monday of a Manhattan Republican’s claim that President Barack Obama shouldn’t qualify to be on Kansas ballots, advocates for and against Obama verbally clashed inside and outside of Memorial Hall, which houses the offices of Secretary of State Kris Kobach and Attorney General Derek Schmidt.
[excerpt]
http://www.kansas.com/2012/09/17/2492998/kansas-expects-to-end-challenge.html#storylink=cpy

[sten]

according to state election law qualifying papers must be collected.

but hey, thanks for trolling.

[4Zoltan]

From your link:

“He [Kobach] said Kansas now has information from the Hawaii Department of Health certifying that Obama’s birth certificate posted on the White House website is the same as what’s logged in Hawaii.”

[Brown Deer]

Quote the law, troll!

[Brown Deer]

according to state election law qualifying papers must be collected.

They were. So what's your point, troll?

16-242. Qualifications for ballot; nomination paper

A. A person seeking nomination as a candidate for the office of president of the United States shall sign and cause to be filed with the secretary of state a nomination paper that contains the following information:

1. The name, residence address and mailing address of the candidate.

2. The name of the recognized political party from which the person seeks nomination.

3. The name and address of the chairman of the candidate's state committee.

4. The exact manner for printing the candidate's name on the presidential preference ballot pursuant to section 16-311.

B. The nomination paper shall be filed not less than ninety days nor more than one hundred twenty days before the presidential preference election and not later than 5:00 p.m. on the last day for filing.

C. A candidate for the office of president of the United States shall file with the secretary of state nomination petitions signed by one thousand qualified electors who are qualified to vote for the candidate whose nomination petition they are signing for that election or, for recognized parties with fewer than fifty thousand registered voters, nomination petitions signed by one thousand qualified electors of any political party affiliation who, at the time they sign, are registered voters.

D. Nomination petitions shall conform to the requirements of section 16-314.

E. In lieu of the petition requirements of this section, a candidate may qualify to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot of the candidate's political party by filing with the secretary of state no later than the last Tuesday in January preceding a presidential preference primary, a notice of candidacy signed by the candidate and either of the following:

1. A certification by the federal election commission that, by the filing deadline, the candidate has qualified for matching federal campaign funds.

2. Evidence that by the filing deadline the candidate's name is qualified to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot of the candidate's political party in at least twenty other states.

F. Within seventy-two hours after the close of filing the secretary of state shall certify to the officer in charge of elections the names of the candidates who are qualified for the presidential preference election ballot.

[4Zoltan]

Do you know if anyone has requested the Hawaii certifications for the 2012 election (both DNC and HDP)? I’m curious what they say since we could then compare the 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 elections.

IIRC, it was something like this:

2000 DNC - yes, HDP - yes
2004 DNC - no, HDP - yes
2008 DNC - yes, HDP - no
2012 DNC - ?, HDP - ?

[melancholy]

“Fifty ballot challenges denied, overruled, dismissed or rejected;”

Q: how happy are you?

A: happy as 0b0z0 in a SF h0m0sexual pride parade.

Apologies to Geico.

[Brown Deer]

and speaking of homos...

http://www.circa-club.com/gallery/gay_history_icons_nero_claudius_drusus_germanicus.php

Why would a retread FReeper (since Jan 1, 2013) choose to use the name of such a famous homo?

[Nero Germanicus]

Claudia Octavia (late AD 39 or early AD 40 – 8 June AD 62) was an Empress of Rome. She was the first wife of the Emperor Nero.

Claudia Acte was a freedwoman of ancient Rome who became the mistress of the Emperor Nero. The couple met when Nero was 17, and their reportedly emotional, passionate relationship lasted at least three years. Nero expressed the desire to marry Acte and had a genealogy fabricated linking her to King Attalus of Pergamum; he even bribed ex-consuls to prepare to swear to her royal birthright, a move that enraged his mother Agrippina, who was very conscious and proud of her own, well-established patrician ancestry.

Poppaea Sabina ((30–65) and sometimes referred to as Poppaea Sabina was a Roman Empress as the second wife of the Emperor Nero. The historians of antiquity describe her as a beautiful woman who used intrigues to become empress.

[sten]

still trying to troll i see

the pelosi document changed to remove the ‘qualified’ line. this shows intent, as she knew he wasn’t qualified

the 0bama document is evidence of perjury as he cannot prove he is a US citizen, let alone a natural born citizen. if he can, he just has to submit it anywhere... which he never has... because the scans he’s shown the world are obvious forgeries and would be evidence in a felony case if he ever officially submitted them.

and if you’re one of those low info types that believes being born in the US makes you a natural born citizen, then you really need to do more reading. of course, we’re not even sure he was born in the US... tho we do have evidence to the contrary. witness testimony and official birth records from the UK not to mention the testimony from the supposed notary that has stated she would never have signed the document 0bama waved around... as it had errors she immediately pointed out.

oh, as for AZ... if they took the document stating someone is a natural born citizen without any other documentation... they are perpetuating the fraud.

if you don’t think supporting documents would be required... try handing a cop a crayon scribbled note the next time you get pulled over. you can then have your buddy confirm it by nodding his head.

good luck with that

[melancholy]

Excellent catch! It fully agrees with faggots who are itching (no pun intended) to tell you: here I’m, catch me! The only problem is that you’d need to be suited up in a HAZMAT outfit to come near them. They blow a lot of flammable cyber methane with their solid crap. A two-phase flow regime. Nah, that other regime is solid Shiite.

Liberals and h0m0 trolls come hand in arse. It comes with the suppository..

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

” not to mention the testimony from the supposed notary that has stated she would never have signed the document 0bama waved around... as it had errors she immediately pointed out.”

Who are you referring to? Name please!

[sten]

v.k. lee interviewed by mike and crew in hawaii