Posted on 06/01/2013 10:34:19 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Maricopa County Sheriffs Office Cold Case Posse chief investigator Mike Zullo this morning addressed the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association Convention (CSPOA) being held in St. Charles, Missouri. Much of the information that was revealed by Zullo we have already heard but he also unveiled new evidence that we have not been aware of. Commander Mike Zullo appears in the video at the 36:00 mark. The audio and video from the streaming isn't that good but pay attention very closely.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
The 1960 vs 1961 manual are simple smoke screen. The changes YTY are probably very minimal.
Any port in a storm. And it’s stormin’.
What a tool.
See my other post.
The requirements were mostly identical year to year. Not until the 70s or 80s did things change much.
This is a crap argument.
Placemark.
You need not put that assertion in the future tense ...
Hmmm...
“Zullo continued, “The evidence in this criminal case is overwhelming and undeniable. The only identifying document that Barack Obama has ever presented to the American public is a 100% verifiable forgery and fraudulent document. It is a criminal offense to use fraudulent documents to gain political office - much less the office of POTUS and Commander-in-Chief. We knew that once we could get this information before the public, and especially lawmen, congressmen, attorneys, and legal officials - we could get the ball rolling on a congressional investigation. We have some shocked officials at this conference. Think of it - all these lawmen, lawmakers, and legal officials just saw the evidence - not one has challenged the legal credibility of what we have. The ball is now rolling.”
Later they write:
“When asked about those who are DEMANDING that Arpaio and Zullo “press criminal charges now” - Gallups had this to say, “Look, those people do not know what they are talking about. Most of that talk is coming out of the Obot camp - so what does that tell you? They know that would be the wrong and premature thing to do. They know that if something like that was done now - the case would be lost - there would be jurisdictional and prosecutorial matters at stake. Mike Zullo has explained this in detail, time and time again.
“If the case were to be struck down because of a blunder like that - it might never come to a congressional hearing. The detractors know that - that is why they are trying to turn public sentiment towards filing criminal charges now. Anyone who claims they know what they are talking about and they are screaming for “criminal charges to be filed now” - be wary of them. They are up to no good. They are purposely trying to derail this case.”
http://ppsimmons.blogspot.com/2013/06/law-men-and-elected-officials-shocked.html
Sounds like they are blowing smoke up people’s butts. If you have “overwhelming and undeniable” evidence of criminal wrongdoing, you file charges.
Here is MY prediction: Zullo and Arpaio NEVER file charges in court.
“Here is MY prediction: Zullo and Arpaio NEVER file charges in court.”
You win. Zullo himself says they are not going to go that route. They are going to take it to Congress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJvG1hdKMho&feature=player_embedded
“Here is the reaction interview from after Zullo’s closed door meeting.”
Not yet! It appears that this is the post-PUBLIC interview...but still a significant reaction to be sure!
Gallups at your link:
“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 today. 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.”
Here is the post everything interview>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJvG1hdKMho&feature=player_embedded
I know that. That's why I think this new claim is BS as well.
It's been well documented that they claimed the 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual said the code "9" meant "not reported" or "not stated."
When Ladysforest produced the real 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual, it said no such thing.
In other words, it very much appears that the Cold Case Posse flat-out lied.
Heck. Never mind that. As far as I can tell, they DID flat-out lie, because they claimed to have the 1961 manual, and showed the public images from 1968 and 1969, and said that was their evidence.
So if they had the 1961 manual, why the hell would they show images from 1968 and 1969, and try to pass them off as being from 1961?
Actually, one of those phony images came from someone else's web site.
And why didn't they produce the real manual when challenged by skeptics?
So you say the requirements (or specs) were mostly the same from year to year.
Well, that means that until proven otherwise, we can pretty well assume the 1960 manual (of course, they never said they had the 1960 manual, they always said they had the 1961 one) says the exact same thing the 1961 one does.
Oh. And they've got a new, um, expert.
And the guy's expertise is in... handwriting analysis?
Excuse me, but... WTF?
Unless his opinion is based on the handwritten signatures of Stanley Ann Obama, or the doctor who signed the certificate, what the hell does a handwriting guy, with no apparent expertise in computer technology at all (specifically, how PDFs are created and compressed) know about a PDF file?
>>Hearsay — Most commonly, asserting as fact something merely overheard or opined and not witnessed directly. Not to be confused with expert opinion subject to cross examination, or stipulated facts.<<
Not sure where you are getting your info, but this isn’t hearsay. While jurisdictions vary, the definition is something like this: Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
It can include documents, so it isn’t simply something overheard. There are also exceptions and exemptions (the statement of the party opponent, for one, isn’t inadmissible hearsay). It applies equally to fact witnesses and experts. Opinions may or may not be admissible testimony depending on the context, but aren’t inadmissible because they’re considered hearsay.
What I found to be new was the revelation that the Guthrey photo was not the parent document but that the PDF was parent to the Guthrey photo and her testimony that she felt a raised seal. Meaning that there never was a “document” until someone printed it from the created pdf file and then placed a raised seal on that print out!
It clearly means that there never was a document issued by the HDOH and I am also willing to bet good money that the lawyer from Perkins and Coie never filed a flight plan to Hawaii. Why would someone travel to Hawaii to pick up an electronic file?
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. October 29, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
SNIP
In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]” is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a “Case[ ]” in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted.
What are some of those consequences?
First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.
Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.
Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:
[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”
Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”
Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.
Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”
Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.
Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.
The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.
SNIP
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.
Are these two babies identified?
Something Zullo told me that I think is relevant: If a law enforcement entity notifies a Congressman of a crime, that Congressman is legally accountable for acting on it.
Gallups referred to a Congress member who had arranged to meet with Zullo and then pretended to not know anything about those arrangements. That is because once they have that report from law enforcement, they are legally obligated to act.
The legal groundwork is being laid so that Congress HAS to act on this issue.
The significance of Congress acting is that they can compel production of records - records which will show not only the wrong-doing by Obama’s people but also the wrong-doing by the very Hawaii officials that most members of Congress cite as having affirmed Obama’s birth story. When the records are made available and depositions compelled, the world will see exactly how corrupt the entire system has been - and it will make the IRS scandal seem like piddles in comparison.
If/when Congress investigates and an independent prosecutor gets access to the records, THAT is when arrests will be made - because then the names of the people involved will be known, together with the proof of their involvement. Without the actual records it’s near-impossible to pin down the specific actions to specific individuals.
At that point it will also be known that Obama has no legally-valid Hawaii BC, and I believe the records will show that his birth was originally reported by his grandma and his BC was not complete until late 2006, when he amended it to add a birth weight. The rules in Hawaii were so lax, about the only reason for a local registrar to not be able to gather all the necessary information is if the child was nowhere to be found in Hawaii within that first month after the birth. Which would be very strange indeed if the child was born in Hawaii, because the airlines would not let so young a child fly out of Hawaii. The amendment that Obama made in late 2006 reveals the Hawaii birth claim as fraudulent, and that is why he had to have a COLB forged.
It’s also why nobody knew whether to claim a Queens or a Kapiolani birth until after Obama had already announced his run for the presidency, even though he referenced his birth at Queens Hospital in his Feb 2007 announcement that he was running: his actual record didn’t claim ANY hospital as the birthplace, and Obama didn’t realize until June of 2007 (when he ordered a copy of his COLB and it came back showing his 2006 amendment adding a birth weight) that they were going to have to come up with a fake so nobody would know about the original birth claim being a home birth reported by Madelyn Dunham.
This is what I suspect, and I’ve got some good reasons to suspect it. But until the records are produced, none of it can be absolutely proven. And that is why they have fought like heck all these years to keep the records hidden.
At my son’s optometrist appointment yesterday I looked at the records disclosure policy. I remembered reading something similar at a dr’s appt I had last year but I can’t find that actual statement. Here’s what the optometrist’s statement says:
“In some limited situations, the law allows or requires us to use or disclose your health information without your permission. Not all of these situations will apply to us; some may never come up at our office at all. Such uses or disclosures are:...Disclosures for law enforcement purposes, such as to provide information about someone who is or is suspected to be a victim of a crime; to provide information about a crime at our office; or to report a crime that happened somewhere else...(snip) Uses or disclosures for specialized government functions, such as for the protection of the president or high-ranking government officials; for lawful national intelligence activities; for military purposes; or for the evaluation and health of members of the Foreign Service”
When Zullo and Mackiewcz (sp?) showed up at Kapiolani Hospital, identified themselves as law enforcement, and asked to see the labor room log, that was a law enforcement purpose regarding a criminal investigation, and that disclosure is thus allowable by HIPAA, if I’m understanding correctly. The military people that Lakin asked to check out Obama’s eligibility would presumably also have been allowed by HIPAA to see that log, for the military purpose of determining the lawfulness of orders.
So all the excuses they’ve hidden behind are a bunch of crap. But if an independent federal investigator/prosecutor issued a subpoena for those records, they would have to be produced. Or a search warrant for the records could be obtained, bypassing the involvement of the people who have hidden records for Obama’s sake.
Right now we have to push for a Congressional investigation. That’s the only way we’re going to get access to the critical records. And anybody who wants to keep those records hidden... exposes their own understanding that the records would incriminate Obama. There is no other reason to want those records hidden.
Obviously you do not understand the Constitution to not grasp that a President is the legal President once given the oath of office, regardless of how he was elected. When a Supreme Court judge swears him in he is the LEGAL PRESIDENT.
Equally, that the House has the authority to unseat a House member certainly under the circumstances you described. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the President.
I plainly explained the role Congress has in certifying or not certifying the results of the Electoral College and their power over any President stops there except if they impeach him and the Senate convicts.
There is no point in continuing if you are having too much trouble understanding those explanations. Keep on living in dreamland, where facts don’t really hinder your thinking.
Impeachment File on Benghazi Coward “B. Hussein Obama,” formerly known as Barry Soetoro, a legal citizen of the sovereign Nation of Indonesia.
The law also allows for Duncan Sunahara to see his sister’s long-form birth certificate, but it ain’t happening. Why not? You tell me...
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.