“But you didn’t bring them up in Mississippi, where the Letter of Verification is part of the case and is apparently uncontested.”
States are required to give full faith an credit to each other’s official documents so any such contest would be doomed and moot.
Barry’s legal team gives the appearance (through numerous legal “tells” pointing to fraud) that they knew this was a legal defense perimeter behind which forged vital records could be hidden.
This state defense that protects forged state documents from being challenged by other states and in the federal courts can only be pierced by either the FBI 9under the corrupt crony Eric Holder) or by Congress. The FBI is out so that leaves Congress.
Obots taunt Zullo continuously for failing to file any criminal action based on his criminal evidence, but the lawyers in their ranks know that this is futile. Zullo and Arpaio are going to Congress for exactly the reason that they are NOT contesting the BC in any state court or in any state or federal criminal proceeding. No standing in state courts and corrupt federal officials in DOJ under Barry!
At this point only Congress can investigate a criminal conspiracy between the executive branch of a state, Hawaii, and the US executive branch! That is where Zullo and Arpaio are going. That is why Obots and Fogblowers are paying such close attention to a matter that they claim to view as being frivolous and delusional. Fogblowers know what a liar Barry is and are afraid of what a congressional investigation might turn up in Hawaii and in the evidence file of Zullo.
Does full faith and credit extend to official documents which don’t adhere to the issuing state’s laws regarding the method of certification? IOW, if a document is not officially certified according to the requirements of that state, is it still considered an official certified document - either in that state or in any other state?
It seems to me that if those who “certify” a document cannot be held liable for perjury if it is fraudulent, it wouldn’t qualify as being certified, because the threat of a perjury charge is the only legal difference between an oath and any other free speech which is legally protected by the First Amendment. If a person is not under oath they can say whatever they darn well please and face no criminal charges. Without a legally-binding oath, anything in a “certification” is just free speech which could be true or false without committing a crime.
“Zullo and Arpaio are going to Congress...”
__
And I agree that this is the right approach. The Congress certainly has Constitutional powers in this regard that are lacking to other branches of government.
On the other hand, there’s still the issue of the strength of your evidence. You didn’t convince enough of the voting population to tip the balance in either Presidential election, you didn’t convince the Congress to call into question the vote of the Electoral College (not a single objection was filed either time), you haven’t gotten a single judge to rule in your favor, and Congress has to date shown no interest in investigating further.
But I agree. If you can persuade a significant number of members of Congress that the situation demands an investigation, an investigation there will be.
That pretty much sums up why Obama defenders are popping up on FR threads like this one, spewing disinformation regarding the CCP investigation findings and its implications.