I think fake.
Posted on 01/28/2013 11:33:35 AM PST by ethical
On January 10, 2013 the Washington State Supreme Court fined Linda Jordan almost $13,000 because she legally challenged Barack Obama's use of forged identity documents: A fake birth certificate and phony Social Security Number.
Jordan wanted the original records to be produced for comparison. Why did Jordan want to see Obama’s real ID?
• The Maricopa County Sheriff Department has presented credible evidence that the birth certificate Barack Obama posted on the White House website on April 27, 2011 was forged. (Maricopa County Sheriff Department 602.876.1801) • Jordan’s own research confirmed that Hawaii law requires signatures on birth certificates to be in permanent ink. The signature of Obama’s mother, on his purported 1961 birth certificate, is partly ink and partly a computer created signature. This compilation means the signature was forged. • Ohio Private Investigator Susan Daniels has confirmed that the Social Security Number Obama is using was previously issued to someone else. SSN’s are NEVER re-issued.
Obama used this fake ID to prove he was eligible to be President. It got him on the ballot and into the White House. This is fraud in the least, treason at worst.
“I filed the lawsuit because I fear for America’s future. A serious crime has been committed right in front of us and federal agents turned a blind eye to it. There is substantial evidence that Barack Obama is using fraudulent identity documents. The court ignored this evidence and sanctioned me with almost $13,000 in fines for exercising my right to request an evidentiary hearing. They labeled my concerns "frivolous". Surely Americans have the right to confirm if Obama used fake ID to gain access to the White House.” Linda Jordan
http://www.obamaforgeries.com
She’s getting smacked around by the “standing” issue. She has no inherent right to demand a legal investigation of anyone, and unless she can show specific harm done to her personally and directly, she has no standing to file the suit.
Yup. That’s EXACTLY it. Someone forwarded it to my FB account on Saturday. Probably is false because in 1981 Barry was at Occidental.
Regards,
GtG
Doesn’t she now have “STANDING” to appeal this to the higher courts ? If a fedreal judge were to rule in her favor then it could perhaps force the bamster to put up the docs finally .
“purports” shows the reluctance on his part. Plaintiff did without question file the suit using the RCW in question. Very few cases have acknowledged the plaintiff as having standing.
It means drawers (like in a desk or dresser) in at least one Spanish speaking country.
It's missing the accent mark though.
And yet my first DL issued by the state of Texas in 1980 had one, as well as my Universtiy of Houston student ID card issued in the fall of 1982. And there were readers all over campus for entry into labs, use of the library, and all the admissions and administrative offices. IIRC, even the praking decals had that barcode on them. Heck, I even remember calling it our student surveilence card when they started using it to take attendance in the fall of 1983.
Maybe we should ask Wayne Allen Root if he had one with a barcode at CUNYC.
A few questions/observations about that picture:
1. Obama's hair looks shorter in that picture than in any other pictures I've seen of him in college. Looks older, too. As though it is a post-college photo inserted into someone else's ID.
2. Did Columbia use this sort of ID in 1981? With a bar code?
3. Does/did Columbia note which students were "Foreign Students" on their university-issued IDs? I've never heard of any university doing so. Visiting students, yes, but not foreign students.
You are correct ethical:
"Most were dismissed on standing grounds; a question not directly at issue in this case because plaintiff purports to bring this case under RCW 29A.68.011, subparts 1 and 3, which confers standing on any elector."
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/superior/court%20opinions/Jordan%20v%20Reed%20Opinion.pdf
Reading the rest of the courts "opinion" and decision is pretty stunning.
That doesn’t say she had standing, that said that the issue of standing was irrelevant — I’d have to see more full context to understand exactly why the case was dismissed. It’s patently ludicrous to assert the the judge declared she had standing and then fined her for filing a frivolous suit, though.
She offers as evidence the musings of the infamous Arizona sheriff Joe Arpiao, supported by the report by a part-time computer programmer last employed in May 2007, who examined a copy of the pdf image of President Obama’s birth certificate and concluded that the original was forged. She offers the affidavit of a private investigator who opines that President Obama is fraudulently using the social security number of another person who was born in 18904 and was issued the social security number in 1977. The investigator is not able to identify the person and does not offer any insight as to why this hypothetical person waited until he or she was 87 years old before applying for and receiving a social security number. The rest of plaintiff’s evidence is the standard fare of the blogosphere that has been floating around since 2008.
It's clear, the lefties have successfully stigmatized the issue...and unfortunately too many on the right have sided with them.
How about providing us with a copy of what you received?
I began this explanation of my decision with some history of the birther movement, and I conclude with some more history.
No predisposed belief there...naw, none. So much for justice being blind.
Please refer to post #32
It does appear to be fake .
Yes it does.
It means several things, including (in context) "large wooden box," "large cardboard box," occasionally a "large travel chest," and in some latin countries, "drawers," as in a chest of.
Basically, the state's lawyers didn't even need to go to the matter of standing.
The fine, by the way, wasn't for using e-verify (although that may have been an illegal use), but for filing a frivolous appeal, which the court rejected, awarding costs to the state. The $13,000 is basically for two lawyers billing a total of 52 hours.
No need to. There is already one posted here. It’s the same one that was sent to my FB account.
I've shown you up-thread, that the judge acknowledge the plaintiff had standing. Her complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction:
2. I conclude that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The primacy of congress to resolve issues of a candidate’s qualifications to serve as president is established in the U.S. Constitution
She was fined, by reading the tone of the decision, because the judge clearly doesn't like "birthers" even though the esteemed judge doesn't define what a "birther" is:
The birther movement has been a subplot on the fringe of the political spectrum in the U.S. for about five years....
I began this explanation of my decision with some history of the birther movement, and I conclude with some more history.
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.