Posted on 04/25/2013 11:21:53 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
In a unusual rare move, the Alabama Democratic Party has submitted a amicus brief in the McInnish Goode v Chapman Appeal case. The reason being is most likely because the Alabama Supreme Court has Chief Justice Roy Moore presiding over it. He supported Lt. Col. Terry Lakin during his court martial. Another worry for them is another justice named Tom Parker. He once opined in a prior McInnish case:
"McInnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the “short form” and the “long form” birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public."
This has reasons for the Alabama Democratic Party to be alarmed. In the amicus brief, the Alabama Democratic Party attacked the merits of the appeal, calling the evidence submitted by McInnish “inadmissible and not worthy of belief” and stated:
"A county sheriff from Arizona is not an “official source” of anything in Alabama."
One thing that stands out in the amicus brief filed, specifically on page 33 is something new. It's a Barack Obama long form birth certificate that has a different backing, something not seen before. It's not the normal security paper backing that the Hawaii Dept. Of Health has been using. It is raising a lot of questions that even has Obama supporters baffled. Click on the link and scroll to page 33 of the brief to see the birth certificate.
The document stamped April 25, 2011 with Onaka’s signature.
This latest scan or copy of the original (doc with signature & date stamp) is identical to other scans or copies except for the background. Which means the background was not on the document with the stamped date and signature.
Did various attorneys and other inidivuals copy this plain white COLB onto on a variety of security papers? Why?
How did the WH COLB PDF get a security paper background?
But they went out of their way to present a fraudulent document that he did register. During the summer. The summer he wa supposedly in Los Angelos and not in Hawaii since his supposed mother was in Indonesia or finishing up h er divorce from her 2nd foreign national, communist husband.
Richard Flahavan’s sole reason for existance is to provide cover to politically connected power. That includes figure like Mitch McConnell.
See below:
http://www.hillbillyreport.org/diary/976/senator-mitch-mcconnells-military-service
He swings both ways when it comes to supporting the power structure.
When you digitally create a file its not hard.
As posted - color copiers and certainly scanners make the pathetic basketweave security feature all but worthless.
Hawaii’s documents could be forged by a 5 year old.
Its the same basketweave pattern as in the original. The diamond shapes are digital and not in the original pattern in any manner. This was a digitally applied mask. It is not a pattern in the original document.
Why? Probably for plausible denyability for the lawyers who are being forced to submit these frauds.
I am not making the Clintons into saints, any more than I am making the threatened media into saints. I’m just saying that with Bill Gwatney and Stephanie Tubbs both dead and Phil Berg filing a lawsuit the day after Tubbs died, with the media being threatened to the point that at least one fled the country in fear for her life and her child’s life, with the total disregard for human life shown by Fast and Furious and Benghazi, and with my own first-hand knowledge of the lawlessness of multiple government agencies... the claims that the Clintons were threatened fits the overall picture.
Who do you think Berg filed his lawsuit for? What evidence do you have the Bettina Viviano lied when she said she heard Bill Clinton say that he knew Obama to be ineligible? I have an EVIDENCE-based epistemology. You’ve presented nothing but your own opinion and emotions. Now support your opinions with facts and evidence. THAT is my “core belief” - that the truth matters - and I have not abandoned it for the sake of ANY politics or popularity.
Ya think?
“Why?”
Exactly, why would they create different backgrounds? And remember they couldn’t just turn off the green basketweave on the pdf and then turn on a new background. The green basketweave on the pdf also contains horizontal and vertical lines, text letters and handwritten signatures. So any new background would have to have the same graphic elements and text in the same locations so when the remaining text and graphics are overlain, everything lines up.
And why go through that trouble, there is absolutely no need to do that. It makes no sense.
The Alabama Democrats blew it. Team Obama is gonna be pissed.
What this means is that the WH COLB PDF also had a background inserted. Why?
The changing background means that if the original existed physically then it must have been printed on plain white paper.
Did various attorneys and other individuals copy this plain white COLB onto on a variety of security papers? Why?
Did various attorneys and other individuals scan this plain white COLB and electronically insert images of various security papers? Why?
Did the document ever exist physically or is it an electronic assemblage?
How can the background change?
What is the chain of custody of the "COLB" document proffered by the Alabama Democrat Party? Is the Alabama Democrat Party attempting fraud upon the Court?
Bump — Very nice work on your post.
That’s what is so laughable about the AL Dem Party’s amicus brief: it doesn’t even ATTEMPT to say what those documents really are or where they came from. By having a different background it sure seems like they are trying to imply that this came from a document other than the PDF. Seems like they may be setting the stage to claim that this is how HDOH-issued copies look when photocopied - as if the AL Dem Party was given a genuine BC and it was photocopied to be put on Scribd.
What I can say is that the basic cross-hatch security background on all of Obama’s long-form images is easily recognized as not having come from the HDOH, when you realize what a page of the HDOH’s basic security pattern really looks like.
The forged COLB was made from a real HDOH-issued COLB. They only had a few lines to change (the BC# and the note of an evidence file for the late and altered filing) and could easily paste in the cross-hatches to cover for the print they deleted and/or changed). On the long-form, however, they botched it because they had to recreate the whole layer, and did it just like you did - with no context to show them that they had it screwed up.
Thanks for noticing.
Any idea when this will be on the docket?
“Did the document ever exist physically or is it an electronic assemblage?”
No and Yes, if Zullo’s certified digital document laboratory report concludes what he claims it concludes.
The “tells” are piled on “tells” all meant to create plausible deniability and/or the necessity for another hearing and then another until (Barry’s legal team hopes) Barry leaves office.
By October 15, two weeks after the Barrycare exchange premiums arrive in mailboxes, Barry will be the most reviled president in US history and even his owm party will be ready to throw him under the bus, IMO.
The Chicago Commie Cartel for whom Barry is a sock-puppet get angry and vicious at Barry when he screws up and they are faced with losing power...like they did after Barry blew the first debate. They were livid then and they will be even more livid soon.
They MUST recapture the House and a 60 vote filibuster proof margin in the Senate to have any hope of “fixing” Barrycare and then pushing Hilarious in 2016 to maintain the gravy-train for the Dems. They will dump Barry and muddle through with Biden if Barry looks like he is going down.
My main concern about the Amicus brief is that it is designed to fool the unwary, TV watching person.
In theory Judges are supposed not to have any detailed knowledge or opinion on a case before they hear it and consider what is in front of them only.
Well the 2011 PDF on the WH website was taken down after six hours or so [I am going from memory, is that correct?],
and replaced with a flattened PDF file with all the layers concreted into one.
If the layers were not evidence and innocent, why flatten the PDF layers in the new version and replace the file on the WH website?
I think that might tend to indicate a “Mens rea” at work.
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.