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.
Well I'm glad to see that at least somebody on FR agrees with me that Obama won rather than cheated. I was hoping though that all people on the Birther Bandwagon would jump ship to the He Cheated Bandwagon. It plays better to the pubic.
The election was stolen. Nothing any of us did made any difference, because nobody would take the rule of law seriously. Crimes have been committed but nobody would do anything about the eligibility crimes so why would we expect them to do anything about the election fraud crimes? After all, folks like you were saying that the rule of law isn’t a politically relevant issue...
-PJ
People. This thread is about the different looking birth certificate presented in the amicus brief and not about the Clintons or the economy. Please try to stay on the topic of the thread. Thanks.
Apparently dead bodies are no excuse for “lack of results”, to you.
I suppose you also have no use for the soldiers slain, because they are obviously “all hat no cattle” since they weren’t successful.
Sick.
Talk is cheap. We have the stamped documents from 1961 that SHOW how that very post office stamped its mail.
IF that’s the way they stamped those in 1961, then why is Obama’s the only one that is stamped like that?
Which do you consider more credible - somebody’s words, or physical evidence?
Because the rule of law matters.
Anybody who doesn’t understand that is beyond help.
hmm ~ having explained it to you once you don’t get a second chance. Frankly, I doubt you are going to develop enough knowledge to correctly ask the questions.
The rule of law is very important. But how is making a lot hot air helping get it back?
I have a big problem with a president being involved in document fraud. I have a problem with a president lying under oath. But I am not the ruled of the universe. I don’t have the power to make everything I want happen.
“If the Clintons knew how is it that they never used it in the primaries of 08 when Hillary was running for the top job? She wasn’t running for some lower echelon position.”
What? And end up looking like “birthers”?
The fact that the attorney didn’t even tell the provenance of his exhibits makes this totally laughable as a legal submission. And that’s for both the BC that has no raised seal on it and doesn’t say where it came from AND the “birth announcement” which has most of the page blurred beyond readability and is actually from a Honolulu Advertiser article, claiming to be from the same document as had other lines on it when created by Jeenaparadies using OCR software and handed off to whatreallyhappened.com.
This brief is utter bullcrap - using forgeries and not even attempting to say where these images came from. That’s because if they tried to say where they came from they would be legally liable, and we could provide evidence to dispute the claims as well as request to see the original documents (although that might not be the case for an amicus brief; I’m not sure about that. If the actual attorneys in the case had tried to submit this it would mean that...)
Clinton would have been accused of racism and her advisors were telling her that her nomination was a done deal anyways.
Also Clinton did not have such conclusive proof that the Maricopa Sheriff’s Office has now nor was it available to her. So although she may have suspected and believed Obama was not eligible she decided not to stir it up for all the above reasons.
Butter, are you referring to Obama’s selective service registration that the Post Office stamped in 1980 or something else in 1961?
Sure there is, but who's got the guts to use it?
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.