Evening Star,
Check out article, and # 4 .
.
Posted on 05/01/2013 4:39:34 PM PDT by null and void
Not that we are surprised, but now there are multiple copies of Barack Hussein Obama’s “real” birth certificate that are surfacing and they are clearly indicating fraud. In a rare move, the Alabama Democrat Party has submitted an 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. The Alabama Democrat Party just submitted a completely different birth certificate than the one that was posted at the White House website in 2011.
Larry Klayman, the plaintiff’s counsel submitted the forgery of Barack Hussein Obama’s birth certificate that was posted to whitehouse.gov on 4-27-2001 (seen below). Fogbow/Jack Ryan obot group produced another bogus one. Still a third birth certificate has been submitted by Alabama Democrats to the Supreme Court.
Remember, this court is being presided over by Chief Justice Roy Moore, who supported Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, when he believed Obama to be a usurper and denied following orders to deploy to Iraq until Obama proved his eligibility as part of keeping his oath (ironically Lakin was not supported by Mr. Oathkeeper Stewart Rhodes). Another justice on the court by the name of Tom Parker will also hear the case. He has stated in a previous 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.”
While the Alabama Democrats attacked the merits of the appeal, calling the evidence by McInnish “inadmissible and not worthy of belief,” they also stated “A county sheriff from Arizona is not an ‘official source’ of anything in Alabama.”
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/
nobama hired some very fancy lawyers, paid a bunch of bucks (in excess of 1mil IIRCC) and issued an EO to seal his records.
Only problem is, the Internet has become so pervasive it likely would be impossible to seal ALL the records. Stuff is gonna leak out over time.
When trying to find the probate records of Charles Rolla (Rollo )Payne ( died October 1968) the establishment of the Madelyn Payne Durham trust that O lists on schedule e of his taxes; o
ne thing that stuck out was multiple spelling of names. Maddy became head of the trust escrow dept moved to the penthouse and became BO legal guardian about the time of probate. NOTHING surprises me about that woman or anything she may have had a part in!
Thanks (as always) for the ping!
She was in the divorce decree.
If you or I waved so many different BCs around, we’d be behind bars.
She? You mean Stanley Ann? There is no evidence she and the Kenyan 0bama were ever married.
If by Mrs. Obama you mean the woman he married who went to the Philippines, that’s another matter.
You mean Stanley Ann Dunham.
The purported alleged mother of the guy in the WH.
It could be a legitimate signature. Introduction of subtle differences is a good security trick. Signatures are not even supposed to be your name, written by hand - they are supposed to be unique handwriting that is tough for a stranger to copy correctly. My own signature, for example, does not exactly spell out my name - it begins with characters, but then quickly devolves into something completely different.
Yet another aspect is that signatures are formed in adolescence, when young people start needing them. They could prefer a different form of their name then. Obama's grandmother was born in 1922, and her signature was probably fully defined by 1942. It was 70 years ago; many styles and fashions changed since then.
Of course, it should be trivial to find a few papers with her true signature and compare. She signed thousands of personal checks, for example; but she worked as a VP of a small bank - can you imagine that she didn't have to sign a hundred papers per day at work?
Then this settles it, at least one of them has got to be real. (Channeling Beck)
Consider yourself at home.
Consider yourself one of the family.
Consider yourself part of the furniture.
Consider yourself our mate.
We don’t want to have no fuss,
For after some consideration, we can state...
Consider yourself
One of us!
The blot thickens!
Please add me to the ping list FRiend.
Added. I’m musicked out for the moment, unless you want a Nose Full of Nickles...
The 1964 divorce decree lists Stanley Ann D. Obama as Libellant vs. Barack H. Obama as Libellee. It states that they were lawfully married in Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii, on February 2, 1961. The divorce decree also lists one child born to said Libellant and Libellee, Barack Hussein Obama, II, a son, born on August 4, 1961.
I have less than no interest in sparring with an apologist for 0bastard.
This topic was discussed down to the atoms a few years ago. It is legally possible and has been done in the past, to “divorce” someone the person wasn’t married to. Happens.
The suspicious thing about that copy is that HRS 338-17.8 didn’t become law until 1982. So, how can a BC issued in 1961 cite a law that didn’t exist until 1982 ?
Evening Star,
Check out article, and # 4 .
.
It’s possible that they went back and added that code as an addendum to the birth certificates that fell under that law.. Doubtful, but possible. Notice it’s crooked as though it had been added later.
that is not quite correct. There was the infamous short form released around June 2008. That got increasingly lambasted as a forgery. obama stood by that document until the 2011 version. so the 2008 version has been forgotten. One forgery, then two, and now, who knows how many.
To our eyes his walls are crumbling. but it will be the press which will defend him to the last.
Re signatures..
Haste plus tons of things to sign equals illegibility (think doctors, celebrities)
So yes, quite possible...
And examples of SADOs moms signature could be found among those FOIA docs of SADO.
G W G, The cipher
Good catch on the law cite & when it came into being!
That right there says volumes.
I doubt that the archivists would go back and update everything every time a new law came into being, so it looks like somebody did something in that year.
Either added at the bottom, or when the whole thing was created.
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.