Posted on 02/04/2014 6:23:18 AM PST by GregNH
Dear Orly:
I have been in daily contact with Detective Lieutenant Mike Zullo from the Sheriff Joe Arpaio Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Obama Fraud Investigation – sometimes twice daily.
I’m sure you also might have heard that Lt. Zullo is preparing to release his some evidence that will truly be universe-shattering, and the knowledge we have is truly something you’re not going to be ready for.
This will absolutely, definitely change the eligibility landscape by 10,000%.
Mike has asked me to communicate with you that the new evidence – which, let me tell you, is so all-encompassingly gigantic, so incredibly huge – that we were hoping we could ask you to cooperate on one front.
Now, since we’ve all been vindicated 1,000% on the birth certificate issue, since Lt. Zullo’s forensic investigation has been so comprehensive, it’s really irrelevant compared to the new, shocking & completely emasculating evidence. The birth certificate is truly no longer of any real concern.
And we feel that way also about the Social Security Number issue.
Mike said he was slightly embarrassed but he feels as though there might be some unnecessary friction between you two, even though we all share the same goals, and that we and the posse support all the work you’ve done over the years.
But we would like to request that you stand down with regard to your ongoing court cases, which appear to have already run their course, you must admit. I cannot overstate the importance that your cooperation will bring to the disclosure of this essential information.
If so, we’d request that these court proceedings be respectfully closed by March 19, when Lt. Zullo and Sheriff Arpaio and I will make our announcement. And believe me – it’s going to be the most incredible, universe-shattering thing you’ve ever heard!
Mike said he’s confident that you’ll cooperate, as we bring to a close this horrible chapter in our fine, Christian country to a close.
Thank you in advance, Dr. Taitz. It will be a pleasure to watch Mr. Whoever-he-is be taken where he needs to be taken.
With our most humble respect,
The Rev. Dr. Carl Gallups, M.Div. ppsimmons Radio Ministry http://www.carlgallups.com WEBY 1330 a.m. Freedom Friday
It's good to clear that up. Thus when Onaka verifies that the information on the WHLFBC matches the information in the birth record on file, that means the birth record does not contain any amendments which are not reflected on the WH version. Otherwise they wouldn't match.
I'm not aware that FF&C pertains strictly just to documents passed directly from state to state. So, for example, if Hawaii issues a COLB (which is what it would have issued were Obama ever to have been required to file a certificate in court) to an individual and then that individual offers it to another state agency, FF&C would apply.
>> that means the birth record does not contain any amendments which are not reflected on the WH version. Otherwise they wouldn’t match.
That’s is a ridiculous assertion.
That’s is a ridiculous assertion.
That’s is a ridiculous assertion.
It's a non sequitur. He makes a habit of using those, and a lot of other logical fallacies.
By the way, did you notice the discussion regarding the alignment of the typewriter text? It's the most easy to understand proof of forgery that i've seen so far.
He must have forgotten my previous post to him.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3119060/posts?page=238#238
Crook likely has been given a prepared script.
Onaka’s Certified Letters of Verification met the needs of the two Secretaries of State who had requested them. Both Ken Bennett in Arizona and Kris Kobach in Kansas said that their questions had been answered.
Onaka’s initials are on the Letter of Verification submitted to U.S. District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate in the Mississippi eligibility lawsuit.
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/96289285
If anyone questions whether Onaka authorized the Letters of Verification for the Arizona and Kansas Secretaries of State, they can depose him or subpoena him to testify.
And anybody can simply call him or email him and ask directly.
Since Hawaii does not routinely certify LFBC's, your comment makes no sense. That was one of the issues with the release of the long form for Obama as Hawaii almost never releases that; the customary form is the COLB.
In any case, Obama's long form contains the notation "I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health," and signed by "Alan T. Onaka, PhD, State Registrar." What are you contending is the "language on genuine HI long form birth certificate?"
Correct. They served as a very effective fig leaf for a man who didn't realize what a can of worms he opened.
Now how about You, Mr "We must accept every piece of paper or silly legal ruling" try your hand at explaining why the type spacing on Obama's released birth certificate doesn't match the normal horizontal position which would have been left had it been typed normally on a typewriter?
I cannot wait to see how you deal with the obvious dichotomy of a supposed "State Certified" as genuine document which could not have been created using the normal methods of the time.
Kinda blows a big hole in your theory that we should just shut up and accept crap because people in power put a stamp on it and proclaimed it "blessed."
If a "strategy" exists, it necessarily dates much earlier than 2011, and includes the affirmation by several Republican officials in Hawaii. In the hyper-partisan environment we've had in the past 15 years or so, that is a most remarkable thing, is it not?
But then one must take the "strategy" back further, to no later than c. 1969, when Obama's Indonesian school application lists his date and place of birth as "August 4, 1961, Honolulu, HI." Even more amazing that the "ducks were being aligned" for his Presidential run even at about age 8.
A marvel, is it not?
Then again, maybe it's not so marvelous. Maybe the reason that all these things point to a Hawaiian birth is that . . (gasp!) Obama was born in Hawaii!! Have you ever considered that possibility?
No doubt you congratulate yourself on this contemptible abuse of the judicial system.
Why would I congratulate myself? I had nothing to do with it.
And as has been pointed out ad nauseum is a meaningless statement when you have the capability of changing the "record on file" without telling anyone that it has been changed.
That certification has a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. The certification previously used by Hawaii does not. There is no wiggle room as to the facts being sworn.
"... a true and correct copy of the original record..."
You like going around and around Obama girl.
Forgery. Cut and paste job like you've been told a billion times.
Nobody of reasonable knowledge on this issue will dispute that Hawaii has a record of him, or that he was claimed to have been born in Hawaii. (except for those occasions when he himself tried to con everyone by claiming to have been born in Kenya)
The point of dispute is whether or not a record which they won't show, and from a state that permits birth certificates for out of state born children, is proof that he was actually born inside the borders of the state of Hawaii.
Two weeks after he was born, his mother was known to be in Washington State, and this during a time when they would not allow newborns to fly because air pressure changes could rupture their ears.
So how did Stanley Ann get there? Perhaps she was there all along, just across the border in Whiterock at the free hospital for unmarried women. Perhaps mom did her paperwork back in Hawaii and submitted it, thereby creating the record that they won't let anyone see.
Don't know what is the truth, but know what we are being told is the truth certainly smells.
Nice attempt at changing your question. On the earlier post your point was about lack of verification that the information is "accurate:"
They affirm the information is "On Record", which is a distinctly different thing than affirming it is accurate.
When I point out that expecting verification of accuracy for event 50 or more years past is ridiculous, you quickly shift the point to one about verification of a "true and complete" (conforming) copy.
Nice try.
It certainly carries no weight here among the better informed regarding Hawaii's lax standards for birth records.
All I've seen among the "better informed" is repetition of the erroneous belief that when a "Hawaiian birth certificate" was issued for persons born outside of Hawaii, that such indicated Hawaii as the place of birth.
No. Not even worth a response.
‘Not even worth a response.’
On this we agree. Obama’s FR defenders appear most of all to crave attention. Ignoring them trumps attempts at rational engagement. I haven’t read nearly all the present exchange, but from what I have gone through one thing seems clear. The Obot is just tossing stupid stuff out in hopes of burning large amounts of your time & energy refuting it. I wouldn’t give it the satisfaction. Jmo.
Btw, you called the ‘Gallups letter’ right early on. Props. Next time you smell a rat, I’ve vowed to take you are more seriously. Your track record is stellar.
"By requesting the verification I can now report to thousands of constituents that we did what can be done and he is qualified to be on the ballot," Bennett said.Again, "matching" is meaningless.Bennett said he had not actually opened the email as of 7 p.m. Tuesday, but was confident it contained the information he asked for.
No. I was comparing the preset lines of the forms to Moncton's lines; not to typewriter positions.
Try to pay better attention.
A typewriter simply will not do what this document purports to show.
And you purport to know this . . HOW?? Pray tell your methodology for declaring that it's not possible for a typewritten document -- one that is later copied and scanned by means not known for certain -- to show these characteristics.
Every methodology must utilize a "control" set for assessing whether the conclusions on the test sample are valid. The flaw in Moncton's presentation -- one that you seem to blithely overlook in your haste to have a point to make -- is that there is apparently no control sample first demonstrating that his grid methodology is valid. He would at a minimum first need to establish that other samples of birth certificates from that period (i.e., using comparable typewriters and then copied and scanned) show no variance in letter placement when the grid is applied.
Has he done this? And where might one view his research protocol and methodology?
Though even that may not be sufficient unless one knows how the Obama certificate was typed. On manual typewriters, one can have the document secured to the platen. Or one use the paper release to allow the form to be moved freely by hand. I've known clerks who found it easier when doing forms to keep the release "open" and quickly manipulate the document by hand. But with the release open, striking the page with the keys could have a tendency to move (slightly) the paper. I find it entirely plausible this could account for slight variations in the letter alignment.
But who's to say? My hypothesis (just as Moncton's) demands a set of tests and controls for validity.
Moncton doesn't apparently have that (at least none you've offered). So his conclusions (and yours) are poppycock.
I'm ready for your "this doesn't warrant reply" rejoinder, which is what you fall back on every time I box you into a corner.
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.