NEVER have I said that those documents were obtained by nefarious means.
I quoted YOUR posts where you said
1) you SAW the docs,
2) where you said you SENT docs to Orly,
3) where you said that unless someone gave PERMISSION for another person to see the docs, that to disclose the info was a VIOLATION of the privacy act.
I asked WHEN did 0 give you permission.
Here is your latest post:
” ..... A person who is not a Federal employee nor a Federal contractor with a copy of Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization issued to him in 1983 is a sign of someone who was granted permission to possess a copy of the document.....”
Since you said upthread that you were not a federal employee or a federal contractor, then if 0 gave you permission then it would be OK.
Again my question,
DID 0 give you PERMISSION?????
If so, WHEN?????
Only an OBOT or ConcernedFreeper cares about how, when and why Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization was viewed, copied, or delivered. These are the questions a defense lawyer would use to discredit the incriminating evidence and protect Obama.
The best answer a rebuttal witness can provide to an OBOT or ConcernedFreeper is: “I don’t recall.”
At trial, the rebuttal witness can carefully explain how, when and why they were able to legally obtain a copy of Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization. Obama provided copies of his COLB to select reporters and denied other reporters the opportunity to examine the certified copy. An immigrant can provide a copy of his/her Certificate of Naturalization if they choose. Doing so, waives their right to privacy.
Providing a copy of the evidence to an attorney to discuss legal issues is not a violation of Obama’s privacy. He waived his right to privacy when he gave it to me. I’m protected by attorney-client privilege as I sought legal advice from licensed attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. I can provide any documents I think are relevant to a legal issue to a licensed attorney without adverse consequence.