Posted on 12/07/2013 10:52:00 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike
Cold Case Posse volunteer researcher and internet radio host Mark Gillar called in to the WOBC radio show and reported the following:
Gillar said he is in contact with the Cold Case Posse almost daily and never has there been so much enthusiasm and confidence as there is right now regarding the Obama document fraud investigation. He said there's extreme reason for hope right now and that it's not just about the birth certificate it's about multiple counts of document fraud.
Gillar also confirmed that when Obama was purportedly born on August 4, 1961, health departments were still using the 1960 vital statistics coding manual which clearly would have required the term "negro" to be used as the race of Barack Obama Sr., not African. Gillar next pointed out that if someone listed their race as black or Afro-American, or colored, they were to be reported as negro according to the manual. Gillar added that many agencies are lying for Obama and there are going to be a lot of people going to jail over this.
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
92 of 93 current U.S. Attorneys, those who prosecute federal crimes, were appointed by Barack Obama. I can’t see any of them taking on a federal prosecution on this issue.
Even worse is that only Attorney General Eric Holder can appoint an Independent Counsel like Janet Reno appointed Ken Starr for the Clinton investigations.
I think you’re on the right track. That fits with his behavior in high school, the fraudulent selective service registration and his scofflaw ways while at Harvard. Obama always thought he was special and above the proletariat. Instead of a WAG, I’d put you at a SWAG.
That’s why this will not proceed through any criminal court. This is being presented to members of Congress and to gain consensus for consideration of impeachment. If any action is to take place the people’s representatives will have the burden to do so.
On this we agree. Attempting to go through the court system is an utter waste of time. The legal system is a farce nowadays.
Cynic
I could take it as supporting a thesis otherwise proven.
And, again, I think Barry’s as fraudulent as they come.
But because some clerk in HI typed a work that wasn’t supported in a government process manual over 50 years ago?
Just seems like pretty tepid evidence to have to base any kind of case on, let alone one of this stature.
Cynic
Racebannon, volunteer, foundahardheadedwoman,
Add to the birth document fraud and posing as a citizen, the use of a SSN issued to somebody else.
0 used it on his tax form in around 2009, and if he’s still using it, I would think its an ongoing offense.
So when would that statute of limitations run out?
We had similar promises from Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch regarding any number of Clinton improprieties. Nothing substantial happened.
Consider me a Missourian on the subject of people going to jail for covering up for Obama: “Show me.”
That’s also a long shot. Between now and January of 2015, the guilty votes of 22 Democrat Senators in addition to all of the Senate’s RINOs would be needed to remove Obama from office via a Bill of Impeachment being voted out of the House.
The House could impeach but securing a conviction in the Senate would be very difficult.
652
Statute of Limitations for Conspiracy
Conspiracy is a continuing offense. For statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 371, which require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the last overt act. See Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211 (1946); United States v. Butler, 792 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1986). For conspiracy statutes which do not require proof of an overt act, such as RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961) or 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must allege and prove that the conspiracy continued into the limitations period. The crucial question in this regard is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, and the conspiracy is deemed to continue until its purpose has been achieved or abandoned. See United States v. Northern Imp. Co., 814 F.2d 540 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Coia, 719 F.2d 1120 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 973 (1984).
An individual’s “withdrawal” from a conspiracy starts the statute of limitations running as to that individual. “Withdrawal” from a conspiracy for this purpose means that the conspirator must take affirmative action by making a clean breast to the authorities or communicating his or her disassociation to the other conspirators. See United States v. Gonzalez, 797 F.2d 915 (10th Cir. 1986).
I might be wrong, but I believe it would be a form that he had to have filled out within the last 5 years to count if you are talking about Obama. If these were crimes he committed in college or as a young adult/Senator/candidate it seems that would be outside the 5 year window for continuing acts unless you interpreted the fraud as continuing, but that would require another act and due to privacy laws I don’t think concealing it would count.
If you are referring my comments about the Freddie/Fannie crew they all abandoned ship over 5 years ago when it fell apart enjoying over 100 million dollars in bonuses.
I would pray it wasn’t so and hopefully I am wrong, but I have given up on the pipedream that the fraudster would go down in flames.
Again:
652
Statute of Limitations for Conspiracy
Conspiracy is a continuing offense. For statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 371, which require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the last overt act. See Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211 (1946); United States v. Butler, 792 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1986). For conspiracy statutes which do not require proof of an overt act, such as RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961) or 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must allege and prove that the conspiracy continued into the limitations period. The crucial question in this regard is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, and the conspiracy is deemed to continue until its purpose has been achieved or abandoned. See United States v. Northern Imp. Co., 814 F.2d 540 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Coia, 719 F.2d 1120 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 973 (1984).
An individual’s “withdrawal” from a conspiracy starts the statute of limitations running as to that individual. “Withdrawal” from a conspiracy for this purpose means that the conspirator must take affirmative action by making a clean breast to the authorities or communicating his or her disassociation to the other conspirators. See United States v. Gonzalez, 797 F.2d 915 (10th Cir. 1986).
I would love for you to be right. However, this is the President we are talking about and that would likely be a bridge too far for any court to tackle.
Out of curiosity (not argument), what would extend the crime?
“5 year statute of limitations for felonies except capital crimes.”
He’s still an illegal alien that is currently a criinal for overstaying his student visa from indonesia where he is still a citizen!
He isn’t a US citizen, never has been and hopefully never will be!
My assertion is that whatever US Attorneys pressed it, while the principal is basically immune, all parties to the conspiracy are not, either to prosecution or public exposure...both of which achieve a purpose.
However, I’ve no idea what to do about the media...except turn them off. Prepared to give up your cable, satellite & sports guys & gals?
Clearly the citizenship issue would be a crime. As I wrote above, I think there is a better case that he declared himself to be a foreign born student for admission and tuition assistance.
Who knows?
Sorry but wake me when something happens with any of this...
Your assertion was previously discussed here on FR and that was a very interesting thread. I believe the general consensus after a feisty debate was that academic institutions could hide behind privacy laws, but if it could be proven that someone in the rat party or government knew they would not be immune because they would be party to the crime.
My belief would be for Obama to get jammed he would have to commit a documented act in furtherance of the conspiracy. He has minions that can get their hands dirty and he has that Teflon politician ability to claim ignorance.
I expect to learn the truth after he is out of office - there won’t be much of an incentive to cover any longer and he will lose a good amount of protection via his administration. Maybe I am wrong, but almost everyone here will be able to say “told you so!”
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.