Shocker: Even Obama Lawyers Admit Birth Certificate Forged: “But Eligibility’s A Separate Matter”

The conversation about Barack Obama’s birth certificate has been off the table for a while now – but the true heart of the matter has never been resolved.

Has anything in his administration been valid or legal? Oddly enough, it seems that a clever legal strategy may make the question of a forged document somehow irrelevant to Obama’s eligibility to hold office.

Coincidentally or not, it was none other than President-elect Donald Trump who, arguably, called off the hounds, got the Obama Admin to produce a document, and then called the whole thing square in the lead up to 2012.

More recently, Trump dismissed his previous ties to the “birther movement” during the last few weeks of his presidential campaign, brushing off the topic very hurriedly by stating: “President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period.”

However, the question isn’t settled for investigators who have been conducting a five-year probe of the birth certificate they claim is a forgery – complete with photoshop layers!

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, headed by the outgoing Sheriff Joe Arpaio, found, via WND:

A years-long forensics investigation into the computer image of the long-form Hawaiian birth certificate image that Barack Obama released during a White House news conference during his first term and presented to the American people as an official government document concluded it is “fake.”

The sheriff’s video said there were nine images on the Obama birth certificate that appear to be identical to, and copied from, another birth certificate issued in Hawaii just days after his birth. That certificate belongs to Johanna Ah’nee.

“The inescapable conclusion is that the Hawaii Department of Health has not shown the American public the original 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, if they actually exist,” he said.

Clearly, the mainstream media will continue to cast doubt and ridicule on these claims.

But it isn’t for lack of substance, but for fear that these dangerous issues could be raised. A Republican controlled Congress, however, could revive the issue again. That much remains to be seen.

So what does it all mean? According to Jerome Corsi, WND writer and author of Where’s the Birth Certificate?:

“That President Obama’s birth certificate is fake, as proven now by a legitimate law enforcement examination raises serious questions that high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed at the highest level of government. The clear conclusion is that the Obama presidency may have been illegitimate, having violated Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. Impeachment procedures may be required, even if those procedures are conducted after Obama leaves office.”

Sheriff Arpaio indicated his intent to raise Congressional hearings and put forward a law requiring presidential vetting (obviously a good idea):

“I plan on turning over this investigation this month to the federal government. And Congress. And hope Congress No. 1 will pass a law, the president should be vetted. Common sense.

Meanwhile, the powers that be are claiming that the Arpaio posse investigation doesn’t matter.

What makes these matters even more interesting is that Obama lawyers have apparently admitted that the document is a fake – and went so far as to argue that the fake document, therefore, was not sufficient to disprove Obama’s eligibility for the highest office.

After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination … arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd and, therefore, invalid as evidence toward proving Obama’s ineligibility in a court of law.

Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.

Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate.

“Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified,” says TDP Editor, Penbrook Johannson, “Obama’s eligibility is a separate matter than the charges of forgery and fraud. Of course, we have evidence that he is not eligible. But, evidence of forgery by as yet unidentified counterfeiters working on behalf of Obama is not what legally excludes Obama from appearing on a ballot, by itself, until some authority is willing to consider this as evidence of forgery on its merit as an indication of actual ineligibility in a court of legal authority.

These bizarre statements are actually on video… skip ahead to 34-40 minutes in this second part for many of the relevant statements about how the alleged forgery never was relevant to whether or not Obama appeared on the ballot in 2012 – though, in theory and in merit, it should have been.

a) Barack Obama satisfied the public scrutiny over his birth certificate by outwardly bending to pressure from Donald Trump’s “show me” routine

b) The Obama team (individuals not clearly identified) produced the document in question by leaking it to the press, and putting it online.

c) However, no birth certificate document was ever legally produced or turned in to anyone (including the State Dept.) in order to appear on the ballot, etc.

d) Therefore, legal questions concerning “forgery” of the document produced do not legally link up to anything about Obama’s candidacy or presidency

e) Any questions or criminal allegations are posed towards “as yet unknown” conspirators – meaning that, while the document may indeed be a proven forgery, no one is currently identified as having created the document. Unless Obama is personally implicated in creating and producing this document, it would have no bearing on his eligibility – in retrospect or otherwise. At this point, it isn’t even clear if a legitimate birth certificate exists for Obama, and if so, where it is located or being held.

f) Public perception is an entirely different beast. If it ever came to a head, the entire reign of Obama could be put into question. But luckily for the outgoing president, those making accusations and raising questions have been labeled and marginalized. Until the campaign of Donald Trump, the question had been largely dropped – even in many right wing circles.

It may have been a convenient move to put someone other than Barack Obama Sr. on that birth certificate.

It was in the Spring of 1961 that Obama Sr’s foreign student adviser called immigration officials and expressed concern that Obama had recently married a young woman named Stanley Ann Dunham. The advisor, Sumi McCabe, was concerned about the extension of his student visa in April 1961. She knew about Obama Sr’s Kenyan wife, Kezia and his sexual promiscuity on campus. This effort by McCabe put Obama Sr in a panic. It was then that Obama Sr chose to hide his relationship to Stanley Ann and his fatherhood to Baby Barack in order to keep his student visa. Perhaps it was an effort to make sure the INS did not think, when they discovered that Obama Sr. and Dunham were not living together as husband and wife, that their marriage was a sham set-up for immigration purposes. If the INS was convinced that idea was true, Obama Sr. would have been deported and lose his ability to finish his degree.

I think the long form birth certificate had another man listed as the father. As for the place of birth, I think it is hard not to think Kenya was the place of birth where Obama Sr took Stanley Ann to get his father’s blessing. The separation demand by his father, Hussein Onyango Obama, became a huge complication towards his original plan to live with his wife and son in Hawaii while he finished his studies. It would have made his requests for a student VISA easier.

The accusations of his bigamy were the final straw and he had to distance himself from Stanley Ann with every effort. The birth certificate was one such effort.

With all due respect, that is actually a little silly.

If the fake Birth Certificate is evidence of anything in context, it is that he can't produce a Birth Certificate that does show he is eligible to hold the office.

The legal eligibility problem is a line of Supreme Court cases that stands for the proposition that eligibility is a different legal issue than procedural or political inconsistencies (vote counting etc.) in the process of election. A person who is not eligible to hold the office cannot act even if he or she is installed in the position.

Purported acts in office by a person who is not an eligible holder of the office are void.

So when you look at his actions, there are a handful of things he did that required an effective President--appointment of the two ladies to the Supreme Court is one of them. The appointments are void and I don't see anything that saves them.

If Barry was not eligible, under the Constitution, the legal consequence is that Joe served as acting President.

With respect to some of his actions, I speculate that a careful investigation of the underlying events would demonstrate that Joe was carefully inserted as the actor for the purpose of making the action valid. That didn't happen in the case of the Supreme Court appointments.

His actual oath of office (as distinguished from the public performance) was administered in camera in order to avoid disclosing deficiencies in his identity qualifications.

And no; the answer is not impeachment--I believe Barry could not be removed by impeachment for the reason that he does not hold the office. The correct legal attack is to attack the efficacy of the act. Motions to dissolve the Supreme Court decisions to which Keagan and/or Sotomayor were necessary participants in the decisions.

That assumes that the prevailing speculation that he was born under circumstances in which he was not a citizen at birth is accurate.

The substantive issue is also pretty clear. All the speculation you read about Law of Nations and other historic legal treatises is generally misplaced. Barry has two ways to eligibility--the clear certainty is born in the US. And all this stuff about commitment of his parents or his possible loss of citizenship through offshore adoption or whatever is irrelevant--the Supreme Court in our time is a political institution and there simply is no reason to doubt that if he proved born in the US, he or anyone else under the same circumstances would be held eligible.

The other way is less certain--a person born outside the US under circumstances where they obtain statutory citizenship as a birthright (because they are born under circumstances where they become statutory citizens at birth) is almost certain to be held eligible by the Supreme Court. We may not like that answer but it is what it is.

The attack is still currently open because Barry is on the hook for statements against interest that he was born in Kenya to Stanley Ann his mother and Senior his father. If so, he is not eligible--not born in the US; not a citizen at birth because his claimed mother did not confer citizenship at birth under the then effective citizenship statute.

I do not believe those statements are accurate--I don't believe he was born in Kenya; I don't think Stanley was his mother or had anything else to do with his birth other than to take custody of him as an Au Paire for a short period of time (and later in his life perfect the claim that she was his mother for reasons related to his future political efforts); I don't think Senior was his father either.

Under the applicable law in most places in the US, his statements against interest are actual admissible evidence of the fact admitted. He could prove the contrary--evidence of where he was born or the circumstances thereof.

My own view is that he was likely born in Canada to a mother who was not a US Citizen and never had any claim to US citizenship; and a father who was a multi generation US citizen descendant but who would not have conferred citizenship on a child born outside the US to a non-citizen mother under clear US Supreme Court law.

With respect to Trump and Roger Alies (perhaps O'Rilley), I also speculate that Barry has some other evidence of birth in the US which is politically sensitive but which would not be disqualifying legally and has managed to convince several significant observers that the birth evidence is valid as to Barry and that he is eligible and that the observer should not attack the deficiency. For example, born in the US to a father who is a anti US revolutionary whose primary testimony was his conviction to destroy the county.

On balance, I am pretty well convinced he was born in Canada under circumstances in which he would not be eligible to the office of President of the United States.

In other words, you suggest he may have presented SCOTUS and others with private NBC evidence and a story too unsavory for public consumption. Due to embarrassment, these leaders were sworn to secrecy given his position of being a president born a child out of wedlock with deceased parents.

Possibilities include deceased American parents since they can not be summoned to verify his story. So we have- FMD & white girl, MX & white girl or Gramps & black girl. Or mom was a teenager who fell victim to a gang rape or a married man. So the father was written ‘unknown’ and the proxy-African BHO is legally excused.

The story was accepted at face value without running it through the intelligence agencies ... or the agencies were complicit.

This would explain his private meeting with SCOTUS, the double swear-in ceremonies and the media’s disinterest and silence.

Their acceptance and complacency should be contrasted with this information.

In 2005, the Russians spotted his faux identity when he visited with Sen. Dick Lugar. At the Moscow airport, agents seized his passport and accused him of being a British spy, holding him there on the runway most of the day. The WH had to get involved to compel his release. In 2006, an advance team was dispatched to Indonesia and his records were removed. Two years later, under the direction of John Brennan’s company, his passport files were breached three times and then sanitized in 2008. In 2008, Clinton’s PI team was too late to discover much beyond the ‘Barry Soetoro’ name in one Indonesian school registry, his public school records in Hawaii were already missing.

Obviously, he has held more than one identity and his true birthplace, birthdate, and bio-parents are known to very few.

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.