A judge in Cook County Circuit Court will hear testimony Friday in a lawsuit filed by an Illinois voter that alleges Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz should not be allowed to run for president, CNN and ABC are reporting.
Lawrence Joyce, an Illinois voter who has objected to Cruz’s placement on the Illinois primary ballot next month, will have his case heard in the Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago. Joyce’s previous objection, made to the state’s Board of Elections, was dismissed on February 1.
Joyce challenges Cruz’s right to be president in the wake of questions put forth by GOP rival Donald Trump about being born in Canada, according to CNN.
Cruz maintains he is a natural-born citizen since his mother is American-born.
“My case presents the perfect opportunity for Donald Trump himself to step forward and bring the matter to court personally,” Joyce told WBBM radio.
Joyce, of Poplar Grove, Ill., said he’s concerned about what could happen if Cruz is the Republican nominee, saying the Democrats could file a challenge in the fall, ABC’s channel 7 in Chicago reported.
“At that point, all of his fundraising would dry up. And his support in the polls would drop dramatically. He may be forced at that point to resign the nomination,” Joyce said.
Joyce said he has not spoken to the Trump campaign and that he supports Republican contender Ben Carson.
The Trump and Cruz campaigns could not immediately be reached.
An attorney for the Ted Cruz campaign asked a Cook County judge Friday to dismiss an Illinois man’s lawsuit challenging the Texas senator’s eligibility to run for president, citing that the Republican hopeful wasn’t properly served with the complaint.
Lawrence Joyce, an Illinois voter and Ben Carson supporter, brought his complaint earlier this month to the Illinois State Board of Elections, which dismissed it.
Now, he is appealing the case with the Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago, asking it to rule Cruz ineligible to run in next month’s GOP primary in Illinois. Joyce challenges whether the senator from Texas meets the criteria to serve as president because he was born in Canada.
Sharee Langenstein, an attorney for Cruz, said in court Friday it is “very, very clear” the Cook County court doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case because state law stipulates the candidate be served with the complaint. Joyce, a pharmacist and attorney from Poplar Grove, Ill., failed to serve Cruz, whose home address is listed in his petition to be placed on the state’s ballot, Langenstein said.
The issue of whether Cruz is a “natural-born” citizen has been raised by others, including rival GOP presidential contender Donald Trump, who has threatened to file a lawsuit on the issue. Cruz maintains he meets the criteria because his mother is American-born.
Judge Maureen Ward Kirby set a March 1 court date to hear arguments on the motion to dismiss. Joyce, who works the midnight shift at a hospital pharmacy, told the judge he wasn’t available for arguments before then because of work commitments. The Illinois primary is March 15 and early voting has already begun.
Despite the close timing, Joyce said it is worth letting his complaint play out.
“The nomination doesn’t take place until July,” Joyce said. “So if a determination is made after the primary that Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president then certainly it would be incumbent upon the Republican National Committee not allow the name of Ted Cruz to be entered at the convention in July.”
Voters in Texas and New York also have filed legal challenges on whether Cruz meets the citizenship qualifications. The Indiana Board of Election is scheduled to hear a complaint Friday from a Republican voter challenging whether Cruz and fellow GOP presidential hopeful Marco Rubio meet the “natural-born” requirement. Rubio, whose parents immigrated from Cuba, was born in Florida.
Cruz has dismissed the efforts as “political mischief.”
He defended his citizenship and right to run at a CNN candidates’ forum Wednesday, saying he was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen, making him an automatic U.S citizen. His mother was born in Wilmington, Del., Cruz said.
“I never breathed a breath of air on this planet when I was not a U.S. citizen,” he said. “It was the act of being born that made me a U.S. citizen.”
The Obama administration has intervened in a landmark legal case brought by the American victims of Palestinian terrorists, urging the court to limit restitution for the victims out of fear that a sizable payout could collapse the Palestinian government, according to a copy of the court filing.
Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken argued in a filing to a New York City court that a hefty payout to the victims of Palestinian terror crimes could burden the Palestinian Authority (PA) and interfere in Obama administration efforts to foster peace in the region.
The victims are entitled to as much as $655 million from the PA following the conclusion of a decade-long lawsuit that exposed the Palestinian government’s role in supporting and paying for terror attacks in Israel.
The administration’s intervention in the case has drawn criticism from U.S. lawmakers and some of those affected by the decision.
While the administration supports the right of terror victims to sue in U.S. courts, it remains particularly concerned about the PA’s solvency.
“The United States respectfully urges the Court to carefully consider the impact of its decision on the continued viability of the PA in light of the evidence about its financial situation,” Blinken writes in his “statement of interest.” “An event that deprives the PA of a significant portion of its revenues would likely severely compromise the PA’s ability to operate as a governmental authority.”
Blinken goes on to warn that the case could impact U.S. security interests and its role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
“A PA insolvency and collapse would harm current and future U.S.-led efforts to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” Blinken writes.
Representatives to the PA had been lobbying the Justice and State Departments to get involved in the case for some time. The PA maintains that it does not have enough funds to pay a bond requirement and has petitioned the judge in the case to drop it.
However, a lawyer representing the victims argues that if the Palestinian government can continue paying terrorists currently imprisoned in Israeli jails, it can pay the victims of these terror acts.
“We are gratified that the Department of Justice supports the rights of survivors of international terrorism to enforce their rights and collect the judgment, but disappointed that the State Department failed to take any stand against the PLO and PA’s policy of putting convicted terrorists on their payroll as soon as they are jailed,” lawyer Kent Yalowitz was quoted as saying in a statement. “If the PA has enough money to pay convicted terrorists, it has enough to pay the judgment in this case.”
Ron Gould, a plaintiff in the case, told the Washington Free Beacon in an interview that there was no reason for the Obama administration to intervene.
“There was really no reason for them to even get involved,” said Gould, whose daughter Shayna was shot in the chest and nearly killed by Palestinian terrorists. “For the Obama administration to stick their fingers where they don’t belong is unconscionable.”
The PA “still seems to have the money to pay the families of the terrorists on an ongoing basis,” Gould said. “They do have the money to pay the piper for losing the court case.”
Shayna Gould welcomed the administration’s filing in the case, saying it reaffirms the rights of terror victims to have a fair day in court.
However, she called the argument that the PA could be bankrupted as a result of the suit “ironic, considering they pay terrorists on a monthly basis.”
Shayna Gould said the PA had been hinting that the U.S. government would get involved for quite some time
“It was a fear. It was a huge fear,” she said, adding that the PA should be forced to finally pay up.
“They, with pride, give money and rank of the highest honor to terrorists and people who commit murder,” Gould said. “Does that sound like clipping coupons and saving pennies?”
“I have to deal with [the impact of their violence] in my life on a constant basis,” Gould added, explaining that she deals with physical pain on a daily basis since the attack. “There is no limit to our suffering.”
Jewish human rights group B’nai B’rith was also critical of the administration’s intervention.
“There needs to be a price paid for committing acts of terror and the means available to prosecute those responsible,” the group said in a release. “While the victims’ families cannot bring their loved ones back, they can go to the courts to achieve redress.”
One of the more controversial scandals dogging likely Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has been her use of a private email account on a private server to conduct official public business during her tenure at the State Department.
Government watchdog group Judicial Watch had previously sued to gain access to Hillary’s emails, which they claimed should be public record, but Hillary has kept them hidden and a court had tossed out the original lawsuit.
However, federal Judge Reggie Walton has agreed to reopen the lawsuit after Judicial Watch and the State Department reached an agreement stating that Hillary Clinton should have turned over all of the documents she held on her private email server.
It should be remembered that Hillary has claimed to have turned over to the State Department only about half of the emails on her private server, deleting more than 30,000 others she determined on her own to be “private” in nature.
According to Fox News, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said, “This is the first case that’s been reopened. It’s a significant development. It points to the fraud by this administration and Mrs. Clinton.”
This decision could ultimately result in Hillary being ordered to turn over the server to an independent third party that could objectively sort through whatever traces remained on it.
There are many who suspect Hillary’s private email server contained evidence related to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, as well as of her involvement in a “pay-to-play” scheme that involved the trading of political favors for major donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Thanks to this federal judge, America may finally find out just what Hillary has been hiding on that private server.
Please share this on Facebook and Twitter if you are glad this judge decided to reopen the lawsuit demanding access to all of Hillary’s emails, not just the ones she decided to turn over herself.
What a disaster.
Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby charged the wrong people, wrong names, wrong birth dates and wrong address during Friday’s much hyped press conference.
The six Baltimore officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray are (top row from left) Caesar Goodson Jr., Garrett Miller, Edward Nero and (bottom row from left) William Porter, Brian Rice and Alicia White. (Baltimore Police Department via AP)
“When Miss Mosby stood up in front of the world with her theatrics at her press conference last Friday she charged two of the wrong people. Now, when I say she charged two of the wrong people, I don’t mean she charged two of the wrong officers. I mean she charged the wrong people. Innocent people. Of the six police officers that were charged two of them were charged under the wrong names, the wrong dates of birth and the wrong addresses.
And because of that, reporters went to the wrong addresses of these innocent people, these private citizens and whose lives have now been invaded. They went to their homes, knocked on their doors. They harassed them. They went to their neighbors and attempted to get interviews. And it wasn’t until these innocent people these private citizens contacted their local state’s attorney’s offices that this problem was rectified.”
The Baltimore Sun reported on the mistake.
When charges were announced Friday against Alicia White for the death ofFreddie Gray, her phone started buzzing from journalists and bail bondsmen.*
The problem was, they were calling the wrong Alicia White. The elementary school cafeteria manager from East Baltimore was not the Baltimore Police sergeant charged with manslaughter in the high-profile police custody death – even though court records listed her.
The middle initial was off. Her address, her height, her weight, her driver’s license number – all of the information was my client’s information,” said Jeremy Eldridge, an attorney who says he has been hired by the resident.
“Her life has been a living hell the past four days,” he said.
An attorney for Lt. Brian Rice said his client’s information was also entered incorrectly when prosecutors filed charges, but declined further comment.
On Friday evening, Tammy and Brian Rice of Brunswick, Md. said they were receiving multiple calls from reporters looking for the lieutenant. Brian Rice of Brunswick is a plumber, they said.
The Baltimore Sheriff’s Office, which assisted the Baltimore State’s Attorney’s Office in charging the officers, declined to comment and referred questions to prosecutors, who could not immediately be reached.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Obamacare cannot force companies to pay for emergency contraceptive coverage for their employees that could lead to abortions, in violation of their religious beliefs.
The 5-4 ruling delivered a huge victory to conservatives who have worked for years to scale back the various mandates of the controversial healthcare law.
The Court decided that Obamacare cannot be used to require for-profit, closely held companies to provide certain birth control drugs and devices – such as morning after pills – that could cause abortion.
The case was brought by Hobby Lobby, a Oklahoma-based retail chain owned by the Green family. The Greens said they are willing to cover 16 of the 20 birth control methods mandated by Obamacare to its employees, but not four others because the risk of abortion goes against their religious beliefs.
The company argued before the Court that the Obamacare mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which says the government cannot place burdens on the exercise of freedom of religion.
“Providing these objectionable drugs and devices violates the deeply held religious convictions of the Greens – the sole owners of their family businesses – that life begins at conception,” the company’s website says. “Yet refusing to comply with the federal mandate would subject them to an untenable choice of paying substantial fines or discontinuing the outstanding and affordable health insurance plan currently provided to their valued employees.”
The majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito agreed with that argument. According to SCOTUS Blog, the Obama administration failed to show that the broad contraception mandate is the least restrictive way of advancing its interest in ensuring access to birth control. The Court also ruled that the decision applies only to the contraception mandate, not other insurance mandates, such as those involving vaccinations.
Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that the government could pay for this coverage if it wants to make it available, but cannot compel a company to do so.
The decision deals a big hit to the Obama administration, which defended its interpretation of the law as something that forces companies to provide all manner of birth control methods to workers.
Republicans in Congress welcomed the high court’s ruling.
“Religious liberty will remain intact and all Americans can stay true to their faith without fear of big government intervention or punishment,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). “Our nation was founded on the principle of freedom, and with this decision, America will continue to serve as a safe haven for those looking to exercise religious liberty.”
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) called the ruling a victory for religious freedom and a defeat for the Obama administration’s “Big Government objectives.”
“The mandate overturned today would have required for-profit companies to choose between violating their constitutionally-protected faith or paying crippling fines, which would have forced them to lay off employees or close their doors,” he said.
“The president’s health care law remains an unworkable mess and a drag on our economy,” he added. “We must repeal it and enact better solutions that start with lowering Americans’ health care costs.”
The case is Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, referring to Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell. She replaced Kathleen Sebelius earlier this year – prior to that, the case was Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby.
The case is second big blow to Obama from the Supreme Court in as many weeks. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that President Obama’s 2012 “recess” appointments were not legal, because Obama made them when the Senate was not in recess.
That ruling prompted Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to say the decision was the biggest rebuke to a sitting president since 1974, when the Court decided unanimously that President Nixon must release the Watergate tapes.
Also related to abortion, the Court last week struck down a Massachusetts law that said people can’t stand on a public road or sidewalk within 35 feet of an abortion clinic.
The Supreme Court on Monday limited the power of public-sector unions to compel employees to pay contributions, dealing a setback to public-sector unions.
But the 5-4 decision, written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, wasn’t as sweeping as some union advocates had feared.
“This is a substantial obstacle to expanding public employee unions, but it does not gut them,” SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein wrote.
Unions had been concerned that the court would strike down laws in 26 states requiring teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public-sector employees to pay dues to the unions that negotiate contracts on their behalf, even if the workers don’t want to become union members.
The court hedged somewhat, but the decision is still a setback for public-sector unions. In a 5-4 decision written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, the court “recognized a category of ‘partial public employees’ who could not be required to contribute to union fees,” according to SCOTUSblog. Unions worried the court would rule all public employees could not be forced to pay, which would dry up their ranks and their coffers.
“It remains possible that in a later case the Court will overturn its prior precedent and forbid requiring public employees to contribute to union bargaining. But today it has refused to go that far. The unions have lost a tool to expand their reach. But they have dodged a major challenge to their very existence,” Goldstein wrote.
The case, Harris v. Quinn, stemmed from a challenge in Illinois involving in-home care providers. Illinois uses Medicaid funds to pay in-home care workers, but turnover was high at the low-paying jobs. In response, more than 20,000 in-home car workers organized and joined the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), after executive orders from Govs. Rod Blagojevich and Pat Quinn, both Democrats, classified them as “public employees.”
The National Right to Work Foundation brought a challenge to Quinn in 2010, arguing workers who didn’t want to participate in the union shouldn’t have to pay the dues.
A brand-new book lays out the blueprint for impeaching President Barack Obama, alleging high crimes, misdemeanors, bribery and other offenses committed against the U.S. Constitution and the limitations on the executive office.
“Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama from Office,” by New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott, is slated for release Aug. 27.
Already, the Daily Mail of London has called the work “explosive,” reporting the book contains a “systematic connect-the-dots exercise that the president’s defenders will find troublesome.”
“Consider this work to be the articles of impeachment against Barack Obama,” stated Klein.
“Every American, whether conservative or liberal, Democrat, Republican or independent, should be concerned about the nearly limitless seizure of power, the abuses of authority, the cronyism, corruption, lies and cover-ups documented in this news-making book,” Klein said.
The authors stress the book is not a collection of generalized gripes concerning Obama and his administration. Rather, it is a well-documented indictment based on major alleged violations.
Among the offenses enumerated in the book:
* Obamacare not only is unconstitutional but illegally bypasses Congress, infringes on states’ rights and marking an unprecedented and unauthorized expansion of IRS power.
* Sidestepping Congress, Obama already has granted largely unreported de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens using illicit interagency directives and executive orders.
* The Obama administration recklessly endangered the public by releasing from prison criminal illegal aliens at a rate far beyond what is publicly known.
* The president’s personal role in the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack, with new evidence regarding what was transpiring at the U.S. mission prior to the assault – arguably impeachable activities in and of themselves.
* Illicit edicts on gun control in addition to the deadly “Fast and Furious” gun-running operation intended, the book shows, to collect fraudulent gun data.
* From “fusion centers” to data mining to drones to alarming Department of Homeland Security power grabs, how U.S. citizens are fast arriving at the stage of living under a virtual surveillance regime.
* New evidence of rank corruption, cronyism and impeachable offenses related to Obama’s first-term “green” funding adventures.
* The illegality of leading a U.S.-NATO military campaign without congressional approval.
* Obama has weakened America both domestically and abroad by emboldening enemies, tacitly supporting a Muslim Brotherhood revolution, spurning allies and minimizing the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.
Already, the White House is hitting back, calling the book’s impeachment effort “foolhardy.”
“If the Republicans in the House want to try something that foolhardy, it will probably be run by the same group of lawmakers who have voted more than 40 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act,” an unnamed administration official told the Daily Mail.
“Like most of the partisan actions coming out of the House, the Senate would never stoop to dignify it,” the official added.
Klein and Elliott acknowledge that impeachment of a sitting president “is certainly a matter of the utmost gravity, and not a charge to be undertaken for what our Founding Fathers would have called mere ‘factional’ advantage.”
“We will show how Obama has not hesitated to go beyond democratic, legal and constitutional means to advance his radical agenda,” they write.
Aaron Klein is a New York Times bestselling author, journalist and radio host. He is a senior reporter for WND and hosts the No. 1-rated local weekend radio show, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” broadcast on New York’s WABC Radio.
His previous books include “Fool Me Twice,” “Red Army,” “The Manchurian President,” “The Late Great State of Israel” and “Schmoozing with Terrorists.”
Brenda J. Elliott is an award-winning historian, researcher and New York Times bestselling author. She is the blogger who created RezkoWatch (RW), TheRealBarackObama (RBO) and RBO2.
She has appeared on hundreds of local and national radio shows, has contributed to numerous articles and publications and is the co-author of “Fool Me Twice,” “Red Army” and “The Manchurian President.”
URGENT! Sign The Petition To Defund ObamaCare – Join Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio And Rand Paul Today!
Health insurance rates in Georgia are rising by up to 198 percent under Obamacare, the Georgia Insurance Commissioner said in a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Monday.
States are required by the Affordable Care Act to report new insurance premium rates for state exchanges run by the federal government by the end of July.
Commissioner Ralph Hudgens in his letter asked HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to extend Georgia’s deadline for reporting the insurance rates by one month to give his office more time to investigate and approve the new, higher rates.
“Georgia consumers cannot afford these massive rate increases,” Hudgens wrote to Sebelius.
The Georgia insurance department compared the cost of insurance within the exchanges to what people pay now for similar coverage, and the rates were going up for every age group, said Jay Florence, an insurance department official under Hudgens.
For an average 25 year-old male, premiums are set to rise 85 to 198 percent within the exchanges, while for a 45 year-old male, premiums will rise 40 to 100 percent, Florence said. A 64 year-old male will pay 18 to 48 percent more under Obamacare’s regime.
“The delay is simply trying to give the administration an opportunity to explain that and maybe explain what our actuaries weren’t able to determine, which is that these rates are excessive,” he said.
Hudgens requested that Sebelius respond by end of business today. As of 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, HHS had not responded, according to another official in the commissioner’s office. HHS did not return a request from the Washington Free Beacon for comment.
Healthcare experts pointed to several reasons that the premiums for individual plans on the exchanges are rising.
One is the “age rating,” which requires that insurance companies charge no more than three times what they charge younger people. Without this restriction, insurance companies would likely charge five times as much, which means that the restriction will lower prices for the elderly but raise them for younger people.
“That in and of itself would have a direct, almost mechanical impact on rates,” said Ed Haislmaier, a health care expert at the Heritage Foundation.
Obamacare also increases the minimum amount insurance companies must pay for procedures, driving up premiums, Haislmaier said. He compared this rule to mandating that everyone upgrade their plane ticket to first class and requiring everyone to pay for the extra space.
There are some states, such as New York, that will see price reductions, noted James Capretta, a health policy expert at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. But these are the one that have “already pretty much destroyed the individual market” through prior healthcare reforms, he said, and other states with intact markets will see price increases.
“I have no reason to question their numbers,” Capretta said. “It’s going to be a big problem.”
Georgia is not the first state to make such an announcement. Indiana has already announced that insurance rates are rising 72 percent for an individual plan and 8 percent for a group plan.
It’s the Special Prosecutor in this case that needs to be fired.
Via FTU Jacksonville:
State Attorney Angela Corey fired her office’s information technology director Friday after he testified last month about being concerned prosecutors did not turn over information to George Zimmerman’s defense team in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.
On the same day attorneys finished their closing arguments in that nationally watched trial, a state attorney investigator went to Ben Kruidbos’ home about 7:30 a.m. to hand-deliver a letter stating Kruidbos “can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.”
The letter contended Kruibos did a poor job overseeing the information technology department, violated public records law for retaining documents, and noted he was questioned in March when the office was trying to determine who had leaked personnel information obtained through a computer breach.
In an interview Friday, Kruidbos denied the allegations in the letter, which was written by Cheryl Peek, the managing director of the State Attorney’s Office.
He said he had acted in good faith about “genuine concerns.” He said he had been proud to work at the State Attorney’s Office and feared the letter would cripple his chances at finding another job to support his family, including a 4-month-old son.
“I don’t have any regrets,” he said, “but I am terrified about the future and what that will end up being.”
Just when I thought the George Zimmerman “trial” couldn’t sink any lower, the prosecutorial limbo dancers of the State of Florida magnificently lowered their own bar in the final moments of their cable-news celebrity.
In real justice systems, the state decides what crime has been committed and charges somebody with it. In the Zimmerman trial, the state’s “theory of the case” is that it has no theory of the case: Might be murder, might be manslaughter, might be aggravated assault, might be a zillion other things, but it’s something. If you’re a juror, feel free to convict George Zimmerman of whatever floats your boat.
Nailing a guy on something, anything, is a time-honored American tradition: If you can’t get Al Capone on the Valentine’s Day massacre, get him on his taxes. Americans seem to have a sneaky admiration for this sort of thing, notwithstanding that, as we now know, the government is happy to get lots of other people on their taxes, too. Ever since the president of the United States (a man so cautious and deferential to legal niceties that he can’t tell you whether the Egyptian army removing the elected head of state counts as a military coup until his advisors have finished looking into the matter) breezily declared that if he had a son he’d look like Trayvon, ever since the U.S. Department of so-called Justice dispatched something called its “Community Relations Services” to Florida to help organize anti-Zimmerman rallies at taxpayer expense, ever since the politically savvy governor appointed a “special prosecutor” and the deplorably unsavvy Sanford Police Chief was eased out, the full panoply of state power has been deployed to nail Zimmerman on anything.
How difficult can that be in a country in which a Hispanic Obama voter can be instantly transformed into the poster boy for white racism? Who ya gonna believe – Al Sharpton or your lying eyes? As closing arguments began on Thursday, the prosecutors asked the judge to drop the aggravated assault charge and instruct the jury on felony murder committed in the course of child abuse. Felony murder is a murder that occurs during a felony, and, according to the prosecution’s theory du jour, the felony George Zimmerman was engaged in that night was “child abuse,” on the grounds that Trayvon Martin, when he began beating up Zimmerman, was 17-years-old. This will come as news to most casual observers of the case, who’ve only seen young Trayvon in that beatific photo of him as a 12-year-old.
In that one pitiful closing moment, the case achieved its sublime reductio ad absurdum: After a year’s labors, after spending a million bucks, after calling a legion of risible witnesses, even after the lead prosecutor dragged in a department store mannequin and personally straddled it on the floor of the court, the state is back to where it all began – the ancient snapshot of a smiling middle-schooler that so beguiled American news editors, Trayvon Martin apparently being the only teenager in America to have gone entirely unphotographed in the second decade of the 21st century. And, if Trayvon is a child, his malefactor is by logical extension a child abuser.
Needless to say, even in a nutso jurisdiction like Florida, the crime of “child abuse” was never intended to cover a wizened old granny kicking the ankle of the punk who’s mugging her a week before his 18th birthday. But, if ‘aggravated pedophilia’ is what it takes to fry that puffy white cracker’s butt, so be it.
If, for the purposes of American show trials, a Hispanic who voted for a black president can be instantly transformed into a white racist, there’s no reason why he can’t be a child abuser, too. The defense was notified of this novel development, on which the prosecution (judging by the volume of precedents assembled) had been working for weeks or more likely months, at 7:30 that morning. If you know your Magna Carta, you’ll be aware that “no official shall place a man on trial… without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.” But the rights enjoyed by free men in the England of King John in 1215 are harder to come by in the State of Florida eight centuries later.
So the prosecutors decided, the day before the case went to the jury, that Zimmerman was engaged in an act of child abuse that had somehow got a bit out of hand: no “credible witnesses” to this charge had been presented in the preceding weeks, but hey, what the hell? Opposing counsel, taking the reasonable position that they’d shown up to defend Mr. Zimmerman of murder and had had no idea until that morning that he was also on trial for child abuse, check bouncing, jaywalking, an expired fishing license, or whatever other accusation took the fancy of the State of Florida, asked for time to research the relevant case law. Judge Debra Nelson gave them until 1 p.m. At that point, it was 10.30 a.m. By the time the genius jurist had returned to the bench, she had reconsidered, and decided that “child abuse” would be a reach too far, even for her disgraceful court.
The defining characteristic of English law is its distribution of power between prosecutor, judge and jury. This delicate balance has been utterly corrupted in the United States to the point where today at the federal level there is a conviction rate of over 90 percent, which would impress Mubarak and the House of Saud, if not quite yet, Kim Jong-Un. American prosecutors have an unhealthy and disreputable addiction to what I called, at the conclusion of the trial of my old boss Conrad Black six years ago, “countless counts.” In Conrad’s case, he was charged originally with 17 crimes, three of which were dropped by the opening of the trial and another halfway through, leaving 13 for the jury, nine of which they found the defendant not guilty of, bringing it down to four, one of which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional and the remaining three of which they vacated, only to have two of them reinstated by the lower appeals court. In other words, the prosecution lost 88 percent of the case, but the 12 percent they won was enough to destroy Conrad Black’s life.
Multiple charges tend, through sheer weight of numbers, to favor a result in which the jury convict on some and acquit on others and then tell themselves that they’ve reached a “moderate” “compromise” as befits the reasonable persons they assuredly are. It is, of course, not reasonable. Indeed, the notion of a “compromise” between conviction and acquittal is a dagger at the heart of justice. It’s the repugnant “plea bargain” in reverse, but this time to bargain with the jury: okay, we threw the book at him and it went nowhere, so why don’t we all agree to settle? In Sanford, the state’s second closing “argument” to the strange, shrunken semi-jury of strikingly unrepresentative peers – facts, shmacts, who really knows? Vote with your hearts – brilliantly dispenses with the need for a “case” at all.
We have been warned that in the event of an acquittal there could be riots. My own feeling is that the Allegedly Reverend Al Sharpton, now somewhat emaciated and underbouffed from his Tawana Brawley heyday, is not the Tahrir Square-scale race-baiting huckster he once was.
But if Floridians are of a mind to let off a little steam, they might usefully burn down the Sanford courthouse and salt the earth. The justice system revealed by this squalid trial is worth rioting over.
Barack Obama has never been clear on the distinction between sovereign and servant, between the American people and those, including himself, elected to do the people’s business. We saw that yet again this week with the president’s unilateral rewrite of the Bataan Death March known as the Affordable Care Act – Obamacare. For this president, laws are not binding expressions of the popular will, but trifling recommendations to be ignored when expedient.
The collapse of law – not just Obamacare but law in general – is the Obama administration’s most egregious scandal. With the IRS here, Benghazi there, and Eric Holder’s institutionalized malevolence crowding the middle, it gets little direct attention. Perhaps it is so ubiquitous, so quotidian, that we’ve become inured to it.
As if more evidence were needed about the tragedy of black education, Rachel Jeantel, a witness for the prosecution in the George Zimmerman murder trial, put a face on it for the nation to see. Some of that evidence unfolded when Zimmerman’s defense attorney asked 19-year-old Jeantel to read a letter that she allegedly had written to Trayvon Martin’s mother. She responded that she doesn’t read cursive, and that’s in addition to her poor grammar, syntax and communication skills.
Jeantel is a senior at Miami Norland Senior High School. How in the world did she manage to become a 12th-grader without being able to read cursive writing? That’s a skill one would expect from a fourth-grader. Jeantel is by no means an exception at her school.
I would like to declare a war on women – namely, all those cringe-inducing ninnies who lust after every celebrity criminal defendant with big muscles, tattoos, puppy-dog eyes or Hollywood hair.
You know who I’m talking about, right? America’s Bad Boy groupies. They’re on the courthouse steps with their “Free Jahar” signs, cooing over how “hot” and “cute” the bloodstained Boston Marathon bombing suspect is. He “can blow me up with babies,” one moral reprobate quipped shortly after his capture. “I’m not gonna lie, the second bombing suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is hot. #sorrynotsorry,” another young girl boasted.
When do insensitive words destroy reputations?
It all depends.
Celebrity chef Paula Deen was dropped by her TV network, her publisher, and many of her corporate partners after she testified in a legal deposition that she used the N-word some 30 years ago. The deposition was made in a lawsuit against Deen and her brother over allegations of sexual and racial harassment.
Actor Alec Baldwin recently let loose with a barrage of homophobic crudities. Unlike Deen, Baldwin spewed his epithets in the present. He tweeted them publicly, along with threats of physical violence. So far he has avoided Paula Deen’s ignominious fate.
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
Apparently other Americans also recognize that the sources of racism are different today from what they were in the past. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 31 percent of blacks think that most blacks are racists, while 24 percent of blacks think that most whites are racist.
The difference between these percentages is not great, but it is remarkable nevertheless. After all, generations of blacks fought the white racism from which they suffered for so long. If many blacks themselves now think that most other blacks are racist, that is startling.
President Obama wants to make government “smarter.” Who could disagree with that? After all, it’s unlikely that even the biggest fans of big government believe the way government does what it does is the very best, very smartest way imaginable. Whether you’re an anarchist, a Leninist, or somewhere in between, everyone can agree that Uncle Sam could afford a few more IQ points.
Let’s put it another way. If government is going to do X, it should do X the smartest way possible. On that proposition both Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party agree.
A federal appeals court in Denver has ruled against the Obamacare abortion mandate that forces religious business owners to violate their beliefs by paying for abortifacients.
The ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the case returned to the district court level for swift resolution of the request by the owners of Hobby Lobby for an injunction until the dispute fully is resolved.
The district court previously refused to allow the injunction, and even Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the company owners to start paying for abortifacients for their employees, in direct violation of their faith.
However, the 10th Circuit took the case with the unusual step that the full court would hear the arguments rather than a three-judge panel.
In their decision, the court said Hobby Lobby has “established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm.”
The case is just one of more than five dozen pending in U.S. courts now challenging Obama’s demand that employers pay for abortifacients for their employee regardless of their religious faith and beliefs.
A five-judge majority on the court said the mandate creates a substantial burden, because if the owners do not comply with Obama’s demands, based on their religious beliefs, they would be subjected to millions of dollars in fines annually.
The judges also said the government did not satisfy the requirement to show that any burden on the religious exercise of the plaintiffs was overridden by some “compelling” government interest or that it was imposed in the least intrusive way possible.
The court pointedly noted that Obama’s administration already has exempted “tens of millions of people” from the same mandate, so to do so for Hobby Lobby hardly would create an impact.
The American Center for Law and Justice was one of the dozens of organizations that filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the dispute.
“We are pleased with the outcome of this case, especially because the 10th Circuit majority tracks the arguments we presented,” the group said. ” …These are the same arguments we have presented in the other mandate cases in which we are involved.”
The Green family, owners of the chain of hundreds of stores in 40 states, said, through the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, they are optimistic.
“My family and I believe very strongly in our conviction that life begins at conception, and the emergency contraceptives that we would be forced to provide in our employee health plan under this mandate are contrary to that conviction,” said David Green, founder. “We believe that business owners should not have to be forced to choose between following their faith and following the law.”
Hobby Lobby is the largest business so far to file a lawsuit against the Health and Human Services mandate under Obamacare. But it is just one of many plaintiffs who make up more than 60 lawsuits launched already.
Other plaintiffs include Colorado Christian University, Ave Maria University and Wheaton College of Illinois.
“We hold that Hobby Lobby and Mardel [a related company] are entitled to bring claims under [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act], have established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm.”
The 165-page opinion said Hobby Lobby has standing to sue, and the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply. The opinion also said the majority holds that the district court erred in finding that Hobby Lobby had not demonstrated a likelihood of success.
The judges noted that the company owners established their work on Christian principles and continue to run them that way, refusing to open on Sundays or engage in business activities that promote alcohol use.
The company also buys newspaper ads inviting people to “know Jesus as Lord and Savior.”
The court noted that the law allows exemptions to Obamacare for religious employers, but religious for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby were deliberately targeted for the requirement.
“The plaintiffs assert that because more than 13,000 individuals are insured under the Hobby Lobby plan… [Obamacare fines] would total at least $1.3 million per day, or almost $475 million per year.”
The fines, combined with the fact the government was unable to show it had narrowly tailored the requirement, means the government’s argument must fail, the court said.
“In addition, the Supreme Court has settled that individuals have Free Exercise rights with respect to their for-profit businesses… In short, individuals may incorporate for religious purposes and keep the Free Exercise rights, and unincorporated individuals may pursue profit while keeping their Free Exercise rights.”
The court said the government has the idea that when individuals incorporate but are not tax-exempt under the IRS code, “Free Exercise rights somehow disappear.”
But the judges said religious expression and religious conduct can be communicated by individuals and for-profit corporations alike.
Several other district judges have ordered that the abortion mandate not be enforced against individual companies until the dispute is resolved, but the government is appealing the decisions.
Case No. 1120465
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
HUGH MCINNISH, et al.,
v. BETH CHAPMAN, SECRETARY OF STATE, et al.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL ZULLO
L. Dean Johnson
L. DEAN JOHNSON, P.C.
4030 Balmoral Dr., Suite B
Huntsville, AL 35801
Tel: (256) 880-5177
KLAYMAN LAW FIRM
2020 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel: (310) 595-0800
Attorneys for Appellants
AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL ZULLO
My name is Michael Zullo, I am a citizen over 18 years of age and a resident of Arizona. The information contained in the affidavit is based on my personal knowledge and if called as a witness, I could testify completely thereto. I am a former sworn law enforcement office/criminal investigator and currently appointed by the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio as the commander of his Cold Case Posse and serving in this capacity as the chief investigator commissioned to investigate the allegations brought to his attention that President Obama’s identity documents were forged. I hereby swear, to the best of my knowledge and belief, as follows:
1. In August 2011, some 250 citizens of Maricopa County, Arizona, petitioned Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio to investigate allegations that President Obama’s identity documents were forged. They further alleged that by endorsing the forgeries, Mr. Obama had raised questions about his constitutional eligibility to hold the office of President.
2. The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is an Arizona State Certified Law Enforcement Agency, Headquartered in Phoenix Arizona. Maricopa County is the fourth largest county in the United States, and has a total area of 9,224 square miles. And has a population of over four million. Deputy Sheriffs of the MCSO are delegated their law enforcement authority by the Maricopa County Sheriff.
3. Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio became Sheriff in 1992 and has been reelected to an unprecedented sixth term in office. He began his career as a federal narcotics agent infiltrating drug organizations from Turkey to the Middle East to Mexico, Central, and South America to cities around the U.S.
4. His expertise and success led him to top management positions around the world with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). He concluded his remarkable federal career as head of the DEA for Arizona. Arpaio has over five decades experience in law enforcement.
5. The Maricopa County Cold Case Posse
6. Under the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes, the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County has the authority to request assistance from a volunteer posse to assist the Sheriff in the execution of his duties, working under law enforcement authority of the Maricopa County Sheriff.
7. Upon activation by the Maricopa County Sheriff, certified Posse members are empowered to act as if the Sheriff himself were present when called upon to do so. Posse members of the MCSO are delegated their law enforcement authority by the Maricopa County Sheriff.
8. Under that activation Sheriff Arpaio granted fully law enforcement authority of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office to conduct this investigation and to report back to the Sheriff our findings for his ultimate dispensation.
9. In October of 2006, Sheriff Arpaio ordered the creation of the MCSO Cold Case Posse (CCP). At his personal request I accepted appointment as commander of this unit. I have served in this capacity for the last seven years.
10. The purpose of the CCP was to assist Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office in investigations including active and Cold Case Homicides. Since its inception, the CCP has been placed under the guidance and control of The General Investigation Division.
11. The MCSO Cold Case Posse consists of hand selected individuals with diverse skills consisting of professional experiences in conducting investigations, including individuals with backgrounds in Law Enforcement, Insurance Fraud Investigations, Military Service, Physicians, Computer Information Systems, Corporate CEO’s, as well as attorneys who have participated in criminal and or civil litigation.
12. Sheriff Arpaio referred the complaint to his Cold Case Posse, directing myself as Lead Investigator to review the evidence, to determine whether and to what extent the complaint had merit, to investigate further in due course as necessary, and to report directly to Sheriff Arpaio.
13. A five-member team of experienced investigators was expressly selected. It included former police detectives and attorneys (whom have received additional investigational training by Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office) who worked voluntarily and at virtually no expense to the taxpayer.
Investigation of the Complaint
14. Sheriff Arpaio referred the complaint to his Cold Case Posse, directing myself as Lead Investigator to review the evidence, and to determine whether and to what extent the complaint had merit. We were to investigate further as necessary, and report to Sheriff Arpaio. Sheriff Arpaio expressed that it was his goal to clear the document as authentic and move the country forward. He also required that the investigation be thorough and absent of any political ideologies, and that it be performed with the utmost care and diligence.
15. At the Sheriff’s direction, the principal focus of the investigation was the electronic document or computer image on the White House website that President Obama had presented as an authentic image of his long-form birth certificate to the American people and to citizens of Maricopa County at a White House press conference on April 27, 2011, when he had said, “We provided additional information today about the site of my birth…yes, in fact, I was born in Hawaii, August 4, 1961, in Kapiolani Hospital.”
16. The investigators were also directed to review all background documentation provided by the petitioners in relation to their complaint, and to consider all other information obtained or developed during the normal course of the investigation.
17. The petitioners suggested that the Sheriff’s Office should start by contacting Dr. Jerome Corsi, an investigative journalist who had written a book in search
of Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate document and had amassed a substantial body of evidence. Dr. Jerome Corsi was unknown to the investigators prior to this investigation. Subsequently, we spent 16 hours interviewing Dr. Corsi, who agreed to turn over to us for review all of the information he had on file.
18. At the conclusion of Dr. Corsi’s interview I determined that Dr. Corsi’s work, (with the exception of a copy of the down loaded .pdf file released by the White House on April 27, 2011) was to be treated as “investigational information” only and not to be considered as evidence.
19. The basis for this decision was due in part to the fact that some of the information presented by Dr. Corsi was a compilation of research performed by other individuals. In addition Dr. Corsi was in communication with these individuals prior to meeting with us and these individuals were yet unknown to our investigators.
20. To preserve the independence and integrity of our investigation Dr. Corsi’s information would be utilized as investigative background information only. Dr. Corsi worked closely with our investigation as an informational source until July 2012.
21. Dr. Corsi suggested that we should contact a nationally recognized computer expert, Mara Zebest, who has served as a contributing author and technical editor for more than 100 books on Adobe and Microsoft software. Ms. Zebest
was contacted and invited to participate in a two-day investigational meeting, to which we invited five other participants: investigators, attorneys, and professionals in computerized graphic design, IT professionals, and a physician. None had any prior familiarity with the White House computer image document.
22. During that meeting, all aspects of the document were examined with the intention of attempting to disprove the allegation that the document had been fabricated. This included a review of the work of an author by the name of John Woodman. John Woodman, a struggling, self-described computer expert, had authored a book putting forth explanations on how computer software automatically caused the anomalies contained in the White House document. Mr. Woodman’s work had been cited vigorously by numerous media outlets attempting to disqualify allegations suggesting that the .pdf document offered by Mr. Obama was anything but authentic.
23. The theories set forth in Mr. Woodman’s book were thoroughly tested by investigators and found to be nothing more than pure speculation and supposition. The investigators concluded Mr. Woodman’s work was nothing more than conjecture without any evidentiary proof that his theories could be supported.
24. When investigators put his theories into practical application, they could not successfully reproduce any of the anomalies found in the White House
document by automated computerized process. Therefore Mr. Woodman’s work was dismissed as irrelevant and offering zero evidentiary value.
25. At the end of the two-day event, all investigational information concerning the .pdf file was presented was intensely tested and deliberated.
26. All in attendance agreed unanimously that the White House computer image .pdf file contained anomalies that were unexplainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document. This conclusion also served to contradict the alleged chain of events surrounding the production of the document, as put forth by the White House and the Hawaii Department of Health.
27. Investigational findings thus far were reported back to Sheriff Arpaio. Having informed Sheriff Arpaio that the document appeared to be a fabricated forgery and that violation of Arizona criminal statutes and federal statutes may have taken place, it would be essential to continue the investigation. Sheriff Arpaio agreed and investigators began to pursue further investigation of the .pdf file and related events surrounding the creation of the document.
28. This serves as an outline of our work, preliminary results, and preliminary conclusions to date. As of the date of this report, this investigation remains
open and ongoing and additional forensic evidence continues to be uncovered further validating the original investigational findings.
29. Investigators studied Mr. Obama’s “short-form” Hawaiian birth certificate that became public in 2008; the “long-form” certificate endorsed by Mr. Obama at a White House press conference on April 27, 2011, and then posted as an electronic computer image at whitehouse.gov (no physical document was produced); and the selective service registration card allegedly signed by Mr. Obama on July 30, 1980.
30. We interviewed several persons, consulted many experts, tested and evaluated computer evidence using related software. In early in 2012, I informed Sheriff Arpaio of our preliminary findings. I reported that after extensive examination of the electronic document, the computer image released by the White House on April 27, 2011, and examination of Mr. Obama’s Selective Service registration card, that we believed there was probable cause to suspect Mr. Obama’s identity documents were in- fact forged.
31. The Sheriff held a press conference on March 1, 2012, to announce the findings that investigators had concluded that the document released on April 27, 2011, by the White House of Mr. Obama’s long form birth certificate was a computer generated fraud created exclusively by human intervention and not by the actions of random computerization. The press conference served to
attract further evidence, and to give us an opportunity to present an outline of our reasons.
32. On March 1, 2012, Sheriff Arpaio held a press conference during which he and I presented an outline of those aspects of the investigation that would not compromise the safety of witnesses or the integrity and future course of the investigation.
33. At that time, we announced that we had concluded that there was probable cause that forgery and fraud had been committed in respect of two documents: 1) the long-form or original birth certificate computer image presented by Mr., Obama, which contained multiple errors and anomalies, many of them serious and: 2) the selective-service document for Mr. Obama, which contained a two-digit year-stamp. This was contrary to specifications issued by federal regulation to the effect that the year of issue should be expressed as four digits on the stamp, and also contrary to any other selective-service registration document that we had been able to examine.
34. I visited Hawaii twice and continued our investigation. After further in-depth computerized testing and discovering additional information, we concluded in mid-2012 that Mr. Obama’s identity documents were not only forged beyond the legal standard of probable cause, but due to loop holes in the state of Hawaii’s vital statistics reporting laws, there was the distinct evidence suggesting that Hawaii’s statutes appeared to be in conflict with federal
immigration law and posed an independent threat to the national security of the United States.
Sheriff Arpaio’s Press Conference on July 17, 2012
35. After three months of further investigation, the Sheriff held a second press conference to announce, with my support, that there was no longer a question of mere suspicion but that of probable cause. It was now demonstrated beyond probable cause that the document presented to the public by Mr. Obama and placed on the White House website was an utter forgery.
36. In addition, Sheriff Arpaio reported concerns that Hawaii’s statutes appeared to be in conflict with federal immigration law and the birth registration policy in Hawaii posed a threat to national security.
37. Sheriff Arpaio stated at both press conferences that we are not in a position to conclude either that Mr. Obama himself has committed any offense or that he was born outside the United States, nor that he is constitutionally ineligible to seek or hold the office of President of the United States.
38. However, the fact that most if not all of the identity documents are forged supports the complainant’s allegation that Mr. Obama, in endorsing and posting a forged birth certificate image on the White House website, has raised legitimate questions that should now be investigated by Congress.
39. Sheriff Arpaio also announced that the investigation would continue, and it has continued ever since.
The Ongoing Investigation
40. As the investigation continued, various national and local media attempted to disqualify the investigative findings by fostering alternative explanations for the documents irregularities. Opponents made nothing more than superficial explanations alleging that the Obama documents irregularities were simply caused by nothing more than the automation processes of computer software. However, the media failed to put forth any investigative evidence to validate their theories, which were soundly defeated by over 1,200 independent computer software tests conducted by investigators.
41. Investigators wanted to determine the probability that a document containing the plethora of irregularities as found in the computer image Obama presented could still be genuine.
42. Taking it a step further, investigators sought an independent authority on forensic document examination that had no previous connection with our inquiry. Investigators commissioned a court certified handwriting analyst and forensic document examiner with over 20 years of experience providing document expertise to legal and law enforcement communities, corporations, financial institutions and private individuals for this task.
43. Investigators requested an independent review of our findings in respect to the long-form birth certificate image that fell within his field of expertise.
44. Upon the conclusion of our expert’s examination he issued an independent 40 page forensic report in which he verified our investigational finding and validating conclusion in full agreement with the finds of investigators. He concluded:
• “…based on my observations and findings, it is clear that Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured documented created by utilizing material from various sources.” and
• “In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated.”
Authenticity of White House Released Birth Certificate Image
45. Investigators have determined beyond probable cause that the computer image released on April 27, 2011 by the White House, and purporting to be a true computer copy of Mr. Obama’s long form birth certificate, is not a scan of an original hard copy document. It is, in fact, an undeniable computer generated forgery created with the sole intent to deceive the public by commission of felonious fraudulent acts.
46. Sheriff Arpaio’s investigators have determined the document ( the .pdf file released by the White House) was created entirely by human intervention, and not by the actions of random computerization. As such, the White house computer image cannot be relied upon as bona fide factual record of the birth event that it attempts to depict.
47. Our investigation has also concluded that the method used to fabricate the document was by means of human logic and the distinct manual placement and distribution of electronic data between nine distinct computer generated “layers”. This type of layering is entirely uncharacteristic of a paper document that, when scanned, results in a simple, digitized, single layer photographic image.
48. Investigators in particular focused on the registrar stamp bearing the signature of Hawaii States Registrar Dr. Alvin T. Onaka. This stamp was found to be comprised of external objects that were imported into the document, created uniquely for the forgery of the Obama birth document, by an intentionally deceptive cut-and-paste process. This fact alone is sufficient to render the entire document void of any probative value.
49. Our investigational findings soundly defeated the only two attempted explanations of the anomalies on the computer generated long-form birth certificate image offered for justification: OCR (Optical Character Recognition) and/or Optimization (Compression of the files in order to reduce the file size). Investigators attempted to recreate the anomalies found in the computer generated image by tedious implementation of the some 1200 computerized tests, and were unable to recreate the anomalies contained in the White House .pdf file. Investigators clearly demonstrated
that neither could account for the myriad discrepancies found in the White House image.
50. Subsequently, this is supported by an independent expert forensic examination confirmed the electronic computer image of Barack Obama’s long form Certificate of Live Birth, released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is in fact a forgery, thus supporting the initial findings of our investigation.
51. Therefore Mr. Obama has in fact not offered any verifiable authoritative document of any legal significance or possessing any evidentiary value as to the origins of his purported birth narrative or location of the birth event.
52. In addition investigators have determined that the White House .pdf file displaying a manufactured image of Mr. Obamas purported Hawaiian birth certificate could not survive judicial scrutiny or be offered as documented evidence, certified by the State of Hawaii, as proof attesting to the event and therefore could not be accepted as such in any judicial proceeding.
53. As such, this computer manipulated fraudulent image cannot be deemed as acceptable legal evidence for the purpose of validation or verification of identity or citizenship, or serve as verification of a birth event by any Secretary of State in the confines of the United States.
54. Mr. Obama has not released any evidence other than a manufactured computer forgery by human intervention and design in an effort to support
his claim of his birth taking place at Kapiolani Hospital, Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
55. Additionally, Hawaii State Statues and Hawaii Department of Health policy do not authorize the Hawaii Department of Health to create a computer generated .pdf file as an officially certified document severing as a verification of a live birth event.
56. The very creation this .pdf file runs in direct conflict with the Hawaii Department of Health’s own admission declaring they released two paper copies of a “Birth Document” to the President’s attorney Perkins Coie partner Judith Corley on April 25, 2011.
57. According to copies of letters released by White House officials, Judith Corley initiated the process and traveled to Hawaii to pick up two photo copies of Mr. Obama’s long form birth certificate, not an electronic .pdf file. The two copies released to Judith Corley have never been made public.
58. Investigators have also determined that the much touted 1961 newspaper announcements are in fact utterly unreliable as evidence to support verification of the event as depicted in the .pdf image of the manufactured birth certificate released by the White House and attested to my Mr. Obama. In addition the aforementioned announcements can be of no substitute for a Hawaii State Official Birth Certification and or Certificate.
59. In summation, investigators believe that the computer image presented by the White House is an unabashed forgery, and thus could not survive even the lowest level of judicial scrutiny in any jurisdiction in the United States, and does not serve as evidence or certification of any such event.
60. Furthermore, it cannot be used as an authenticated legal document for proof of citizenship, or proof to obtain a legitimate passport, or legitimate Social Security Identification Number. It most certainly cannot be relied upon as legitimate proof and verification of a live birth event by the residents of Maricopa County, the State Of Arizona, or in any jurisdiction within the United States.
Arizona’s Verification Attempts Thwarted
61. Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett requested verification of Mr. Obama’s birth records from the State of Hawaii Department of Health:
62. “Please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.”
63. However, Hawaii Department of Health State Registrar Dr. Alvin T. Onaka did not verify the White House computer image as a true or accurate representation of the original birth record, only responding, “the information in the copy … that you attached with your request matches the original record in our file.”
64. Hawaii officials cleverly focused on the representation of information depicted in the fraudulent image diverting attention to the foundation of the request of Secretary of State Bennett. “Please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.”
65. “Information” is not a verification of the document (.pdf file) as a whole.
66. A fraudulently created document often times contains matching information on some level when compared to some other document of record, however, the fact that some information may match in a file does not verify the legitimacy of the document as a whole.
67. In this case the .pdf image presented by the White House to the public, is in the appearance of what the unsuspecting public would perceived to be a true copy of an official document and therefore accepted on face value. This also includes the fabrication and appearance of green security paper background that one would expect to be used on such an official document. The creation and use of this background would solely be used to give the perception of authenticity in an official capacity.
68. Further, Hawaii has not acknowledged that they ever created or released an electronic computer created .pdf file containing an image of the Barack Hussein Obama II Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth to the White House or to the attorney for Barack Hussein Obama II. They also did not verify how and
when information may have been added or deleted for the original file and for what purpose.
69. The PDF file posted on the White House website shows no evidence of a scan of a photocopied document ever taking place, but displays all the evidence of a manufactured file. An electronic image of the photocopied document as it would have been if the original document had been genuine would not have possessed the irregularities in the White House .pdf file that, in our forensic experts’ opinion, demonstrate that the image was pieced together electronically from multiple sources.
70. One of our most serious concerns is that the White House document appears to have been fabricated piecemeal on a computer, constructed by drawing together digitized data from several unknown sources.
Isolation Of The Registrar’s Signature And Date Stamps
71. The registrar’s signature stamp and the date stamp adjacent to it each appear independently on separate layers of the electronic image. Furthermore, these distinct layers contain no other data of any kind. Our experts have considered the possibility that the ink used for these two stamps might have been of a sufficiently distinct color to be distinguished from all other colors on an original paper document and thus isolated. However, we have concluded that no scan of an original document could produce such separation of individually distinct items into distinct layers with no other data on them.
72. The registrar’s stamp appears to have been imported from another unknown source document.
73. Investigators intently focused on the fact that the stamp cannot have been placed on the document pursuant to state and federal laws as one of many indications that the document is a forgery and, therefore, that it cannot be relied upon as verification, legal or otherwise, of the date, place or circumstances of Mr. Obama’s birth.
74. The date stamp next to the registrar’s signature stamp exhibited a similar grave anomaly, allowing it to be moved about electronically within the document – which would have been impossible if the document were the scanned and certified copy that official statements profess it to be.
75. We were particularly disturbed to find that the registrar’s date and signature stamps could be picked up and moved around the document at will, leaving behind a distinct white halo impression of the two stamps.
76. On our test document, with a single layer and a single link, any manipulation of this kind was impossible.
77. A close examination of the State registrar’s stamp on the electronic image of Mr. Obama’s birth certificate shows there are two different registrar stamps evident on the electronic image: (1) the date stamp, indicating April 25, 2011, and (2) the text and signature stamp containing Dr. Alvin Onaka’s signature.
78. Both registrar stamps give the appearance of been applied by a rubber stamp inked from a pad.
79. The registrar’s date stamp (left) and signature stamp (right)
80. However, our experts determined that the registrar’s stamps are external objects that were imported into the document. The stamps were not impressions copied whole, but were created uniquely for the Obama document by a cut-and-paste process.
81. The white area around the date stamp indicates the image is not a scan of a paper document but a computer-generated file fabricated electronically.
82. That the registrar’s signature and date stamps were both created by links to external objects imported into the Obama birth certificate is also confirmed by turning on “Links” in the “Window” menu in Adobe Illustrator.
83. Not only was the registrar date stamp imported from an external link, it was scaled and then rotated clockwise by 90 degrees to be placed in the document:
84. The registrar’s date-stamp scaled and rotated to be placed in the White House image
85. Likewise, the signature stamp was also an imported object scaled and then rotated 90 degrees clockwise to be placed in the document:
86. The Registrar’s signature-stamp and date-stamp were computer-generated images that were imported into the document. They were not electronic images of actual rubber-stamp imprints inked by hand or machine on to a paper document. This can only be accomplished by human logic and intervention.
White Halo Effect
87. Furthermore, the White House image displays a white “halo effect” around the letters, such that the texture of the paper cannot be seen underneath the ink, and the image noise is inconsistent throughout the document.
88. As seen below, moving the two stamps leaves the white halo visible, indicating where the two external links had initially been pasted into the document.
89. Registrar’s date and signature stamps separately rotated and repositioned on the White House image.
90. The fact that the .pdf file contains evidence of the importation of the Official Hawaii Registrars Stamp and Date stamp and the fact that the Stamps can be picked up and moved about the document leaving a white background of its imported placed location should be evidence enough of tampering bringing the authenticity of the document completely into question. This fact alone
provides sufficient evidence for any court certified document examiner to conclude and testify the entire document is fatally flawed and is void of any legal authority.
91. Fraudulent Birth certificates created in Washing DC.
92. President Obama’s White House technology czar Vivek Kundra, oversaw technology projects and budgets for 86 D.C. government agencies as head of the District’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer. Yusuf Acar, then acting head security officer for the D.C. Office of the Chief Technology Officer was arrested and ultimately sentenced to 27 months in prison in connection with a bribery scam by federal authorities in 2009.
93. Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Hibarger told a federal judge that Acar, was a flight risk because agents seized $70,000 in cash in his house and because in recorded conversations, he boasted that he could easily flee to his native Turkey. Acar also told an informant that he could use computers to create fake D.C. birth certificates, Hibarger said.
94. Inspector General Report
95. In September 2000, the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published a report on birth-certificate fraud, showing that birth certificates were widely used to obtain citizenship fraudulently. It found that few government officials were trained in detecting
fraudulent birth certificates. Yet there is no federal law specifying uniform form or content for birth certificates. The report cited:
96. “Legitimate birth certificates provide vital information about the person whose name appears on the certificate. While originally intended for the sole purpose of birth registration, birth certificates are now used extensively for employment purposes and to obtain benefits or other documents used for identification.
97. “The Office of Inspector General has conducted three inspections focused specifically on birth certificate fraud that identified a number of vulnerabilities in birth certificate processes. Because so many Federal and State agencies rely on birth certificates to assist them in determining eligibility for services and benefits, it is important that these agencies have current information on the nature and extent of birth certificate fraud to assist them in the proper assignment and protection of benefits.”
98. “A certified copy of a birth certificate is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded. For that purpose, it may be desirable that the public be allowed easy access to them. However, the agencies and organizations that use birth certificates as proof of identification for employment purposes, to obtain benefits or other documents (e.g., driver’s licenses, Social Security cards, and passports), and to assist them in determining eligibility for public assistance and other benefits, may have concerns with how easily certified copies of
birth certificates can be obtained. These conflicting perspectives are at the very heart of the birth certificate controversy”.
Birth Certificates continue to be Used as “Breeder Documents” and are Easy to Obtain
99. Virtually all Federal and State agencies agree that fraudulent birth certificates are used as “breeder documents” to obtain the genuine documents needed to create new identities, and that fraudulent birth certificates are easy to obtain. Factors which contribute to their use as “breeder documents” include the following
Birth Certificate Fraud is Hard to Detect
100. “Many altered or counterfeit birth certificates and genuine birth certificates held by imposters may go undetected. The reasons why these fraudulent birth certificates are hard to detect include the following:
• over 14,000 different versions of birth certificates are in circulation;
• nearly 4 million United States births were registered in 1999;
• security features contained in the paper used to issue birth certificates, as well as formats and signatures, vary among State vital records offices and the many local entities issuing them;
• technological advances in the Internet, scanners, color printers, and copiers make it easier to obtain genuine birth certificates and create counterfeit ones;
• between 85 and 90 percent of the birth certificate fraud encountered by the Immigration and Naturalization Services and Passport Services staff is the result of genuine birth certificates held by imposters — the most difficult fraud to detect; and Federal and State agency staff report receiving only limited training focused on the detection of fraudulent birth certificates.”
State Practices Create Opportunities for Fraud
101. “It was the consensus of those we interviewed that a number of State practices create opportunities for fraud. Those practices include the following:
• delayed, amended, and midwife birth registrations that are based on affidavits of personal knowledge, include no documentary evidence, and are not often marked or overlaid accordingly;
• delays in matching death and birth records can make the identities of many deceased persons easy to assume between the time the person dies and the time the death and birth records are matched;
• questionable physical security situations that create opportunities for fraud; and limited oversight of local issuing entities by State vital records offices”.
Birth Certificates Alone Do Not Provide Conclusive or Reliable Proof of Identity
102. “Many agencies and organizations request that individuals provide their birth certificates to receive a benefit or service, or to support the issuance of other documents often used for identity purposes (e.g., driver’s license).
103. However, agencies who rely on birth certificates as a means of establishing identity must understand the limitations of accepting a birth certificate as proof of age, citizenship, or identity. For example, genuine documents obtained with counterfeit birth certificates can be used to obtain genuine birth certificates. Thus, it is inherently illogical to require someone to prove their identity using potentially fraudulent identity documents spawned by false birth certificates in order to obtain a birth certificate.”
Governor Abercrombie of Hawaii
104. Mr. Abercrombie has publicly stated that he was present when Mr. Obama was born. There is no evidence to support this claim. No doctor or nurse or persons who attended Mr. Obama’s birth has come forward to say so. No one has ever come forward to say he or she recalls having seen either Mr. Obama or his parents together at any social event when he was an infant.
105. It is not surprising; therefore, that Governor Abercrombie later recanted that statement that he had seen Mr. Obama’s parents with their new-born so. He acknowledged that he had not seen them at any hospital,
although he said he remembered having seen Mr. Obama as a child with his parents at social events.
106. Once Mr. Abercrombie had become Governor, he told the Honolulu Star Advertiser on January 20, 2011, that he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, because he feared the continuing eligibility controversy might hurt the President’s chances of re-election in 2012.
107. Mr. Abercrombie, who is a member of Mr. Obama’s political party, said that the birth certificate issue would otherwise have “political implications” for the presidential election “that we simply cannot have.”
108. Mr. Abercrombie did not subsequently report that either he or the Hawaii Department of Health had found Mr. Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. The governor only suggested his investigation to date had identified an unspecified listing or notation of Mr. Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives: “It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down.”
109. This being the case, this document as reported would clearly be out of the chain of custody of the Hawaii Department of Health. Hence, the authenticity of that written record and the integrity of that record cannot be verified or sufficiently secured to prevent tampering.
110. To date, the purported undisclosed birth record in the state archives that Governor Abercrombie has claimed to have discovered and has described as being “actually written” has never been made public.
No Mention Has Been Made Of It Since
111. From Governor Abercrombie’s admission, it is legitimate to infer that this record, if it indeed exists, was not in the possession of the Hawaii Department of Health, which may have had no record of the in-country birth of Mr. Obama either in hard copy form, such as a long form birth certificate, preserved in a vault. If such a document had existed, Mr. Abercrombie would have had it within minutes of his request: for he had the right, as the senior official of the Hawaii administration, to examine it if he wished to do so.
112. Governor Abercrombie’s predecessor, Linda Lingle, who was in office until January 2010, said she had asked the then Director of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, to confirm the existence of the original paper long-form birth certificate and to issue a statement confirming that she and Dr. Alvin Onaka, the registrar of births, had located and verified the existence of the document
113. However, Governor Abercrombie, even after launching an exhaustive investigation, failed to produce the documentary evidence of Mr. Obama’s Hawaiian birth that he had said he would produce.
114. On the question of the long-form birth certificate, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, formerly Director of Health for Hawaii has made several statements of interest:
115. In October, 2008, she said Hawaiian law forbade the issuance of certified copies of original birth certificates to persons with no tangible interest in the record, but added that she and Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Registrar of Vital Statistics, had personally seen and verified the original birth certificate “in accordance with state policies and procedures”.
116. To this day, Dr. Fukino is the only person who has said publicly that she has personally inspected Mr. Obama’s actual birth certificate in a bound book in a vault at the Department of Health.
117. Dr. Fukino’s statement confirms Governor Lingle’s own statement that she did not personally verify the existence of the original birth certificate, but relied solely on the representations of Dr. Fukino, whose statement also implies that a birth record of some kind exists and that she inspected it, though she provided neither a description of the document nor any verifiable information said to have been contained therein.
118. Dr. Fukino says she was accompanied by Dr. Alvin Onaka, with whom she viewed the document. We noted that Dr. Onaka has never publicly confirmed that he had accompanied Dr. Fukino or that he had verified the
existence of the document. Dr. Onaka has remained suspiciously silent on the matter to date.
119. Under these circumstances, Dr. Fukino’s statement to the effect of a verification of an authentic “Long Form Birth Certificate” has little evidential value.
120. Dr. Fukino also gave an interview to CNN on April 26, 2011, in which she stated that she simply went into the vault and inspected Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate. By inference, then, it should have been no more difficult for Governor Abercrombie to locate it as well.
121. In July, 2009, Dr. Fukino said she had seen “the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American.” Again this statement has no evidential value.
122. As reported by Fox News, Dr. Fukino said that during her time as Director of Health for Hawaii Dr. Alvin Onaka, State Registrar of Hawaii, had moved Mr. Obama’s birth certificate from a file vault, where bound books containing vital records line the shelves in handwritten, leather-bound ledgers and placed inside the vault’s 5-ft-tall gray metal combination and key lock safe that holds money and other valuables. If so, Dr. Onaka could very easily have alerted Governor Abercrombie to its whereabouts.
123. In 2008 when Governor Lingle stated, that in an attempt to quell the issue she had the Birth Certificate inspected by the state’s Director of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino:
124. Mr. Onaka was the Register at that time. Presumably the document was in the same bound volume as the other 499 from that the year secured in his vault. The question becomes what happened to it when Governor Abercrombie came looking for it in 2011.
125. Dr. Fukino said that Mr. Obama’s long-form birth certificate was preserved in a hard-covered bound volume along with the other long-form birth certificates of that period. This record – if it had existed – would have been easily obtainable from the Department of Health upon the Governor’s request.
126. Dr. Fukino also said that Mr. Obama’s original Certificate of Live Birth was bound in a ledger containing 499 other certificates of people born in Hawaii in 1961. There were 500 sheets per book, and 35 volumes of 1961 birth records. The last series of digits in the registration number found on Hawaiian long form and current computerized-format birth certificates indicates which numbered volume contains the original document inside the health department’s first-floor vault.
127. She explained that each of the bound volumes for the 1960s, including the one containing Mr. Obama’s birth certificate, had bright orange elasticized
canvas covers with the birth year stamped clearly on the spine. Different colors were used for different decades.
128. The last few digits in the registration number, which are correlated with the current computerized database of information taken from the original paper records, serve as a unique identifier allowing the volume containing the original certificate to be found immediately in the vault.
129. Therefore, it should not have been at all difficult for Governor Abercrombie to locate Mr. Obama’s original long-form birth certificate by simply asking the Department of Health to look up the computerized record, check the certificate number, and instantly locate the relevant volume of paper certificates. His failure to locate the document raises the possibility that Mr. Obama’s birth record may not have been in the relevant orange-bound volume of 500 sequentially-numbered certificates, or that, if it is present, it did not show him as having been born anywhere in Hawaii.
130. It is also possible that Mr. Obama’s birth registration was not recorded, or that the number on that registration did not correlate to his name in the Department of Health’s computerized database that has been in use since 2001.
131. We noted that Dr. Fukino had changed the wording from viewing Mr. Obama’s “original birth certificate” (in her first statement) to having “seen the original vital records” (in her second statement).
132. We later learned that Hawaiian law permits amendment of a birth certificate and the creation of a document file containing the sealed record of the original document and supporting documentation that authorized a change to the information contained in the original document. We also learned that an amended certificate would be distinctly marked alerting to the fact it was altered.
133. The wording suggests that perhaps there was a file of some type located within the Department of Health containing additional information regarding this matter, permissible under Hawaii State Statutes. But the file may not have contained an original birth certificate identical to the electronic image on the White House website.
Hawaii State Practices Allow Fraudulent U.S. Citizenship
134. Investigators found a high potential for fraud in the registration and issuance of Hawaii birth certification documents. It was discovered to be evident in: 1) lax statutory regulation and 2) through obscure evidentiary requirements in establishing factual verification of the information required in the reporting of legitimate births occurring within the state of Hawaii.
135. In 1982, Hawaii revised a long standing statute (§ 338.17.8) allowing the issuance of birth certificates to children born out of state. Hawaii declares these foreign born children to be American citizens simply by virtue of an application by any adult making representations on behalf of the parents, and
simply supplying documentation substantiating the parents had resided in Hawaii and paid income tax to the state Hawaii for one year prior to the birth of the child. Thus, by statutory provision, Hawaii has granted upon itself the unique power to confer citizenship to children not born in the United States, and to children not born to United States citizen parents, but to children actually born on foreign soil.
[§338-17.8] Certificates for Children Born Out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the Director of Health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the Director of Health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the Director of Health in any manner that the Director shall deem appropriate. The Director of Health may also adopt any rules pursuant to Chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
136. The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to Chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
137. These implications of this law is evidenced by the discovery of correspondence between the Department of Health Director George Yuen, in support of the measure, and State Representative Herbert A .Segawa. The March 1st 1982 document clearly shows the effect this proposed Bill H.B. 3016-82 would it
have become law. The document recognized the fact that the department would have to issue birth certificates to children worldwide if the child’s parents could prove they were in fact legal residents of the Territory or State of Hawaii. Legal residents as categorized by Hawaii tax code, not Untied States citizens.
138. There is nothing in Hawaii Revised Statute § 338.17.8 to require that this birth certificate be marked as the child being born out of state, nor that was the child born within the United States or its territories. There is no requirement in this statute that at least one parent provide proof of United States citizenship.
139. This section only requires a declaration (and proof which is not defined and is based upon requirements deemed appropriate by the Director) that the parents were residents of Hawaii. It does not require that the parents were citizens of the United States.
140. By statutory provision Hawaii has granted upon itself the unique power to confer citizenship to children not born in the United States, and to children not born to United States citizen parents, but to children actually born on foreign soil. Conceivably, the parents and child may never have set foot on United States soil. Hawaii declares these foreign born children American citizens simply by virtue of an application of any adult, making representations on behalf of the parents and simply supplying documentation substantiating the parents had resided in Hawaii and paid income tax to the state Hawaii, for one year prior to the birth of the child.
141. The authority to naturalize persons as citizens of the US is conferred upon the Attorney General only, not the State of Hawaii.
142. It would appear that Hawaii Revised Statute § 338.17.8 is in direct conflict with the Immigration and Nationality Act, in that United States citizenship maybe be conferred to an individual who is not entitled to such citizenship.
143. See I.N.A. §§ 301, et seq., which comprehensively regulates how a child born out of the United States acquires U.S. Citizenship. Even this would require at least on parent be a United States citizen at the time of the birth.
144. This comprehensive regulation would clearly be meant to exclude any regulation in the area by the States. Arizona v. United States, 11-182 (June, 2012).
145. Compulsory registration of births, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-8 requires all births of be registered. It also permits the registration for an unattended birth to be accepted on the representation of only one of the parents. No other witnesses are necessary for a claimed unattended birth. Conceivably, a parent could have given birth outside of the U.S., and claimed that it was an unattended birth (no witnesses) in Honolulu.
146. Local registrar to prepare birth certificate, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-8 is bristling with the fraudulent potential by compelling the local registrar to prepare a birth certificate for an alleged unattended birth based solely uncorroborated testimony from anyone claiming to have had knowledge of the birth taking place.
147. Under this statute, a birth could exist outside of the U.S., and any person could represent false information to the local registrar. The registrar is compelled to file the certificate.
148. Additionally, there is no requirement for a parent or relative, providing identification to be present at time of registration. Any person, a relative, friend or stranger may registrar the birth of a child while both the mother and baby were outside of the country.
149. There is no verification process and no way to be certain of the actual identify of the parents.
H.R.S §338-6, Current Law as of October 25, 2009
150. Delayed or altered certificates, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-18. Utilizing this Statute, a person may apply for a delayed or amended certificate having one year to do so from time of birth. There is no verification to determine why the registration is late. The Statute also allows any person “born” in the Territory of Hawaii to file or amend a certificate.
151. This would include that any adult could claim their birth was never reported a decade later, file for a birth certificate. The validity of the three types of birth filings were so questionable that even Hawaii would not accept them as “Prima Facia Evidence”.
152. This Statute would require the birth certificate be plainly marked, “Delayed”, or “Altered” and the probative value would determine by the
official to whom the certificate was being offered. We believe it is safe to conclude that even the State of Hawaii did not have confidence in the representations on this document.
153. Investigators have advised Sheriff Arpaio that several possible crimes may have been committed:
154. First, the fraudulent creation of an official document
155. Second, the White House characterizing a forgery as an officially-produced governmental birth record; and
156. Third, Mr. Obama represented to the residents of Maricopa County and the American public that a forgery was “proof positive” of his authentic 1961 Hawaiian long-form birth certificate, thereby deceiving voters and state election commissions across the country into believing he was eligible to become President, have his name appear on Presidential ballots, thereby garnering votes from the public under false pretenses.
157. Accordingly, Sheriff Arpaio continues to recommend that the Congress of the United States open an immediate investigation, including the appointment of a select committee, as regards to the authenticity of Mr. Obama’s documentation, whether any crimes have been committed, and to determine Mr. Obama’s eligibility for the office of President of the Unites States.
Mr. Obama’s Selective Service Registration Card
158. Investigators also examined Mr. Obama’s Selective Service registration card bearing Mr. Obama’s signature, which displays a Post Office Date stamp, “July 29, 80,” in the lower right corner. For comparison purposes, investigators reviewed a number of authentic Selective Service registration cards of other individuals, obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests.
159. All the authentic registration cards the investigators inspected displayed a Post Office stamp indicating the calendar year date stamp with four digits, for example “1980”. This was in sharp contrast to Mr. Obama’s card which displayed a two digit date stamp of “80” for the year.
160. Investigators interviewed several Post Office employees who verified that it was standard procedure to utilize only a four digit date stamp. Investigators learned that the date stamp that would have been utilized in 1980 was identified as a Pica Post Office stamp set that could only be obtained through postal supply houses.
161. Investigators located that particular stamp set but were unsuccessful in locating a four digit 1980 date stamp insert.
162. Noticing irregularities in the date stamp, namely the date “80” on Mr. Obama’s registration card, it is offset low and to right when compared to the full four digit “1980” date stamps on other cards. Investigators believed that
this anomaly was created by the severing of an intact four year “2008” date stamp and inverting the remaining “08” inverting it to cause it to display “80”.
163. Investigators concluded that this representation of “80” that appears on Mr. Obama’s selective service card is in fact an altered 2008 pica date stamp.
164. Investigators obtained a 2008 Pica Post Office date stamp and severed it in between the two zeros. Then by inverting investigators were able to replicate an identical looking stamp to that one found on Mr. Obama selective service card. Investigators concluded that there is a high probability that Mr. Obama’s selective service card was recently created as an attempt to cover up the fact that Mr. Obama failed to register for Selective Service as required by law in 1980.
Missing Immigration Records for August 1-7, 1961
165. There has been immense speculation that Mr. Obama may actually have been born in Kenya. These speculations were fuelled not only by the refusal of Mr. Obama to produce a valid Hawaiian birth certificate, but by recognition of the Kenya government claiming Kenya as being Mr. Obama’s birth place. There were numerous reports that Stanley Ann Dunham had reportedly left Hawaii to travel to Kenya in the summer of 1961 to give birth.
166. In an attempt to verify whether Mr. Obama and his mother Stanley Ann Dunham had possibly arrived in the United States at or around the alleged
date of his birth, we contacted the National Archives to obtain microfilms of the immigration landing records (I-94 document) for the calendar year 1961.
167. Investigators focused on microfilm records of INS passenger cards for foreign flights arriving in Honolulu during the time period of July 1961 through September 1961.
168. We discovered that data records for the entire week of August 2, 1961 through August 7, 1961, were completely missing from the microfilm roll. This included the alleged date of Mr. Obama’s birth (August 4, 1961).
Selective Service Registration Card Analysis
169. Investigators also examined Mr. Obama’s Selective Service registration card bearing Mr. Obama’s signature. They concluded that there is a high probability that Mr. Obama’s selective service card was recently created as an attempt to cover up the fact that Mr. Obama failed to register for Selective Service as required by law in 1980.
170. 1961 August 4, 7:24 pm – Barack Hussein Obama II was allegedly born in Kapiolani Hospital, Honolulu, HI, according to the image of his long-form birth certificate that is posted on the White House website. Birth certificate number 61-10641.
171. However, this has been greatly debated due in part to initial reports that Mr. Obama was reports to have been born in Queens Medical Center, in Honolulu Hawaii. Inquiries were made at Queens Medical Center and
authorities there disclosed that they had no record of that event. Subsequently, a change was made in the narrative alleging the birth place to now be Kapiolani Hospital. While this may be an oversight other discrepancy surfaced around the information visible on the .pdf file image released by the White House.
172. The serial number shown on the image of the certificate, which purports on its face to have been imposed on the form with an automated sequential numbering stamp, is 61-10641. Investigators learned at that time, batches of birth certificates were collected monthly, ordered by date and time of birth, and then sequentially number-stamped in a special room by a single clerk trained for the purpose, to minimize numbering errors.
173. The long-form original certificates were inspected twice for accuracy by two different clerks and then signed by the registrar. They were kept together secured in a certain room until they were all numbered at the end of the month. They were not allowed to become out of order and they were not numbered incorrectly. (It should be noted that the Nordyke twins were born minutes apart and their respective certificate numbering was based not only by date but by time as well. This indicates the clerk scrutinized the documents prior to placing them in chronological order for proper numbering.)
174. Vital statistics will show that Susan Nordyke was born at Kapiolani Hospital at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time on Aug. 5, 1961, and was given No. 151-61-10637, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.
175. Gretchen Nordyke, twin to Susan Nordyke, was born at Kapiolani Hospital at 2:17 p.m. Hawaii time on Aug. 5, 1961, and was given No. 151-61-10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.
176. Barack Hussein Obama II purportedly born at Kapiolani Hospital at 7:24 p.m. Hawaii, Aug. 4, 1961, and was given No. 151-61-10641, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 8, 1961.
177. Virginia Sunahara was born at Wahiawa Hospital at 9:16 p.m. Hawaii time on Aug. 4, 1961, and was given No. 161-1961-011080, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 10, 1961.
Name of child Date and time born Registered Certificate #
Barack Obama Aug 4 at 7:24 pm Aug 8 10641
Virginia Sunahar Aug 4 at 9:16 pm Aug 10 11080
Susan Nordyke Aug 5 at 2:12 pm Aug 11 10637
Gretchen Nordyke Aug 5 at 2:17 pm Aug 11 10638
178. 1961 August 4, 9:16 pm – Virginia Sunahara was born in Hawaii, according to her current birth record. The serial number currently shown on Virginia Sunahara short form Certificate of Live Birth as that of her birth
record is 61-11080. This registration number is 439 numbers after Barack Hussein Obama II.
179. Some 17,578 births occurred in Hawaii in 1961 – an average of about two births per hour. Virginia Sunahara was born less than two hours after Barack Hussein Obama II stated time of birth, so that the number that ought to have appeared on her original birth certificate should have been not more than a dozen either side of Barack Hussein Obama II 61-10641.
180. Virginia Sunahara registration number is inexplicably out of sequence by 439 numbers.
181. 1961 August 5 – Death of Virginia Sunahara after breathing complications at 8 PM
182. Mr. Obama’s birth certificate was registered August 8, 1961. The Nordyke twins’ birth certificate was registered August 11, 1961. Even if the sequential numbering had followed the date of registration rather than the date of birth, Mr. Obama’s certificate should have been automatically assigned a number lower, not higher, than the numbers allocated to the certificates of the Nordyke twins. And the number currently assigned to Ms. Sunahara is entirely out of sequence
Hawaii Newspaper Birth Announcements
183. Investigators conducted an exhaustive search of all birth records announced in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin for the month of August 1961.
184. The following conclusions were reached:
• There was no apparent consistency in the order or day with which each newspaper reported birth announcements, such that one or the other of the two newspapers would often lead or lag the other in the reporting of any particular birth.
• Some births were announced in one newspaper and not in another.
• Some births were not announced at all.
• Births to unwed mothers were omitted from reporting in either newspaper, even though Hawaii vital statistics report there were over 1,000 births to unwed mothers in 1961.
185. A comparison of the Obama birth announcement in the two newspapers clearly demonstrates the announcements are identical in every detail, including the order of other birth announcements preceding and following the Obama birth announcement.
186. We found the sequence of reported births around the reporting of the Obama birth was actually an anomaly for Hawaiian newspaper reporting in August 1961 because the sequence of births before and after Obama’s was one of the few birth sequences in the entire month that were identical in every detail, including the order of other birth announcements preceding and following the Obama birth announcement.
187. We concluded that birth lists were in fact released by the Hawaii Department of Health, not information volunteered to the newspaper from parents or relatives, was the likely source of information for the newspaper birth announcement listing, in that:
Neither newspaper had an editor that handled birth announcements;
• Both newspapers merely printed birth announcements, directly as received, from information published in Department of Hawaii vital statistics announcements;
• Hawaiian hospitals did not report to newspapers any birth announcement information;
• Neither newspaper independently checked the truthfulness or accuracy of birth announcement information published by the newspapers from Hawaii Department of Health vital statistics records.
188. Searching over a several year period, various researchers have found repeated listings of births to Japanese parents as being reported in the newspapers as Hawaiian births, even though the children were found to be born in Japan. These findings tend to reinforce what we learned on our visits to Hawaii: that it was then the widely-recognized practice in Hawaii, later regularized by statute, to certify foreign births to Hawaiian parents as Hawaiian births.
189. In 1961, the Hawaii Department of Health appears to have used local area offices outside Honolulu as reporting centers where parents and other family members could represent children born to the family as Hawaiian births, without submitting any proof the child was actually born in Hawaii. This practice was also statutorily permitted.
190. It is plausible that an original birth record of some type for Mr. Obama may exist in Hawaii. However, as noted elsewhere, our investigation has discovered that at that time Hawaiian law contained a specific provision that permitted a Hawaiian parent of a child born anywhere in the world or any adult purporting to represent that parent, the right to register the child as Hawaiian-born.
191. It is for this reason that two entries in the “Births” column of the local newspapers at the time do not constitute evidence that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. They are merely evidence suggesting that a birth certificate of some type was issued for him in Hawaii, and they tell us nothing about whether or not he was born there. In particular they do not – as the White House document purports to do – identify the hospital of birth. Hawaii law permits various forms of registration and supplementation at later dates, with different information. The mere issuance of a birth record does not confirm the birth took place within the state of Hawaii or in the United States.
192. If Mr. Obama had not in fact been born in Hawaii, the long-form original birth certificate would not have stated that he had been born in a particular hospital at a particular time, and would not have borne the signatures of the attending physician. The newspaper entries would have been identical whether he had been born in Hawaii or elsewhere in the world, but the birth records would not have been identical.
193. The existence of this law permitting out-of-country births to be registered as though they were Hawaiian births is a further evidence that he newspaper announcements of Mr. Obamas purported birth in Hawaii cannot and should not be relied on as any evidentiary validation of the event taking place as depicted by the manufactured .pdf file image released by the White House.
Irregularities in the Parents’ Address
194. B Obama (Kenya) and Stanley Ann Dunham, President Obama’s alleged parents, did not live together as man and wife at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway in Hawaii, the birth address shown on the White House image as well as in the two birth announcements for Barack Obama Jr. published in local newspapers at the time.
195. Both newspapers, the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin, carried the announcement that Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, to Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama who resided at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway.
196. Madelyn Dunham and her daughter Stanley Ann lived at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway. There is no evidence that B Obama Sr. lived there.
197. Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack H. Obama Sr. lived at two different addresses after their marriage. Stanley Ann Dunham remained in the rented 6085 Kalanianaole Highway after her marriage.
198. B Obama Sr, lived alone at an 11th Avenue address, closer to the university where he was a student. It is reported that Stanley Ann Dunham left Hawaii in August 1961, the month of Barack Obama Jr.’s birth, taking him with her but leaving her husband behind when she moved to Seattle to enroll at the University of Washington.
199. Whether B Obama Sr. did not establish a residence with his wife and son in Hawaii is unknown, there is no listing in the Polk directories for 1961 – 1962 that documents Stanley Ann Dunham and B Obama (Kenya) as ever having lived at the same address.
200. A search of the Polk’s Directory of Honolulu for 1961-62 indicates that 6085 Kalanianaole Highway was being rented by the grandparents, Madelyn L. Dunham, listed as a loan interviewer and escrow agent at the Bank of Hawaii, and Stanley A. Dunham, listed as a manager with Pratt Furniture.
201. In a separate listing, Ann S. Obama, Mr. Obama’s mother, is identified as a student living at the 6085 Kalanianaole Highway address; Barack H. Obama, her husband, is listed as a student living at a separate address, his own apartment at 625 11th Avenue, closer to the University of Hawaii at Manoa:
202. Polk’s Directory of City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii 1961-1962
203. Researchers were unable to determine that B Obama (Kenya) and Stanley Ann Dunham Obama ever lived together at any common address in Hawaii
204. Much of Mr. Obamas early life remains a mystery and is only revealed to the public through an unsupported composite narrative. Instances exist where the narrative of birth or other reported life time events have been called into question and then the narrative is altered in an effort to clears up discrepancy, but absent of any documentation supporting the change in questionable facts.
205. A thorough background investigation supported by the release of life time documentation would be necessary to strengthen the birth narrative should it exist as depicted to the public.
206. However, investigators have been hampered by the refusal of Mr. Obama to release any of his past records should they exist.
207. Record not released including the follow:
A. Original, long-form 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate.
B. Marriage license between Obama’s father (Barak Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham)
C. Name change (Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama)
D. Obama’s adoption records
E. Records of Obama’s and his mother’s repatriation as US citizens on return from return from Indonesia
F. Obama’s baptism records
G. Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii)
H. Punahou School financial aid or school records
I. Occidental College financial aid records
J. Harvard Law School records
K. Columbia senior thesis
L. Columbia College records
M. Obama’s record with Illinois State Bar Association
N. Obama’s files from career as an Illinois State Senator
O. Obama’s law client list
P. Obama’s medical records
Q. Obama’s passport records
Sworn to under penalty of perjury.
Date — Michael Zullo