BIG NEWS- Arpaio: Obama birth record 'definitely fraudulent'

It's not the media, it's his own actions that have labeled him an irrational nut job.

He is no hero, just another criminal.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


There's been a credible explanation posted on this thread... pay attention.

reply to post by relocator


You're going to want to remove that link. ATS has very clear No Soliciting policy outlined in their T&C. That's why the thread was 404ed and TA's post was removed.

TextSince the flies have surfaced and CLAIM it is the right thing to do? BS! The right thing to do is to provide any and all information that will clear Obama of this mess. Until the questions stop. Until there is no more information that can be had.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


True American
I agree with you 100% -- In the first place this is not a personal vendetta by sheriff Joe. It all started when a large group of Arizona voters came to Joe and wanted to see whether Obama had a right to be put on the Arizona ballet for president of the United States. It is the obligation of the office that he holds to show the people the truth. He did not have the truth to show . No one does and it took over three years of stonewalling to even get this far. As a result Joe sent representatives to get the truth. All he wanted was for the state of Hawaii to produce the microfilm.of the birth of Obama which they should have had.. This would have satisfied the entire voting block of the country as well a the Arizona voters. Real simple and a honest request. but this transparent bunch of liars would not provide a simple request that by law is needed for each state to provide the voters. Every candidate known to hold office should be vetted but this guy got under the radar.

The piece of paper that was shown to be Obama's birth certificate was as phony as a three dollar bill as far as the experts determined. This means that someone forged that paper and that is a felony. No one said Obama produced a forged paper but only that the paper that was presented to the public as the birth certificate of Obama is a forged document. The next step is to determine if that is true or not true. This is why Joe wants a congressional investigation to determine if the voters of the United States have a legal candidate or a illegal candidate. That is Joe's job.

Now what if Joe simply shrugged this off such as many of the DC gang do every day? Then some years later you find out that a pretender held office of the president of the United States and all that he did was non in void. Then what? Then you have egg on your face and point to Sheriff Joe as the scapegoat. Look at the mess you would have for eight years of this. Is it worth the chance to bury our heads in the sand when it can be stopped now? Senator so in so says "I believe he was born the U.S." but ole Senator so in so doesn't even know what he is talking about does he? And ole Senator so in so isn't even interested in knowing the truth. If he was he would be doing this investigation and not Sheriff Joe. Goes to show that TRUE AMERICAN is right on.

reply to post by Seede


Obama underwent the same vetting process as every other candidate. Why is this process suddenly not good enough for him but it's fine for every other President? Also, Arpaio, his posse, and any other person in the world have no right to access Obama's personal records. The only people allowed to access those files are Obama, his immediate family, or an LEO with a subpoena. Arapaio and his crew are none of these things. Arpaio should know this as a career law enforcement officer. However, he doesn't actually care about his constituency. He just cares about grandstanding ad distracting the public from his own legal troubles.

No he did not . George Soros and Henry Kissinger prepared Obama to be president and Soros put him there . Both of those thugs are Socialist NWO minions and could care less about our sovereignty . They put a PATSY in place to destroy America . What better man to take the blame from the Elite and put it on a man whom they have contempt for ? Why does every Federal Judge say yes there is merit to this case and then refuse to hear it later .The people who put him there want the American way to die . Of course some one will be blamed ! extreply to post by Xcalibur254

You see, this is the conundrum that exists in birthers.

They want obama to be held to the law of the land right?

But they want any other law that gets in their way to be broken just so they can see that stupid birth certificate.

Privacy? Who cares. It doesn't apply to Obama.Hawaii must release that bc because WE ARE THE ULTIMATE LAW OF THE LAND!
State rights? Who cares, it doesn't apply to Obama. Because WE ARE THE ULTIMATE LAW OF THE LAND!
Constitutional rights? Who cares as long as the Sheriff gets Obama.
Civil rights abuses? Who cares as long as the Sheriff gets Obama.

WHO CARES ABOUT THE LAW AS LONG AS WE GET OBAMA!!!!!!

Right?

RIGHT!

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by Libertygal

 

I'm pretty sure, based on all of that, that you don't know what pro bono means... if the "Obama" won, then the other side would pay Bowen's standard fees, if "Obama" lost then Bauer would be receiving nothing.

In other words, at no point was Bowen paid by the campaign.

I think you're really confused!

OR you're just lying?

Lying? LOL really? I already showed Bowen got paid by the other team for "attorneys fees". Bauer got paid by the campaign.

You should really try to pay attention before calling someone a liar.

dictionary.reference.com...

pro bo·no   /ˌproʊ ˈboʊnoʊ/ Show Spelled[proh boh-noh] Show IPA
noun
done or donated without charge; free: pro bono legal services.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

pro bo·no (pr bn)
adj.
Done without compensation for the public good: a lawyer's pro bono work.

FREE.

NOT Contingency Fees.

Now apologize for being wrong and calling me a liar, and attempting to insinuate I am stupid or intentionally misleading. I know what pro-bono means.

However, I think you don't know what you are talking about...

Bowen was one of the defendants on the Obama/Biden defense side. She was the Secretary of State.

Bill for 1040.00

www.supremecourt.gov.../docketfiles/10-1351.htm

No. 10-1351
Title: Alan Keyes, et al., Petitioners
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State, et al.

Docketed: May 4, 2011
Lower Ct: Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District
Case Nos.: (C062321)
Decision Date: October 25, 2010
Discretionary Court
Decision Date: February 2, 2011

The second case that was cited was where Hemenway was threatened with sanctions which included "attorneys fees" was this:

dockets.justia.com...:2008cv02254/134576/

HOLLISTER v. SOETORO et al

Plaintiff: GREGORY S. HOLLISTER
Defendants: BARRY SOETORO, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. and DOES

Case Number: 1:2008cv02254
Filed: December 31, 2008

Court: District Of Columbia District Court
Office: Other Statutory Actions Office
County: 88888
Presiding Judge: Judge James Robertson

Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Other Statutory Actions
Cause: U.S. Government Defendant
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By: 28:1335 Interpleader Action

Following Cases: Gregory Hollister v. Barry Soetoro, et al (09-5080) and John Hemenway v. Barry Soetoro (09-5161)

We have record of the following docket entries for this case.
Date Filed # Document Text
December 4, 2009 30 NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Marc Erik Elias on behalf of BARRY SOETORO Substituting for attorney Robert F. Bauer (Elias, Marc)

Bauer was a defense attorney for the Obama/Biden defense team.

Two different suits.

Regardless, both got paid, it is in the judgements. They got paid attorneys fees for simply defending the cases.

I cited two different cases.

Both were thrown out.

Both got paid attorneys' fees.

One was disclosed. (Bowen et al)

One was not. Bauer, his is mixed in with Campaign Spending, making it impossible to define the amounts paid, but also making it impossible to claim he wasn't. The true fact he *was* is outlined by the fact he asked, in a heretofore linked letter, for sanctions and attorneys fees. Why else, then, would he do that, if he worked for *free*?

May 2012 FEC report for Obama for America (April)
Perkins Coie: $146,663.73

April 2012 FEC report for Obama for America (March)
Perkins Coie: $201,199.13

March 2012 FEC report for Obama for America (February
Perkins Coie: $317,707.53

February 2012 FEC report for Obama for America (January)
Perkins Coie: $257,042.32

Year End, 2011, FEC report for Obama for America
Perkins Coie: $168,367.29

Total to date: $4,243,642.88

Note: The above query is now failing, but the number is what the FEC reported earlier this year. I have reported it to the FEC.

Carlos Luna, of the FEC, responded and says a candidate must be an Active (Declared) Presidential Candidate before the deadline of a particular report (Q1, Q2, …etc) for their report summary totals to display here. The Q1 (while it was previous displayed) was removed, because The Obama for America first quarter report was filed before the Obama statement of candidacy was filed.

Source

Thereby debunking Bauer never got paid, and the firm he was with, Perkins and Coie, still is.

How do you sue for attorneys fees if its free??

*****Breaking*******
This just in,
"Sheriff" Joe,
backwards thinking bigot.

I'll admit it. I was very naive about this whole subject. I'm still on the fence. There could be plausible explanations.

I didn't know the depth of all of the investigations into this. It is huge!

Questions are going unanswered. The longer the questions go unanswered the more questions come along. That's what I don't get.

I thought that it was the job of a Sheriff to investigate things. Allegations were presented and isn't it the Sheriff''s job once an allegation is brought forward in his jurisdiction to investigate that allegation? I know that they have the right to gather documentation outside of their jurisdiction to satisfy their investigation. Right? So, what is the problem and why?

I'm not that familiar with Sheriff Arpaio except that he seems to have a Cowboy style. I'm on the fence about him. I know he must be liked in the county he serves as they seem to have re-elected him.

I believe we have a right to ask question when something smells fishy.

I don't believe that it is too late. It is never to late for vindication or exposing of wrong doing.

I voted for Obama in 2008. McCain and Clinton scared me. I couldn't get behind them. I was relieved that Clinton didn't get the nomination that I didn't do my DD, my life was crazy at that time.

If things were added to the BC then, yes that is criminal. If the entire BC is is fabricated then, yes that is criminal. If for some reason a new BC needed to be constructed because of changes in adoption status or other reasons then I see no fraud. Other reasons, I don't know, but there might be some.

This is just one item in the story of Obama that seems to have some holes or parts to it that seem to be fishy. Renouncing citizenship? Did he in Indonesia? The only information I've seen is on an old school doc. What's that about? You can have a dual citizenship in USA but not in Indonesia. Is this valid since he was a kid and the choice was not made by him? Did it even happen? Inconsistencies in Social Security numbers. What's that about? I could go on.

Yes, he should have been vetted. Obviously either someone dropped the ball or didn't think we needed to know. I was metaphorically asleep at the time. I'm awake now.

My personal opinion is this. Someone dropped the ball on vetting. I think he was thrown into the nomination because the Democrats wanted to have the next Pres. In politics, I believe that crazy things are done to win the favor of the voters.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone

Privacy ends when you become an elected public official

reply to post by SimonPeter


NO IT DOES NOT!

That's a belief, NOT A FACT.

In truth it does not end when you enter the public sector. That's just a stupid rationalization of the press to violate you privacy to dig up any information they can use against you to stir up things so they can inflame people and sell news papers.

If it's true then the Sheriff has to release his bc to prove that he's an American citizen.

But will he?

reply to post by froglette


It comes down to the word of Hawaiian officials at the HDH. Because usually that suffices for 99% of cases. But this is a rare, 1% case that has so many other problems associated with it, the word of the HDH is just not good enough. At least not for those who are cooking hamburgers in seconds cause the fire is burning so hot. The smoke is so thick to go with it, Obama could start his own brand of smoked ribs.

The HDH is going to have to do better, or face continual bashing.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


No it means a human being born in a republic (State) on American soil and NOT someone born in the District of Columbia or ANY other federal territory. If you KNOW how the Cosntitution is written and YOU know what the words mean it is easy to comprehend.

Natural born!!! IN one of these 50 united states of America......see how that is spelled? It's just like the "Constitution for the united states of America" as opposed to...the "Constitution of the United States". 2 very different Constitutions, and yes they are both "registered" in the library of Congress!!!

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


I guess his grand mother and wife are wrong . It's not a black thing or a party thing it's a destruction of our USA Constitution thing > And the United Nations Agenda 21 spells it out in detail . The NWO is real and Obama is part of their plan . Your rights to own a car or house is at risk . That is if you survive the culling they also plan in Agenda 21 .

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by daddio

 

So define natural born citizen.

You keep bringing this up but what does it mean exactly?

Oh, I know.

He must be born on the continent only, and absolutely nowhere else in the world right? And must be white.

Well, you are very wrong.

In 2011, a Congressional Research Service Report Stated:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

^ "Qualifications for President and the 'Natural Born' Citizenship Eligibility Requirement". Congressional Research Service report. Federation of American Scientists. November 14, 2011. p. 2. Retrieved February 25, 2012.

Here's the full PDF:

www.fas.org...

But I'm sure you'll just ignore it in favor of your belief and won't change your mind.

The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ...” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

Eh, why should I bother. The birthers will just ignore any fact in support of Obama not being a Kenyan.

edit on 18-7-2012 by EvilSadamClone because: (no reason given)

I will ignore it just like you and everyone else IGNORES the original Constitution. I am NOT a "U.S. citizen", I AM a human being and am an "American National". I do not fall under the perview OR jurisdiction of the "U.S. government/corporation". THAT is your mistake and everyone elses. NOT comprehending the language and the terminology in the legal sense.

reply to post by daddio


No, it does not. But keep ignoring that fact as much as you want to and keep wearing that tin foil hat.

TextObama underwent the same vetting process as every other candidate. Why is this process suddenly not good enough for him but it's fine for every other President? Also, Arpaio, his posse, and any other person in the world have no right to access Obama's personal records.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


My opinion only Xcalibur-- And I may very well be wrong.

Obama was vetted and there was no problem in his vetting till it came to light (by Hillary Clinton) that that he was born in the Republic of Kenya. Clinton dropped the subject like a hot potato during her campaign against Obama. No one knows exactly why it was dropped except the bosses who run the country. I don't know any more than that and I don't think it will ever be exposed as to the reason. Not to the little guys anyway.

After it was picked up again by opponents of Obama it then gradually became a issue. The issue could have simply been resolved then and there but instead it became a stonewalled national issue. Obama spent close to a million tax payer dollars to hide all of his past records which is very unusual for anyone to do unless they are trying to hide something. All past presidents have willingly presented educational, military, and civil records as well as medical records to the voters. Why would a leader of the United States refuse to clarify one simple record? He did present a birth certificate but experts refuse to accept it as valid. The first request was answered by the Governor of Hawaii that they could not find the record. Now if they could not find the record then how did he become vetted in the first place? This led to more and more confusion.

All Obama had to do was write a letter to the hall of records and request his birth record and that would have been the end of the matter. Instead he chose to stonewall the voters and refuse to clear the matter. He had all the tools at tax payer expense to do just that. No one said sheriff Joe had a right to Obama's birth certificate but sheriff Joe and the American voters do have a right to see the microfilm copy of that birth record and if need be to contest any candidate who runs for president. Civil rights are not privileged when you become a civil servant. You forget one very important thing. That certificate that was presented to America was found by the top minds of forgery to be a forged document. That was what was vetted by the committee and found forged.

I am not either Dem or Rep so I have no quarrel with that whatsoever but as an independent voter I do have the right to know the truth of this matter. I have been an independent voter since FDR and I do not follow a party line. There is something very wrong in this country when people choose a side and come hell or high water will sink with that party regardless of what it promotes. Most Americans vote their pocket book and to hell with the Republic. Same thing in Congress, Senate and Supreme Court. That is why we are in the toilet today.