At the ObamaBallotChallenge (sic), George Miller responds with some interesting claims. I will try to examine them to see if they add any relevant information.
We reported on the Zullo affidavit recently and were wondering why new evidence was being submitted for an appeal, which isn’t usually permissible. Well, some of you may remember the Democrats’ recent submission of an “Obama” “birth certificate,” along with other falsehoods and nonsense. Since they did not attempt that before in the original case, it would seem that it was not admissible, since appeals are not supposed to accept new evidence.
First of all it is important to understand the difference between evidence and exhibits. The ‘argument’ raised by the plaintiffs is that the Secretary of State had DUTY to follow up on the ‘research’ by the Cold Case Posse which they claimed shows evidence of fraud. However, as the ADP points out, far more credible evidence contradicted these claims. Note that under Alabama law, the SOS has to act if she receives “knowledge from an official source arising from the performance of her duties”. The ‘research’ by the Sheriff’s office cannot be considered as such. Certainly the ‘evidence’ is at best speculative and does not reach any conclusion that our President is ineligible. Note also that in their motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs themselves brought up the PDF document of the Long Form Birth Certificate. So this is not ‘new evidence’. The motion also mentions the statements made by Hawaiian officials, claiming that they are inconsistent. So again, this is not new evidence.
Orly, still convinced that the social security number used by our President was not his but rather belonged to a 120 year old named Harrison Bounel is informed why she is wrong, but apparently she fails to recognize the relevance:
On March 26, 2013 I traveled to Stamford Connecticut where the number in question was issued and met with employees of the Social Security Administration: Representative Madeline Mercado, Assistant Manager Mrs. Sheridan (she refused to give her first name) and General Manager Mrs. Booker (she refused to give her first name). I demanded an explanation, why SSA is refusing to release the SS-5 for an extremely aged individual over 120 years old. I was told that this is a protected number and local office has no access to the information. I was shown a computer screen that stated that in case of any inquiries in regards to this number, employees of the SSA are supposed to call a specific number at the SSA Headquaters. (it was a 410- MD number). So, there is clearly a gate keeper at this number. This gatekeeper happens to be one Dawn Wiggins, as all the correspondence and FOIA requests in regards to the Social Security number REDACTED, which are sent from different parts of the country by different individuals and investigators seeking information on Harrison Bounel and Barack Obama, are always being handled by one SSA employee, Dawn Wiggins, while FOIA requests in regards to other Social Security numbers are handled by different employees.
In other words, the reason why e-verify now fails is because too many people have tried to verify President Obama’s Social Security Number and the Social Security Administration has placed a tag on the number. When Susan Daniels accessed the President’s social security number using e-verify she received what the WND inappropriately described as a notice of mismatch. The ‘SSN does not match’ was not tagged but the SSA record does not verify, other reason. The SSA found a discrepancy in the record. While Daniels jumps to the conclusion that since several of the indicators that could trigger this response involve fraud, that therefor it must be fraud. She overlooks the fact that there are several indicators which may point to a more likely explanation:
- SSN Assignment Based on Harassment/Abuse/Life Endangerment
- Fraud – OIG Investigated
- Fraud SSN Misuse
Recently we have seen two filings in this case that are of some interest. The first one is an Amicus Brief by the Alabama Democratic Party (ADP), the other a motion to strike this brief by Klayman et al, which includes an affidavit by a private citizen named Mike Zullo.
I’d like to explore why the ADP’s brief which mentions the newspaper birth announcements and various other documents is admissible while the affidavit by Zullo is not.
Klayman attempts to argue that in name of fairness, if the court were to allow the Amicus Brief, he should be allowed to enter Zullo’s affidavit. But Klayman may be unaware of something relevant here. The first issue is judicial notice, the second is admissibility of evidence which involves hearsay and authentication.
Brian Reilly wrote an ‘open letter‘ to Maricopa County Attorney Montgomery after Sheriff Arpaio held his press conference. The Attorney responds to a reference to the Arizona Code related to fraud
Arizona Revised Statute, Chapter 23, Sec. 13-2311 states in part, “…any person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud or deceive, knowingly falsifies, conceals or covers up a material fact by trick, scheme or device or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing such writing or document contains any false fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry is guilty of a class 5 felony.”
As anyone who can read would understand, the statute requires that the statement or claim is false, or fictitious. So unless you can show that President Obama’s birth certificate was falsified, there is no case to be made. Which is why the focus by the Cold Case Posse on a low resolution copy of the original, is so irrelevant as it can never show any evidence of fraud without having studied the original documents. And we know that the original documents have been verified and certified by the Department of Health of the State of Hawaii.
What follows is the reply by the County Attorney, trying to explain these issues:
Reply from Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery as a result of open letter. He will perform if the evidence is there.
Dear Mr. Reilly,
Thank you for taking the time to write and for the concerns you have expressed. There are a couple of points of analysis, though, in determining whether a criminal charge can be filed, regardless of the charge or who the suspect might be. The first is whether I have jurisdiction over the case. That requires that some conduct had to have occurred in Maricopa County for me to have jurisdiction. From the Sheriff?s Office investigation into suspect documents produced by the White House to date, that investigation has not revealed any evidence that conduct occurred in Maricopa County. I have discussed this with the Sheriff. As for any issues regarding qualifications or information provided regarding the Presidential Election itself, that is a statewide election. Under Arizona law, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General have jurisdiction over statewide elections. I do not.
I will share with you, as well, that the criminal statute you cited in your message requires additional evidence that the MCSO investigation to date has not uncovered. Specifically, we would need evidence to affirmatively prove that Mr. Obama is not a US citizen. To date, there has been evidence presented leading to speculation that documents have been forged and other documents do not exist. That alone, though, is not sufficient evidence to present to a grand jury and actually have a reasonable likelihood of conviction. I cannot speak for other prosecutors at the state level around the rest of the country or for prosecutors at the federal level but Arizona?s ethics rules do not permit prosecutors to file a charge they can only hope to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at a later stage.
I stand ready and willing, however, to review any case submitted for charges and, if the evidence is there, I will prosecute regardless of who the suspect/defendant may be.
Maricopa County Attorney
On ObamaBallotChallenge (sic) George Miller ‘responds’ showing the poor logic behind the claims of fraud, forcing him in the end to embrace the flawed ‘two citizen parent’ position which runs against Supreme Court Precedent and other court precedents. The Vattel rules were raised in US v Wong Kim Ark and rejected. Simple…
It seems like you are being deliberately obtuse.
1. Why would we have to prove that AKA “Obama” is not a US citizen for you to move on felony fraud charges?
[NBC: That is not a complex issue: in order to prove fraud one has to prove that the document falsifies a material fact. Since the document in question is a highly compressed copy of the original document, it cannot be used to establish that fraud has taken place.]
It is established beyond reasonable doubt by Maricopa County Sheriff’s Dept. and other entities that the electronic “birth certificate” image Obama is using is a very badly produced forgery. That’s a felony in itself. Why are we even debating this? Obama is perpetrating this fraud on Maricopa County (as well as everywhere else) residents, is he not?
[NBC: Assuming that George is correct here, and there is no real evidence that even the PDF was forged, if he believes releasing a highly compressed PDF is a felony then let him cite the relevant statute. While George my believe that President Obama is perpetrating a fraud, there is just no good evidence to support this.]
If someone was selling stolen merchandise in Maricopa county, would it matter that the goods were first stolen elsewhere? No, you would be required by law to act upon it, just as you are now for “Obama.” Why don’t you start with that, which would lead to discovery and unraveling some of the other mysteries of the fraud who calls himself “Obama?”
[NBC: Now we learn the true motivation: Discovery... A fishing expedition...]
2. Isn’t it true that Obama failed to prove his eligibility when challenged and that SOS Bennett accepted incomplete and inadequate evidence? In any case, even if he was born in HI as “Barack Hussein Obama, on Aug. 4, 1961 (which HI failed to confirm), which looks increasingly unlikely, his father was admittedly a foreigner, meaning that Obama is not natural born, according to established precedent, repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.
[NBC: ROTFL, The DOH of HI certified and verified the information on the document. Lacking any evidence of fraud, Miller appears to be backtracking to the untenable position that a natural born citizen must be born to a two citizen parent. He even claims that this was held up 'repeatedly' by the Supreme Court, even though the facts reject such a conclusion.]
First of all the official name of the corporate entity registered with the Arizona Corporation Commission is “the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse”. The entity is a 501(c)(3) organization with three officers:
Mike Zullo, Ken Strachan and Mike Kowalski, all directors. Note that the Sheriff holds no position in the entity and thus the entity by itself has no law enforcement authorities attached to it.
So, compare the affidavit attached to the Klayman motion to strike, signed by Mike Zullo in his personal capacity, with the Arpaio affidavit which was signed by Arpaio in his official duty and duly notarized.
So let’s speculate a little. It is clear to me that Sheriff Arpaio did not submit any affidavit and that he cannot delegate his law enforcement authority to a private citizen.
I can understand why Sheriff Arpaio no longer wants to sign affidavits and I can understand why Zullo/Klayman would like to have the Court or the public believe that the document was filed under the law enforcement authority of the Sheriff of Arizona  but I see nothing that raises the document to the level of an official work product.
In other words, these are just speculations by a private citizen. And although Zullo claims that
Posse members of the MCSO are delegated their law enforcement authority by the Maricopa County Sheriff.
But the Sheriff found it necessary to send a deputy with them to Hawaii… Not much of ‘law enforcement authority’ had been delegated…
So is the entity (Maricopa County Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse) at this moment operating without Sheriff Arpaio? Why would Arpaio not sign the affidavit in his official position? Remember that “Maricopa County Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse” is a 501(c)(3) entity and is not under any control of the Sheriff. So what authority does the 501(c)(3) present to the court? I’d say nothing more than that of a knitting circle.
 Klayman writes “This additional evidence , prepared by investigator (sic) Michael Zullo, and coming from an official source, the Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, go to the very heart of the issues presented on appeal (uhuh).” and “The affidavit of Investigator Zullo, who is a deputy of the Sheriff of Maricopa County,” suggest that Klayman may believe that this was in fact filed under the authority of Arpaio and his office but I fail to see under what legal argument such a claim can be made. In fact, if the affidavit is presented as the ‘investigative findings, by the Sheriff of Maricopa County’ then this would likely become pure and simple hearsay.
Arpaio, and perhaps Zullo may believe that these volunteers have arresting power but the office of the Compliance Division of Maricopa County has responded that they do not.
Letter From Ashley Osolin, Legal Liaison, Compliance Div., Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, to author re Response to Request for Information (obtained by author with a public records request on Apr. 12, 2011) (claiming that “[p]osse members do not have arrest powers, therefore they cannot arrest for either State or Federal charges”).
Source: LOCAL IMMIGRATION PROSECUTION: A STUDY OF ARIZONA BEFORE SB 1070 by Ingrid V. Eagly, 58 UCLA LAW REVIEW 1749 (2011)
So they certainly do not appear to have the same law enforcement powers as a law enforcement officer. The question now becomes: does an investigation done by a posse have any legal relevance when the Sheriff does not sign off on its results? Or is it a work product like that of a knitting circle?
The fact that Zullo signed as an individual appears to suggest the latter.
Zullo gets it but still insists on analyzing a PDF document which he believes shows evidence of tampering even though the document has been authenticated, verified and certified.
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 (sic) as a verification of a live birth event.
Halelujah… So the PDF is irrelevant and as to the claims that the document was falsified, there is no probative evidence as the document was highly compressed and many of the artifacts can be attributed to the compression workflow used.
So what now? The fact that the Department of Hawaii has verified and certified the information provides prima facie evidence and the mere possibility of fraud of the original document has not been argued very convincingly.
The admission is powerful as it undermines any relevance of the analysis of the PDF. Well done.
Zullo also observes
“The White House PDF has no evidential value at all. And the simple truth is it could never be submitted to any court as a bona fide certified verification of the birth event. I think one has to come to the conclusion that the White House attorneys and Mr. Obama himself, as an attorney, would be acutely aware of that fact.”
Finally he gets it. And why he believes that the White House attorneys do not appreciate this is beyond me. Needless to say, the Alabama Supreme Court is not the proper jurisdiction to have this heard.
Fascinating stuff. Why Zullo is so helpful to undermine the relevance of his ‘investigation’? I have no idea.