• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

If the major media employed just a few people as relentless and resourceful as Ohio-based private investigator Susan Daniels, Barack Obama would not have been elected to a second term. Hell, he would not have been elected to a first term.

Daniels had filed suit challenging Ohio Secretary of State John Husted to determine if Obama has been using a legitimate Social Security Number. Daniels contended that without such confirmation Obama was not eligible to appear on the Ohio presidential ballot in 2012.

A state-licensed private investigator since 1995, Daniels had discovered in 2009 that Obama has been using a “fraudulent Connecticut Social Security Number” and that he had been doing so since he was 25. Daniels said as much in her suit.

On Sept. 12, 2012, a hearing was held on this matter in Geauga County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court before Judge David L. Fuhry. Husted blew it off. When no attorney appeared to represent him at the hearing, Fuhry asked the bailiff at least twice if she had heard from anyone in Husted’s office. She had not.

According to the Geauga County trial guidelines, counsel is “expected to be present and ready to enter the courtroom at the time scheduled for trial.” Husted’s absence, however, did not appear to overly bother the judge.

Fuhry gave Daniels two choices. He could continue the hearing for a week until he could rule on a defense motion to dismiss, or Daniels could elect to continue with the hearing that day. Daniels chose the latter option.

“I will take your evidence today, or anything additional you wish to say in support of your motion,” Fuhry told Daniels at the beginnings of the proceedings, but he did not quite honor that pledge.

Fuhry particularly objected to an amicus brief I had written in support of Daniels’ suit. “In doing the research for my 2011 book ‘Deconstructing Obama’ and in subsequent research,” I wrote, “I could find no instance in which Barack Obama claimed to have even visited the state of Connecticut, let alone resided there.”

Fuhry asked Daniels repeatedly whether this was “evidence.” Twice she said it was an “exhibit.” When he asked her again, she presumed the words were interchangeable and said, “Well, then, I guess it is.” Fuhry responded, “Then you cannot enter it because it is hearsay.”

This exchange troubled Daniels’ supporters who had attended the hearing. To them, it seemed clear that Fuhry was openly badgering her. Someone official may have had second thoughts about the exchange as well because it was purged from the official “true and correct” transcript.

Throughout the hearing Fuhry shocked Daniels by assuming the role of defense attorney. In the formal complaint she brought against him, Daniels described his demeanor as “dismissive, intimidating, belittling.”

Daniels noted that Fuhry had violated several precepts of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, which demands that a judge perform his duties “impartially and diligently” and that he be “patient, dignified, and courteous.”

There is nothing about Daniels’ personality that should have provoked the judge. She is a soft-spoken septuagenarian, a widow and mother of seven. She is, however, a truth-seeker, and, in the age of Obama, the establishment has little tolerance of the same.

It will not surprise to learn that Judge Fuhry dismissed Daniels’ suit, ruling that she had no “statutory authority” to bar the Democratic nominee from appearing on the ballot.

In the grievance she filed against Fuhry, Daniels responded that she had at the very least made the judge aware that a crime may have been committed. According to state law, he had the responsibility to request an investigation. He did not.

“I also have reason to believe that Judge Fuhry had his decision drafted before the hearing was held,” wrote Daniels, and she was likely correct.

Unfortunately, it didn’t matter. “Upon review of your grievance,” wrote the assistant disciplinary counsel for the Supreme Court of Ohio in a painfully brief letter, “we do not note any evidence of conduct constituting a violation of the code by Judge Fuhry.”

“They sure do all stick together,” Daniels wrote to me in her last communication. “Thick as thieves,” I answered.

Receive Jack Cashill's commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Jack Cashill's alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.
  • Where we will email your daily updates
  • A valid zip code or postal code is required

  • Click the button below to sign up for Jack Cashill's commentaries by email, and keep up to date with special offers from WND. You may change your email preferences at any time.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.