Audible gasps, shock, outrage and support for a congressional investigation were the responses by law-enforcement officers, elected officials and attorneys to a presentation by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse of evidence that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent.
Arpaio’s lead investigator, Mike Zullo, made a public presentation Saturday at the annual convention of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association in St. Charles, Mo., then held a closed-door session for police officers, elected officials and others.
“Sheriff Arpaio wants this in Congress. That’s where we intend to take it,” Zullo said in an interview with Carl Gallups of PPSimmons Radio.
Zullo said he was amazed by the number of law-enforcement personnel and others at the conference who were not aware of the evidence that Obama’s birth documentation is fake.
He told Gallups the overwhelming response was “absolute shock,” noting “audible gasps” could often be heard during his presentation.
Zullo said one official came up to him afterwards and said: “I have been purposely ignoring this matter – until now. I will ignore it no longer.”
Several constitutional officers, public officials, attorneys, elected officials and others are now pledging full and personal support for moving the issue to a congressional investigation, Zullo said.
He said the virtual media blackout had kept many of the officials in in attendance uninformed and they are now outraged that they have seen the evidence that they should have seen from the beginning.”
Zullo said the media is being “side-stepped.”
“We are making inroads and contacts that we have never made before,” he said. “This conference is really going to pay off in moving things forward. Very important people are now beginning to see the amassed criminal evidence of perhaps the biggest fraud in American history. They are moved – they are shocked – and they are ready for action. Plans of action are now being laid at this very conference. This meeting could prove to be monumental.”
Obama’s birth certificate became an issue before the 2008 campaign — raised first by Hillary Clinton’s campaign — because of allegations he might not qualify for the presidency as a “natural born citizen.”
Though the Constitution provides no definition, many scholars believe the drafters of the Constitution understood it to mean someone who was born of citizen parents. Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen, and some critics suspect Obama was not born in the U.S.
Arpaio launched his Cold Case Posse investigation after Maricopa County constituents expressed concern about placing an ineligible candidate on the 2012 presidential ballot.
Zullo recently met with members of Congress concerning the evidence his team has gathered.
After examining the evidence, he said, “They’re looking … and saying, ‘My God, a fifth-grader can see through this.'”
Evidence from Arpaio’s investigation was entered in a legal case pending before the Alabama Supreme Court. It was brought by attorney Larry Klayman on behalf of 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish, who are seeking to force Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.
The case, dismissed at a lower level, is now before the Alabama Supreme Court, where strict constitutionalist Roy Moore was elected chief justice in November. The case becomes all the more intriguing because Moore is on record previously questioning Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president.
The affidavit in the Alabama case, written by Zullo,says his team “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 regulations 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,” Zullo wrote.
The evidence, he said, should be put before Congress.
Zullo said 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 United States.”
The Obama administration has dismissed questions about Obama’s eligibility with mockery and ridicule.
In a brief asking that the Alabama case be dismissed, Democrats quoted late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel.
The party insisted: “In order for one to accept the claim that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery [and that he is ineligible], one has to buy into a conspiracy theory so vast and byzantine that it sincerely taxes the imagination of reasonable minds.”
The brief scoffs at “birthers” as a “tiny cabal of zealots” and quotes Kimmel saying: “These people could have personally witnessed Obama being born out of an apple pie, in the middle of a Kansas wheat field, while Toby Keith sang the National Anthem – and they’d still think he was a Kenyan Muslim.”
But Arpaio is one of few law enforcement authorities to look into the issue, and although his work largely has been under the radar in recent months, it is continuing, Zullo’s affidavit confirmed.
In a 2010 interview with WND, Moore said he’d seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” – as the U.S. Constitution requires of presidents – and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.
“This is the strangest thing indeed,” he said. “The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law.”
More recently, when a majority of the state’s high court denied a 2012 petition filed by McInnish seeking to require an original copy of Obama’s birth certificate before the sitting president would be allowed on the state’s ballot, Justice Tom Parker filed a special, unpublished concurrence in the case arguing that McInnish’s charges of “forgery” were legitimate cause for concern.
Parker wrote: “Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.”
In his concurrence, Parker described McInnish’s petition: “McInnish seeks from this court a writ of mandamus, directly ordering Beth Chapman, as secretary of state for the State of Alabama, ‘to demand that [President Barack Hussein] Obama cause a certified copy of his bona-fide birth certificate be delivered to her direct from the government official who is in charge of the record in which it is stored, and to make the receipt of such a prerequisite to his name being placed on the Alabama ballot for the … November 6, 2012, general election.'”
Parker, who also wrote a concurrence in another case arguing Roe v. Wade should be overturned, agreed that Arpaio’s findings were legitimate cause to question Obama’s presented documents but nonetheless joined his fellow justices in denying McInnish’s petition.
“The Alabama Constitution implies that this court is without jurisdiction over McInnish’s original petition,” Parker explains. “The office of the secretary of state of Alabama is not a ‘court of inferior jurisdiction’ that this court may control through the issuance of a writ in response to a petition.”
Now, however, the case is coming from a lower court, suggesting the Supreme Court may have some opportunity for action.
Some of Zullo’s evidence:
Zullo testifies that the White House computer image file of Obama’s birth certificate contained anomalies that were unexplainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document.
“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.”
His testimony continued, “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.
“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,” Zullo wrote.
Zullo also noted that the governor of Hawaii was unable to produce an original birth document for Obama, and it should have been easy to find.
He said raising further questions is the fact Obama has refused to release: Original, long-form 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate, marriage license between Obama’s father (Barack Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham), name change (Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama), Obama’s adoption records, records of Obama’s and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens on return from return from Indonesia, Obama’s baptism records, Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii), Punahou School financial aid or school records, Occidental College financial aid records, Harvard Law School records, Columbia senior thesis, Columbia College records, Obama’s record with Illinois State Bar Association, Obama’s files from career as an Illinois State senator, Obama’s law client list, Obama’s medical records and Obama’s passport records.
In action related to the same case, Klayman asked the court to strike the brief from the Alabama Democratic Party. He called in “frivolous and arrogant” and said “in addition to mocking in disrespectful fashion the seriousness of this case and the integrity of our judicial system, [Democrats] seek to improperly present new evidence not on the record for appeal.”