Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

06/12/12 Butterdezillion posted her analysis of her correspondence with the Hawaii Dept. of Health about Virginia Sunahara, Barack Obama II's birth record donor.

Virginia Sunahara and HDOH Fraud

1. Why the birth index had to be altered:
only one person can have a BC# at a time.

A birth is a unique event that doesn’t happen twice to the same person (like marriage, for instance). So every birth certificate is supposed to represent one real person. That person’s name may change (after an adoption or name change, for instance), but that BC# represents a real person that was born, like a vehicle identification number represents an exact vehicle, regardless of what paint or license plate changes it undergoes. That BC# is the very identity of the person.

Two people might have the same name, but they cannot have the same BC#. Only one name can be used for a BC# at a time. When somebody is adopted, they are given a new birth certificate that shows a different name and different parents, to reflect the new LEGAL relationships. Everything else about the birth certificate is the same, including the BC#. But the old BC with the old name and parents is invalidated, and only the new BC is legally valid. That BC# has to be filed under the new name. When an adoption is set aside, the old, original BC becomes valid again, and the adoptive BC is invalidated.

So there is a way for names to be changed for a particular BC#, but only one of those names can be legally valid at a time. In the Electronic Verification of Vital Events (EVVE) System (in which HI participates), the way a record is marked as non-valid is by a void flag. If it’s clicked, the record is non-valid; otherwise the default is for a valid record. When an adoption takes place, they create a new record with the same BC# as the old one and then click the void flag for the old one. To set aside an adoption, they just take the void flag off of the original name and make the adoptive name void. Within the computer system, it only takes a click by the right worker to get rid of one name and put a different one in its place.

But only one of those names using that BC# can be valid at once, since only one baby was born under that number. And if you print out a list of valid names (such as a birth index), only one of those names will be on the list. So if you want to steal somebody’s BC# in the computer database, you have to fudge things to get both the real person AND the BC# thief on the list.

The Hawaii DOH changed their 1960-64 birth index so that it would include legally non-valid names. We know this because they have both the adoptive and birth names for 2 guys, even though the birth names are legally non-valid. So the altered birth index allows for both a real person and a BC# thief to show up in the birth index. But only one at a time could show up as valid in the database.

2. How we know there was a BC# thief in the database:
Because Virginia Sunahara’s name was in the birth index but not the database.

Virginia Sunahara’s name is in the 1960-64 birth index. We know they have a birth record for her, because her COLB has been disclosed to her brother. We know her COLB is for a real person, because she is buried in Mililani Cemetery. But when I requested a non-certified COLB for either Virginia or Tomiyo Sunahara (as the HDOH Administrative Rules allow any person to receive), I received an official response saying that there were no records for her.

Normally requests associated with Obama were sent to Janice Okubo, and she always gave the standard [horsefeathers] answer that I was not authorized to receive a non-certified COLB, death certificate, or whatever I was asking for. That’s why it surprised me when I got the response saying that there were no records responsive to my request for Virginia’s non-certified COLB.

Later on, I called the HDOH office to find out what had happened to my money order and request for the 1961 birth index the HDOH had told me I could get for $98.75. The secretary couldn’t find any record of my request even though I had received an e-mail in response to it already. All of a sudden, she asked me if the request had to do with Obama. I asked if that would make any difference. She said yeah, that all requests about Obama were supposed to go to Janice Okubo. Everything else goes to the “fulfillment department” to be processed according to standard protocols.

So what happened is this: All my other requests for non-certified abbreviated vital records were clearly related to Obama (Stanley Ann Dunham, Madelyn Dunham, Obama, etc) so they went to Okubo, who gave me the [horsefeathers] denial.

Okubo was afraid to tell the lower-level staffers that Virginia Sunahara is actually Obama, so when my request for Virginia Sunahara’s record came in, it went to the fulfillment office instead of being routed to Janice Okubo to be obfuscated. So this is the only request related to Obama that went to somebody besides Janice Okubo. If it had been sent to Okubo, she would have said I was not authorized to receive what I had requested, like she did with all the other requests. The fact that I got a different response confirms that this request never went to Janice Okubo like the others.

According to the OIP, the first step in the normal protocols is always to check to see whether the record even exists. So that’s what the secretary did; she checked the birth database for Virginia Sunahara. I had asked for the record for either Virginia Sunahara or Tomiyo Sunahara, so she would have queried the name of Sunahara for both of those records. That’s double-checking the Sunahara name. And she found nothing there. So she sent me a response saying there wasn’t a record responsive to my request. The record under Virginia’s BC# was being used by some other name at that point.

IOW, the HDOH changed Virginia Sunahara’s record in the birth database to somebody else’s name. And they got caught because they didn’t tell their lowly secretary that any request regarding Virginia Sunahara was actually about Obama, so she processed the request honestly instead of sending it to Okubo to have her lie and obfuscate.

3. Why we can be almost certain that Obama was the thief of Virginia Sunahara’s BC#:
Because the date filed/BC# “discrepancy” fits her extremely rare birth – death - and wrong-name –on – the-death-certificate situation, and the anomalies on Obama’s long-form indicate the base record that was altered to create Obama’s forged long-form was for a girl born at Wahiawa Hospital with an R for the 3rd letter of her first name (which matches Virginia’s birth situation).

The BC# on Obama’s BC is #[15 61 10]641, even though it was filed (given a number, as per Janice Okubo’s UIPA response) 3 days before the Nordyke twins were given the numbers [15 61 10]637 and [15 61 10]638. Okubo said that Oahu BC’s were “almost always” filed (numbered) the same day they were accepted by a local registrar. For an Oahu BC to be accepted by the local registrar on a Tuesday (Aug 8th) and yet not be numbered until after the BC’s that came in on Friday (11th) would be very rare. If there was information missing from the BC the local registrar would clarify that with the hospital or parents before accepting the record and sending it on to the state registrar’s office. For it to be accepted by the local registrar, it had to appear complete on first glance, but have some kind of discrepancy that only showed up at the state registrar’s office.

And that fits the circumstance for Virginia Sunahara. She was born at Wahiawa Hospital on Aug. 4, 1961, with a BC listing her as Virginia Sunahara, but she died at Kapiolani Hospital the next day.

Her death certificate wrongly listed her as Tomiyo Sunahara (after her father Tomio), which showed up in both newspaper death announcements. The local registrar accepted the BC immediately on Aug 8th and sent it on to the HDOH, because it was complete.

But the HDOH had received Sunahara’s DEATH certificate a day earlier (using the first name Tomiyo), and because the death certificate was required to list the birth certificate # on it, they would have held out the death certificate to be matched with the birth certificate when it came in. But when the BC [#15 61 11080] came in the next day, it was under the name Virginia instead of Tomiyo.

After a BC was numbered, it could only be changed by a formal amendment, so when the BC came in and the name discrepancy was found, the workers wanted to make sure the name was right before numbering it, to spare the family having to file a formal amendment after all the grief they had already suffered. Clarifying what the real name was supposed to [be] involved communicating with the parents, which took more time than a simple phone call to a hospital, and that would explain why Virginia’s BC was accepted on Tuesday [Aug. 8th] but not numbered until Friday [Aug. 11th].

No such reason would exist for a standard hospital birth like Obama’s long-form claims he had. That date filed/BC# discrepancy is a very rare fingerprint that only matches a situation like Virginia’s, complete with the death certificate error. And this fingerprint shows up on Obama’s birth record.

Some other things show up on Obama’s birth record that also confirm the connection between Obama’s forged birth certificate and Virginia Sunahara. Specifically, the anomalies on Obama’s forged long-form show that:

a) the M for “male” was changed,
b) the local registrar is the registrar that shows up on another WAHIAWA HOSPITAL BC but not Kapiolani, and
c) the third letter of the first name – R - was not [cut and pasted] in; it was retained from the BC that was used as the base document for the forgery.

IOW, the things that had to be altered from the base document show that the base document belonged to a girl who was born at Wahiawa Hospital and - like Barack - had an R for the third letter of her name. That fits Virginia perfectly.

4. Why the HDOH would give Virginia’s brother a COLB for her but not let him see or get a copy of the original birth certificate:
Because computer records are easy to manipulate. Paper records are not so easy, and especially when the document you have to work with already has its fingerprints all over a high-profile forgery. And especially when you have Sheriff Joe conducting a criminal investigation that will never end until at least one or two complete microfilm rolls is available for forensic testing, including the age of the microfilm and the method of numbering BC’s over the course of an unspecified period of time.

Another COMPUTER record could easily be created for Virginia using some other dead child’s BC# [15 61 11080], and then flagging that child’s record as non-valid so Virginia could appear to have a valid BC using that BC#. The BC#’s could actually even be left that way – just reassigned. And nobody would know the difference, as long as nobody came along and asked for the record of the child who was stuck with the void record, as I had done for Sunahara before they gave her somebody else’s BC#.

The number they gave Sunahara is so far out of sequence with the “date filed”/BC# that it makes no sense whatsoever. In a stunt with CNN which aired the day before Obama released his forged long-form, the HDOH issued a COLB to Stig Waidelich (who had been flown in by CNN to do this stunt, apparently with the HDOH’s cooperation, because they issued a COLB the same day as it was supposedly requested, instead of requiring a week’s notice as their website says)… that also is so far out of sequence for the “date filed”/BC# that the only way to make all those numbers work is if the HDOH issued BC#’s totally randomly.

Some have tried to explain all these discrepancies by saying that BC’s were collected for a month, alphabetized, and then numbered, but that contradicts Okubo’s statement that Oahu BC’s were numbered the same day as they were accepted by the local registrars and transferred to the HDOH. And in any event, Sunahara was given a number later than Waidelich.

So, in trying to make it seem like “date filed”/BC# discrepancies [skipping all the way from 15 61 10641 on Aug. 8th to 15 61 11080 on Aug. 11th] are run-of-the-mill occurrences, the HDOH has almost certainly altered/reassigned BC#’s to such an extent that they will NEVER be able to make forged microfilm rolls that make any sense. They are backed into a corner. And they run the risk of somebody having in their file cabinet a birth certificate that pre-dates the reassignment of BC#’s…

Ultimately, an audit of the computer transaction logs would reveal all the number-swapping that’s been done, by whom, and when. The transactions logs are processing records and are not confidential, but the HDOH spent several months delaying and eventually using 3 different excuses, which were each debunked in turn, before concluding that the transaction record could not be disclosed to me because it would frustrate a legitimate government function.

As if stealing other people’s BC#’s was a legitimate government function. The inmates are running the prison, I think…

http://butterdezillion.files.wordpre...hdoh-fraud.pdf

This discussion at ALIPAC is now up to 398,501 views!

W

The hearing is Monday June 18th at 9 am EST

Watch Florida eligibility hearing live

WND-TV to provide free live-stream from courtroom of Bush v. Gore judge

Published: 15 hours ago

TALLAHASSEE, Florida – WND-TV will provide gavel-to-gavel, live video coverage of the latest challenge to Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility in a courtroom hearing that could deny him ballot access to this all-important electoral swing state in November.
Judge Terry Lewis, best known for presiding over the 2000 Bush v. Gore election dispute, will consider arguments from attorney Larry Klayman and attorneys for the Obama campaign. The hearing will focus on Obama’s claim to be a “natural born citizen,”” as required under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.





Lewis is credited with making crucial rulings in the contested 2000 presidential election, when ultimately a Florida vote recount was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court and George W. Bush was declared the winner.
Sign up now to get access to WND-TV’s special free, live-stream page prior to the hearing.
WND-TV has been designated by the court as the official pool TV service providing all other TV stations and networks with feeds.
Klayman’s law firm filed the challenge to Obama’s name on the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, “a registered member of the Democrat Party, voter, and taxpayer in Broward County, who was an eligible elector for the Florida Primary of Jan. 31, 2012.”
Klayman’s work is being supported by the Constitution Action Fund, a non-profit raising money for the legal challenge.
Klayman told WND that during a hearing last month on discovery issues in the case, Lewis noted that the plaintiff’s brief cited U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875 defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, while the Obama campaign’s arguments provided no citations.
The definition of the term is critical. Such a step has not been reached in any of the more than 100 legal cases that have been brought over Obama’s eligibility since before his election in 2008.
The U.S. Constitution imposes a special citizenship status requirement on occupants of the Oval Office. The “natural born citizen” requirement is not imposed on other federal officials. From the writings of the Founders, its apparent aim was to ensure that no person who had divided loyalties – to the United States and any other nation – would serve as commander in chief.
Klayman has argued that since Obama, by his own admission, was not born to two citizen parents, he is not a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, is ineligible to be a candidate on the state’s election ballot.
Florida’s election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of the laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking.
“Obama’s briefs [said] it would be an undue burden and expense to have discovery,” Klayman said.
The judge said he wanted Obama’s representatives to cite the “authority” on which they based their argument that it isn’t necessary to have two citizen parents to be a natural-born citizen.
WND earlier reported on the case, which raises some of the same issues that have been raised in other state ballot challenges across the nation. Specifically it alleges:
“On or about April 2011, only after years into his presidency, and under media and political pressure, Barack Hussein Obama published on the Internet an electronic version of a purported birth certificate alleging his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to American citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Kenyan British subject father, Barack Obama Senior.
“There is credible evidence indicating that this electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered. No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been produced in order to definitively establish Barack Hussein Obama’s birth within the United States.”
The action follows by weeks the release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s antecedents. The six-month-long investigation done by professional law enforcement officers working on a volunteer basis for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found that there is probable cause to believe there was forgery involved in the production of Obama’s birth certificate, and fraud in presenting that document as a genuine document.
The plaintiff has submitted affidavits from Arpaio and others to support their claim.
Sign up now to get access to WND-TV’s special free, live-stream page prior to the hearing.
The case explains that even if Barack Hussein Obama was born within the United States, he is still not a “natural-born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution. That’s because, “Barack Obama Sr. was born in the British Colony of Kenya on June 18, 1936. Birth in Kenya made Barack Obama Sr. a British subject, according to and governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.”
A case filing explains: “No physical, paper copy of defendant Obama’s birth certificate has been presented to establish his eligibility. … Defendant Obama has electronically produced a copy of what he purports to be his ‘birth certificate.’ Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered.”
The argument also cites Barack Obama Sr.’s birth in Kenya, making him a “British subject.”
Sign up now to get access to WND-TV’s special free, live-stream page prior to the hearing.


Watch Florida eligibility hearing live

Related: Was communist mentor intimate with Obama’s mother?

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

This discussion at ALIPAC is now up to 398,501 views!

W

I do believe this is one of the most comprehensive, if not the most comprehensive, one stop place on the net to find information on this topic.

I would like to be optimistic about the hearing outcome but we know how corrupt and cowardly our judges have become. Judge Carter is the first one who got everyone's hopes up but then suddenly folded after being intimidated. It's going to take a different tact to bring the criminal in the WH to justice.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

I would like to be optimistic about the hearing outcome but we know how corrupt and cowardly our judges have become. Judge Carter is the first one who got everyone's hopes up but then suddenly folded after being intimidated. It's going to take a different tact to bring the criminal in the WH to justice.

I wish we could replace the like button with an agree button, because while I agree with you, I sure do not like it one bit.

WND EXCLUSIVE


Investigator: Foreigners bought Hawaii birth certificates

'A Mafia operation was run in the early infancy of the state'

Published: 1 hour ago
by Bob Unruh


The lead investigator for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse – which already has found probable cause that Barack Obama’s publicly released birth certificate is a forgery – says any Hawaii documentation for Obama’s birth that exists would probably would be of little value.

Mike Zullo, a retired New Jersey detective now heading Arpaio’s volunteer investigative team, explained in an interview that at the time of Obama’s birth during the state’s early years, Hawaii birth documentation routinely was purchased by foreigners for children not born in the state.
Arpaio’s investigation was launched last September after constituents came to the sheriff with their concern that Obama was ineligible for the presidency and would perpetrate a fraud by placing his name on the state’s ballot.

Zullo’s comments came in an interview with Tea Party Power Hour host Mark Gillar.
Gillar described the process in the 1960s: Foreign nationals, primarily from Japan, would fly to Hawaii and buy a birth registration for their son or daughter, not with the goal of one day having them become president, but to obtain the benefits of being a U.S. citizen.
Zullo said that when he was in Hawaii last month following up on leads, he talked to older locals who “informed us about a syndicate operation, a Mafia operation if you will, being run in the early infancy of the state of Hawaii where birth certificates were being sold to Japanese refugees on a black market basis.”
Does anyone really know where Obama is from? Find out the startling truth from New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi.
At that time, Japan was still undergoing post-war reconstruction while America was an established superpower.
Zullo said there was a business in Hawaii in “birth certificates … for profit.”
Obama released an image of a Hawaiian birth certificate last year as “proof positive” of his birth in the U.S. and “natural born” citizenship, a constitutional requirement for the presidency.
There have been numerous challenges to Obama’s eligibility. Some say that regardless of where he was born, he isn’t qualified because the Founding Fathers understood a natural-born citizen to be the offspring of two U.S. citizens. Obama’s father was a foreign national who only attended school in the U.S.
Zullo also debunked again the contention that 1961 newspaper birth announcements prove anything. He argued the listings were generated automatically by the state and delivered for publication based on the registration of any child with the state.
“Anybody that is hanging their hat on a newspaper entry to prove … Barack Obama [was] born in the state of Hawaii doesn’t know what they’re talking about,” he said.
The births of Japanese children whose parents purchased Hawaii birth certificates also would be listed in the papers, he explained.
During that time period, Japanese parents would fly to Hawaii so their children, born in Japan, could have the benefits of American citizenship, he said.
For that reason, he said, Obama can’t claim that a Hawaii birth certificate is proof he was born in the state.
The interview:




The interview also addressed unanswered questions about the “discovery” of the Obama birth documentation. Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, when elected, promised to track down the documentation to put to rest the arguments over Obama’s birth location and eligibility.
The governor eventually concluded, in January 2011, that there was something “written” in state records, but he was unable to produce any documents to the public.
Then, when Obama requested a certified copy of the original documentation three months later, state officials reportedly produced the documentation.
Abercrombie is no longer eager to address the issue.
Earlier this week, WND tried to find out what happened to the governor’s self-initiated research into Obama’s birth documentation.
Initially, Abercrombie spokeswoman Donalyn Delacruz told WND she was happy to help with questions – until she found out the subject.
When WND asked in an email for an explanation of why Abercrombie’s investigation could not turn up the documentation, she refused to answer.
“What news organization are you with?” she demanded. “We get frequent ‘birther’ questions and this would fall in that category.”
Subsequently, she refused to respond to email questions.
When WND called, a receptionist in the office responded to the same inquiry with “That’s been done” – apparently meaning president had released the birth certification image. But she promised to take a message and have someone call back.
No one did.
WND had questions about the anomalous results: The governor’s stated inability to find the documentation and the state agency’s later simple recovery and alleged duplication of the same record.
It was shortly after his election that Abercrombie vowed to end the questions from those who doubted Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.”
Stated Abercrombie then: “We’ll do what we can as quickly as we can to make it inevitable that only those who wish the president ill, only the ones with a political agenda, will be the ones doing this kind of thing.
“The president is entitled to the respect of his office and he’s entitled to have his mother and father respected,” he said.
He said he was instructing his attorney general and the chief of the state’s health agency to look at what legal avenues could be used to release information.
“This is a transparent state in terms of our communication with one another,” Abercrombie said. “This is the Aloha state. We care for each other, we look out for each other, we’re family.”
He told CNN in that interview that he would pursue the information regardless of the feelings of the White House.
“It’s a matter of principle with me. I knew his mom and dad. I was here when he was born. Anybody who wants to ask a question honestly could have had their answer already,” he announced.
Obama’s narrative states that he was born Aug. 4, 1961, at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu.
However, after a flurry of high-profile media interviews in which he blasted “birthers,” Abercrombie suddenly went silent even though polls reveal nearly six on 10 doubt Obama’s own eligibility story.
He told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser about Obama’s documentation: “It actually exists in the archives, written down.” The London Daily Mail, however, noted Abercrombie “suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.”
Yet, when Obama wanted the records, the state instantly waived a ban on reproducing long-form birth certificates and copies were produced to be delivered to Judith Corley, a private attorney.
WND continues to report on multiple legal challenges to Obama over his status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether Obama actually was born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Further, others contend it’s impossible for him to be considered a “natural born citizen” as his father was a foreign national.
Among the various campaigns raising questions about Obama’s past:

• There’s a campaign to raise funds to pay the expenses of the Cold Case Posse assigned by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to look into the validity of Obama’s records. This is the team that already said there is probable cause that the birth document is a forgery.

• There’s the complete findings documented by the Cold Case Posse.

• There’s the “Your Papers, Please?” edition of the Whistleblower, the explanation for why there have been dozens of lawsuits over the issue, and why millions of Americans want Obama to prove he’s constitutionally qualified to be president.

• There’s a campaign to post billboards, reminding Americans just what they don’t know about Obama.

• There’s a petition to Congress seeks help from that body of leaders in resolving the question over Obama’s eligibility to be president.

• There’s a “Birther on Board!” bumper sticker to raise awareness.

• There’s the “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” book by Jerome Corsi, detailing the evidence that exists – and explaining what’s still missing.

• There’s a light look at the issue, from Molotov Mitchell, in his DVD “For the Record: I’m Not Crazy.”

• There are yard and rally signs to let people know what hasn’t been documented by Obama.

• A stylish T-shirt allows you even to wear the question.

Investigator: Foreigners bought Hawaii birth certificates

The drumbeat against Obama grows louder. I posted this in other news but wanted to be sure and share it here: Mark Steyn: Earthly woes mount as Obama's rhetoric soars | obama, moon, together - Opinion - The Orange County Register

Atty. Orly Taitz: On 6/12/12, Sheriff Joe Arpaio stepped up his "probable cause for
a lawsuit" statement to a sworn affidavit of forged identification documents. She has
filed motions to add his affidavit to her submissions to the Court of Appeals in D.C.
and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, Miss..

Originally Posted by Atty. Orly Taitz

THE COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________________ _________________



ORLY TAITZ

APPELLANT



V

MICHAEL ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

APPELLEE

__________________________________________________ _________________

PETITION TO SUPPLEMENT /Motion for Judicial notice of a sworn affidavit
by sheriff joseph M. arpaio deeming barack obama’s birth certificate,
selective service certificate and social security card to be forgeries

Under circuit rule 35 appellant Taitz filed a petition for En Banc hearing in the
above matter. Per FRAP 40(a)(1)(A)-(D) a petition and 19 copies were filed.
(Exhibit 1). The petition for En Banc hearing, attached herein, dealt with a
request for an initial application (SS-5) for a Connecticut Social Security
number, which was assigned to an individual born in 1890, which was
fraudulently assumed by Barack Hussein Obama. After aforementioned
En Banc petition was filed, petitioner received a copy of a sworn affidavit
by Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, attesting to the
fact the Barack Hussein Obama’s identification papers: birth certificate,
selective service certificate and a Social Security papers are indeed forgeries.
(Exhibit 2) Petitioner requests this court to take a judicial notice of the attached
sworn affidavit or accept it as a supplement to the En Banc petition. This
affidavit makes it an air tight argument that the Social Security number 042-xx-xxxx
oes not belong to Barack Hussein Obama and Mr. Obama does not have an
expectation of privacy is using a Social Security number, which was not legally
assigned to him. It also makes it imperative for this court to grant the appeal
En Banc, as not doing so would constitute a criminal complicity by this court
not only in the case of the biggest elections fraud and forgery in the history
of this nation, but high treason as well, as by denying access to the original
SS-5 application to this Social Security number, this court will be aiding and
abetting usurpation of the US Presidency and position of the Commander-in-Chief
by a foreign national with forged identification papers. As such under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure §201 c(2) Plaintiff Dr Orly Taitz ESQ, hereinafter “Taitz”,
requests this honorable court to take a judicial notice of the sworn affidavit by
Sheriff Joseph Arpaio attesting to the fact that the copy of the long form birth
certificate for Barack Hussein Obama, II, (Hereinafter “Obama”) posted by the
White House on the White House web site, as well as Mr. Obama’s selective
service card and Social Security card, represent forgeries.
. . .

I attest that attached copy of the affidavit of Sheriff joe Arpaio, attesting to forgery
in the birth certificate, selective [service registration, and social security number]
is a true and correct copy issued by Sheriff joe arpaio on june 12, 2012, in
Maricopa County AZ.

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=113715

She submitted on the same day a similar Motion for Judicial notice
and a petition for an emergency evidentiary hearing in Mississippi.