I am concerned that erroneous reports might be used to discredit legitimate evidence
Posted on | May 2, 2014 | 9 Comments
I just listened to a clip of an interview by Michael Shrimpton and Lord Monkton. (see link below).
Shrimpton is a British attorney who claims to have connections with members of British intelligence. Monkton is a British Lord, I believe he is a member of the House of Lords, he was brought by Jerry Corsi to AZ to meet with Arpaio and Zullo. This clip of the interview was uploaded by Birther Report. the clip does not clarify who the host is, it might be Peter Boyles from CO, I am not sure.
Many statements in the interview are correct, however there are some statements that are erroneous or questionable or without proven sources and I am greatly concerned that those might be used to discredit legitimate evidence against Obama.
Shrimpton is currently being prosecuted in Britain for making allegedly false reports of criminal activity, namely making reports and allegations that nuclear attack was planned during summer Olympics in Great Britain and that the nuclear device came from a sunken Russian sub.
I personally have no knowledge of any of the above and do not want to speculate.
Further, Shrimpton made a number of allegations regarding Obama. He and Monkton discussed evidence about Obama during an interview. They state that members of the US Congress and British parliament are all aware of Obama’s lack of legitimacy, however they refuse to act as they are afraid of smear campaigns from the left. I believe that to be true.
However, they made a number of other statements that are questionable. For example Shrimpton repeatedly stated that Obama was born in 1960. He did not explain where did he get the evidence that Obama was born in 1960 and not 1961. Further, in a speech given by Shrimpton in 2009 he claimed that CIA got the grandparents’ and Obama’s DNA from water glasses during some event and proven that Obama is not genetically related to his grand parents. Obama may not be genetically related to his parents, as he does not have any valid IDs, however the problem with Shrimpton’s allegations is the fact that Obama’s grand father was deceased for some 20 years, so the question arises: where did they obtain his glass of water? From the grave? The grandmother was reportedly ill during 2008 campaign, there is no evidence of her attending any events.
Further they claim that the person, whose SSN Obama is using, died in HI at the age of 90. This does not appear to be true. Obama is using the SSN of Harry Bounel and there is no evidence of Bounel ever traveling to HI. He lived in NY and later in CT, hence the CT number. I believe Shrimpton is simply quoting something he red in a flagrant hoax, which was circulated for some time. This hoax claims that Obama is using the SSN of a person by last name Ludwig. This hoax originated when I posted on my site information on a number of individuals who got their SSNs late in life . I was merely bringing a number of examples to show the public that it was not uncommon for people to get the Social Security number for the first time while they were in their old age. I explained that in 1976-1977 there were changes in SSA rules, where every recipient had to have his own number in order to get any aid from the Social Security. So, a number of women, who previously used their husband’s number or people who worked for cash were forced to get SSNs. Someone misrepresented that story and wrote a hoax claiming that Obama used Ludwig’s SSN. There is no evidence of him using Ludwig’s SSN. He used Bounel’s SSN 042-68-4425.
So, I am asking the public to be vigilant and take all info with a grain of salt, as it might be erroneous and it might be used by Obama operatives to discredit legitimate evidence.
Comments
9 Responses to “I am concerned that erroneous reports might be used to discredit legitimate evidence”
Leave a Reply
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
May 2nd, 2014 @ 4:41 am
didn’t Obama have a 50th birthday party that was published in the news???
May 2nd, 2014 @ 7:17 am
Lord Monkton is not now and never has been a member of the House of Lords in fact they have issued a cease an desist order on him for claiming to be a member. There has never in his lifetime been a conspiracy theory that he has not shown up for.
May 2nd, 2014 @ 8:19 am
I believe I read a quotatoin a few(?) years ago of Barry saying something to the effect that the August date was not his actual birth day, but that he was actually older than people thought. If so, I would not dismiss Shrimpton’s claim.
May 2nd, 2014 @ 8:26 am
I do, however, question some other of Shrimpton’s claims.
May 2nd, 2014 @ 10:21 am
lord mocking is an idiot that spews criminal propaganda. There’s only one hope to remove the trail of his mother that connects him and the cia, which are blatant criminals.
May 2nd, 2014 @ 11:30 am
can you send me a link to that order?
May 2nd, 2014 @ 1:54 pm
https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
A letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from the Clerk of the Parliaments
18 July 2011
Letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from David Beamish, the Clerk of the Parliaments
Dear Lord Monckton
My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.
In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said “Yes, but without the right to sit or vote”. You later repeated, “I am a Member of the House”.
I must repeat my predecessor’s statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated:
“In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to ‘a member of the House of Lords’ is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House … In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage.”
I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member “without the right to sit or vote”.
I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.
David Beamish
Clerk of the Parliaments
15 July 2011
May 3rd, 2014 @ 10:41 am
It’s a pity Orly did not check her claims with me! She has my e-mail address!
I am NOT and never have have been an attorney. I am a barrister.
Had she summoned the courtesy of checking with me, or listened to my interview with greater care, with respect, she would have picked up that it was Lord Monckton who referred to the SSN, I made no reference to the hoax claim or Ludwig.
Although I may stumbled a bit in 2008 (not 2009) when speaking without notes I have been consistent that it was the grandmother who provided the DNA. I believe she did in fact attend a fundraiser, and drank only water, but her DNA could have been obtained by the CIA on a different occasion to BHO. It would not have been difficult. Does Orly really think that the CIA could not surreptitiously lift a glass from an elderly woman living on her own? She would only have to go a restaurant for heaven’s sake.
There are a number of living blood relatives of BHO Senior, so alleged paternal DNA would not be a huge problem.
It seems that Mossad used collateral relatives for their test, which I am now satisfied was done.
If Orly wants to check her facts with me she will get a courteous response, If she just wants to write attack pieces, fine, but she should make a greater effort to get her facts straight!
The interview was not with Peter Boyles, it was TruNews. Boyles arranged an interview with me then backed out.
Christopher Monckton is technically not a member of the House of Lords, but will be when the voting rights of hereditary peers are restored. He is however a Peer of the Realm, and entitled to all the other privileges pertaining to his rank of a Viscount of the United Kingdom, with the style and title of the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.
May 3rd, 2014 @ 11:31 am
Mr. Shrimpton.
I understand your explanations, however you still did not provide one shred of evidence, one shred of proof of what you are saying. Whether you are a barrister or an attorney, you understand that if you were to appear in court, the judge would tell you: “where is the proof of hat you are saying? Show me the documents, provide names, bring witnesses”. You now admitted that CIA did not check the grand father’s DNA, that the grandmother’s DNA did not come from an event, which is opposite to what you previously stated. So, it was reasonable and proper to question your accounts and claims. Keep in mind, I am the most friendly audience, I have proof of Obama being a fraud, but even I cannot give any credence to allegations which are not backed up by anything.
If you have proof that is admissible in court, please, provide it. You are being tried in England, I am sure you can subpoena witnesses to appear for you, you can prepare affidavits. You have my e-mail address. If and when you will have any evidence to provide, please do so, otherwise we are just wasting time.