More clarifications re discrepancy of Indonesian records of Barry Soetoro and HI records of Barry Obama and why Mike Zullo’s affidavit will not be considered in the actual appeal in the Supreme Court of Alabama
Posted on | May 15, 2013 | 2 Comments
1. I was asked to clarify regarding descrepancy of Indonesian records.
Please, see attached picture from Obama’s classmate Scott Inouie. It states 1969.
Now look at Obama’s school record from indonesia; it shows that Obama under the name Barry Soetoro went to school in Indonesia from January 1 1968.
Based on this discrepancy there were 2 boys: Barry Obama, who went to school in the US through 1969 and another boy, Barry Soetoro who went to school in Indonesia from January 1 1968. It means that for 2 years there were two different boys: Barry Soetoro, who resided in Indonesia in 1968, 1969 and another boy Barry Obama who resided in HI in 1968, 1969. This account is consistent with the account of Obama’s foster sister Liah (Sliah) Soetoro -Sabah. You have to put pressure on our corrupt members of Congress, particularly 19 who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee to start immediate investigation.
2. Affidavit of Mike Zullo, which was published by Carl Galllops and republished by ORYR, is not signed, not notarized and not stamped as filled with the Supreme Court of Alabama. It is only an unsigned draft. Nobody knows when it was filed and in conjunction with what document. When
I checked that filings of the actual case, it was not a part of the Appellant’s brief or appellant’s reply brief (see the reply brief below).
I received a comment from an obot saying that McInnish’s attorneys either yesterday or today filed a motion to strike (remove from the record) the Amicus Curiae (meaning a brief from the friend of the court) by the Democratic party of AL and affidavit by Zullo is being used as an attachment with this motion. So far I did not see this motion and attachment as filed, but let’s assume the best case scenario that it was actually filed.
What it means is that Affidavit of Mike Zullo will not be considered in actual case, it means that in the best case scenario if it was signed, notarized and stamp filed, it can only be considered for a very limited purpose of striking the Amicus Brief of the Democratic party, but it will not be considered by the court in the case itself. As it is, the courts rarely pay any attention on Amicus Briefs. Amicus Briefs can be considered only to the extend that they relate to the evidence and points of law of the original case in the lower court. As such none of the new evidence presented in the Amicus briefs can be considered to begin with. Birth certificate submitted by the Dem party in their amicus brief could not be considered and any exhibits brought to strike the Amicus brief can be considered only for the limited purpose of striking the evidence which was not admissible to begin with.
So, it shows that I was correct all along. Mike Zullo’s affidavit will not be considered in the actual case and in the actual appeal. For that reason, as I’ve been stating for 2 years now, Sheriff Arpaio and his investigator Mike Zullo need to stop stating things that are not true: they cannot testify in the Supreme Court of Alabama. Zullo’s affidavit will not be considered as part of actual appeal, and Arpaio needs to stop misleading the public and he needs to do his job as a sheriff, namely file a criminal complaint with the office of the District Attorney of the Maricopa county AZ and the Attorney General of AZ against Barack Obama for fraud and using forged ID in his county, Maricopa County in AZ, where he is an elected official, where he is a sheriff.
Comments
2 Responses to “More clarifications re discrepancy of Indonesian records of Barry Soetoro and HI records of Barry Obama and why Mike Zullo’s affidavit will not be considered in the actual appeal in the Supreme Court of Alabama”
Leave a Reply
May 15th, 2013 @ 10:42 am
Zullo’s only goal in life is getting another taxpayer funded vacation in Hawaii.
Arpaio and Zullo are far more dangerous than Obama ever was.
May 15th, 2013 @ 1:18 pm
Facial recognition software could validate the real fraud .