Announcement

**bsteadman** · 10-23-2012, 05:46 PM

October 22/12 Indiana Obama Ballot Challenge Report #1

By: BirtherHeadlines on Oct 22nd, 2012

Excerpt:

October 22, 2012 - thefogbow.com Eyewitness Report by A Legal Lohengrin

I'm just going to post this in parts, because as a three hour hearing, even summarizing more than I usually do, it is not going to be done for a while. Here's Part One.

---

I arrived about 10 minutes late and missed the preliminaries of the dumbest legal proceeding I have ever attended.

The first items on the agenda were a Motion to Dismiss (which we have seen) and another motion, which I believe was described as a Motion to Vacate Trial and Dismiss Jurisdiction.

DAG Joel was first chair this time and aggressively pursued clients interests. He started with the procedural history, which is convoluted enough and already known enough I won't recount it here again. Only Jefferson Garn was present as second chair, and assisted during the hearing with citations and other legal research, but did not argue directly to the court.

Judge Reid stated at the outset, at around 10:10 a.m., that both sides would be allowed approximately an hour to present their cases. Both the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Vacate were direct challenges to the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case.

Among other arguments were that the "permanent injunction" claim was not a cause of action but a remedy, and one to which the plaintiffs are not entitled. As for the request for declaratory judgment, Joel noted the utter absence of any reference to the Declaratory Judgment Act. Therefore, there was no real need to have a trial on anything.

At about 10:17, Orly argued that this was now about the general election and not the primary election (despite there being no operative pleading whatsoever even mentioning the general election). She once again complained that the IEC did not here the plaintiffs' new complaint to the general election, cited the Election Board v. Bayh case for the proposition that she could just ignore the rules and immediately bring any kind of election challenge without exhausting (which the case does not say) and complaint that nobody has heard her HAVA claims (which is a federal statute that creates no private cause of action). She cited a number of statutes including IC 3-18-1-16, 3-5-7-4. Orly also again cited the Fulani case. Fulani v. Hogsett, 917 F.2d 1028 (7th Cir. 1991), though she got the year wrong as 1990. It was heard in 1990 but decided in 1991.

Joel countered with a number of arguments, including that Fulani concerned the standing of a candidate on the ballot to challenge the eligibility of another candidate, a distinction Orly has been pathologically incapable of understanding. Joel also pointed out that no challenge has been made to the general election results in any of the operative pleadings. Further I.C. 3-8-1-2(d)(3) points out there is no need for the Election Commission to have a hearing when the "challenge would be based on substantially the same grounds as the previous challenge to the candidate." In other words, they already lost on the eligibility argument.

Judge Reid wonders whether Joel is arguing as to the Motion to Dismiss or the Motion to Vacate. Joel points out there is necessary certain overlap, that he has much more argument related to the Motion to Dismiss, but that he is currently arguing the Motion to Vacate. Judge Reid gives Orly the last word on the Motion to Vacate issue. Orly starts whining that she has gone to "enormous expense" to create this mess, whines again about poor Strunk in esse, then proceeds to complain that the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the day before Judge Reid's order to expand time gave them.

Joel starts moving into the Motion to Dismiss

Joel also notes, again, the numerous flagrant rules violations and pleading deficiencies of plaintiffs and the Moldovan Madwoman, noting that at the last hearing, Judge Reid had stated that further rules violations would be subject to dismissal. Joel then notes that despite that, virtually every pleading filed since then has been in violation of the rules. In fact, the Second Amended Complaint, in which plaintiffs were permitted only to allege three common law torts, added new causes of action, a plaintiff the court had specifically denied leave to intervene, and defendants.

Joel asks at one point: "How many times must they [the plaintiffs] flout the rules of this court before this case is put to rest?"

He reiterates the collateral estoppel and res judicata issues that have been previously discussed. He also points out that none of the tort claims the plaintiffs were permitted to raise in their amended complaint allow mandatory injunctions.

Further, against the state defendants, there was no Tort Claim Action notice. (My own parenthetical gloss: Incidentally, this is sufficient, just by itself, to deprive the court of jurisdiction to hear the claim. In fact, the issue is not merely lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but absolute immunity to prosecution. The immunity is destroyed by having to stand trial, and constitutes a right not to have to stand trial, not merely to have a case dismissed.)

Every single state defendant, and certainly Jefferson Garn and Kate Shelby, are covered by one or more than one absolute immunity doctrine.

Joel further notes that even absent the dispositive immunity issues, the merits of the tort claims themselves require "some reasonable factual basis." There is no reasonable basis for suing the attorneys for their state for doing their exact job, which in this case is defending actions brought against this state. The IEC is also veiled in judicial immunity for its discretionary decisions.

"This isn't Alice in Wonderland. Simply saying something is so does not make it so." Joel is certainly echoing Judge Land.

Joel ties up a couple loose ends that are pretty obvious. For example, obviously none of the plaintiffs have a private cause of action for what they allege to be crimes.

Judge Reid then asks about declaratory judgment and injunctive relief and asks Joel why either one should lie. Joel again points out that injunctive relief is not a cause of action (as many people here noted) and that there is an abject failure to plead a cause of action for declaratory relief.

Joel, at this point, cites Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. Cal. 2008), which dismissed a challenge by a Keyes elector to McCain's eligibility.

At 10:51, Judge Reid asks Orly if she has any case to the contrary. Orly attempts to cite an unpublished, nonprecedential case I missed, only to be told it was not precedent. She then attempts to make an argument of some sort about Fulani, and finishes by citing, you guessed it, an unpublished, nonprecedential administrative law case, the one we know from the circus ALJ Malihi held in it. Orly also cites Apuzzo's Purpura case, another loser. Orly whines that half the time is gone.

Black jumps in to try to make some arguments, noting that the trial court has jurisdiction because the constitution says the courts have "original jurisdiction of all civil cases."

Black states that what the plaintiffs will prove if allowed is that President Obama's birth certificate is a forgery and he is an ineligible candidate. He states that the complaint is in the nature of a writ of mandamus.

Judge Reid appears to want to wind down the discussion of the motions. Joel makes one final argument on behalf of the defendants in response to the new statement by Black about mandamus, noting that it applies only to mandatory ministerial acts, and not acts within the discretion of the state agency.
............................................

View the complete post at:

http://pastebin.com/X6SeXXjA

**bsteadman** · 10-23-2012, 05:51 PM

October 22/12 Indiana Obama Ballot Challenge Report #2

By: BirtherHeadlines on Oct 22nd, 2012

Excerpt:

October 22, 2012 - thefogbow.com Eyewitness Report by A Legal Lohengrin #2 of 3

Part Two

It is somewhat murky exactly what is being heard. Judge Reid believes injunctive relief has already been addressed and rejected, as the plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of proof. However, she is allowing the hearing to proceed on the issue of declaratory judgment, which is completely absent from the operative pleadings and for which the plaintiffs pled no facts that would entitle them to such relief.

Orly starts by calling Christopher Earl Strunk as a witness. He does not insist on any hyphens, colons or "in esse" after his name. He also, apparently, has either purchased a new suit or his old one has had its first meeting with a dry cleaner since the Ford Administration, because it looks reasonably unwrinkled.

Joel immediately moves for a separation of witnesses, that is, the right a party has to exclude the non-plainitff witnesses from being present during the testimony of others, a right intended to protect against collusion of witnesses who attempt to conform their testimony to that of prior witnesses. Orly, apparently not understanding what is going on, has everyone, including the plaintiffs, leave, prompting yet another explanation of basic procedures by Judge Reid and the return of the plaintiffs to the courtroom.

Strunk is sworn in, at around 11:11, and is first asked his name. This is the last question he is asked without objection.

Joel first states a continuing objection to the very fact the proceedings are occurring at all, for the obvious reasons.

Strunk is from Brooklyn, New York. Orly wants to introduce his declaration.

Objection, hearsay.

Judge Reid wants more to know if the objection is ripe. It is about Strunk's FOIA request for information about Obama's mother.

Objection, relevance. Overruled for now.

A passport application said "Barack Hussein Obama" and then "Soebarkah" in parentheses. Strunk's case concerning this is ongoing.

Objection, hearsay.

Orly, I believe, calls it "official government records."

Joel objects also that it is not certified and not authenticated.

Black jumps in, the first of many times on these evidentiary issues, and argues it is covered by 803(8) (government reports) and 902(1) no extrinsic evidence needed. Basically, that it's self-authenticating.

Joel argues that the document is not a public document. It's just a letter from some guy.

Black says Strunk is just testifying about what he received. Orly interrupts with something I didn't make out, and Judge Reid asks her if she even understands certification.

Orly asks the defense to stipulate to make all the objections at the end, because we're running out of time and they just keep objecting.

Judge Reid says that's not how it works. It's trial and objections are made and ruled on at the time they are made. She then sets ground rules on who can talk, stating that Black and Orly are "double-teaming" the defendants. From now on, Orly will do the examinations and Black will respond to the evidentiary arguments.

Judge Reid then sustains the objection.

Orly then begins testifying, stating what Strunk has said or is going to say, and Judge Reid says "I don't need testimony from you." Surprisingly, Orly doesn't leap into the witness stand and declare herself a witness. That worked so well for her last time in Georgia.

Orly resumes her direct, this time after Strunk turning his report over so he isn't just reading from it any more, as one of the objections went. Strunk says it's "Sealed in my memory" so he is not just reading from his report. He saw the name "Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah)."

Objection, he has no personal knowledge about any of these facts.

Black cites 901(1) again.

Judge Reid wonders whether counsel would stipulate that the document is not certified. She points out it is not certified by the custodian of records with a seal. Orly interrupts and is told to shut up.

Black again cites 902(1) and 803(b).

Judge Reid notices that the parties are arguing about whether a document is admissible, but nobody has even tried to enter it into evidence. She points out that if the document is inadmissible, testimony about the contents of the document for the truth of the matter asserted is also not admissible. Testimony about the document for some other purpose, such as to demonstrate that Strunk had some communication with the government, might be admissible, but it is hard to imagine the relevance of that.

During this point at the argument, as a trivial observation, I notice why Orly's hair gets more disordered as these hearings proceed. I had speculated that her insanity was just seeping out of her head and messing up her hair at the earlier hearing, but the explanation is more mundane. It seems that she does these little petulant hair-flips whenever she's told to shut up or otherwise frustrated in her attempts to screech, and this is what disorders her hair. She should learn to stop doing that. It looks stupid and petulant and messes up her hair. It was reasonably neat at the beginning of the hearing but by now it once again resembles a well-beaten meringue.

As the "evidence" of Strunk is increasingly irrelevant and based on inadmissible hearsay, Joel motions to strike the testimony about the "Soebarkah" nonsense. This is granted.

Black tries to rescue the situation with an offer of proof about a "Jonathan Robin" who is, according to Black (and Strunk's declaration) Director of the Office of Legal Affairs for the relevant agency. Judge Reid asks if the plaintiffs have him here to certify the document. This might be relevant if you had him here, but if not, the court has ruled and we're wasting time.

Black then offers to admit it into evidence as proof Strunk received it.

Judge Reid asks if there are any objections, and of course, there are.

Hearsay and not relevant. Any exhibits attached to it are not certified, it can't be offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and is irrelevant for any other purpose.

Orly then (out of turn) makes an absurd citation to Rule 1003, about duplicates when the originals have already been offered by a party.

Judge Reid said this rule doesn't apply at all. Read the rule.

Sustained.

It is stamped as P-1 but is filed as inadmissible. It may be admissible for other purposes.

Orly then dismisses Strunk, who leaves.
.................................................. .........

View the complete post at:

http://pastebin.com/qiHT3XkE

**bsteadman** · 10-24-2012, 10:01 PM

During the conference in judge’s chambers defense stated to judge Reid that they do not have any witnesses. They did not bring one single witness to counter prima facie evidence by Paul Irey and Felicito Papa that Obama’s BC is a forgery. That is the reason why no witnesses for defense were called. I would be absolutely shocked if after this Judge Reid would rule Obama to be legitimate

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
Orly Taitz, Esq.
10/23/2012

View the complete post at:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=354491

The following is COMMENT #37, by Dr. Orly Taitz, to her original post:

dr_taitz@yahoo.com
October 24th, 2012 @ 7:52 am

during the meeting in chambers defense stated that they have no witnesses, that they will be only objecting to our witnesses, their whole case was a motion to vacate trial and to ismiss, for which they got more time than we did. they spent an hour and 15 minutes arguing their motions. They stated that they do not have any witnesses. After their motions were taken under advisement, they stated that they will only raise objections to our witnesses and exhibits, but they have nothing to present. Not only they did not have any witnesses, they had no documents, no exhibits.

**bsteadman** · 10-25-2012, 01:39 AM

October 22/12 Indiana Obama Ballot Challenge Report #3

Birther Headlines

All Eligibility News Blogs In One Place

http://birtherheadlines.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/BirtherHeadline

Excerpt:

October 22, 2012 - thefogbow.com Eyewitness Report by A Legal Lohengrin #3 of 3

Part Three

Felicito E. Papa takes the stand and is sworn in approximately 11:33, after a stern warning by Judge Reid that it is she, not Orly, who dismisses witnesses and that to "usurp" the court's authority would be contempt of court.

Joel objects again, apologizing for the continuing objection to the proceedings, but feeling that he has to do it to preserve the rights of the state defendants.

Felicito Papa gives his name and starts listing qualifications such as degrees.

Joel objects again, on the grounds this other information is not responsive to a question, but is a monologue. Judge Reid asks Papa to spell his name.

Orly asks him if he downloaded a document from the White House website, referring to an as-yet unidentified document. The first page turns out to be a copy of the document from the White House website, an electronic copy of the COLB.

The other pages of the as-yet unadmitted document turn out to be pictures of the "layers" that birthers use to claim the original paper copy of the COLB is a forgery.

Joel objects to everything past the first page as hearsay, irrelevant, as not being the actual record but something manipulated by the plaintiffs, and inadmissible.

Orly again tries to testify for Papa, who is not saying exactly what she wants, and the objection is leading.

The Judge or Orly ask what Papa used to download the document. Papa says you can download it with any web software, but what he used to examine it was Adobe Illustrator.

Orly asks if this is the layer you got.

Objection, leading.

Then there is an argument about layers mainly by people who don't know what they are. The basic objections are that Papa is not an expert, he has no basis and no foundation for making any conclusion about these "|ayers."

Black begins addressing evidentiary objections by claiming that Hawaii has certified the COLB (it has not certified the copy on the Hawaii website which is all Papa has seen however). Then Black makes the frankly ridiculous claim that the White House is a real party in interest (so why did your plaintiffs not name it bozo?) and that therefore, it should be admitted as a copy of what the White House has already relied on as a real party in interest.

Judge Reid notes that this blather does not address the objections and sustains the objections.

Then the plaintiffs offer to admit the document into evidence, along with the "layers" pages, as P-2.

Joel objects except with respect to the first page, since every other page is something manipulated by Felicito Papa, who is not qualified as an expert. Black cites paragraph 14 of the complaint.

Judge Reid inexplicably admits the entire document as a certified record. Joel asks for clarification as to whether this is just the first page, to which there was no objection, and the "layers" nonsense. Judge Reid clarifies that it is with relation to the entire document, including the Papa-generated "layers" pages.

However, Judge Reid sustains the objections as to Papa's qualifications as an expert and his conclusions about the documents.

Orly begins examining Papa about his qualifications to some degree. Apparently, he has ten years of experience in illustration for websites and other things, and graduated from ITT in Indianapolis and has an information technology degree.

At around 11:46, Orly asks about the birth certificate, "Is it a forgery?"

Judge Reid states "Sustained before response."

After another attempt to continue, Joel again objects to Papa's lack of qualification as an expert and lack of anything like an m.o. that justifies him to be making conclusions.

At about 11:48, Orly and Black want to confer.

The defendants do not object, 20 minutes until the time Judge Reid said the hearing would end, to disorganized plaintiffs' counsel spending their time conferring.

After a short time, Orly launches into an absurd abortion of a compound question I couldn't even take notes on, it was so ridiculous.

Joel makes an objection that I understood as an objection to form.

Eventually, Orly gets Papa to testify to the "fact" that any time you scan a document, it will always just show up as one solid layer, never more than one layer. This, says Papa, is prima facie evidence that the birth certificate is not original.

Joel moves to strike this testimony as making a legal conclusion. It is hard to imagine a more obvious piece of testimony clearly making a legal conclusion, that is, that something is "prima facie evidence" of something, but Judge Reid overrules, after stating that Papa can't draw conclusions of law.

Orly then asks Papa if a document is not manipulated, will it be in one layer?

One solid layer, says Papa.
......................................

View the complete post at:

http://pastebin.com/VVMV6LmE

**bsteadman** · 10-25-2012, 01:56 AM

Flash Report: Indiana Obama Ballot Challenge “Trial” by Capt. Pamela Barnett

Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012
GeorgeM
10/22/2012

ObamaBallotChallenge.com Director Pamela Barnett reports from the plane, on the way home from trial ….

on plane….

Judge Reid has not made a ruling.

Orly did a great job when I saw her before I was sequestered out of the room. I didn’t get to see the other witnesses. but everyone said the IN attorney general attorney was acting for Obama watching the evidence being testified to… challenging everything.

He and the judge both seemed to be intentionally trying to drag out the time so Orly wouldn’t have enough time to get to all of the witness testimony.

The judge heard a motion to stop the trial even though she shouldn’t have because it was only filed the day before and Orly has 15 days to file a reply brief. This took over an hour of the court time which cut into the witness time. The tyrannical state attorney kept repeating his arguments over and over to waste time.

Paul Irey and Chitto Papa testified to the forged birth certificate and instead of being concerned about protecting the state of Indiana from vote fraud, he went on the attack for Obama.

Strunk got to testify to the fact Obama has the alias Soebarkah and that was it. Before witnesses could start testifying finally, Orly had kept reminding the Judge that she had paid thousands of dollars to bring all of the witnesses there to try to speed up the proceedings. But in the end the judge abruptly cut the trial off even though she was hearing testimony regarding an issue of national security and Bob Kern and I did not get to testify. She didn’t even let my documents be put on the record.

Orly remained positive. She was very happy with Irey’s and Papa’s testimony. She feels that any honest person that saw the testimony would “know obama’s “Hawaii birth certificate” posted at whitehouse.gov is a forgery.

Sorry that I was not able to testify. I had prepared many, many hours. The fight goes on.

View the complete post at:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/flas...pamela-barnett

**bsteadman** · 10-25-2012, 02:01 AM

Some Indiana Obama Ballot Challenge Documents & Comments

Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012
GeorgeM
10/23/2012

Excerpt:
.................................................. ....................

From Attorney Dr. Orly Taitz- view/donate (http://orlytaitzesq.com):

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-conte...int-final2.pdf

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-conte...and-Black2.pdf

Further comments from witness Capt. Pamela Barnett (also see her previous posting on Indiana News page)

There were about 30 people in the audience.
Judge Reid presiding

1. heard Defense’s motion to vacate (stop) trial
2. heard plaintiff’s motion for default judgement against less important defendants
3. had trial- 3 plaintiff witnessesv- Papa, Irey and Strunk. – judge cut testimony short not allowing barnett or Bob ? to testify
4. judge accepted Papa’s and Irey’s testimony and evidence – not sure if she ultimately accepted Strunk’s testimony about Obama’s use of the name of Soebarkah from the State Dept. FOIA request.

Plaintiffs are trying to permanently block obama’s name from the IN ballot.

Judge will probably make a ruling in no longer than a week. Orly remains hopeful. She believes that an honest judge would rule in their favor because of the testimony.

The defendants offered no witnesses of their own to counter the evidence.
any specific questions?

Pamela

View the complete post at:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/some...ments-comments

**bsteadman** · 10-25-2012, 02:14 AM

Paul Irey Statement on Indiana Ballot Challenge Trial

Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012
GeorgeM
10/24/2012

Excerpt:

Paul was a trial witness and an early exposer of the Obama (long form) birth certificate forgery

Via David LaRocque:

I just returned to Florida last night from testifying at the trial against Obama’s elligibility as the presidential debate was going on in Boca Raton. You have reported the trial accurately. What was your source?

I might add that the judge had experience using typewriters … as I understand from local people. This is very good for us as I am sure she understood my evidence that was mostly about the impossible typewriter errors on the Obama birth certificate. There was an audience … and many of them congratulated me after the testimony. One witness was with Army Intelligence and had good testimony also but was unable to testify as she was last just after me.

At the conclusion of my testimony … judge Reid had to end the trial because of an appointment. This judge was fair and overruled countless objections from the two government attorneys representing Obama. In fact when I began to testify … they both got out of their seats and came over to stand about 5 feet away from me seeming concerned … as did Orly and Greg. Fortunately I had previously explained my testimony to Greg when we first met at a federal express office just before he drove Orly and I to the court building. Greg Black did an excellent job by the way … and was exactly what Orly needed to assist her in this very tough environment.

There appeared to be about 20 to 25 audience members and there were actually 4 … not 2 witness’s who had attended to present their testimony and did so in my presence at the 3 hour mock trial we had … just off the main lobby of the University Plaza hotel the night before. My four 30″ wide by 20″ deep exhibits were entered into evidence and remained with the court. I am going to attach them here. I was not given enough time to present all of my evidence. The time was a problem because of the constant objections and long dissertations by the government lawyers which took one and a quater hours … so Judge Reid allowed the following hour for evidence to be presented … extending the trial 15 minutes until 12:15. It had started at 10 am.

There was no easel available to put my exhibits on. At first I held the first two exhibits in my hand and after that … Orly held the other 4. All my testimony was a direct answer to Orly’s questions. The only significant questions from the government attorneys was if I knew the make and model typewriter used to type the birth certificate and did I have “personal” knowledge of the methods used in 1961 at the Health Dept. in Honolulu … to which I had to answer no. I made my testimony in a clear direct assertive manner … confident that I was correct and I think the judge was impressed.

When the government attorneys objected that I was not an expert witness … the 65 year old lady judge answered that objection instead of Orly … “He said he had 57 years experience.” At the beginning when asked by Orly what my qualifications were … I had replied that I had … in the U.S. Air Force … from 1955 to 1958 … almost four years experience typing forms … two of which were at the National Security Agency for which I was given a Top Secret security clearance followed by 9 years after my discharge … being employed by Hearst Corp. and three advertising agencies before I formed my own company in 1968.

Not testified to because of the time constrains … but I intended to mention … was that my company … Bergen Graphics Inc. was incorporated in the spring of 1968 and in its peak by the late 80′s … employed 60 people.

Orly had forgotten to leave three of the exhibits with the judge. One was the blow-up of the important part of the Obama birth certificate that I had used to point out the line over line spacing irregularities and another page with the pic of my typewriter showing a bent “H” key … seen on the mismatched letters proof … a blow up of many “a”s typed on my own Olivetti – Underwood 5 … demonstrating how a typewriter was a precision instrument that typed letters always perfectly aligned vertically and horizontally and another pic showing how two keys could get stuck together and require being pulled apart manually causing the bent letters that have been proven in court in the past to positively identify any particular typewriter due to its unique assortment of bent letters. Also undelivered to the judge on that page … was a pic of my own Underwood 5 typewriter … and a pic of the same typewriter from the internet claiming that this was a “long-time standard of gov. agencies, newsrooms, and offices.

Most of my testimony was similar to the newspaper page we had published in the Washington Times a week before … and Orly should have entered that in evidence also but forgot … but I don’t blame her as she had her hands full responding to what seemed to me to be the overbearing best lawyers the government could provide.

The “Baseline Errors” evidence is new and not in the Wash. Times page because I had just discovered it this past Sat. before I flew to Indianapolis. What I did first was type a test of the particular way the old manual typewriters shifted from lower case to caps. The entire mechanism holding the keys moves down when the shift key is held down … causing the cap letter to strike in place of the lower case letter because both characters are on the same key. It was considered a great innovation when this method was first employed on a typewriter because it allowed for cheaper manufacturing.

However if the typist did not press the shift key completely down before the letter was struck … the result would be a cap typed letter a bit higher than the baseline of the word. Also less common would be when a letter was typed before the shift key was fully released that would cause the following lower case letter to be lower than the baseline. Once I had established that rule … I decided to check the baselines of everything on the certificate to see if any cap letter was below the baseline of a word and if any lower case letter was above the baseline of a word … which was impossible. I found 4 lower-case letters … marked with red arrows … that were above the baselines of the word they were included in … and this all by itself proved forgery because that is absolutely impossible for any manual typewriter since the mechanism does not allow that. I found no caps that were lower than the baseline. Then along in addition that evidence … I found seven of the nine lines on the Obama birth certificate had words that were on the same line … but contained whole words or parts of words that did not align with the rest. Also impossible for a typewriter unless the typist were to release the roller and adjust the position up or down manually … and why would any typist do that for no good reason in the middle of typing a single line on a form? This proves forgery in two individual ways and shows us that no typewriter did it … but that it most likely was all a result of the letter being positioned by eye … probably on a computer monitor using Adobe Photoshop. This was new evidence no one had found before … and I was elated that I had discovered another separate proof of my contention that it was a computer created document.

The last three documents attached here are the two mistakenly not given to the judge.

Except for a completely controlled major media … I could absolutely prove this to the American voter right now with my testimony and my cards … a pointer … and camera zooms. And remember that this evidence was accepted in a Superior court in the state of Indiana … from me as a person now recognized as an expert witness … for the purpose of not allowing Obama votes to be counted because he has not proven his citizenship.

I have a bad feeling that if judge Reid rules in favor of Orly … the media will not report it … as they have not reported this important trial … and also not reporting that Obama was served a subpoena to produce his original birth certificate and come to Indiana to answer these serious charges of forgery … a contention if true … also amounts to treason.

And if for some technical reason the Judge declines to rule against Obama … then the media WILL fully report it with the expected usual headline:

PROOF OBAMA BORN IN HAWAII … JUDGE THROWS OUT CASE!

A Headline I found on FOX NEWS in 2008 when a judge ruled against a plaintiff because of his not having “STANDING” … meaning that Obama had not harmed him personally. So FOX lied … giving the impression that the judge had heard evidence but he actually had not … and I would know the word “standing” should have been mentioned as part of that story.

Paul Irey

View the complete post at:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/paul...hallenge-trial

**bsteadman** · 10-27-2012, 08:30 PM

Statement from Atty. Greg Black, Plaintiffs’ Co-Counsel in Indiana Ballot Challenge Trial

Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012
GeorgeM
10/26/2012

Excerpt:

Dear Mr. Miller:

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire, Christopher Strunk, Felicito Papa, Paul Irey, Pam Barnett, deserve praise for courage, thoroughness, in appearing to contest President Obama’s right on the Indiana ballot now.

Orly only had time really to strike through Paul, and Paul came through, with assists from Chris (could not get his evidence in because Judge Reid skeptical of authenticity of State Department documents) and Felicito (Judge Reid skeptical of adobe due to her lack of grasp of it, a lack I share). Nonetheless, the White House birth certificate came in through Mr. Papa. But Paul hit a home run, his typewriter analyses came in, as did his firm opinion the Judge accepted the birth certificate is forged.

Whatever happens, the evidence (Judge will read Chris’s material, and heard Felicito say the material from The White House did not exist in 1961) sticks, is permanent. Orly keeps coming, never quits, like the energizer bunny only as a lioness this time.

What lets me sleep well now is though the bad dream of this presidency is real, I know with folks as you all are, we are fighting, one hundred percent, and will never, never give up, as Winston Churchill admonished, as Lincoln lived out. A judge I know out here in west suburbs of Indianapolis told me the man (Mr. Obama) is living a lie. To that I add, he the President is a living lie, as I see it.

Judge Sherry Reid is strong, courageous, has ruled in favor of the pro life position. She and I fought like cats dogs when she was a lawyer. I have only been before her twice, with decidedly mixed results. She had critical words for both of us during hearings, trial. But she is honest, brave, striving to do right, nobody’s fool.

Pray for her, as you pray for each of us. Thank you.

Greg (Gregory Black)

View the complete post at:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/stat...hallenge-trial

Announcement

Orly Taitz -Evidence of forgery in Obama’s birth certificate admitted into evidence

Orly Taitz -Evidence of forgery in Obama’s birth certificate admitted into evidence

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment