Bob Unruh,WND.com
In an allegation that pushes the dispute over Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility to a new level,an affidavit prepared to accompany a criminal complaint over the “Certificate of Live Birth”released April 27 suggests there was a plan to mislead the American public,and it went as high as the Oval Office.
“What I believe you are looking at is a classic example of an attempt at plausible deniability,”wrote Doug Vogt,who has filed a criminal complaint that charges Obama’s birth record is forged.
Vogt,who describes himself as an expert in documents,typesetting,imaging,scanners and document imaging programs and has owned Archive Index Systems since 1993,referenced the widely broadcast White House event when officials,including then-White House Counsel Robert Bauer and Obama’s communications director Daniel Pfeiffer,released the purported Hawaiian “Certificate of Live Birth.”
“Everything that came out of the mouths of both these men and the president’s was carefully orchestrated and scripted. It also implies that the president’s contingency plan was that in case the forgery was detected,that one or both of them would take the blame,”Vogt concluded.
He said in the affidavit,a copy of which was obtained by WND,“The preponderance of evidence leads me to conclude that the Certificate of Live Birth the White House presented at the 8:48 a.m. news conference (on April 27) and not mentioned on television an hour later is a forgery.”
He continued,“A strong legal argument can be made that per U.S. Code Title 18,Part 1,Chapter 47,Sec.1028(a)(2 and 4) Mr. Pfeiffer and Mr. Robert Bauer could have made themselves principles in the forgery. There is also the possibility that the director of the Department of Health in Hawaii knows much more about this forgery than she is telling. If it is later proven in federal court that this Certificate of Live Birth issued by the Department of Health is a forgery,then any and all personnel involved with the forgery,would also be principles in the forgery.
In an allegation that pushes the dispute over Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility to a new level,an affidavit prepared to accompany a criminal complaint over the “Certificate of Live Birth”released April 27 suggests there was a plan to mislead the American public,and it went as high as the Oval Office.
“What I believe you are looking at is a classic example of an attempt at plausible deniability,”wrote Doug Vogt,who has filed a criminal complaint that charges Obama’s birth record is forged.
Vogt,who describes himself as an expert in documents,typesetting,imaging,scanners and document imaging programs and has owned Archive Index Systems since 1993,referenced the widely broadcast White House event when officials,including then-White House Counsel Robert Bauer and Obama’s communications director Daniel Pfeiffer,released the purported Hawaiian “Certificate of Live Birth.”
“Everything that came out of the mouths of both these men and the president’s was carefully orchestrated and scripted. It also implies that the president’s contingency plan was that in case the forgery was detected,that one or both of them would take the blame,”Vogt concluded.
He said in the affidavit,a copy of which was obtained by WND,“The preponderance of evidence leads me to conclude that the Certificate of Live Birth the White House presented at the 8:48 a.m. news conference (on April 27) and not mentioned on television an hour later is a forgery.”
He continued,“A strong legal argument can be made that per U.S. Code Title 18,Part 1,Chapter 47,Sec.1028(a)(2 and 4) Mr. Pfeiffer and Mr. Robert Bauer could have made themselves principles in the forgery. There is also the possibility that the director of the Department of Health in Hawaii knows much more about this forgery than she is telling. If it is later proven in federal court that this Certificate of Live Birth issued by the Department of Health is a forgery,then any and all personnel involved with the forgery,would also be principles in the forgery.
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.