by Tommy Thompson, special correspondent
What’s been the biggest challenge in challenging Obama’s eligibility in court? It’s been finding a judge who isn’t afraid to allow the merits of the case against Obama to be argued in court. The Alabama Supreme Court might just be different. In an earlier case before the Alabama Supremes, Associate Judge, Tom Parker, stated “McInnish has attached certain documentation (Joe Arpaio’s investigation) to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.”
Here we have a judge who actually recognizes that the fake birth certificates are a serious issue and should be addressed. Now we have a new case before the Alabama Supreme Court. This case is McInnish/Goode v Beth Chapman (SOS). It is being handled by famous attorney Larry Klayman. Also, it will be the first and only civil case in which Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse is personally involved. Chief investigator for Arpaio, Mike Zullo has written a 200 point affidavit to this court and has agreed to testify in person. Zullo will show the court that the “picture” of the long form birth certificate is a 100% digitally created fake.
Now comes even better news. In the 2012 elections, Alabama elected Judge Roy Moore as the Chief Justice of her Supreme Court. In an earlier interview concerning the case against Terry Lakin, Justice Moore stated that he not only thought that Lt. Col Lakin had a right to question Obama’s eligibility, but had a duty to do so.
He also said that he has seen no documentary evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen and in fact hasn’t seen anything that even proves that he is a citizen of the US. Judge Roy Moore is a staunch Constitutionalist who declares the Constitution is the “law of the land” and cannot be changed by politics. He’s a tough judge.
I’ve followed most of the eligibility cases and I’ve noticed a very common occurrence. Even in those cases in which the judge appears to follow the law there seems always to be a sudden and abrupt change. As in the Georgia case before Judge Michael Malihi, the case was pretty well decided by a default judgment against Obama when Malihi abruptly dismissed the case. This was done even though Obama’s attorneys refused to show up in court.
When you read Judge Malihi’s decision and compare it to his earlier denial of motion to dismiss it’s as if they were written by two different people. Could it be that Judge Malihi got a visit? And from whom? And who wrote the decision? I don’t see this happening to Judge Roy Moore and the Alabama Supreme Court. I don’t think they can be intimidated. There is no timeline for the court to rule on this case, so we wait to see what happens. This could be monumental.
Alabama eligibility case in St.Clair County
Thompson v Kennedy (chairman of the Ala. Dem. Party)