ANTI-ARPAIO PROBE DROPPED BY OBAMA’S DOJ AS ELIGIBILITY “TRADE OFF” FEARED

OBAMA’S “MONTY HALL” PROBLEM – In the wake of Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case investigation of Barack Obama’s fraudulent birth certificate and Selective Service registration, the federal government has mysteriously closed its criminal probe of alleged misconduct by the Arizona lawman saying no charges would be filed, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.  However, the sudden reversal by the Department of Justice after such vigorous pursuit of Arpaio leaves many wondering if a deal was struck to prevent Arpaio’s evidence of forgery and identity fraud against Obama from damaging the democrat's 2012 re-election bid.

by Dan Crosby

of The Daily Pen

PHOENIX, ARIZONA – Despite a vigorous two year investigation, federal authorities speaking Friday on behalf of Obama-appointed Attorney General, Eric Holder, said that the Department of Justice will not be filing charges against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office after closing what amounted to be a politically motivated investigation into false allegations of racial bias and abuse of power.

Confirming Arpaio’s innocence, the initial inquiry by the DOJ found no evidence of wrong doing on the part of MCSO officials, Arpaio or his deputies.  However, Arpaio’s concurrent year-long investigation of Obama’s eligibility has discovered evidence to support criminal charges of document forgery and identity fraud against unknown individuals working on behalf of Obama.  

With the 2012 election looming, the timing of the decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to discontinue the investigation is raising suspicion.  The DOJ dropped the investigation just as Arpaio’s own investigation into the forgery of Barack Obama’s alleged birth certificate and Selective Service registration card gained powerful public interest after a July 17, 2012 press conference during which Arpaio’s investigators revealed vast and condemning evidence of an attempt to cover-up his illegitimacy as president. 

In the second of two press conferences, Arpaio’s Cold Case investigators presented findings after a 10-month law enforcement investigation indicating that the digital image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” posted to an official government media source by the Obama White House, was a computer manipulated forgery.  It was also determined through testimony provided by the Hawaiian Assistant Attorney General, Jill Nagamine, that the digital image presented to the American people was not the form originally provided to attorney's on behalf of the Obama administration in April, 2011 by the Hawaiian Department of Health. 

Millions of Americans, including Arpaio's investigators, have strongly refuted claims from the administration that the .pdf file peddled by liberal pro-Obama media as authentic ever existed in paper form.  The municipal government of the State of Hawaii simply did not possess the technology to produce a "certifiable" computer (.pdf) image of a birth certificate in 1961 therefore indicating that operatives secretly working for the Obama administration forged the image sometime between April 25th and April 27th, 2011. 

Many Obama supporters lack the intellectual ability to understand that the very existence of a computer image of any original birth document alleged to have been issued by an official government office, regardless of the accuracy of the information within it, is, by definition, a counterfeited record.  The State of Hawaii does not, nor has it ever, issued "certified" birth certificates in the form of a computer image because it is commonly understood that such records are vulnerable to digital manipulation. 

"Obots are developing clear signs of mental illness over this specific issue," says TDP editor, Pen Johannson, "because they simply do not have the moral or intellectual capability to accept the fact that someone other than the State of Hawaii created this computer image!"

"When confronted with this mind crushing reality, there is no other possibility other than a criminal forger working on behalf of Obama!  There is simply too much psychological pain to admit this because such an admission opens the flood gates of indictment against Obama's lies.  They have no way to provide an explanation for how this computer image was created by any valid objective source which can legally and verifiably support Obama's documentable legitimacy as president.  The truth is simply not on their side...and they are becoming collectively psychotic in there toil to defend these epic and unprecedented lies."

Investigators also discovered historical evidence that the State of Hawaii has for decades issued native birth records to foreign born children essentially granting artificial U.S. citizenship to foreigners in a blatant violation of U.S. Immigration laws.  The evidence for these conclusions was discovered in thousands of historical Census enumeration cards listing the foreign birthplace of children of heads of households in Hawaii cross referenced with their subsequent "native hawaiian" birth registration announcements in local news papers and archived birth records.   

Prior to this, in March, the CCP presented forensic evidence which demonstrated that Obama’s Selective Service Registration card was also forged given the fact that it was allegedly signed by Obama a day after it was stamped and that it was stamped with a PIKA stamp containing only two digits in the year.  The post office has never used a two-digit year in its PIKA stamps to stamp any of the millions of Selective Service registration cards received by its branches accept, apparently, one...Barack Obama's.  

Absurdly, based on yet another digital image posted on the internet, abettors for Obama are foolishly claiming that only Obama’s Selective Service card has ever been stamped with a two-digit year stamp in the entire history of the Selective Service registration program.    

Obama also claims he filed the Selective Service registration card with a post office in Honolulu on July 29, 1980 but Obama’s signature appears to have been collected a day later, on July 30^th, 1980.  This renders the registration invalid because a postal worker must witness the signature in person after checking the individual’s identification, before applying the PIKA stamp.  In order to be legally eligible to serve as president, a male candidate must register for the Selective Service at the legally mandated time after his 18^th birthday, before his 26^th birthday. 

The Selective Service Administration refused to provide the original record to Maricopa County investigators simply saying they “have no evidence that Obama’s Selective Service registration is fraudulent”. 

The response simply indicates the Selective Service Administration has no evidence of fraud because they refuse to accept the evidence from Arpaio’s investigation.  Testimony from Obama himself also suggests that he may not have even been in the U.S. in 1981.         

The DOJ’s decision to drop the probe concerns many involved in the Obama eligibility investigation.  In what appears to be rank political gamesmanship, questions are being raised about whether or not Arpaio will leave open his investigation of Obama, which he said he would do, now that Obama is no longer pursuing an investigation of Arpaio.   

The allegations against Arpaio held no legal merit.  However, as salaciously dishonest as the rumors against Arpaio’s office were, the public’s ignorant perception could put many citizens in danger as community support for his deputies and corrections officers is politically compromised without warrant.  Officials say such libel against community law enforcement puts deputies and the public at risk. 

Prompted by radical anti-Arpaio activists, DOJ authorities were investigating the sheriff’s office for its part in several failed public corruption cases against officials who were politically opposed to Arpaio as well as allegations of racial bias against Hispanics and minorities.   

MCSO deputies are regularly forced to respond to higher incidences of crimes involving Hispanic and minorities in the Phoenix metropolitan area, where the Sheriff’s office has jurisdiction.  Arpaio had also brought criminal cases against a Democratic judge and two liberal county officials in 2009.

Activists also accuse Arpaio of neglecting dozens of alleged sex crimes despite the fact that hundreds of other Sheriff’s offices in more liberal cities, like San Francisco, across the nation apply more stringent evidentiary guidelines to sex crime allegations and, thus, are even more ‘backlogged’ with their investigations than Arpaio’s office.

According to Fox News:

“Assistant U.S. Attorney Ann Birmingham Scheel released a statement saying her office ‘is closing its investigation into allegations of criminal conduct’ by current and former members of the sheriff's and county attorney's offices.  Scheel, who is based in Arizona, didn't elaborate but said she was acting on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

The report by Fox continued:

“The federal probe focused specifically on the sheriff's anti-public-corruption squad. In a separate probe, the U.S. Justice Department has accused Arpaio's office of a wide range of civil rights violations, and in another case, a federal judge has yet to rule in a civil case brought by a group of Latino plaintiffs that claimed Arpaio and his deputies engaged in racial profiling.

Arpaio was scheduled to give a news conference Friday night after returning from the Republican National Convention in Florida.

His deputy chief Jack MacIntyre, said, "the U.S. attorney's office and its investigators recognized what sheriff's office has said all along: We did not make any prosecutorial decisions, even though things were referred to the then-county attorney."

The timing of the federal authorities' announcement -- at 5 p.m. on a Friday before a holiday weekend -- was questioned by some Arpaio critics.

"It is a miscarriage of justice that the federal government is dropping its case against Sheriff Arpaio and to make such an announcement on the Friday night before the Democratic National Convention can only be politically motivated to shield the administration from criticism," Pablo Alvarado, director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said in a statement.

The 79-year-old sheriff and his top ally, former County Attorney Andrew Thomas, were embroiled in a three-year feud with county officials and judges and defended their investigations as necessary to root out corruption.

The officials who were targets of the investigations contend the probes were trumped up as retaliation for political and legal disagreements with the sheriff and prosecutor.

Criminal cases against former Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe and county supervisors Mary Rose Wilcox and Don Stapley were dismissed after a judge ruled that Thomas prosecuted one of the three officials for political gain and had a conflict of interest in pressing the case.

Authorities say the charges against Donahoe were filed in a bid to prevent the judge from holding a hearing regarding Arpaio and Thomas' claim that judges and county officials conspired to hinder a probe into the construction of a court building.

Donahoe had disqualified Thomas from handling the court building investigation and was poised to hold another hearing over a request to appoint special prosecutors to handle the probe. The hearing was called off after the charges were filed against the judge.

The judge also had been critical of the ability of Arpaio's office to bring inmates to court on time for hearings.

Thomas was disbarred in early April by an ethics panel of the Arizona courts that found he brought unsuccessful criminal cases against the judge and two county officials for the purpose of embarrassing them.

In the separate probe, which is still ongoing, the Justice Department says Arpaio's office racially profiles Latinos, retaliates against critics of its immigration patrols and bases its immigration patrols on racially charged citizen complaints that did not allege crimes. The sheriff denies the allegations.

And in the civil case, the Latino plaintiffs aren't seeking monetary damages. Instead, they want a declaration that Arpaio's office uses racial profiling and an order requiring policy changes. If Arpaio loses the case, he won't face jail time or fines”