Sherrif Joe said, “I am an elected sheriff. I took an oath of office to enforce all the laws of the state of Arizona. I take that very seriously. I do report to the people.” But he said he’s considering the possibility there are political connections to the circumstances that have developed.
The sheriff recently confirmed the Obama investigation has broadened beyond an examination of whether or not the birth certificate made public by the White House on April 27 is an authentic document. The probe, he said, is examining Obama’s history in regard to his eligibility to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
He said his team has amassed hundreds of pages of documentation and taken testimony from dozens of experts in preparation for a final phase of field investigation. He has described the work that is going on as “a serious law-enforcement investigation” and he said the findings will be “based in facts.” Arpaio said a comprehensive report will be issued shortly after the February preliminary report.
Meanwhile, the group Factcheck, which did most before Obama’s election to allay concerns about his eligibility are facing a law suit alleging fraud. Researcher Ron Polland has launched Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service challenges against the group, charging the media monitor has violated its tax-exempt legal status as a non-partisan organization by publishing and promoting a short-form birth certificate for Obama he contends was forged.
On Aug. 21, 2008, Factcheck published photographs of a paper birth certificate, complete with visible folds and state seal, offered as proof that the birth certificate shown on the internet in June was not simply a computer generated graphic.
“When Factcheck published its ‘Born in the USA’ story on Aug. 21, 2008, with photos of Obama’s birth certificate, many thought the controversy was over.” Polland said “No other story has been cited more often and by more people in defense of claims that Obama had already released his state-certificate and proved beyond any question that he was born in Hawaii.”
Polland’s argument now is that the short-form birth certificate displayed by Factcheck as the “original” was nothing more than a paper version of Factcheck’s computer-created graphic, and not an authentic short-form birth certificate issued by the Hawaii Department of Health and delivered to Factcheck by the Obama campaign. (as Factcheck claimed)
Polland has asked the IRS to rescind Factcheck’s non-profit status, charging the principals at Factcheck are leftwing political activists who campaigned for Obama and against McCain.
When Polland compared the two documents he found that there were identical sets of dust marks evident. He says this proves the document claimed to be the real short form certificate cannot be the actual document as it has dust particle marks on it in the exact same places as the first graphic displayed by Factcheck. These dust marks are caused by dust particles on the glass of a scanner.
“Factcheck’s fraudulent story, ‘Born in the USA,’ is important in the election of Barack Obama,” Polland explained. “The Congressional Research Service specifically distributed this report as a legitimate investigation to convince members of Congress that Obama was a legal U.S. citizen and eligible to be president.”
He then asks the simple question- If Factcheck indeed had the original document, why did they not photograph this, rather than a scanned facsimile? The original of course should not have dust marks on it as it would have been printed onto a clean piece of Birth Certificate paper.
That both the internet graphic and the photographed document (with fold lines) have identical dust marks is proof they both have the same origins, a printout and then a scan of the original internet graphic. That the embossed seal is not visible in the first document proves it was added after it was printed out.
Seems like a pretty good case for the prosecution.