If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
Welcome Back!
“A STRAIGHTFORWARD, CRIMINAL FRAUD”
by Sharon Rondeau, h/t GW
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
(Apr. 30, 2014) — Through a mutual acquaintance, The Post & Email was recently able to secure an exclusive interview with Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, who since 1974 has held positions as a journalist, editor, speech-writer, climate change expert, business consultant, public speaker, and infectious disease researcher. From 1982 to 1986, Lord Monckton was former chief policy adviser to the then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
Lord Monckton is a weekly columnist at WorldNetDaily and has spoken in the United States publicly on the questions surrounding the long-form birth certificate image posted on the White House website on April 27, 2011, among other subjects.
Directly after it was made public, the image was denounced as a forgery by graphics experts, and later, by a criminal investigative team following six months of research.
On May 30, 2012, Lord Monckton gave a one-hour presentation to the Ventura County, CA Tea Party in Moorpark, CA, wherein he disclosed that he had commissioned a document analyst to examine the birth certificate image already declared a “computer-generated forgery” by the Maricopa County, AZ Cold Case Posse at a formal press conference on March 1, 2012. The posse also detailed how they had concluded that Obama’s Selective Service registration form is fraudulent.
Monckton reported that his forensic expert found that the “lineup” of characters which should have been present on an authentic 1961 document produced on a manual typewriter of the era was not present in the image posted on the White House website. He illustrated how specific characters were “misplaced” and that the “vertical alignment” showed that the document was “assembled” electronically, not typed on a government form in 1961.
Lord Monckton’s presentation to the tea party group was sponsored by Article II SuperPAC, ObamaBallotChallenge.com (now defunct), and the Ventura County Tea Party. It was posted on YouTube in four segments, which can be viewed here:
Monckton’s experts concluded that nine or ten layers were created when the forger used Adobe Illustrator to craft the image. He stated that if the document had been authentic, “scanning alone would have been enough” to upload it to the White House website. He explained that “a series of layers,” such as that which his experts found in the Obama birth certificate image, could occur “only by deliberate manipulation of the data.” “The document was fabricated piece by piece,” Monckton told the Tea Party members.
Regarding ways in which the truth about the origins of the image could be uncovered, Monckton predicted that a legal action in Alabama would be conducted which could include an “unpublished opinion” rendered by Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker, who had written that grounds for “concern” over the questionable image warranted further investigation of its authenticity.
Parker was one of two dissenting justices to the decision in the case filed in Alabama by Atty. Larry Klayman in 2012 claiming that then-Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman had not performed her constitutional duty to properly vet presidential candidates for the 2012 election. Included as evidence was a 52-page sworn affidavit from Mike Zullo, lead investigator of the Cold Case Posse, which contained more than 200 points indicating fraud, forgery and Hawaii’s lax requirements for the issuance of a birth certificate.
Monckton also stated that a defendant in a criminal case would have standing to challenge any law which Obama had signed, such as the 2012 NDAA bill, and ask for a forensic examination of Obama’s birth certificate in the discovery phase.
Regarding Obama’s possible usurpation of the presidency, Monckton told the group, “I do not want to see your country damaged. You really cannot simply ignore your own Constitution.”
Despite having been presented with “Sheriff’s Kits” containing a presentation given by Zullo last year explaining the posse’s findings of forgery in both documents, members of Congress have continued to stonewall, dissemble, and issue false information to their constituents demanding answers.
Lord Monckton’s curriculum vitae is as follows:
During his presentation to the Ventura County Tea Party, Monckton posed the question, “Is your president your president?” in reference to the image posted on the White House website which many had declared a forgery. He expressed doubt that Hawaii Deputy Attorney General Jill Nagamine’s contention that retrieving Obama’s alleged original birth record from the archives at the Hawaii Department of Health would “damage” it. He added that he was fairly sure that he knew the identity of the person who created the birth certificate forgery.
Referring to Obama’s “Donald Duck birth certificate” in his WND column of December 31, 2013, Monckton stated that the Secret Service, Congress, and “hundreds of other relevant officials” had violated their oaths of office by failing to act on Obama’s illegitimacy. He stated that members of Congress had not acted on the forgery because of their persistent fear “that the left will work night and day to trash the reputation of anyone who dares to question Mr. Obama’s legitimacy.” “I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of artful lies told over and over again by a host of paid trolls and useful idiots,” Monckton wrote.
In the same column, Monckton revealed that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio had “called in professional, full-time detectives to supplement the unpaid volunteers who have, until now, doggedly worked unrewarded and unthanked,” a fact confirmed by Zullo in a February 3, 2014 broadcast of Carl Gallups’ “Freedom Friday.” Unexpectedly, Zullo announced that Arpaio was conducting a second criminal investigation which had uncovered that several of Obama’s “trolls,” as Monckton had called them, were employed at taxpayer expense at DARPA, a division of the Department of Defense. DARPA is involved in developing robotics, psychological warfare techniques and other technical “defense” mechanisms.
Arpaio is expected to give a press conference in the near future which will reportedly contain information that is “beyond universe-shattering,” in Gallups’ words. Various citizen initiatives have been heralding the upcoming presser through videos, radio shows, and print articles in an effort to inform the public of the enormity of the news to come.
Our interview with Lord Monckton is as follows, with questions numbered and in boldface and answers below each one.
1. On May 30, 2012, you stated that a criminal defendant affected adversely by legislation which Obama signed could challenge the legitimacy of the legislation because of doubts about the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate and therefore his signature on the law in question. Presumably, according to federal laws, the defendant would then be entitled to discovery, as you said. Why do you believe that exact scenario has not occurred since you made the suggestion that it could or would?
Dr Edwin Vieira, a specialist in constitutional law, has said that in view of the doubt about the legitimacy of Mr Obama’s presidency a defendant would have the right to challenge his authority to sign a Bill creating a new criminal offence with which the defendant had been charged. However, the news media have not given much coverage to l’affaire Obama, and I suspect that most lawyers do not realize how serious the doubts about his legitimacy are. And there have been few prosecutions under criminal statutes signed by Mr Obama.
2. You mentioned that international leaders “realize that something is amiss” in regard to Obama’s legitimacy and/or his long-form birth certificate. Based on what you know, what do leaders of foreign countries, diplomats, etc. believe is wrong, and have they taken any steps to make it public in their own countries? Is everything just a “feeling” at this point, or does anyone have any hard evidence of crimes committed?
The U.S. Constitution is the business of the U.S., and not of anyone else. Our embassy in Washington, for instance would not be doing its job properly if had not briefed HM Government on the dodgy birth certificate. But there is nothing HMG can do about it.
3. Dr. Jerome Corsi recently said in an interview on the Peter Boyles radio show on KNUS that you might be taking legal action yourself on the Obama birth certificate fraud matter: http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/03/dr-corsi-british-intel-advisor-update.html. Is that claim accurate, and if so, what action are you contemplating, if you can divulge it?
I have no standing to take personal legal action: but at the request of lawyers in Hawaii I assisted them in briefing the police in Honolulu two years ago, and supplied an affidavit demonstrating the near-zero probability that the “birth certificate” was genuine, on the assumption that several of the lines of evidence gathered by the Sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ, are genuine. When I signed the affidavit in front of my lawyers, they asked me what would be done about this. I said I was entirely confident that nothing would be done.
4. Do you continue to believe that the forgery was created by the person you had in mind back in May 2012?
Yes, I am reasonably confident of the forger’s identity, but I do not know who commissioned the forgery. I suspect that it was commissioned by someone in the Health Department in Hawaii, knowing that no proper certificate for Mr Obama existed. The creation of the forgery was triggered unwittingly by Mr Obama’s lawyer in the White House, when she asked the Health Department whether it would be willing to produce copies of Mr Obama’s long-form birth certificate if he were to request it. The lawyer, if I have reconstructed events correctly, asked for an image of the birth certificate to be sent to her by email so that she could verify that it was what she needed before she asked Mr Obama to sign the letter of request. The Health Department had to act within 24 hours, so they called in an expert to fabricate the document at very short notice, which is why it is such a transparent forgery. But the lawyer probably did not realize at the time that the document she was given was forged. By now, though, I am sure she is aware that all is not well.
5. Are you familiar with Barrister Michael Shrimpton, who claims that a DNA test was done on Obama without his knowledge at the very beginning of the 2008 campaign season showing that he is not related to Stanley Ann Dunham or her parents? http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/03/staggering-british-intel-advisor-tells.html/I interviewed Mr Shrimpton with the proprietor of “BirtherReport.com” in early March, of which the referenced video is a portion. Mr Shrimpton said he has no documentation to back up his claims, which include the assertion that Obama was born in Kenya to an Indonesian father and an Arab/Asian mother in 1960, not 1961.
Mr Shrimpton will surely know that in the absence of decisive documentary evidence any such claim is evidentially worthless. I have no idea whether any such test was conducted, and nor, I suspect, does he. It is not impossible that Mr Obama was born in Kenya, though I know of no documentary evidence that he was. Nor is it impossible that he was born in 1960 and arrived in Hawaii by air with his mother a day or two before his “birth”. Naturally, the Sheriff considered that possibility, and asked the National Archives to allow his officers to inspect the Immigration and Naturalization Service records for the date of Mr Obama’s “birth” and for three days either side of it. All other INS records of arrivals and departures in Hawaii were available for the entire month of August 1961, except for those relating to the date of Mr Obama’s “birth” and three days either side. Though this extraordinary circumstance is highly suggestive, it is not probative.
6. Why do you think the U.S. media has not seized upon the information made public by the Cold Case Posse on March 1, 2012 and July 17, 2012, plus the information Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo has made public since then?
Answered with Q7.
7. In a WND column from last year, you stated that all of Congress is aware of the long-form birth certificate forgery. Why do you believe that not one member of the House or Senate has spoken out or taken any apparent action to find out who created it and why?
The news media and Congress have failed to make anything of the quite detailed information they have been given because they are both terrified of a now-routine tactic of the hard Left which was developed by the million agents of desinformatsiya in the West – most of them in various innocent-seeming sock-puppet organizations in the United States invisibly controlled by the KGB. The technique is devastatingly simple, and devastatingly effective. One takes a grain of truth and exaggerates it beyond reason to do severe and eventually permanent damage to the reputation of anyone who is effective in standing up to the Left or in questioning its shibboleths. None of these is more sacred to the Left than he whom his White House staff call “Black Jesus”. Anyone who puts his head above the parapet and says Mr Obama is not who he says he is will be made the target of a savage and relentless campaign of desinformatsiya. The KGB are of course no longer in the picture, but they did their work well. I once asked an influential Congressman, over dinner, why neither he nor anyone would do anything about the bogus “birth certificate”. At first, he laughed it off, saying that unseating Obama would land the nation with Biden, who would be worse. I pressed him, and he said: “Look what they did to your reputation when you challenged them on global warming. I don’t want to put my career at risk as you have done, and nor does anyone else.” The media and the politicians are too frightened of reputational damage to act.
No, I am not surprised at the decision in the Alabama case. Like many other such cases, it was not properly constructed. The matter is not really suitable for civil litigation: it is a straightforward, criminal fraud, and should be investigated and eventually prosecuted as such. However, the Sheriff does not seem to have the confidence of the Attorney-General in Arizona, which is perhaps why he has not yet taken the obvious step of applying to the Federal District Court for orders requiring the State of Hawaii to show the original “birth” documentation to his investigators.
9. Do you believe that the information about to be made public at the upcoming press conference(s) will cause Congress to act? Do you know what Sheriff Arpaio will say?
I suspect that if the Sheriff is holding yet another press conference rather than getting on with the business of applying for orders to inspect the original documentation he has not been given the authority to apply for the orders. My mathematical analysis, confirmed by an eminent Professor of Mathematics, makes it quite clear that there is enough prima facie evidence to justify the issuance of the necessary orders by the Federal District Court. I also suspect that the Sheriff is waiting for a piece of definitive, killer evidence before he proceeds further, but I do not think he will find it unless and until he first obtains the orders necessary to ensure that he is given access to the original documentation in Hawaii.
It is baffling that the center-Right in the United States is so disorganized that it has not yet assembled from the publicly-available material a well-organized criminal file independent of the Sheriff and presented it to States’ Attorneys-General who might prove more sympathetic than in Arizona. The various civil court cases have been laughably ill conceived and ineptly presented by people who are plainly acting chiefly for partisan political motives. A more systematic and evidence-based approach, going down the criminal track in several States at once, would prevent Mr Obama’s supporters from making illegitimate but time-consuming complaints about the investigators as they have against Sheriff Arpaio, for they would not be able to find out how many police departments and Attorneys-General were investigating, particularly if the matter were – as it should be – kept confidential unless and until enough evidence were marshalled to persuade a State’s Attorney General to authorize his police department to apply to the Federal District Court for the necessary orders. If this matter is to be pursued at all – and I still reckon that my original assessment that nothing will be done will prove correct – it should be pursued in a businesslike and competent fashion. The center-Right in the United States no longer seems to have the skill to do a proper job. That is disappointing. Allowing open and obvious public corruption at the very heart of government gravely weakens the body politic. Dealing with such corruption firmly and effectively strengthens it.
If, as the Lord suggests, our Congressmen are terrified of pursuing president X’s ineligibility, it would seem they are more short-sighted than we thought. For them to ignore this problem until the regime has caused the dollar and the economy to crash is not the stance of smart people who are concerned about their careers and their pensions. After this all crashes down around their feet, what will they have then?
Second, if Sheriff Joe is waiting for some external authority to pursue fraud or ineligibility charges, then he is not exercising his full authority as a County Sheriff.
Lord Monckton’s response to question 1 touches on a subject that has been of interest to me for more than a year — the “collateral defense” option for criminal defendants. As an ordinary citizen with no legal training, I have researched this option, as best I can, and have published by findings here:
If a federal agency, headed by an Obama appointee, indicts a defendant for violating a law that President Obama had signed, the defendant has (in addition to other defenses available to him) a right to collaterally challenge the indictment, on grounds that (a) the law he is accused of breaking was never signed by a legal President, and (b) the agency head was never legally appointed by a legal President, thus does not have legal authority to indict or prosecute anyone.
Unfortunately, daunting obstacles impede a defendant’s ability to exercise this right. First, a collateral challenge must be made as soon as possible after the indictment is filed. Too often, by the time a defendant becomes aware of the “collateral defense” option, it is too late. Second, an indigent defendant is unlikely to find, especially on short notice, an attorney willing to risk the ridicule and reputation damage that such a collateral challenge would invariably pose.
By way of example, the Justice Department is expected to soon indict a Kansas City resident, Frazier Miller, for violating the federal hate crime law that President Obama signed in 2009. Mr. Miller could, if he so chooses, collaterally challenge the federal indictment. But, as far as I know, he is not aware of the “collateral defense” option and probably won’t be able to find (in time) an attorney willing to represent him in such an unorthodox pursuit.
Perhaps, by educating the general public regarding the collateral defense option, at least some defendants and their attorneys might choose to consider it.
If, as the Lord suggests, our Congressmen are terrified of pursuing president X’s ineligibility, it would seem they are more short-sighted than we thought. For them to ignore this problem until the regime has caused the dollar and the economy to crash is not the stance of smart people who are concerned about their careers and their pensions. After this all crashes down around their feet, what will they have then?
Second, if Sheriff Joe is waiting for some external authority to pursue fraud or ineligibility charges, then he is not exercising his full authority as a County Sheriff.
Lord Monckton’s response to question 1 touches on a subject that has been of interest to me for more than a year — the “collateral defense” option for criminal defendants. As an ordinary citizen with no legal training, I have researched this option, as best I can, and have published by findings here:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/BenefitingFromObamasIneligibility.htm
If a federal agency, headed by an Obama appointee, indicts a defendant for violating a law that President Obama had signed, the defendant has (in addition to other defenses available to him) a right to collaterally challenge the indictment, on grounds that (a) the law he is accused of breaking was never signed by a legal President, and (b) the agency head was never legally appointed by a legal President, thus does not have legal authority to indict or prosecute anyone.
Unfortunately, daunting obstacles impede a defendant’s ability to exercise this right. First, a collateral challenge must be made as soon as possible after the indictment is filed. Too often, by the time a defendant becomes aware of the “collateral defense” option, it is too late. Second, an indigent defendant is unlikely to find, especially on short notice, an attorney willing to risk the ridicule and reputation damage that such a collateral challenge would invariably pose.
By way of example, the Justice Department is expected to soon indict a Kansas City resident, Frazier Miller, for violating the federal hate crime law that President Obama signed in 2009. Mr. Miller could, if he so chooses, collaterally challenge the federal indictment. But, as far as I know, he is not aware of the “collateral defense” option and probably won’t be able to find (in time) an attorney willing to represent him in such an unorthodox pursuit.
Perhaps, by educating the general public regarding the collateral defense option, at least some defendants and their attorneys might choose to consider it.