AND LOTS OF TIME ON HIS HANDS?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Apr. 24, 2012) — One month ago today, The Post & Email asked the question, “Pen Johansson, who are you?” referring to the owner of a blog named “The Daily Pen.” We never received an answer to our query.
Or did we?
After Johansson posted an article entitled, “INS Doc Found…” on March 23, 2012, a commenter named “Unknown” responded to the article which stated that “A government document found buried in the online reference section of a Boston Public Library archive bolsters a growing mountain of evidentiary data against Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president.”
Johansson also claims the name “Penbrook One” and states that he is a “constitutional defense lawyer” based in Mombosa, Kenya. “Unknown” has been around for a while, as we shall see.
On March 24, “Unknown” had made a comment at The Daily Pen stating that he wanted to “see him [Obama] go to Gitmo for fraud…” and then on the same day, suddenly became contentious at 4:50 p.m.:
and appeared arrogant, calling the other readers and commenters “fools,” referring to “an immigration lawyer” as having the knowledge to answer the questions posed by the “document” in Johansson’s post.
“Unknown” also commented at The Daily Pen in regard to the disappearance of information pertinent to the historical definition of “natural born Citizen:”
If you investigate the Minor vs Happersett case— you find even more revealing that someone in Baracks cabinet erased that data from that case and was the owner of the database that the attorneys used… look it up Some have titled it JustiaGate because it involves Justia.com
What does “Unknown” know that the general public does not know? Did anyone suspect that the person who removed the information was a member of Obama’s cabinet? How does “Unknown” know that?
Johannson refers to “carnival barkers” in another post, a term Obama used when referring to those demanding that he release an original, long-form birth certificate to begin to prove his life story. On April 27, 2011, Obama did so, although the image was quickly declared a forgery by computer analysts and more recently, by the Cold Case Posse working with Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office. Johansson makes another reference to the word “carnival” here.
On July 28, 2011, eight months before Arpaio’s press conference which revealed that a six-month investigation found the birth certificate to be a “computer-generated forgery, Johannson said the same, stating:
This document image was forged. It was contrived. It was crafted. It was deceptively created. Then it was personally and publicly endorsed by Obama making him politically, criminally and personally liable, ironically, for its lack of legitimacy and deceptive content…much like the man himself.
The analysis has also commanded experts in every related industry, including computer graphics, software engineering, digital imagry and typesetting, to conclude that the document image is in no way a representation of the authentic, original document manually created by the Hawaiian Health Department or any hospital in 1961.
Also found within the image are a series of what initially appeared to be benign artifacts, errors, misspellings, graphic remnants and extraneous markings which have given rise to a range of questions about their intended meaning and purpose with regard to Barack Obama.
Now, however, The Daily Pen has researched powerful evidence suggesting that the document image was intentionally constructed or altered with cryptic symbology and graphic remnants associated with Obama’s past and to, perhaps, either insinuate a theme about the “butterfly effect” of his historical significance or poke fun at the entire ‘Birth Certificate’ controversy. These symbols are rooted in historical references to African diaspora (disbursement of African races by the Atlantic slave trade), Black Nationalism of the 1960s as well as the CIA.
He then goes on to discuss a connection between the mistyped “T” noted to be an “X” on the birth certificate and the slain civil rights activist, Malcolm X. Suddenly a document expert himself, Johannson then states:
In 25 years of working with hundreds of thousands of official documents processed and authenticated by state, county and city agencies, I have never seen a spelling mistake in a pre-molded rubber press (stamp),” says Johannson, “They are checked and rechecked…and then rechecked again, by multiple individuals from the vendor, the agency, the document recipients and the stamp owner. The idea that this is an innocent mistake by the DOH is absolutely ridiculous.
Johannson later says:
In terms of the use of the symbol “X” in reference to Obama’s biography, it is important to remember that Obama is the product of radicalism and, thus, that such symbology is not necessarily an indication of linkage to any one individual.
But does he mean just the opposite? How is it that Johansson appears to have insider knowledge?
Johannson provides much detail about the life of Malcolm X and his speeches and then states:
The ‘X’ symbol in the Obama certificate image could mean something much more significant. There is no real way of knowing without confronting Obama, the forger and his horde…However, is it really far-fetched that a forger would put this symbol in there after all we have come to know and suspect about Obama? One of the definitions of the word abstract is: ‘To extract or select’. It also is synonymous with the words ‘seeded’ and ‘to spawn’.”
Malcolm X is reportedly the biological father of Barack Obama.
Pen Johansson, who are you?
“Unknown” has also made comments on Atty. Mario Apuzzo’s blog, also mentioning an attorney:
While I can repair some things on my old Volvo I do need an expert mechanic now and then. At one point in my life I thought an attorney would be like an auto mechanic. Yes, some are not honest–but they know what is wrong with the car nonetheless and could repair it properly the first time. But in recent years I have had to take a new look at judges and attorneys and even law professors at good law schools. Are these men and women really ignorant? While it is hard to believe a law professor would be, still it looks a lot like that. Still it hard to believe. Is this some wide spread attitude towards the Constitution showing itself?
I know you are correct. I have been studying this material for several years. It is really quite obvious. I could not teach a law school course if I were a law professor unless I was telling the students the truth! I know some legal decisions are tough and maybe there is complication and ambiguity–but this qualification is not in that category.
And then there is all the fraud with documents. Given recent Obama legal pronouncements I wonder who did his studies and tests and so on at Harvard. Did he just show up per-programmed by professors who had been told by the dean to pass him? He is in my opinion not even a particularly good actor. And getting worse. Thanks for your work and may God guide the judge in his decision!
On April 22, a commenter calling himself “mrmynor” began leaving comments following Atty. Apuzzo’s blog posting entitled, “Update on the Purpura and Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Access Objection.”
In response to a comment left by “juniper55” regarding a lawsuit filed by Liberty Legal Foundation, “mrmynor” says:
No other commenter appears to have expressed him- or herself in that manner.
Are “Unknown” and “mrmynor” the same person?
“mrmynor” then provides a legal analysis of the judge’s decision in the New Jersey ballot challenge case and appears to support the continued strategy of attorneys working for the DNC:
Seriously guy, you may as well not even bother reading legal documents, because you CLEARLY lack sufficient knowledge of the law to be able to understand them. The order that you linked to is anything but favorable for the birther movement. Allow me to explain:
First of all, the judge hearing the motion ruled against the birthers, who very much wanted this case moved back to state court in Tennessee, and apparently to Shelby County where it was originally filed. My guess is that the plaintiffs thought one of the Shelby county judges would give them a favorable ruling, so they fabricated a defendant that they claim maintains an office in Shelby county but which apparently has yet to respond to any filings (per footnote 1).
The Judge did not recognize the alleged issue of whether Obama is a natural born citizen as having any legitimacy. He did not rule on the meaning of the phrase, nor did he consider the merits of any of the Plaintiff’s arguments. He simply repeated the fact that plaintiff’s complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” under the definition of the phrase as used in the Constitution, and then found that the question was fundamentally one of federal law (in other words, the case will be determined base on the meaning of the phrase found in the U.S. (FEDERAL) Constitution). He doesn’t recognize that there is a legitimate controversy here, he simply recognizes that the plaintiffs are claiming that there is a controversy here.
What happens next is that in 21 days the Plaintiff’s will have to submit a brief responding to the Defendant’s Motion to dismiss, which is referenced both in footnote 1 and in the final paragraph of the order. If they fail to submit a brief, the case will be dismissed with prejudice, which in all probability is the same thing that will happen regardless of whether they submit a brief because the court will consider the merits of their argument in disposing of the motion to dismiss.
Even if the court finds that the plaintiffs have standing to bring the case (which would be a marked departure from the rest of the cases challenging Obama’s qualifications), the fact of the matter is that the opinion that the plaintiff’s cite to as defining “Natural Born Citizen” as that phrase is used in Article 2 does nothing of the sort. In fact, that case specifically declines to decide the issue of whether that definition of Natural-born Citizen encompasses the children of resident aliens born on U.S. soil, contrary to what the Plaintiff’s suggest. Because there is no binding legal authority for the proposition the complaint is based on, the odds of them surviving a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted are slim to none.
By all means, though, y’all keep throwing away time and money failing the “good” fight pro se so we can keep the bright young attorneys working for the DNC busy and well paid.
Who has the kind of time which “mrmynor” and “Unknown” seem to have to leave comments on various blogs about Obama’s eligibility? Who cares enough to do so?
Is “mrmynor” arrogant?
After Atty. Apuzzo suggests to “mrmynor” that he “change your name, for you either do not understand what Minor said or you intentionally represent its meaning,” “mrmynor” arrogantly replies:
Mr. Apuzzo – First of all, my handle is in no way a reference to the Minor opinion. It is a music reference to the song “Harry Hood” played by the band Phish. I am thrilled to see that it went over your head.
Secondly, sir, do not purport to lecture me on the finer points of the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor. Were you even remotely correct in the interpretation you espouse, your efforts or those of your peers to this point would have been met with something other than abject failure. That is not the case. There is a reason why the vast majority of the plaintiffs in these sham birther cases have had to represent themselves pro se – it is because those of us in the profession who actually paid attention on the first day of law school when the foundational legal maxim stare decisis was explained recognize that the pseudo-legal arguments the birther movement has been pushing for the last 3 years are utterly ineffectual because they fly directly in the face of existing constitutional jurisprudence.
I’m sure that you can talk all day long about the naturalization laws that were in effect prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment. We can hearken back to the debates our founding fathers had over the proper language to use in framing the Constitution. I’m a big fan of history myself, I find it fascinating. For example, back in the 19th century when all of these statutes you are citing to were in effect, Chester A. Arthur , the son of an Irish immigrant, served as President. I mean, how could that even happen? Didn’t they know he couldn’t serve as president? The meaning of natural born citizen was SOOO clear back then.
There is more to “mrmynor’s” response that is not reproducible here.
The song from which “mrmynor” states he obtained his “handle” is a song called “Harry Hood” as performed by a band named “Phish” which blends many musical genres. “Harry Hood” became part of Phish’s interactive-type performance “in which multicolored glowsticks were tossed from all points in the crowd.” Prior to disbanding in 2004, Phish performed extensively in New England.
The words to “Harry Hood” are few, repetitive, and make reference to a “Mr. Miner:”
Harry, Harry, where do you go when the lights go out?
Thank you, Mr. Miner
Atty. Apuzzo tells “mrmynor” that “…your handle fits well with the case of Minor v. Happersett. I am thrilled to see that it went over your head.” Apuzzo then admonishes “mrmynor” for “spewing your personal opinion and rhetoric.”
There is no further response from “mrmynor” to date.
CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret.) joined the conversation by saying to “mrmynor,”
If you are so sure of your legal ability and knowledge of history and SCOTUS’ stare decisis regarding the legal term of art “natural born Citizen”, why not use your real name in the debate here? Atty Mario Apuzzo is using his. What have you to hide if your position is so certain and proven? Reveal your identity and have a known to all attorney to known attorney debate with Atty Apuzzo using your real name. It is very easy and convenient for you to take a position and assert professional expertise and launch ad hominem attacks in cyber space when you don’t have to live up to, or own up to, your own words and barbs. It is harder to do it in the real world with your words associated with your real name and the professional you say you are and have those words you spew associated with your real name. So, tell us your real name, and real professional and legal expertise in this matter, and you and Mario can go at it knowing fully who the other person is? Why do you hide behind anonymity proffering your position if you are so sure you are right? Put you name and reputation on it.
Pen Johansson also refers to “light” when he stated, on July 22, 2011:
Let the conflagration sort out Obama’s true identity while it lights the way out of this abyss from afar for the rest of us.
The conclusion of the post upset “Unknown,” who on July 24, then vented:
This is THE MOST racial, ASSININE document I have EVER read. You people are GOD AWFUL!!! I cant even bring myself to fully verbalize my thoughts because I am truly outraged by this. I am not an american so fortunately I am NOT a Republican or a Democrat but it amazes me the stupidity of the author and the few people who have commented.
To which Penbrook One, or Penbrook Johansson, or whatever his name is, replied:
@Unknown – I find it explicably ironic that you actually admit to your own foreign otherness stating, “…I am not an American…” as you vent your unqualified, illegitimate outrage while commenting on a matter of foreign citizenship that is, quite simply, none of your damn business. Are you really going to make it that easy for me?
As an admitted non-American, your observation on the qualifying mandates for members of the American electorate and its constituency are none of your concern, fringe-dweller. Perhaps you would do better to fix your own foreign inferiority, first, before commenting on the constitutional sovereignty of the greatest assembly of advanced human citizenry in world history.
As such, you have made my response to your vast and immeasurable ignorance a simple task. Since you are not an American citizen, I say the same thing to you which Speaker Boehner has declared to Usurper in Thief, Barack Obama Soetoro Subarkah et. al:
Silence, tripe! You are not qualified to have an opinion about this American issue.
Oh, by the way…as a momentary amendment to your dank quip about this article’s “racialism” (whatever that means), the author of this particular entry happens to be the same race as Obama. Sorry! Nice try though. Consider your lame “race card” play destroyed while your mind renewed with a valuable lesson. That’s what happens when ignorance enslaves your shallow mind. Pathetically vanquished.
Thanks for the comment…
Dan Crosby, of The Daily Pen
Are Penbrook One, Penbrook Johansson, and Dan Crosby all the same person? And how about “Unknown?”
And “mrmynor,” who are you?
To which lights do you refer, and when are those lights going out?
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.