FORGERY OF A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT IS A FEDERAL CRIME
by Sharon Rondeau
(Feb. 7, 2017) — On April 27, 2011, as U.S. Army flight surgeon Terry Lakin was imprisoned at Ft. Leavenworth for having questioned Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional eligibility by requesting to see his original birth certificate, the White House released an image representing that very document later found by criminal investigators to be a forgery.
Following his imprisonment, Lakin was dishonorably discharged from the military after 17 years of distinguished service. While ridiculing Lakin as a “birther,” the media did not dare to question why the White House released a “computer-generated forgery” instead of a scan of an original, paper document from Obama’s claimed birth state of Hawaii.
Instead, “reporters” turned their wrath on the messengers.
When on December 15, 2016 investigator Michael Zullo reported that two forensics analysts from different disciplines agreed that the birth certificate image cannot be authentic, the media minimized those findings or failed to report them at all.
By federal law, all males present in the U.S., including illegal aliens, must register with the Selective Service System between their 18th and 26th birthdays. Males employed in the federal government must have registered timely.
When the same investigators who analyzed the birth certificate image also declared Obama’s purported Selective Service registration form fraudulent, Selective Service System Director Lawrence Romo appeared unconcerned but refused them access to the original or a certified copy.
Given that there exists no verifiable documentation about the man who held the office of president and commander-in-chief for eight years, was Lakin not right to ask for it?
When LCDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (Ret.) accused Obama of treason in 2009 as a “foreign born domestic enemy, were his claims accurate? Why was he jailed multiple times, convicted of two felonies and stripped of his voting rights when nothing but forgeries document Obama’s past?
Did the U.S. military follow the commands of an imposter for eight years? If so, what are the ramifications?
Who are the real criminals, and why has the media protected them?
Where is the FBI?
The forgery of a government document is a federal-level felony. Why release a forgery if an authentic document exists?
And what, if anything, will Donald Trump do?
Phil, repeat after me, “Obama’s FORGED birth certificate”.
As an ID-felon on 08-28-08 as Pelosi’s doctored ID-felon caliphate candidate and, later, as a practicing traitor and ID-felon Muslim Brotherhood president and, now, today as America’s tax-rip-off ID-felon ex-president, narrative Obama II was never legally empowered on 08-28-08 to even run for president…unless you know, Phil, of exact legal passages anywhere in U.S. law that specifically allows ID-felons and traitors to run for president?
http://canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm
Unless you are a liar for hire, (licensed attorney), Phil, I place no credence in the “Defacto Officers Doctrine” (having taken the officer’s oath myself in 1972) BECAUSE THE SO-CALLED COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF “BARRY SOETORO-OBAMA II” WAS/IS AN ID-FELON, AND FELONS (AND FUNCTIONING TRAITORS) ARE NOT ALLOWED TO LEGALLY BE U.S. PRESIDENTS…unless you know, Phil, where in the U.S. Constitution felons and traitor/enemies are permitted to seek and perform as Commander-in-Chief in the United States of America…where are those criminal permissive passages, Phil?
file:///C:/Users/Jonathan/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/QWYZFDLC/memorialday2015.pdf
FREE DOCTOR TERRY – JAIL DOCTORED BARRY!
@Sharon Rondue,
The US Supreme Court has ruled on this issue so many times since the 1800s that the concept now has its own name.
It is called the Defacto Officers Doctrine.
The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence.
Also when the de facto officer doctrine is not applied, the acts of an illegal officeholder are not erased en masse (Andrade v Lauer 729 F.2d 1475). An individual act has to be challenged because no one has standing to claim an injury in fact for “everything.”
Here are some more sources you may want to examine to fully understand the Defacto Officers Doctrine –
De Facto Officer Doctrine and Quo Warranto – Two dead ends – NBC’s blog
The “De Facto” Officer Doctrine, Columbia Law Review Vol. 63, No. 5 (May, 1963), pp. 909-922
Birthers and de facto officers – Military Law and Justice blog
STATE_V_OREN.92-113; 160 Vt. 245; 627 A.2d 337
The “de facto officer” doctrine…Chicago Tribune Ad For Obama Records Extended Entries
Andrade v Lauer 729 F.2d 1475
Lakin mistakenly believed that if Obama was holding office illegally that his orders were null, void. However, according to US law, even if Obama had been holding office illegally all of his orders and acts would still be legal and binding just as they would be if he was legally holding office., hence, even if Lakin had irrefutable proof that Obam.na was not legally holding office, Lakin would still have been found guilty of disobeying Obama’s order to deploy,
Bottom line is that Obama’s BC, his legitimacy or lack thereof had nothing whatsoever to do with the charge against Lakin and Lakin’s assertions concerning Obama’s right to hold office would never have been considered by any court military or civilian.
Which law are you citing?