BACK IN THE NEWS!
Monday, November 7, 2011 by Mario Apuzzo
Is Putative President Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bari Shabazz, Fugitive from Justice For 21 Years Following An Auto Accident in Honolulu County, Hawaii on March 12, 1982? Ms. Trowbridge has found that the Social Security Death Index shows: “SHABAZZ, B M 28 Oct 1959 Aug 1994 (V) 34 (PE) (none specified) New York 084-54-5926.” From this, one would think that Bâri′ died in August 1994. But no, Ms. Trowbridge informs that only his identity was made “dead.” The real person continued to live and that person became “Barack Hussein Obama II.” Note how she explains that the “death” of Bâri′ was only reported by someone (“V” or “Verified”) and that the person did not present any valid death certificate (“P” or “Proof).
What’s more Ms. Trowbridge explains that “[o]nce in the federal system, the [death] record was flagged as ‘PE’, meaning that an inconsistency exists between what was reported and what was recorded in the government’s files.”
Finally, and the most shocking part of her report is that Ms. Trowbridge contends that Bâri′ M. Shabazz is the biological son of Malcolm X. Hence, if Barack Hussein Obama II is the same person as Bâri′ M. Shabazz, that would make putative President Obama the biological son of Malcolm X.
The report then shows that the prosecutor on April 9, 2003, filed an ex parte motion to recall the bench warrant and announced on the record “nolle prosequi.” This is a Latin phrase which is formally entered into a court record which means that the prosecutor in a criminal case “will no further prosecute” the case. The motion was listed as “NP [nolle prosequi] 040903.” So, the charge was dismissed upon the prosecutor’s ex parte “Nolle Prosequi” motion made on April 9, 2003. “Ex parte” means that only one side made the application which in this case was the prosecutor.
The final entry was for October 30, 2005, at 8:00 a.m., when the court noted that a $-0- balance was owed, but said “Pls check.”
Some Excerpts: full story at link at the end of this.
4. On April 9, 2003, the prosecutor filed a motion to recall the bench warrant, to terminate prosecution, and close the case. Why would this case come to the attention of some local prosecutor 21 years following the initial violation of March 12, 1982?
A local prosecutor does not just go looking for cases that are 21 years old and file motions to dismiss those cases.
Someone must have asked that local prosecutor to dismiss the case so that the arrest warrant was cleared from the court’s and nation’s computer system.
5. Ms. Trowbridge shows that Bâri′ M. Shabazz, according to the Social Security Death Index, died in August 1994. If Bâri′ M. Shabazz is the same person as is listed in this Hawaii auto accident as Bari Shabazz, why would someone care to recall his arrest warrant on April 9, 2003 or almost 9 years after his death? Surely, it could not be Bâri′ M. Shabazz who was interested since he had been dead since 1994. On the other hand, if he was not dead he would be interested.
6. On October 30, 2005, or 23 years following the date of the accident of March 12, 1982, the court again re-visits the case of Bari Shabazz, noting that he did not owe the court any money but to “Pls. check.” Why would the court again concern itself with this case on that date, especially if Bari Shabazz was dead since 1994?
8. Finally, when there is an auto accident, the police do a detailed accident report. That report includes the name, addresses, date of birth, and social security number of the person involved in the accident who is charged for that accident. The driver’s license number is also included if that license is produced or otherwise verified. A physical description of the defendant is also included. The make of auto, including the year made and VIN number are also included, along with statements of witnesses. There could be a photograph of the defendant in the police record. A thorough investigation of this matter would surely include searching the police record in Honolulu County for this report so that this information may be examined and evaluated.
TO THE POINT HE CANNOT SPEAK WITHOUT TELEPROMPTERS? EVEN AT HIS STAFF MEETINGS OR AT A FIFTH GRADE SCHOOL VISIT!
THE VIDEO BELOW IS ONE OF MANY EXAMPLES OF HIS INABILITY TO FOCUS!
It's pathetic that the news media did not do its job and let the American voters know the true person who they were considering to be US president!
ReplyDelete