Grassroots Radio Colorado, John Sampson, January 27, 2012
Station: 560AM, KLZ
Show: Grassroots Radio Colorado
Guest: Sampson
Link: http://grrc.podomatic.com/
Date: January 27, 2012
Topics: Birther, Fulton County, Georgia, Judge Malihi, Michael Jablonski, Barak Obama, Social Security Number, Birth Certificate, Robert Roland,
HOST KEN CLARK: Well, John, I want to ask you, tell our listeners […] what’s the background? What’s going on?
JOHN SAMPSON: Yesterday, there was a hearing held in the Office of State Administrative Hearings which is the Administrative Law Court. The hearing was conducted by the Deputy Chief administrative law judge Michael M. Mahili. And it was based on a petition that was filed by numerous registered Republican voters in the state of Georgia, challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility to appear on a Georgia ballot. Now, what has happened is that in Georgia the state legislature enacted a law that requires each and every candidate who is running for public office in the state of Georgia to provide evidence that they are eligible to hold the office that they are seeking election to. So as a result of that law, this action sprung from that petition challenging his eligibility.
CLARK: Is that a new law?
SAMPSON: It’s a relatively new law.
And when you say “relatively”, the last —
SAMPSON: Within the last one to two years.
Okay, very good. Because my first question was going to be, “Why didn’t this question come up in the last election cycle?
SAMPSON: I believe, and I’m not a hundred percent certain on this, but my understanding is that this law is a direct result of all the issues that have surfaced regarding Mr. Obama’s —
Birthplace
SAMPSON: –questioned eligibility to hold office under Article 2 of the Constitution.
ROBERT ROLAND: Is Georgia the only state that has this kind of state law about proving eligibility?
SAMPSON: I believe that there is several other states that have enacted similar laws. I believe Arizona is one of them. Alabama is another one. I’m not a hundred percent certain on any of the other states, Mississippi, Tennessee, —
ROLAND: Interesting.
CLARK: Okay, so, you were actually part of a book. You, I think you wrote your own chapter in that book. Is that right?
SAMPSON: I didn’t write the chapter. Jerry Corsi wrote the chapter because he wrote the book. But, I was retained by Orly Taitz who is the attorney who has initiated all these civil suits throughout the country. And we had met in Lake Charles, Illinois in November of 2009. And she had asked me if I would be willing, once she found out that my background was – I was a retired Immigration and Custom Enforcement agent – whether I would assist her in running down the Social Security Number that Mr. Obama was using. My investigation, my research into the number indicated that the number had been issued to somebody who was living in the state of Connecticut in March of 1977 at the time that the number was issued. I had also run one number below and one number above to make sure that the data was consistent, and in all three instances, all three numbers were issued to residents of the state of Connecticut in March of 1977. I ran a comprehensive background investigation report utilizing a commercial database that private investigators, attorneys, collection agencies, and law enforcement personnel use to determine the residence history of Mr. Obama. Without going into a lot of detail, I can tell you that none of the information contained in the report indicated that he had ever had a connection with the state of Connecticut. So therefore, the question came to light, “Why is he utilizing a Social Security number that was issued to somebody who was apparently living in Connecticut at the time it was issued?”
So yesterday, they had a hearing. The hearing was scheduled to be at nine o’clock in the morning before Judge Malihi. At three o’clock the afternoon before the hearing, Mr. Obama’s attorney Mr. Michael Jablonski wrote a letter to the Secretary of State in Georgia questioning the legitimacy of the hearings, criticizing the administrative law judge for allowing these hearing to “run amok”, as he called it, and indicated in the last paragraph of the letter that “we await your taking the requested action (which was to vacate the hearing) and as we do so, we will of course suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26th. Within three to four hours after that, the Secretary of State wrote back to Mr. Jablonski and in a nutshell, said that once the Secretary of State refers the matter over to the Office of Administrative Hearings, that they are no longer a participant in the proceedings, and all issues have to be taken up with the judge that is handling it.
When the case was initially filed, the attorneys for Mr. Obama, specifically Mr. Jablonski, had filed a motion to have the matter to dismissed, based on the lack of standing and all of the other reasons that have been successful in the past. Unfortunately for them, they weren’t successful this time and judge Malhi denied the motion to dismiss and indicated that there would be trial set for January 26th. As a result of that, several subpoenas were issued. One of them came to me, to appear in Atlanta on the 26th of January at nine o’clock.
CLARK: Now, the reason you got the subpoenas, and again, we’re talking with a gentleman who has done his own homework on the issues of the Obama eligibility, basically, on a trial that took place—a hearing that took place yesterday.
SAMPSON: That’s correct.
ROLAND: And John, you, John, are a former immigration agent.
SAMPSON: That is correct. I retired from the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in August 30th of 2008 after twenty-seven years.
ROLAND: Congratulations.
CLARK: All right, So, very good. So, keep on going.
SAMPSON: So, in any event, the subpoenas were issued, and Mr. Jablonski on the eighteenth of January filed the motion to have the subpoenas quashed. On the twentieth of January, Judge Malihi upheld the subpoenas, denied the motion to quash, and reminded Mr. Jablonski, “We’re scheduled for trial on January 26th. Oh, and by the way, one of the subpoenas that were issued, Mr. Jablonski, was for your client and I expect him to be here.
CLARK: Meaning Barak Obama.
SAMPSON: Correct. Well, yesterday came and as was indicated by the letter by Mr. Jablonski, neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Jablonski were going to be there. And when the court came into session to lay the foundation the courtroom was packed […] and at nine o’clock neither the respondent nor his attorney were present. In fact, my understanding is that Mr. Obama was here in Colorado.
ROLAND: Buckley Air Force Base.
SAMPSON: So, at nine o’clock Judge Malihi sent out his clerk and said, “The judge wants all the attorneys in his chambers for a discussion.” And as a result, there was some concern that they were going to cancel the hearing, which did not happen.
[following a commercial break]
CLARK: […] Jason and I have intentionally stayed away from the birther issue for reasons – we just don’t think that it has legs. I mean, we don’t – we just never did. This is a little bit different. This is a little bit different because we have John Sampson who was subpoenaed from – he lives in the state of Colorado, he’s actually running for office in the state of Colorado and we’ll get to that in a little while, — he was subpoenaed, he has done his own background, he has done his homework, he is a retired immigration officer, kinda —
Twenty-seven years
Yeah, kinda think the guy has some credibility.
I believe he does. […] What is the status in this case, in Georgia, of that [apparently valid] birth certificate [from Hawaii]? Has it been submitted for evidence? And, is the state of Georgia going to accept that document.
Here’s what has happened. One of the witnesses that testified yesterday was a gentleman by the last name of Vogt. And he is a forensic document expert, and court certified. And he gave testimony indicating that that birth certificate, in his opinion was a created document. It was not a legitimate document. Part of my testimony yesterday was reviewing the document for — not the Photoshop end of it, where there’s been a lot of speculation whether it’s a flat document, a layered document that has been built up from paper up–my involvement in the birth certificate end of it was simply as an immigration officer and having undergone specialized training in forensic document analysis, and having been admitted as court expert in that field, along with immigration fraud, that we have two known documents pertaining to the Nordyke twins who were born the day after Obama was born. They were born August fifth, he was born on August 4th. On the upper right-hand side of the documents are serial numbers. And according to regulation by law all birth certificates have to be serial numbered and they have to be issued sequentially. Well the Nordyke birth certificates were issued sequentially with the last three numbers of 137 and 138. Their birth certificates were issued three days after Obama’s was, and the serial number on the birth certificate that what was released on April 27, 2011, purporting to be that of Mr. Obama had a serial number of 141. Now you would think that a birth certificate that was issued previous to these two, 137 and 138, would have a lower number. It had a higher number. That’s one of the concerns I had. The other concern I had was that the local registrar who completed the documentation – they were all born supposedly at Kapulani Medical Center Gynecological Hospital. So they were born in the same location. The problem is that there is a different [inaudible] local registrar on the Obama birth certificate, as to the two birth certificates from the Nordyke twins. The third thing is the certification paragraph that appears on the Nordyke birth certificates is demonstrably different than the one that appears on the Obama birth certificate. So, I was asked to opine, if you will, on the Social Security Number, how it was issued, where it was issued, and the research I did, and then based on my experience having worked for Immigration where we deal with birth certificates and natioinality and everything else under the sun on a daily basis my opinion on the birth certificate, as well.
Now, I’m not prepared to tell you whether he was born in the United States, not born in the United States. I’m not what you would consider a birther, per se. This is an issue of constitutionality. This is an issue of whether or not the provisions of the Constitution requiring a natural-born citizen to be President of the United States have been violated or not.
All right. Let’s get back to that real quick. And again, we are talking with John Sampson […]
ROLAND: […] I’m riveted to this story
SAMPSON: […] I am a very firm believer in the Constitution. In June of 1981, I raised my right hand for the first time of many and swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. And to paraphrase what Lt. Col. Allen West has said, that oath did not come with a statute of limitations or with an expiration date. And that’s the only reason I’m involved in this. I have not and do not have sufficient evidence that would warrant me to make a statement as to whether or not he is eligible or not eligible.
