In 2006, several years after the disastrous invasion of Iraq by the US military, a survey found that almost 50% of Americans believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded that country. This belief was false as no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. In the same year Rick Santorum, who is running neck and neck with Mitt Romney in the nomination for the Republican Party’s Presidential candidate, also claimed that the US had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after its invasion of that country.
A poll of South Carolina voters conducted by Winthrop University last year showed that only 24 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in that state believed President Obama was “definitely” born in the United States. (Obama was born in Hawaii which became part of the US about 60 years ago.) Only one in three of those same voters correctly identified Obama’s religion as Christian. Nearly the same proportion, 29.5 percent, believed that Obama is “Muslim.”
It should therefore come as no surprise that South African’s views on the impartiality of the judiciary and its transformation are, at best, mixed. Like its US counterparts, large numbers of South African voters seem to be ignorant and superstitious. The survey, conducted by TNS, found that only 31% of respondents in metro areas of South Africa believed that the judiciary is impartial and unbiased while 31% felt exactly the opposite. A very large number of respondents – 38% of them, in fact – indicated that they did not know whether the judiciary was impartial and independent, suggesting a large amount of ignorance or at least uncertainty amongst South Africans about the judiciary.
It is perhaps also not surprising that 38% of respondents agreed with the statement that “judges were biased towards the government”, while only 27% disagreed. The “don’t know” response was again very high at 36%. Given the relentless attacks on the judiciary by some members of the ruling party (and, it must be said, given attacks by Helen Zille on the credibility of some judges) and given the fact that the government often loses cases before the courts because of criminally bad legal advice or even worse legal representation, and given the electoral dominance of the ANC, I am surprised that the number of people who believe the courts are biased against the government is not higher.
People who do not follow the finer technical legal points of judgments and never read court judgments – depending on the SABC or on The Voice for its information about the judiciary instead – would be forgiven for equating the many legal defeats of the ANC-led government (or the DA-led Provincial government in the Western Cape) with “bias” on the part of the judiciary. In the absence of reasoned analysis about why a law was declared invalid or why an act by the President, Premiers or cabinet ministers were declared invalid, and without a deep appreciation of the principle of constitutional supremacy, a ruling against any ANC or DA politician or ANC or DA-dominated body could easily be confused with “bias” on the part of judges.
I find it surprising that only 38% of respondents indicated that they believed the judiciary was biased. This means that many supporters of both the ANC and the DA who might be upset that “their” government has lost yet another case nevertheless believe that the judiciary is impartial and independent.
Unfortunately the survey did not distinguish between the Constitutional Court, High Courts and magistrates’ courts. Previous surveys were interesting in this regard as it indicated a much higher level of trust in the Constitutional Court – especially amongst black South Africans – than in other courts in South Africa. It is therefore unclear whether attacks on the Constitutional Court by members of President Zuma’s inner circle and by supporters of Judge President John Hlophe as well as the ugly spat about the appointment of a new seemingly under-qualified Chief Justice have not taken a toll on the credibility of the Constitutional Court.
I would guess that these attacks and controversies might well have taken its toll on the image of our highest court. This is because ordinary members of the public do not study the many pro-poor and pro-transformation judgments of the Constitutional Court and might be unaware of the fact that the Constitutional Court often rules against the powerful and in favour of the socially and economically marginalised. It also does not help that the SABC and other news media do not always report in sufficient depth about these rulings.
For example, a few months ago in the Blue Rout Trading case the Constitutional Court ruled in favour of inner-city residents of Johannesburg who were going to be left homeless after eviction by a private company. This made the City Council of Johannesburg very unhappy but was an unashamed pro-poor and pro-transformation judgment, suggesting that the anti-transformation impulses in this case emanated from the ANC-led Municipality and not from the Constitutional Court.
Interestingly, the issue of transformation yielded a 42% “don’t know” response with 34% of metro adults feeling that there has not been enough transformation in the judiciary and 24% feeling that there has. The question is of course what the respondents understood with the concept of transformation. Did they understand the term to mean a change in the racial (and – as an afterthought – the gender) composition of the judiciary or did they understand the term to mean the appointment of judges infused with progressive values enshrined in the Constitution?
If respondents understood transformation in its first meaning, then their perception was clearly mistaken. All leadership positions in the judiciary are now filled by black judges and only about 40% of judges remain white. Of course, in High Courts and on the Supreme Court of Appeal there are many judges (black and white, male and female) who are deeply conservative, pro-big business and anti-gender equality, so if one has a broader understanding of transformation the respondents to the survey who felt that there was insufficient transformation on the bench might well have a point.
Despite these explanations, it must be worrying that so many South Africans either have no opinion or believe that judges are not impartial and independent. This suggests that any attempts by politicians to interfere with the powers of the judiciary or to interfere with its work will be less unpopular than it should be in a functioning constitutional democracy. Judges have no army or police force and neither do they have the power of the purse. Judges are also not elected and do not have the natural support that leaders of the majority party might have by mere virtue of being leaders of the party.
But without support from the broader public for an independent and impartial judiciary that is free from interference by the other branches of government or from big business interests (like the Oasis company), it is not clear that the judiciary in its present form will survive an onslaught by the tenderpreneurs and their political backers who see the judiciary as a threat to their kleptocratic interests. Both members of the judiciary (with the Chief Justice in the lead) and members of the media therefore need to reflect on how they can better inform the public about the way in which the judiciary operates and how it protects the rights and interests of ordinary citizens – including the social and economically marginalised members of society.
Then there is this little matter of “Velvet Sky gone corduroy” apparently has a link to Aurora. All that is missing is Motala to come and manage the liquidation and we have history repeating itself. The little difference is that the victims this time are not the poor dirty miners.
Our courts will surely protect us from such treatments.
While our courts have ensured universal access to ARV’s we are yet to see them eliminate Mud schools, VIP toilets , 20 yr Housing waiting lists, Price fixing, Racism, Handbook etc.
They don’t shock us anymore.
http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/speaker-s-daughter-cooks-up-a-storm-1.1244265
The average Joe Puplic has a poor education and little understanding of the legal process, system or the law in general so its not surprising to me that there is a perception of bias and lack of trust. The same seems to apply to our politicians…
“only 40% white”
Yes, the judiciary is pretty much transformed racially. Yet the Professor has a history of labeling the judiciary untransformed and clinging to the past. Must have polled the prof too then…
Transformation made esay=black faces
esay=easy
Don’t worry Prof, belief in the veracity of a TNS survey is as imprudent as believing what comes from the moving lips of a contemporary ANC politician or (even worse) the moving lips of the leadership AND membership of the DA.
“The results of this study suggest that… there are high levels of ignorance about key aspects of the judiciary,”
I think this comment says it all.
“Judges have no army or police force and neither do they have the power of the purse.”
LOL. This blog gets funnier by the day.
‘…large numbers of South African voters seem to be ignorant and superstitious.’
Ah, the crux of the issue. PdV and his ilk believe that Africans are too dumb and benighted to be trusted with self-governance and need the succor of ‘enlightened’ judges to save them from themselves.
What an ass. PdV and his fellow jurists (a term I’ll use loosely here) know no more about justice or the nature of moral facts than five residents of Umtata picked at random.
The brightest minds in human history have vigorously disagreed about such things but thank goodness PdV and the judiciary have solved them!
Only ignorance, arrogance, and epistemic irresponsibility could justify such feckless beliefs.
Gwebecimele
February 28, 2012 at 11:23 am
Gwebs,
“They don’t shock us anymore.”
The leaders shall eat for the people, it is said.
Dmwangi
February 28, 2012 at 15:51 pm
I have to agree with you that in South Africa we have somehow come to morph into a pseudo-democracy, where the elitist courts and the judiciary feel they are so special and their insights are above that of the common man.
How the ConCourt will be assessed – Jeff Radebe
Jeff Radebe
28 February 2012
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71656?oid=282812&sn=Detail&pid=71616
Jeez DM, you sure have a chip on your shoulder. I’m reminded of an old adage: Know thyself.
Well, you see, it starts where Minister for Safety and Security Charles Nqakula tells Parliament he refused to pay compensation in terms of S134-137 of the Fireams Control Act for firearms ‘voluntarily surrendered’.
I was even more aghast at Jackie Selebi’s statement to Parliament that he refused to comply with S134-137 of the Fireams Control Act by paying compensation for ‘surrendered’ firearms because people would want to pay their rent with the money.
I knew we had the cops by the contents of their scrotums.
Fast forward to Judge Vincent Saldanha’s judgement in the second hearing of the Compensation Case by the Cape High Court. Judge Saldanha waxes on at length about ‘the dictionary meaning of voluntary surrender’ without ever coming to the realisation that ‘voluntary’ and ‘surrender’ are oxymorons according to the same dictionary, and proceeds to hold that the acceptance of voluntarily surrendered firearms by the police without compensation was lawful without referring once to the fact that Deputy Judge President Traverso had already ruled that the state’s conduct in the compensation case had been unlawful and unconstitutional.
To add insult to injury, Judge Saldanha referred several times to First National Bank without clicking that if he applied the deprivation to the algorithm in FNB he could not possibly find that the deprivation was consistent with S25(1) of the Constitution.
Now I have to go to ordinary working people again to ask them to donate yet again for the case that is being fought in the Court of Appeal.
Jy sien?
Prof: enjoyed your Radebe tweets today, awaiting your blog on this, assume you need to sleep on it for clear perspective.
It appears to me very low in detail and somewhat conflicting, or is it simply spinning difficult deceptions. As I tweeted: Doth he speak with forked tongue?
Quoting Justice O’ Regan as support for their actions is interesting.
Caveant consules ne quid detrimenti respublica capiat.
Henri
February 28, 2012 at 8:19 am
“The Yankees got their knickers in a knot after a US Supreme Court judge expressed her admiration for the SA Constitution:
http://bunkerville.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/cass-sunstein-supreme-ginsburg-and-the-s-african-constitution/”
And
http://www.entelectwebmanager.co.za/ECGWebManager/MainContentImages/122882/SAR30-04%2023%20Feb%202012%20Guest%20letter.pdf
Chris (Not the right wing guy)
February 28, 2012 at 15:12 pm
Hey Right Wing Guy,
“I think this comment says it all.”
Perhaps it does.
The judiciary have moved very far apart from ordinary South Africans.
And they have only themselves to blame.
Brett
How’s your case going?
“PdV and his ilk believe that Africans are too dumb and benighted to be trusted with self-governance”
Ah, self-governance. We’ve been having it, MD. Mob-operated tribunals (“kangaroo courts”) are becoming increasingly popular in our country.
It’s not the courts people don’t trust: it’s the police. And, in many instances, for good reason.
Just imagine DM if no one spoke out about injustice. Not just injustice towards blacks, but injustice towards all the people. Wouldn’t that be a sorry static state?
Think not just injustice towards blacks, but injustice towards all.
@Lisbeth and others so indoctrinated: what is this about “PdV and his ilk”. Are you and they so clueless?
sirjay -
“@Lisbeth and others so indoctrinated: what is this about “PdV and his ilk”.”
Excuse me? What are you getting in a froth about? Is it about the expression “and his ilk”? For your info, I don’t particularly like it and never use it. You go and take a deep breath now.
@Lisbeth
Apologies, however, this is your post:
Lisbeth
February 28, 2012 at 18:30 pm
“PdV and his ilk believe that Africans are too dumb and benighted to be trusted with self-governance”
Where ever did you get that idea?
Yes, ‘his ilk,’ as in, those who condescendingly call Africans ‘ignorant’ and ‘superstitious’ and believe that they are in need of judicial paternalism.
Say what you will about him but one cannot imagine Brother Mogoeng holding such sentiments.
“with the Chief Justice in the lead”,
Yeah right!
The general populace will be very inspired with our CJ in the lead.
Just like pupils at a school will be very inspired by a head prefect who was chosen only because she/he is the child of the school principal.
It will be interesting to see the results of a survey, if one were to be held, that will measure the public perceptions of our CJ.
At a guess, I would venture that a favourable rating would be less than 10%.
Lisbeth: Pity Prof: and all this time I’ve seen him as being so severely criticised for his support of blacks. How is it possible you have so misunderstand him?
Dmwangi
February 28, 2012 at 20:37 pm
Hey Dm,
“Say what you will about him but one cannot imagine Brother Mogoeng holding such sentiments.”
Brother Moegeng is not only highly superstitious but also hears voices in his head – and is somewhat delusional.
Brother Mogoeng: Oh dear. DM… do you really believe this?… contrary to all the many who understand Democratic justice and a Democratic judiciary who have a differing and worried view?
I’ll give you this much… lets wait and see. However will God decide for our future.
What scares me is MM’s comments when JZ introduced him as his new CC chief: MM said: “Trust me, I won’t let you down.”
Hmmm.
THIS MONTH IS SOBUKWE MONTH, HERE IS ONE OF HIS FAMOUS QUOTES.
Sobukwe’s opposition to what he termed “multi-racialism” in favour of “non-racialism” is supported by an extract from his inaugural speech to the PAC in 1959:
“Further, multi-racialism is in fact a pandering to European bigotry and arrogance. It is a method of safeguarding white interests, implying as it does, proportional representation irrespective of population figures. In that sense it is a complete negation of democracy.
To us the term “multi-racialism” implies that there are such basic insuperable differences between the various national groups here that the best course is to keep them permanently distinctive in a kind of democratic apartheid. That to us is racialism multiplied, which probably is what the term truly connotes. We aim, politically, at government of the Africans by the Africans, for the Africans, with everybody who owes his only loyalty to Afrika and who is prepared to accept the democratic rule of an African majority being regarded as an African.
We guarantee no minority rights, because we think in terms of individuals, not groups.”
Gwebecimele
February 28, 2012 at 21:21 pm
“We aim, politically, at government of the Africans by the Africans, for the Africans, with everybody who owes his only loyalty to Afrika and who is prepared to accept the democratic rule of an African majority being regarded as an African. We guarantee no minority rights, because we think in terms of individuals, not groups.”
Excellent stuff. Take note of that all South Africans when you are to fill-out Manyi’s racial demographics forms.
ozoneblue
February 28, 2012 at 21:36 pm
Hey OB
“Take note of that all South Africans when you are to fill-out Manyi’s racial demographics forms.”
A friendly hint – filling out those forms is a redundancy. Whether you fill it or not you’re not going to be captain of the provincial cricket team.
That’s reserved for BLACKS only.
Try rugby, braaing or beer drinking!
Zoo Keeper says:
February 28, 2012 at 18:28 pm
ZooKeeper, I do not want to sound proprietorial – I am not ‘involved’ with the case and I probably already got the JASA team onto a bit of a sticky wicket with my previous analysis of the judgement on Pierre’s blog when one considers it looks like the Judge required the teams to argue leave to Appeal in his Chambers…Bit of judicial pique there if you ask me – just because I wrung out the judgement a bit, publicly.
Looks like the case should be heard in August.
Right now what is probably needed is cash, so I hope everyone who believes Ministers and Commissioners of Police should uphold the Bill of Rights and the rule of law not cherry-pick which parts of laws they made they like, go to the JASA website and donate donate DONATE!
Hey Pierre. Do you and others like you some of them on our CC still understand and promote the basics of human rights?
“We guarantee no minority rights, because [unlike Hendrik Verwoerd] WE THINK IN TERMS OF INDIVIDUALS, NOT GROUPS.”
Robert Sobukwe
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com
February 28, 2012 at 22:36 pm
“That’s reserved for BLACKS only.”
I know. Just like at the Department of Public Works [not].
http://www.thenewage.co.za/44092-1007-53-Public_Works_in_a_mess
ozoneblue
February 29, 2012 at 7:03 am
Hey OB,
Don’t feel bad.
Second class citizens are also people. Sort of.
Why should anybody trust the judiciary when judges are appointed, de facto, by an ANC caucus within the JSC. The JSC interviews are only shams.
Helen Zille pointed it out a long time ago:
http://politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=255639&sn=Detail&pid=71619
Gwebe and OB
Here’s a thought – Sobukwe raises a very pertinent point, but let’s develop it further.
If you protect the rights of the individual, and reject race-based classifications and divisions into majority and minority, I would postulate that it would serve the country better than divisions into majority and minority.
I say this because the focus on the protection of the individual’s rights immediately advances both parts of who were previously majority and minority.
Any ideas on this theme?
Henri
February 29, 2012 at 8:03 am
“He failed to recognise that the Court has a duty to strike down laws of Parliament that it determines to be unconstitutional.”
Exactly. It is therefore not the duty of the CC to micro manage and interfere with our democratic parliamentary processes or to politicize and second guess each and challenge every second government decision and appointment through the courts.
Glad to hear Helen Zille appreciates this.
@Dmwangi
South Africans who choose so, can be governed by their culture and tradition. There is an act that says so. (Don’t ask me which, I’m not a an attorney)
Subject to reasonable limitations of constitutionallity.
ozoneblue says:
February 29, 2012 at 9:06 am
How’s this for convoluted thinking?
“Exactly. It is therefore not the duty of the CC to micro manage and interfere with our democratic parliamentary processes or to politicize and second guess each and challenge every second government decision and appointment through the courts.”
Now it is the ConCourt challenging every second government decision through the Courts….
Pierre, wanneer was jy van plan om ons te vertel UCT vra vir insette van die publiek rakende die toelatingsbeleid wat julle soveel onmin op die hals gehaal het?
Ek kry sommer so ‘n vriendelike, warm gevoel…
Good. It has passed.
OB, Zook & others
“We aim, politically, at government of the Africans by the Africans, for the Africans, with everybody who owes his only loyalty to Afrika and who is prepared to accept the democratic rule of an African majority being regarded as an African.”
Do you think Sobukwe would approve of Andries Nel and Derek Hanekom prosecuting Malema for advancing “Economic Freedom in our Lifetime”??
Zook
“Any ideas on this theme?”
My understanding is that race can be dropped once all those who are here accept the African Majority rule and pledge their loyalty to Africa. We are not yet there. In a way Sobukwe supports OB’s view of “Human Race” but he puts conditions to it while OB jumps in without a paraschute.
Gwebecimele
February 29, 2012 at 10:48 am
“My understanding is that race can be dropped once all those who are here accept the African Majority rule and pledge their loyalty to Africa.”
Those who have not adopted African majority rule have either emigrated to Australia or pushed all their earthly possessions on scavenged shopping mall trollies across the border into Orania.
Thank you very much.
@ OB
Not so easy, Mulder, Afriforum, AWB and others are still here. Some are walking around with 2nd passports in their back pockets.
Gwebe
I think Sobukwe was wrong, on a philosophical level because his argument, and you are right, is that whites must accept black domination. however, focusing on the rights of the individual and not his group, actually negates majority abuse of the minority, and it also ensures that members of the majority receive real protection from discrimination.
Accordingly, perhaps Sobukwe was actually creating an oxymoron.
As for acceptance of majority rule, for heavens sake anybody who lives here has to accept that. Digging up AWB die-hards from their dung-heaps doesn’t prove the vast majority of the rest of society isn’t fine with the status quo.
As for second passports, this is a global village, being able to work across borders is a precious ability for those who are lucky enough to have more than one passport. I have only one by the way.
Zook
I have explained my understanding of Sobukwe elsewhere that he had a vision of citizens loyal to SA & Africa and those who accept African majority rule. Once that is achieved then there will be no minorities but individuals.
In my view we can either debate the concept of pledging loyalty to a country or legitimacy of African majority rule.
If he was still alive I would ask him,”At what point should this African majority rule be led by a white?”.
Lastly Zook 98% of whites do not vote for African Majority rule.
“President Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery, not a scan of an original 1961 paper document as represented by the White House when the long-form birth certificate was made public,” Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said at a press conference today in Phoenix.
This is the major preliminary finding of a six-month ongoing Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate and his eligibility to be president.
Having developed probable cause to believe the long-form birth certificate was most likely a computer-generated forgery, investigators began examining other evidence of President Obama’s life history.
Investigators additionally have developed credible evidence suggesting:
• President Obama’s Selective Service card was most likely a forgery, revealed by an examination of the postal date stamp on the document;
• Records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards filled out by airplane passengers arriving on international flights originating outside the United States in the month of August 1961, examined at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., are missing records for the week of President Obama’s birth, including the dates Aug. 1, 1961 through Aug. 7, 1961.
Beginning in October 2011, the Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse, consisting of former law enforcement officers and lawyers with law enforcement experience, examined dozens of witnesses and hundreds of documents, as well as taking numerous sworn statements from witnesses around the world.
In August 2011, 250 members of the Surprise, Arizona, Tea Party, residents of Maricopa County, presented a signed petition asking Sheriff Arpaio to undertake the investigation.
The Tea Party members petitioned under the premise that if a forged birth certificate was utilized to obtain a position for Barack Obama on the 2012 Arizona presidential ballot, their rights as Maricopa County voters could be compromised.
The Cold Case investigators further determined that the Hawaii Department of Health has engaged in what Sheriff’s investigators believe is a systematic effort to hide from public inspection whatever original 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may have in their possession.
“Officers of the Hawaii Department of Health and various elected Hawaiian public officials may have intentionally obscured 1961 birth records and procedures, to avoid having to release to public inspection and to the examination of court-authorized forensic examiners any original Obama 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may or may not have,” said Mike Zullo, the lead investigator in Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse.
The Cold Case investigators have not yet determined who, when, or precisely how the long-form computer-generated birth certificate released on April 27 may have been forged, but investigators say the evidence contained in the computer-generated PDF file released by the White House as well as important deficiencies in the Hawaii process of certifying the long-form birth certificate establish probable cause that a forgery has been committed.
The Cold Case Posse investigators advised Sheriff Arpaio that the forgers most likely committed two crimes: first, in fraudulently creating a forgery that the White House characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and second, in fraudulently presenting to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery the White House represented as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.
“A continuing investigation is needed to identify the identity of the person or persons involved in creating the alleged birth certificate forgery, and to determine who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized the forgery,” Arpaio said.
Among the evidence released at the press conference were five videos the Cold Case Posse produced to demonstrate why the Obama long-form birth certificate is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery.
The videos consisted of step-by-step computer demonstrations using a control document.
The videos were designed to display the testing used by the investigators to examine various claims made by supporters of the April 27 document.
The videos illustrate point-by-point the investigators’ conclusion that the features and anomalies observed on the Obama long-form birth certificate were inconsistent with features produced when a paper document is scanned, even if the scan of the paper document had been enhanced by Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and optimized.
Additionally, the videos demonstrated that the Hawaii Department of Health Registrar’s name stamp and the Registrar’s date stamp were computer-generated images imported into an electronic document, as opposed to actual rubber stamp imprints inked by hand or machine onto a paper document.
“That we were able to cast reasonable suspicions on the authenticity of the Registrar stamps was especially disturbing, since these stamp imprints are designed to provide government authentication to the document itself,” Zullo said, stressing that if the Registrar stamps are forgeries, the document itself is likely a forgery.
The investigators also chronicled a series of inconsistent and misleading representations that various Hawaii government officials have made over the past five years regarding what, if any, original birth records are held by the Hawaii Department of Health.
“As I said at the beginning of the investigation,” Arpaio said, “the president can put all this to rest quite easily. All he has to do is demand the Hawaii Department of Health release to the American public and to a panel of certified court-authorized forensic examiners all original 1961 paper, microfilm, and computer birth records the Hawaii Department of Health has in its possession.”
Arpaio further stressed the Hawaii Department of Health needs to provide, as part of the full disclosure, evidence regarding the chain of custody of all Obama birth records, including paper, microfilm, and electronic records, in order to eliminate the possibility that a forger or forgers may have tampered with the birth records.
Arpaio went on to say the President should also authorize Kapiolani Hospital, the birth hospital listed on the Obama long-form birth certificate, to release any and all hospital patient records for Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, his mother, and for the newly born Barack Obama, in order to provide additional corroboration for the original 1961 birth records held in the Hawaii Department of Health vault.
“Absent the authentic Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other credible proof supporting the idea or belief that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, as he and the White House have consistently asserted,” Zullo said.
“In fact, absent the authentication of Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other proof he was born anywhere within the United States.”
Arpaio concluded the press conference by suggesting a congressional investigation might be warranted and asked that any other law enforcement agency with information referencing this investigation be forwarded to his office.