18 May, 2012

Lobby4: How the Commission gets Employment and Company Law upside down.

Trillions of euros have been lost to the European economy because companies are badly structured. They take their constitution from ideas current decades if not centuries ago. They are encumbered with antiquated tax structures, which develop like some mutating monster by adding more and more complex annexes and qualifications to an already complex Tax Code. They are unfit for a Single Market of 500 million consumers

No wonder Europe is in a Employment crisis. Young highly educated people are waiting to find jobs. But employers are saying No Thanks -- not with today's complex and disadvantageous environment!

Why should young people wait?

Where are the young people in Europe who will create IN EUROPE tomorrow's Intel (Noyce and Moore), Google (Page and Brin), Microsoft (Allen and Gates), Apple (Jobs, Wozniak and Wayne) and Facebook (Zuckerberg and college roommates)? Why aren't European youngsters saying: "Forget my last years in university! I want to build my own firm'?

Many Europeans think they need a doctorate before they can start work! RUBBISH! Many of the world's greatest entrepreneurs never finished their first degree because they had a hot idea and wanted to create a company.

Is it because Europeans lack garages where a lot of multi-billion American firms like Microsoft saw the first light of day?

At the root of many of Europe's economic woes is the COMPANY STRUCTURE. What young 19-year old would want to start a company today? It's a nightmare to avoid at all cost! It is a jungle of local, national law and European Regulations, tying any foolhardly inventor or entrepreneur in masses of red tape, legal obligations and potential debt.

In Europe the complex system has become the greatest DISINCENTIVE to economic success!

Who should decide on the structure of companies? How should commercial companies be set up to take advantage of the European Single Market and globalization? How can they do it legally and SIMPLY?
What's more pertinent,
  • who should be deciding how companies are structured?
  • how they run their affairs?
  • under what conditions should they move their operations from one Member State to Member State?
What about public companies or utilities? Should they be allowed to compete with commercial companies? Don't they have an unfair advantage?

Who decides? Should such issues be decided by bureaucrats? Is it really the business of officials who may have had no experience in running a company? Should they be decided by politicians? They may be considered to be representatives of the people but don't they have their own interests? Members of the European Parliament admit that corruption is widespread and hardly controllable. Isn't it a danger that they will shift the balance into their favour and make sure they have extra influence if not contributions for their depleted party funds?

Wouldn't it be better to collect all the experience of young entrepreneurs and ask them how they would wish to have their first company?

Surely three most obvious deciding groups have nothing to do with politicians or bureaucrats. They are:
  • the entrepreneurs who have to pay and invest then employ people
  • the consumers who buy goods and services and may have recommendations and complaints about what they are served
  • the workers for the companies who may find themselves pressed between capitalists who want to cut their wages and consumers who also want the cheapest goods possible.
So how is the European Union dealing with the problem? The answer is BADLY. The Founding Fathers created a body to deal with the issue of companies, but the politicians and the bureaucrats have consistently over the last decades refused to allow the European bodies to develop democratically as they should.

So what do we get? The Commission does not refer to the Consultative Committee -- the parliament for industry and social issues -- but asks creates a questionnaire for all and sundry. This has no real legal standing. Even if the majority of people who had the time to reply came up with good ideas, there would be no guarantee that the Commission or the Council would make it their choice for a Regulation. They will decide what is to their advantage. Is that a hard cynical comment? Unfortunately it is based on fact because the first proposals for a European Company were made in 1949 in the Council of Europe and the governments have consistently refused to implement any thing that does not conform to the creaking tax-system that few citizens understand.

This week the European Commission closed what it calls a consultation on the Future of European Company Law (below). Notice how the questions force people to concur with what is a failed politiburo system. The very formulation of the questions show that the Commission is not thinking in terms of European democracy -- supranational institutions -- but in reinforcing the Politburo thinking of deals between Commission and Council with a fig-leaf of consultation from the 'public' -- whoever they are.

The following are my replies in bold to their questions.
I Identity Questions 1 to 4.

II. Objectives of European company law

Question 5. What should be the objective(s) of EU company law ?* (compulsory)
Improve the environment in which European companies operate, and their mobility in the EU.
Facilitate the creation of companies in Europe.
Setting the right framework for regulatory competition allowing for a high level of flexibility and choice.
Better protect employees.
Better protect creditors, shareholders and members.
No opinion.
Please specify

Since the 1950s European political leaders have failed to create a truly European company with simplified tax structures that might be headquartered in any Member State and receive favourable conditions for a fair and useful contribution to the European and world economy. There is also a notable failure to elect Consultative Committees (such as the Economic and Social Committee) based on the registration of all European professional associations. DEMOCRATIC ELECTION should prioritize EU action.

III. Scope of European company law
The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides the legal basis to adopt Directives harmonising EU company law (Article 50). That legal basis has been used for the adoption of Directives related to the disclosure of companies and their branches as well as the validity of their obligations and their nullity; the maintenance and alteration of the capital of public limited-liability companies; the merger and divisions of public limited-liability companies; and the single-member private limited-liability companies. It has also been used to adopt Directives concerning take-over bids, cross-border merger of companies and certain rights of shareholders of listed companies.

6. Would you support that the EU's priority should be to improve the existing harmonised legal framework or, rather, to explore new areas for harmonisation? * (compulsory)
Yes, the following pieces of existing legislation harmonising company law could be modernised further.
Yes, new areas could be explored for further harmonisation, such as...
Yes, both approaches could be combined and further work could target.
No, further harmonisation is not needed, the approach should rather be based on:
No opinion.

Please specify* (compulsory)
Soft-law instruments, like Recommendations.
Increased administrative co-operation and exchange of good practices.
Please specify
The Consultative Committees are required (1) to register all entrepreneur associations, all workers' associations and all consumer associations (Not done in 60 years) (2) Eliminate any lobby associations and establish professional criteria (3) Arrange elections to the seats in the CC such as the EESC and CoR. The Council refused to support this. It chose to select its own candidates (as it had for the EP). Schuman and Reuter (who wrote much of treaties) condemned this manipulation as 'ILLEGAL'


EU company law has been built on the basis of the distinction between public and private limited-liability companies. While some EU Directives apply to all company law forms, others focus on one type of company or the other. However, the reality has changed in the last years in particular to confer appropriate protection to public shareholders. A trend in some Member States is that public limited-liability companies are often used as legal form for listed companies while other large and medium-sized companies are private limited-liability companies. New hybrid company law forms have been designed in some Member States to grant further flexibility. Furthermore, the public-private distinction does not exist in all Member States.

7. Should the focus of EU company law move away from the distinction between public/private towards listed/unlisted in order to ensure adequate protection to shareholders? * (compulsory)
Yes, for all the legal instruments harmonising EU company law.
Yes, but only for legal instruments related to
No opinion.

Please specify* (compulsory)
Disclosure of companies and their branches as well as the validity of their obligations and their nullity.
Maintenance and alteration of the capital.
Mergers and divisions.
Single-member ownership.
Take-over bids.
Cross-border mergers.
Certain rights of shareholders of listed companies.
Please specify
Company definitions, because they affect all Europeans, should not be defined exclusively by one State but should be subject to an agreement (Opinion) made at the European level by fully elected Consultative Committees such as the EESC and CoR as sketched out under answer to Question 6.

IV. User-friendly regulatory framework for European company law
Because of the large number of Directives dealing with it, European company law is sometimes regarded as not particularly ‘user friendly’. It is also exposed to the risk of inconsistencies, gaps or overlaps. In order to address this risk, the existing Directives could be amended and codified either to create a single instrument on Company Law or to only have a very limited number of Directives regrouping related areas.

8. Do you think that codifying existing EU company law Directives, thus reducing potential inconsistencies, overlaps or gaps, is an idea worth pursuing? * (compulsory)
Yes, a single EU company law instrument should replace all existing Directives.
Yes, EU company law Directives with a similar scope should be merged.
No, this is not an idea worth pursuing.
No opinion.
Please specify
Politicians have created a regulatory jungle and this cannot be cleared overnight. The approach of the Founding Fathers -- still to be applied -- is best. They proposed that a European Company statute should be created as simple as possible with simple tax rates and encouragement for expansion. This could be set up in any State and the success of its simplifying procedures would encourage the mass of existing Regulations to be eliminated over the course of time. Google eurdemocracy and Lobby2

V. EU company legal forms
Apart from harmonisation, EU company law has also focussed on the definition of specific EU company law forms, such as the Statute for a European Company (SE), the Statute for the European Cooperative Society (SCE), the European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) and more recently, the proposed Private Company Statute (SPE). Those instruments are often referred to as being a "28th regime" to the extent that they introduce new legal forms that do not harmonise, modify or substitute the existing national legal forms, but provide an additional alternative legal form.

9. What, if any, is the added value that EU company legal forms bring for European business? * (compulsory)
The European image of those company law forms.
Their European label ("SE", "SCE").
Their full legal personality.
Savings in costs of cross-border transactions.
Ad hoc solution to cross-border related issues.
Workable alternatives to existing national company law forms.
The possibility not to be subject to compulsory national requirements (for example, the SE allow public limited-liability companies to choose between one-tier and two-tier management structure).
The possibility to carry out operations, like cross-border transfer of seat.
Tax reasons.
Labour law reasons.
No added value.
No opinion.
Please specify
The EU should stop DIY or bricolage solutions and use the Consultative Committee duly elected democratically to sound out the real impact of such schemes. This would provide real data as the CC system provides for in-depth studies not reactions of companies and groups who have time and inclination to reply to such questionnaires as this.

10. What, if any, are the main shortcomings of EU legislation introducing EU company legal forms? * (compulsory)
The complexity linked to frequent cross-references to relevant national legislation.
The uncertainty linked to the application of different national legislations that are applied simultaneously.
The differences in the way EU company law forms are understood and used at national level.
The different degree of attractiveness across Member States.
The limitations that derive from unanimity decision-making.
No main shortcomings.
No opinion.
Please specify
Lack of democratic legitimacy and trust. This can only be recovered by having democratically elected Consultative Committees such as the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions plus the scientific and technical bodies of Euratom.

11. Should existing EU company legal forms be reviewed* (compulsory)
Yes, in particular concerning...
No opinion.

Please specify* (compulsory)
Simplification and rationalisation of existing procedures.
Increased uniformity through reduction of cross-references to national legislation.
Reduction of minimum capital required.
Deletion of cross-border element requirement.
Possibility to have the registered office and the headquarters in two Member States.
Explicit solution to the issue of shelf companies.
Please specify
Full and democratic examination can only be done via a fully functioning 5-institution Community system. The EU is falling into greater crises because of the lack of legitimacy of Council actions. Political, social and democratic legitimacy is outlined in answer to Q6.

The European Model Company Act (EMCA)* on which academics are currently working aims at providing a modern and flexible Model Act, taking account of the latest developments in Member States. The initiative does not strive to harmonise national company law, but rather to facilitate understanding of the specific features in various national systems and to serve as a flexible and optional model.
* For further information please see: http://law.au.dk/forskning/forskningscentre/europeanmodelcompanyactemca/overview-over-the-emca-project/

12. Could optional models such as the EMCA –or similar projects- be a suitable alternative to traditional harmonisation? * (compulsory)
No opinion.

Please explain
The only useful opinion would be that of democratically elected Consultative Committees that have full powers, equivalent to the European Parliament and the Council in such matters according to the treaties and the Founding Fathers.

VI. The particular case of the societas privata europaea (SPE) statute
The proposal on the SPE Statute has been discussed for more than three years without any final outcome. After lengthy negotiations, Member States could not agree in particular on the possibility to separate their registered office and the headquarters and the regime for employee participation. However, the Commission still believes that European small and medium size businesses need support at EU level, particularly in the current economic context.

13. Should the Commission explore alternative means to support European SMEs engaged in cross-border activities?* (compulsory)
No, further efforts should be made to get an agreement on the current SPE statute proposal.
Other possibilities to explore?
No opinion.

for example:* (compulsory)
The Commission could prepare a new legislative proposal aimed at promoting EU SMEs through the European labelling of existing national company law instruments that meet a number of pre-defined harmonised requirements.
The 12th Company Law Directive could be reviewed in order to introduce a simplified company charter to facilitate the organisation of groups (i.e. single member private limited-liability companies would be exempted from certain harmonised rules, not indispensable for a single member company).
The scope of application of the SE Statute could be modified to allow smaller EU companies to benefit from it on the basis of more flexible requirements.
Please specify
The Commission should assume its responsibility to encourage proper elections to the Consultative Committees as is clear from the treaties and the Founding Fathers.

VII. Cross-border transfer of a company's registered office
Apart from the rules contained in the Statutes for the European Company (SE) and for the European Cooperative Society (SCE), the current EU rules do not provide for a general right to the cross-border transfer of a company's registered office, which would preserve the company's legal personality. Currently, only few Member States allow for a seat transfer without winding up and subsequent re-incorporation. In most Member states, companies must therefore establish a new legal entity in the Member State of destination, merge the companies in question and register the company formed by merger in that Member State

14. Should the EU act to facilitate the cross-border transfer of a company's registered office?* (compulsory)
Yes, through a harmonizing Directive.
Yes, through some other measure.
No, as the existing EU framework (European Company Statute, cross-border mergers Directive) provides for sufficient tools for a cross-border transfer of registered office.
No opinion.

Please give further reasons for your opinion

This is again a measure that is within the legitimate right of the Consultative Committee involved to decide and give an Opinion by a vote of the three sections: enterprises, consumers, and workers.

Other questions: No opinion.

(Questions need to be settled in an institutional body after a full discussion of properly constituted professional associations with proper means of analysis and communication.)

10 May, 2012

Council6: On Schuman Day the politicians roam into a Politburo Wonderworld

On 9 May the leaders of the European Parliament met with the Commission and Council representatives. First they spoke of European solidarity and European values. They praised Robert Schuman for introducing a great democratic experiment that has brought the longest period of peace in Europe's several thousand year history.

That is true.

Then they spoiled it all. They immediately went into a self-congratulatory mode of their own delusions. They boasted that Commission, Council and Parliament have become the champions of the citizens and reduced roaming charges for mobile phone and now for data across the European Union.

Wasn't Europe wonderful!

The high charges were an 'irritant' to citizens, they said. Now we can show how 'Europe' protects their interests. The mobile companies had been charging excessively for telephone calls and data downloads across the Continent and they -- the Council, Parliament and Commission -- were the heroes that forced them to cut them. How? with a Regulation -- European law!! Now they expect all the citizens to love the new-style politburo politicians that rule Europe.

Is this fair? They boasted that they had got cuts of 75 percent in customers' bills. Is it helping the free market? Who knows? It was a Diktat.

Yes consumers like lower prices, but what if they find the bills going down in roaming and extra charges arising elsewhere because the companies find the prices unrealistic? The companies have spent billions on hi-tech satellite technology and land infrastructure and coordination. They made a strategy to pay for it over several years. Then along come a posse of cowboy politicians and say: 'Hey some of our people say you are robbing them! ' And with a pistol at their head they lower the prices.

Maybe the prices were too high to chat as if callers were at home. But who gave the cowboys the authority to decree lower prices in the market? What's the point of the internal market if it is not free from cowboy laws of politicians? It should be open wide to competition to increase efficiency of pan-European services and industry. It is supposed to reduce prices for consumers and make companies stronger so they can compete globally.

Guess what? The mobile companies reaction is not to complain loud in public. They are simply raising their domestic rates fast -- sometimes by 66 percent. Will the European Commission and its cowboys and girls be boasting that they were responsible for the rise in domestic mobile charges? I think not! The European Politburo has still to learn that they cannot get a free lunch wielding a gun.

Who should be setting prices? Should it be a free market with plenty of competition and innovation? Or should the politicians be setting the caps and ceilings for prices?

When Schuman warned of counterfeit democracy, Europeans had in front of them the so-called People's Democracies of the Soviet bloc. How did the Soviet socialists and Communists run their economies? They had artificial fiat currencies and they fixed the prices of all the goods on sale. The Politburo controlled the industries, the production and supply. They decided what everything should be worth in the funny coupons that passed for socialist money. They decided on the price by fiat.

Reminder: A real democracy does not have politicians fixing the prices of goods and services.

So why did the trio of white-hatted cowboys get in the business of fiat prices? Firstly something was uncomfortable for Europeans travelling across frontiers. More importantly the politicians wanted to gain some plaudits from the public as their credit and trust was hitting rock bottom. So they applied the same technique they did to the constitutional and Lisbon treaties -- they ignored democracy and imposed the political equivalent of martial law. They ignored the free market solutions in the same way as they had earlier ignored and despised the votes in the referendums.

Where will it lead to? Will everything on the European market now have its prices set by political fiat? By getting in the populist business of forcing reduced prices, the Council Politburo system is now heading in the same way as the People's Democracies.

Will we now see the Council Politburo responding to citizens' complaints and setting the price wherever single market customers complain? Will toothbrushes and toilet paper be the list? Will all electricity tariffs now be reduced? Will they soon decree a single low-price airplane ticket for anywhere across the EU?

Like a meteor in the fermament, some mobile phone companies have risen from nothng and replaced major companies that had been round for centuries as some of the biggest companies in Europe. The politicians often think of them as tax cows. Some long-established industries may be harder to boss around. But bossing around hi-tech industries is likely to be a bad industrial strategy for reducing unemployment. And of course those fig-leafs that the politicians use for doing anything they want -- Europe2020 or Europe2030-- say absolutely nothing about this antidemocratic market manipulation. How could they justify cheap populism for EU Public Relations?

The democratic five-institution supranational Community system on which the EU is based was created to
  • stop price-fixing
  • break cartels
  • encourage European infrastructure for supply and demand.
How should the question of mobile phone rip-offs be treated in a real supranational democracy? Who should be setting the price of mobile calls?

The guardian of the European free market is the Consultative Committee, a major institution de Gaulle and other egocentric politicians blocked and are still blocking. The Coal and Steel Community had its own Consultative Committee that oversaw the introduction of Europe's first Single Market on 10 February 1953. The European Economic Community introduced an Economic and Social Community that was to be composed entirely of NON-POLITICAL European associations active in the market. European professional associations would all be listed and registered and THEY would then elect the member associations that should sit in the Consultative Committee.

They would vote on all matters of dispute.

Schuman suggested that three equal groups should be involved to come to a fair decision. This is confirmed in the treaties. Note: NO politicians, NO Government representatives are included. The real tripartate committee is defined as:
  1. Industrialists and entrepreneurs who innovate and invest
  2. Consumers who have to pay for the service and have criticism about price and service
  3. Workers in the industry because they should have safe conditions and their wages should not be cut if the consumers want cheaper prices.
How did he say they should run the economical sector? If there is any dispute such as on roaming charges, the three sections would have to vote on an Opinion. As each of the sections had equal number of member associations, they would have to come to a consensus based on European values, intelligent economic strategy and social justice. Based on intensive in-depth debates, they would come to agree not only on price levels but the overall strategy for creating jobs for a stronger Europe. Such a powerful, intensive discussion of all the issues avoids quick-fix, cowboy regulators making a mess of industrial investment, and wreaking research and development plans.

The present treaties still provide the requirement for the Europe-wide elections to the Economic and Social Committee. When will it happen?

03 May, 2012

Obama1: Europeans! Prepare for a huge, Watergate-type, transAtlantic crisis!

A German Defence Minister resigned when it was revealed that many parts of his doctorate were plagiarized or "in error'. The British coalition government was shaken when a minister resigned over alleged fraudulent reporting of an eight-year old speeding fine. The Hungarian President resigned when it was considered that he quoted references in his doctorate without proper sourcing.

What would have happened if these politicians had refused to step down amid the accusations? A long and bitter dispute would have ensued, tying up the resources of the nation.

The German President resigned when the Parliament asked for legal immunity be stripped from him so that a full inquiry about freebies and favours could be conducted. What would happen if a minister of an EU country was not only suspected of fraud or questions about his degree but spent between one and two million dollars paying a firm of lawyers so that no voter or anyone else could see his college records?
These types of events affect all neighbouring countries. Today our countries are inevitably linked more strongly with each other.

No democracy can be based on lies. It must be based on Judeo-Christian values. 'Democracy owes its existence to Christianity,' wrote Robert Schuman. For the USA, democracy was established in what Schuman called 'the marvellous edifice of the American Constitution, raised up on foundations envisioned in the spirit of their times by Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton. ' (Pour l'Europe, p118.)
What if the country's president was found violating the Constitution, not  being 'a natural-born American citizen ' but a national and a passport-holder of another country? Would he then resign? Would people ask for an explanation for fraudulently posing under false nationality? That would be the least to be expected. Wouldn't that situation make a mockery, not only of the presidency but throw into question all the laws he had signed? What about international agreements, would they be null and void because the signature was an impostor and fraudulent president?

Yet this is what is happening in the United States. All of Barack Hussein Obama's college records have been legally sealed from public view by presidential decree, Occidental College in California, Columbia  and Harvard University.


Many journalists and voters suspect that he attended these as an Indonesian student, not as an American. Whoever is elected in the 2012 elections, a vast legal debate is about to explode, perhaps paralyzing the presidency in the coming years.

It won't go away. It is now entering the area of criminal process, not mindless political derision against 'Tea Party' activists and so far unsuccessful but outraged lawyers.

As a student Barack  Obama was known as Barry Soetoro, a muslim with an Indonesian step-father. Some student who were taking classes say they can't remember ever seeing him there. (The name Obama comes from his Kenyan father who held a British passport and was suspected of being already married by the Immigration Service when he came to the USA.)  Other people have now deposed legal affidavits that he was intimate with subversive groups involved in terrorist bombing campaigns and underground activities.

Astounding? There is even worse!

Who is paying the multi-million legal fees from keeping these records out of daylight? For the president, the most basic security for employing a federal building janitor seems not to apply. A whole range of documents have all failed multiple authentication tests. When some journalists and voters questioned whether Obama had ever become a US citizen, a Freedom of Information search brought to light Obama's Selective Service Card. According to US law all men must register with the Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday. Evidently something was awry in Obama's case. The document is clearly forged.

It is filled out, not on a 1980 form, but one dating from 2000s, when it was vital if he were to be elected as a Senator. Furthermore the date stamp is clearly fabricated. It has '80' on it as the year and not what the authenticating stamp should have:  '1980'. A closer examination by a forensic team of lawyers, postal management and detectives shows that the '80' was made from cutting the last two digits from a rubber stamp with '2008' and inverting them -- rather badly and amateurishly -- in a US postal stamp.  It was also cut so that the larger, lower part of the '8' appeared less obvious when it was inverted.

This of course is a serious federal criminal offense and as distinct from fiddling with a few lines of a doctorate. Such forgery will likely to fine the perpetrator -- whoever he/she is -- and send him to prison. His reported Social Security Card number 042 68 4425 is also dubious and was issued in 1977 from the State of Connecticut -- where, at around 17-year old, the  Hawaii high schooler Obama never resided.

The Arizona police, acting on the tip-off that Obama might have been born abroad and not Hawaii, checked the incoming flight details to Hawaii in August 1961. They found that all the US Federal border agency cards for that week were missing. The governor of Hawaii in his election campaign promised that he would publish the birth certificate when elected. Despite all his efforts and authority, he gave up.

Given the furore about lack of documentation indicating who exactly the US President is, many citizens created a pressure group so that he would be forced to publish his birth certificate.  A short form birth certificate (COLB, Certification of Live Birth) was published on a website of a group Obama used to work for. Then President Obama published it. What, however, was published on the White House site had errors that required its replacement.  This publishing effort did not stop the protests from pointing out that this type of certification could be obtained without adequate checks, on the unsupported say-so of a relative.

Moreover, it did not indicate which of Hawaii's two hospitals Obama was supposedly born in -- and various of his family and supporters named  one while others named the other!

Before the publication of a major study on the Obama identity forgery and numerous legal actions, the White House was forced to put up at the White House website what they claimed was the full-length Birth Certificate that included the hospital, doctors and other information.

Technical specialists were surprised. This began to look like an amateur production too. In fact it was quite tacky.  It was supposed to be a copy of an opened page from a birth log but the green security hatching was printed over the page and also the space beyond the paper page! A false shadow was added for the gutter as if it had been placed on a photocopier. It hadn't. It was an electronic cut and paste job containing simultaneously binary, grey-scale and even colour letters! (Compare for example the grey tone D of Dunham or last '1' of the reference number 61 10641 under maximum zoom. They are different formats and exist on different layers.) The White House later reduced the resolution of the pdf file on its website but it is clear that some of the letters come from different fonts and white haloes show unexplained manipulation for a scan or photocopy. The higher resolution file published and given to news correspondents on 27 April 2011 seems no longer available. Who is fiddling with the 'facts'?

A group of voters petitioned the Arizona police force to investigate. They wanted to have real proof of the identity of their presidential candidate. Sheriff Arpaio called a volunteer group of former policemen and lawyers plus technical computer experts together. (Volunteer, that is, not paid by taxpayers to avoid political issues. )

He expected them to clear the birth certificate of all suspicion. In fact they proved it was forged. So was the Selective Service Card -- which the police considered a more serious criminal offence.
Much like the start of the Watergate affair, the main media in the USA are not investigating this -- or even reporting it. You can find full press conference report on YouTube, local TV and on foreign media such as Russian radio the sheriff is grilled about the facts and background.

The Arizona police department released some short explanatory videos for the public.
Sheriff Arpaio's introduction 'probable fraud and forgery'
1 Birth Certificate
2 Opening Birth Certificate with Illustrator
3 Was OCR software applied?
4 Was the file optimized?
5 Conclusion: fake and forgery
6 Forgery of Selective Service Card.

If you want to check the detectives' results in detail, view the official police press conference video. Those who have software like Illustrator or CorelDraw can check that the document has NINE electronic layers whereas a scan of a real paper document would not.  The seals and date stamps give no authentication. They can be moved anywhere at will!

Reminder: This is a clearly fraudulent document that the White House chose to introduce. It is still on its
website! Magnify with zoom and you can see the differences in fonts, saved in different formats from separate documents then pasted together!

Another demonstration video using CorelDraw shows that the file has been trimmed and that the hatched 'security' paper show manual manipulation and that white dots have been hand-painted to cover black spots in one layer. Amateur fraud!

A criminal case will not go away. The controversy has moved into new territory. The police say they can identify some of the computers used in the fraud. They now have a pile of  sworn affidavits from international specialists. The next years will increase, not dissipate, the affair.

Europe had better take a lesson from this criminal forgery. Democracy at the European level is languishing. Politicians have lost the trust of the public. Lasting trust can only be built on honesty and truth.
Today's leadership still refuse to put into effect the requirements of the treaties they signed up to. There are no proper European elections, either for the parliament, nor for the consultative committees, nor proper openness in the institutions.

In the European Union there is
Any document revealing who the political cartel selected, how, when, why and where or describing what goes on is forbidden to the public eye.  Once the supranational democratic sytems are inaugurated such biased, partisan politburo politics will be eliminated. It will be far more difficult to commit such identity crime at a European level. There will be multiple cross-checking systems to ensure fairness and justice.