DOH indirectly confirms: Factcheck COLB date filed and certificate number impossible

Butterdezillion | Feb 23, 2010 | Butterdezillion

[Seizethecarp]

“But don't forget the cunning way Barbara Nelson told her story...she did not say that Dr West had said he DELIVERED the child. She says he said ‘Stanley Ann had a baby...’”

I assign a very low probability to the likelihood of a discovery of vital statistics for BHO II in Dr. West's bound record of births. But efforts must be made, if legally possible, to obtain/refute all possible evidence that Obama was born in HI.

That fact that no "best evidence" 1961 contemporaneous BC for Obama has been authorized to be released by Obama is itself the best evidence that the HI vital records being hidden will actually call into question Obama's eligibility in some way.

[Red Steel]

Oh BS! You get mad at me because of my superior logic!

Butter to you, "Saying “no evidence” is an outright lie, parsy "

Superior logic huh?

So what one of the many multiple persons in you was speaking here?

[parsifal]

What evidence do you have that it is a fraudulent document?

I mean, c’mon its been over a year or so on this. Y’all can’t find ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE in all that time that you feel comfortable with?

parsy, who has been waiting....toe tapping ....toe tapping

[edge919]

Why would a document forensics expert be needed? Did you not read the post on the Federal Rules of Evidence? That's why we certify documents in the first place. So that no experts are necessary.

Perhaps you haven't noticed the conspicuous absence of any certified birth documents being entered as evidence in a court of law?? I was referring to the credentials of the factcheck amateurs who are so far the only persons claiming to have seen a hard copy of the alleged COLB.

Further, if you understand the Federal Rules of Evidence, you would realize that a self-authenticating documenting is only self-authenticating if it's not an obvious forgery (which explains why it has NEVER been introduced in a court of law). Moreover, being self-authenticating doesn't mean it can't be challenged. I believe if the alleged COLB was entered by the defense, the plaintiff would demand to have it examined by a qualified examiner ... not factcheckamateur.org. It would be easily shot down.

Luck's got nothing to do with. He has evidence, you do not. No luck involved.

Sorry, but there have been motions to dismiss based on standing, but actual evidence, no.

It pains me to shoot down such weak arguments, but the gun is loaded and the target avails itself like a whale in a barrel.

[DJ MacWoW]

According to the Founders, We the people, are the controlling authority. The flunkies in DC are not our masters. I think some of these trolls have forgotten that. We have not.

[parsifal]

Because the birthers have not been able to present any kind of credible case. They get bounced from the courtroom pretty quickly.

parsy, who hates to break the sad news (not)

[BP2]

Wiggy,

Under the concept of prima facie evidence, the presumption that the fact exists FAILS when evidence contradicting that fact is presented, and in such case, the interested party needs to present other competent evidence to prove the existence of that alleged fact.

If the proponent of that "fact" fails to do so, the alleged fact is not proven, even if the opposing party produces no further evidence. There exists a considerable amount of evidence which puts serious doubt on Obama’s allegation that he was born in Hawaii.

EVEN BEYOND THE CONCEPT of WHERE Obama was born, to date, Obama has presented no additional evidence, other than the internet image of his Certification of Live Birth (COLB). NO Judge has seen it, nor has a member of Congress seen it. It's unknown if Pelosi has seen it, or the President of the Senate when confirming the Electoral Votes in January 2009.

Hence, the prima facie validity of Obama's Certification of Live Birth (COLB) FAILS and he is compelled to produce other objective, credible, and sufficient evidence of where he was born such as a contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961. Quo Warranto WILL eventually make him PUT UP or SHUT UP. At that point, the Constitutional argument defining the "original intent" meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" begins. That won't bode well for the son of a British Subject, or Barry Soetoro — take your pick.

Wiggy, I suggest you take a gander at A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Pay particular attention to where it says a presumption applies to the presumed fact and "must be inferred, absent rebuttal evidence." In Obama's case, the Courts pass because of Legal Standing, Jurisdiction and Political Question.

Considering the UNRELIABLE and BIASED "chain of evidence" regarding Obama's "birth certificate," there's PLENTY of
"rebuttal evidence" that his COLB is questionable as a true and valid document.

A PHOTO of an "internet image" does NOT rise to the level of a true and valid document.

And NO AMOUNT of After-Birther spin can change that.

[parsifal]

A simple question: As a result of the WKA decision was the Chinese kid, born within the United States, to two non-citizens, determined to be a citizen or not?

parsy

[Seizethecarp]

“That's not Apuzzo’s ‘refutation.’ It is his argument. An argument (in case you have not noticed) that has yet to score him a single victory in any court.”

Apuzzo refutes your contention that a self-authenticating documents is unassailable. Self-authentication is a presumption that can be rebutted, if I understand the FRE correctly.

Your lawyerly assertion that Apuzzo’s argument “has yet to score him a single victory" is correct, but only because there has never been a ruling on his argument.

Apuzzo has never had a chance to impeach Obama’s alleged Factcheck COLB in any court case with his argument and evidence because that COLB has never been entered into evidence by Obama or the DOJ.

It appears only the quo warranto suggested by Judge Carter in the correct venue would give the opportunity for Apuzzo or Donofrio to challenge the self-authentication of any HI COLB placed into evidence.

[Red Steel]

Yet another Birther lie that never dies. The imaginary "legion of lawyers."

Obama must have had employed ghosts lawyers who defended him against the lawsuits. When it comes to lying you're the king. That's right up there with the imaginary State Department Travel Ban on Pakistan and Maya's imaginary Hawaiian COLB.

Personally, I've never said there was a ban on travel to Pakistan or said Maya had a Hawaiian COLB. At least when our side makes mistake, it usually honest ones. I can't say that for the Obot tolls though.

But I guess when you've no real evidence, making stuff up is the best you can be expected to do. Just don't be surprised that people make fun of you for it.

You think the Obama COLB is evidence? It not until he submits it to a court of law who would verify that it does represent to what's on file with the Hawaiian DoH. Nope, it's not evidence. No one can hold a candle to you at making stuff up...too much BS gas in the air.

[BP2]

A simple question: As a result of the WKA decision was the Chinese kid, born within the United States, to two non-citizens, determined to be a citizen or not?

A simple answer:

A CITIZEN — yes.

A "Natural Born Citizen", especially one qualified to be POTUS — NO

[EnderWiggins]

"I was referring to the credentials of the factcheck amateurs who are so far the only persons claiming to have seen a hard copy of the alleged COLB."

And I directly responded by pointing out that you don't need any expertise whatsoever to authenticate a hard copy of a state certified and sealed document. Even you are perfectly qualified to do so under the law.

"Further, if you understand the Federal Rules of Evidence, you would realize that a self-authenticating documenting is only self-authenticating if it's not an obvious forgery (which explains why it has NEVER been introduced in a court of law)."

No... not even close. A self authenticating document can be challenged if you actually have evidence that it is a forgery. And if you had such evidence, you wouldn't be filing civil complaints. You would file a criminal complaint against the Hawaii DOH for complicity in fraud where there is no hurdle of standing to overcome.

The real explanation why it has never been introduced in a court of law is that you do not have the evidence to prevail in a criminal court, and you do not have the standing to prevail in a civil one. Go get some real evidence and then see how quickly things change.

" Moreover, being self-authenticating doesn't mean it can't be challenged. I believe if the alleged COLB was entered by the defense, the plaintiff would demand to have it examined by a qualified examiner ... not factcheckamateur.org. It would be easily shot down."

Why wait? You said yourself that it is an "obvious forgery." So why no criminal case yet against the Hawaii DOH for fraud?

[EnderWiggins]

"Under the concept of prima facie evidence, the presumption that the fact exists FAILS when evidence contradicting that fact is presented, and in such case, the interested party needs to present other competent evidence to prove the existence of that alleged fact."

Of course. So (and I have asked this question dozens of times by now) where is your evidence contradicting it? I mean... you've have almost 2 years to come up with some? Where is it?

You keep saying it exists.... and yet show us nada.

[BP2]

Again:

"This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."

NOT

"This COPY OF A copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."

[Fred Nerks]

...In the story Dr. West does not say that he personally delivered Obama, but merely recounts that “Stanley gave birth to Barack Hussein Obama”. If true, West may have simply seen or heard of the same HI vital record, perhaps of a home or foreign birth, which was reported to the HI newspapers...

Poor Dr West, he's dead and cannot tell us if he was even there...having lunch, with a student, just the two of them...discussing who had a baby today...

And time flying, she ends up his teacher in High School, and tells us what a wonderful student he was and what a great basketball player!

I'm more interested in WHY her father, Professor Czurles in Buffalo would be interested to hear the name BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA and why the name might mean anything to him...THAT'S IF SHE EVER HAD 'LUNCH' OR EVER WROTE A LETTER!

There's always a little truth in the biggest lie. Where is that grain of truth?

Might it be that Professor Czurles would recognize the name BECAUSE HE KNEW OBAMA SENIOR before he arrived in Hawaii?

Doesn't anyone think it's a little odd, that Neil Abercrombie, Barbara Nelson, Stanley Armour Dunham and Obama Senior all ARRIVED IN HAWAII IN 1959? And Barbara Nelson hailed from Buffalo, just as Neil Abercromie did...and where Professor Czurles, Barbara Nelson's father was when she supposedly wrote to him about the birth?

IMO the paternity and place of birth deception began right there. And they were all part of it.

footnote: No one knows when BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA SENIOR actually arrived in the US. He was NOT part of the airlift of students from Kenya, which arrived in SEPTMEBER 1959.

[BP2]

the presumed fact "must be inferred, absent rebuttal evidence."

[Red Steel]

We are making WiggOut’s quota for today’s troll posting in quick fashion.

[edge919]

What evidence do you have that it is a fraudulent document?

The fraudulent certificate number which the HI DOH REFUSES to authenticate, despite having full statutory authority to do so. It contains a typo inconsistent with computer-generated COLBs. The paper in the Factcheck.bumblingamateurs.org is mysteriously bigger than the document scanned by FTS. We've already mentioned that factcheck.dontknowwhatthehellwearedoing.org scrubbed photo data to hide their complicity. Plus, the DOH's careful avoidance of mentioning said COLB when they've made their 'official' yet ambiguous statements about Obama II.

I hate to rain on the faither parade, but it's so much fun to get the tin foil hats wet.

[edge919]

Because the birthers have not been able to present any kind of credible case. They get bounced from the courtroom pretty quickly.

Yet presenting a self-authenticating document would bounce said cases from the courtroom even quicker and quell any follow-up cases and simply stop most cases from being filed. Why doesn't President Transparent help out the DOH staff who are annoyed by the persistent requests from Patriotic citizens seeking to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America?? Why let the courts have to deal with these cases when self-authenticating evidence is allegedly so easily introduced and would answer skeptics' questions. And please don't answer with another lame circular argument. Obama is already making too many people carry his water for him.

[edge919]

A simple question: As a result of the WKA decision was the Chinese kid, born within the United States, to two non-citizens, determined to be a citizen or not?

The determination was made on the basis that the parents were permanent immigrants. With Barak Sr. ... not so much. So you're right, under those circumstances, Obama may not be a U.S. citizen period.