...but there is the issue of sequential serial numbers and date/times so it fits in with existing long forms ...like the Nordyke twins...
Thanks, you keep reminding me of that...
Doesn't matter. A born British subject can not be our President and Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
The HDOH is already claiming they don’t have birth records for a person whose BC# could well be the one used on the Factcheck COLB forgery.
That person’s name is in their birth and death index for 1960-64, was buried in a National Cemetery which would have required a birth certificate, and had death announcements in both Hawaii papers.... and yet the HDOH claims they have no birth record for her.
What did they do with that record? If they don’t have to have a birth record for her, that leaves a spot wide open for Obama to be inserted. They could make a whole new long-form for Obama and insert it in place of what they had for that little girl, with numbers and dates all in order. And the only way we would know any better is if those electronic records were audited so it was known exactly what happened. That’s why something like these bills would be essential.
I do have to say that the Factcheck forgery will bite them in the butt, regardless, because it has the “date filed” out of order with the BC# - but only if we have a legal avenue for that to make any difference. We already know that the BC# and/or date filed on any forged long-form they come up with will either disagree with Factcheck, or else will be out of sequence. We just don’t have any way for that to make a legal difference yet.
And just requiring a long-form to be disclosed won’t cause something like that to make a difference, unless the SOS is required to care whether the document presented is a forgery or not.
Again, that’s why something like this set of companion bills would be critical.