Replies

I understand what you are trying to get at with the adoption scenario but this “legal” forgery idea really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

You are trying to make the argument that the state can issue a type of abstract document that would replicate the information on the original birth certificate. Possibly they can but I highly doubt that their laws, statues, protocols would allow them to create a digital image that was NEVER in paper form and to create this digital document they had to cut and paste information from other documents.

If is was NEVER an original paper document it had to have been made up of digitally scanned parts of other documents. Some parts created, some added, some imported. A Frankenstein abstract.

For example:

Are you saying the state has a right to take Verna Lee or the doctor’s signature off somebody else’s birth certificate and use it for an abstract document for Obama? That’s fraud. You can’t take someone’s signature off a different document and place it on an abstract even if they signed the original birth certificate (which I highly doubt).

And if Hawaii did cut and paste this Frankenstein abstract it still doesn’t make it “legal” just because Hawaii issued it. They don’t have the power to break their own laws. It’s still “illegal.” It’s just that they’ve broken their laws to provide him with some document.

All you are saying is that they would be getting away with breaking their own laws. That doesn’t make something legal.

Obama is a usurper if he is not a natural born citizen. I don’t care how many days he’s squatted in the oval office. I don’t care how many rides he’s had on Air Force One. He’s still “illegally” occupying the office. He is not a “legal” usurper because the electoral college voted for him.

Congress and the electoral college don’t have the power to make him eligible. They could have certified Mickey Mouse and called it legal but it’s still not legal no matter how many laws they break trying to tell us it is legal. They don’t have that power.

...You can’t take someone’s signature off a different document and place it on an abstract even if they signed the original birth certificate...

I agree...BUT if Ann D 'somebody' gave birth to a child named BHO2 at the same hospital where the Sunhara child was born, then Verna Lee would have been the Local Registrar for the birth, and it's the name of the mother and the date of birth that doesn't fit the narrative.

Why can't Virginia's brother obtain a birth certificate for his sister who died the day after she was born?

Why was Virginia issued with an amended birth certificate more than 400 numbers in the future of her August 4, 1961 birth?

I understand what you are trying to get at with the adoption scenario but this “legal” forgery idea really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

You are trying to make the argument that the state can issue a type of abstract document that would replicate the information on the original birth certificate. Possibly they can but I highly doubt that their laws, statues, protocols would allow them to create a digital image that was NEVER in paper form and to create this digital document they had to cut and paste information from other documents.

I am trying to make this argument because this is true. The States not only CAN do such a thing, they do it every single time an adoption occurs.

If it was NEVER an original paper document it had to have been made up of digitally scanned parts of other documents. Some parts created, some added, some imported. A Frankenstein abstract.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying it is! It is LEGAL for the state to produce such "Frankenstein" documents, and it is done routinely. According to this web page, the United States has 120,000 adoptions per year. That is 120,000 fake birth certificates created every year.

Are you saying the state has a right to take Verna Lee or the doctor’s signature off somebody else’s birth certificate and use it for an abstract document for Obama? That’s fraud. You can’t take someone’s signature off a different document and place it on an abstract even if they signed the original birth certificate (which I highly doubt).

I don't think they faked the doctor's signature. You are right, that's fraud and I don't think the state can go that far, but if you will consider what I am saying about Obama having an "at home birth" affidavit as his original record, then you will understand that Hawaiian law allows a parent up to a full year to have the child examined by a doctor. (I think butterdezillion can confirm this.) Stanley Ann Dunham was back in Hawaii in August of 1962.

I have been told, (though I haven't verified it myself) that if the child is examined by a physician within a year of it's birth, the physician will be regarded for legal purposes as the "birth physician."

To create a supplemental birth certificate after an adoption they would take all the information from the original BC but would change the name of the mother and the father. They would not need to C&P a doctor’s signature or anything else. The place of birth, etc are all supposed to remain the same. The only thing that changes is the name of the mother and/or the name of the father - whichever relationship is altered by the adoption.

And incidentally, this is why it is important that the original BC’s on file at the HDOH are NOT on security paper and not microfilmed on security paper either. They are on plain paper. A photocopy could easily be made, a name manufactured and C&P’ed onto the work-copy, and a clean copy made to put in the file to replace the original. I’m not sure how they would handle the microfilm roll in that instance, but when they went to make a certified copy they would simply photocopy onto security paper and put the registrar’s stamp/signature and the HDOH seal on it.

The signs of manipulation that are on Obama’s long-form would not come from that simple alteration. The only anomalies we’d expect to see if there was an adoption would be perhaps a different type font for the father’s name. And there would be no reason to forge a COLB, since that’s just a computer printout with the authenticating marks on it. The COLB Obama posted had no authenticating marks at all, and the COLB Factcheck said they photographed had a seal that was C&P’ed onto the document after it was photographed with the 3-D folds.