Posted on 07/26/2012 5:42:58 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
In Sheriff Joe Arpaio's press conference, the Cold Case Posse presented further evidence that Obama's Certificate of Live Birth presented to the public was forged.
One of the points they raised was the presence of handwritten codes next to a number of the informational boxes on the COLB, and suggested that the codes did not match the substance of the information typed into the boxes in certain cases, providing one more indication of digital tampering.
The link for this thread is a Vital Statistics Instruction Manual issued by HEW revised August 14, 1961 which refers to some of the codes used for birth certificates at that time (which was in a link found by freeper Natufian). (Obama was born in early August according to his COLB, so we don't know if this manual or an earlier version was actually used, even if we believe the part of the document on which the codes appear was actually derived from an original 1961 document.)
Discussion so far has focused on the coding for race of the father, indicated as "9" on the COLB.
However, attention should also be focused on one of the other coded items: namely, whether the original COLB listed a hospital birth or a home birth.
One theory offered to explain why Obama presented a digitally-altered COLB is that Grandma Toot originally submitted a half-handwritten, half-typed document (as once described by Linda Fukino to reporter Michael Isikoff). This document was a rather dodgy piece of paper that would raise more questions than it answered if examined closely.
According to this theory, Grandma Toot listed Stanley Ann as the mother and Barack Obama as the father and the address on Kalanianaole Highway where grandparents Stanley and Toot were then living as the address both of the mother and where the baby was born.
Where Stanley Ann really was at the time of birth is a matter of speculation, since she was first seen with the baby in Seattle and the daughter of the family with whom grandparents Stanley and Toot were living does not remember any new-born infant being brought to the house.
This document submitted by Grandma Toot was automatically included in the information delivered by the vital statistics department to the newspapers for recent births, and therefore would explain the appearance of the two newspaper announcements.
Later, however, when it was important for Obama to have a birth certificate that others might look at, it was considered necessary to change this into a normal-looking birth certificate that someone born in a hospital would have.
The “home birth” story was too thin, especially since if anyone interviewed the family with whom the grandparents were living and they said no baby was born in their home, the whole story would collapse. On the other hand, in the case of a maternity hospital, lots of babies were being born there and it would be no problem if no one specifically remembered this particular baby and privacy laws would prevent an examination of the records of the hospital.
If true, then THE INFORMATION OF MOST INTEREST ON THE COLB WOULD BE PLACE OF BIRTH ON THE ORIGINAL UNALTERED DOCUMENT -- WAS IT A HOME BIRTH OR A HOSPITAL BIRTH?
Looking at the Instruction Manual, it indicates on page 14 that a hosptital birth or with a physician in attendance should be coded “1.”
In the case of a home birth, if a midwife attended it should be coded “3.”
If it was a birth at home, and neither a midwife nor a physician was present, then it should be coded “4.”
Turning now to Obama’s purported birth certificate, we see a handwritten code number in the margin immediately to the left of the box in which “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” is typed.
This handwritten number is cut off and only the right side of the number appears.
However it is clearly NOT a “1” and clearly NOT a “3”.
It looks like the right side of the number “4”.
This would mean the original document claimed a home birth at which neither a physician nor a midwife was present.
This would be one additional point of evidence, in addition to the other evidence presented by Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse, that Obama presented a digitally-tampered birth certificate.
Of course, they also refused to let Sheriff Joe's investigators SEE what they gave him. FYI, what they gave him was not a copy of a document. It was an abstract of digital files they claim to have in their records.
Barry's team took elements from these files and created what they claim is a copy of a document on file in HI. Of course it is no such thing.
If there were ever to be discovery ... a very big IF ... what they gave him and what he gave us could be compared side-by-side. They are refusing any cooperation. Please check a transcript of the latest from Sheriff Joe. Also notice that the letter says "Certificate of Live Birth" Not "Birth Certificate"
In brief, they simply refuse to show the d0ocuments to which they refer and have backed off claiming that Team Obama's document as presented on the WH website matches theirs. Sheriff Joe has the evidence ... and nowhere to take it. My point is that this is news. It does not require a commentator to take sides.
So what?
No other president had gone around claiming he was born in a foreign country as did Obama for so many years before he started running for president. Had he not done that, no one would have thought much about a home birth in Hawaii, but since he had been leading everyone to believe that he was FROM Kenya, he was no longer entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
If you go around lying about being born in a foreign country, when it comes time that you want to prove you were born in the U.S., you D@mn well need to come up with unequivocal proof. He has not done this.
Now see, this is the kind of stuff I just don't like. There is no need to invoke graft or conspiracy when the truth will do just fine. According to what I have read in Hawaiian law, a parent has up to a year (regarding an at home birth) to bring the child in for an examination by a medical doctor. The doctor may then sign the birth certificate and is thereafter regarded as the "birth" doctor. The facility he works at is then regarded as the "birth" facility.
Let us stop suggesting that state officials or Medical professionals would engage in lying or deception unless substantial proof exists that they would do so, or that doing so is in fact legal and necessary for them under the circumstances. (Such as in the case of adoptions where state officials are legally REQUIRED to lie and create false documents regarding the particulars of a child's birth.)
If the birth certificate was coded for federal purposes, then according to the instruction manual, the code for this box would be either a "1" a "2" a "3" or a "4". (See pp. 13-14)
Of those choices, to my eyes based on the half of the number we can see it can only be a "4".
If the handwritten numbers were NOT done for federal purposes, then we still need to learn why these numbers were placed on the document and what they mean.
And, of course, if the handwritten numbers were NOT done for federal purposes then the whole debate about the "1961 manual" or the "1968 manual" and does "9" mean "not stated" or "other non-white" under the federal manual is an irrelevant debate, and has nothing to do with this document.
If the number really is a "5" or a "6", then it would appear these handwritten numbers were NOT done for federal coding purposes.
Someone pointed out that the date of revision on the manual we have is August 14 1961 -- I very much doubt they changed the actual numbers used in mid-year, because then they would have had to go back and re-do months and months of work of coding and card-punching.
-PJ
Back in the late eighties I happened to visit a couple of different county deeds registries to check on some properties. Houses generate a lot more official paper than babies do, but they were keeping the records bound in big fat books, nonetheless.
To find a deed, you first checked the grantor (seller) or grantee (buyer) indexes. In one of the registries, the grantor and grantee indexes were on a mixture of cards (recent) and books (covering ranges of years). The other registry was more advanced: in the lobby there was a bank of four or five IBM 3270 dumb terminals linked into a CICS application running on an IBM mainframe that retrieved the grantor - grantee data from indexed sequential files on disk.
In both cases, what was in the indexes was book and page numbers of documents, such as deeds, mortgages, liens, etc. Once you had a book and page number, you went off to the stacks, pulled down the book and turned to the page. E.g., book 5642, page 371. The books were big and heavy. They had a bank of coin-operated copiers onto which you could press down a book and copy a few pages. They were not loose-leaf, and you could see the curvature of the pressed-down paper in the copies.
Typically, the documents contained back links to earlier documents, which were also given in book and page form. So, it was off to the races. Literally a paper chase. I recall seeing multiple Motorola bag phones during my visit. I suspect they belonged to title company employees and paralegals chasing the paper for a living.
However, I merely want to know why this entire line of inquiry is forbidden territory to our much belovèd "Conservative Radio Talk Show Hosts."
Sheriff Jow is hardly the stuff of which hysterical conspiracy theorists are made. He has a straight-forward story of forgery to tell, and the evidence to back it up. In fact, let's not even go with "Birth Certificate." Forged document is quite enough. Who cares what's on it ... it obviously differs in some respect or other from what he received from HI.
Our institutions have let us down badly, PJ. I fear that Obama will leave office this year, which will have the tendency to make ALL the questions about Constitutional Legitimacy, forgeries, etc, go moot.
Of course, I also fear that he might NOT leave office this year!
I suspect you’ll find that the legal document presented in the Taitz case is valid until Hawaii withdraws it.
Absolutely. And his foreign national father already renders him ineligible for the office.
They have not referred to it in their stonewalling of the AZ SoS. But that entirely aside, why are Sheriff Joe's findings "off limits" to the media? Most outlets have not even reported that his presser took place.
Please do review his press conference online, before you close down your own personal inquiry. The derision with which the "Birther" movement has been treated actually does not apply here.
Obviously the file contains whatever information is put into it, even if such information was put in at a later date.
You said the number (beside “place of birth”) was a number “4”. It looks nothing like a number “4” to me. It looks like a number “6”.
I said nothing about what the numbers mean, and in fact, what they mean is not germane to my question. The number beside “place of birth” looks like a number “6.”
Do you not see this?
I agree, but the bulk of the country has such a bad understanding of the correct meaning of the term "Natural born citizen" that they grant this aspect of his non-citizenship no weight.
If it can be demonstrated that he cannot even prove he was born within U.S. territory, then he cannot be a "natural born citizen" even by the faulty standards of the majority of the population.
Dr. Onaka clearly says it is. Are you claiming he's a liar?
That he has purportedly been less than totally forthcoming to the CCP investigators is of no relevance. We have his recent official statement in the Mississippi case Natufian cites.
What’s with all the fuzziness and scribbling between the boxes (adjacent) in 18a and 19a?
The half-number looks to me like a 4 or possibly a 5.
Your blathering about the meaning of the numbers not being relevant is bizarre.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 18a. Signature of Parent or Other Information __ Parent (checked)
__ Other(scribbled)
19a. Signature of Attendant __ M.D. (scribbled) (signed X)
__ D.O.
__ Midwife
__ Other
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I noticed that too.
If it is right that the number next to box 6c is “4” then there would have been no doctor or midwife.
Therefore, in 19a the bottom box “other” would have been checked and not the box “M.D.”. The fuzziness and scribbling may have resulted from an alteration to these boxes from the original.
I think you are looking at the incorrect row. The row upon which it says "Place of birth" has a "6" on it. It is not a "4", and it is not a "5". It is distinctly a "6". Below that, where it says "name of hospital or institution" it may have a "4" or possible a "5", but directly beside the column which says "place of birth" it looks like a "6."
Your blathering about the meaning of the numbers not being relevant is bizarre.
Okay now. I'm going to go real slow so that you can keep up. The meaning of the numbers is not relevant to the question I asked. I didn't say they weren't relevant to the issue, I said they weren't relevant to the question I asked.
I am a person who prefers to get answers to questions I ask, not answers to questions I didn't ask. After I get an answer to the question I asked (Doesn't that look like a "6"?) Then I will contemplate further questions, one of which might be "What do those numbers mean?"
Um, no, jerk, YOU are looking AT THE INCORRECT ROW.
THE RELEVANT BOX FOR THE QUESTION OF THE HOME BIRTH IS 6C, NOT 6A.
Do try to keep up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.