I notice that in page 20 the liars say “a 40-year-old government record from Hawaii” when referring to Barry’s original 1961 BC, which is obviously 50 years old.
Was this a Freudian slip? Probably not, but the “original” on file could be an amended document that is only 40 years old.
I wonder if the Fogbowers are going to razz this guy for signing an affidavit where he doesn’t even claim to have first-hand knowledge or sources - won’t even say where he got any of his “exhibits”. And this guy is supposed to be a lawyer? He adds NOTHING to this discussion.
Here’s my first reaction to that different BC image page in there: It looks like a watermark added by computer, just like you can do in Word. This guy never said where anything came from or what it even supposedly IS. It looks like he made a background watermark, put the White House image on top of it, printed it out, and tried passing it off as the enclosure that Fuddy referenced in her letter. He never claimed to have personally received a copy so that image could be ANYTHING.
Thanks, Carp. I have maintained for some time that the grandparents, specifically granny Dunham, paid to have the alcoholic wife-abuser flown to HI & put up at their expense in order to revise the BC/get the adoption ducks in a row. Well guess what. Obama Sr visited HI when Obama was 10—which matches the ‘40 yr old’ record to a T.
‘He [Obama jr] last saw his father in 1971, when he was 10 years old. “
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301784.html
Do you know who all can file an amicus brief? Does it have to be a lawyer?
1971 would be that hazy period when they were phasing out Certificates of Hawaiian Birth and switching around the terminology of “Delayed” v “Late” BC’s. There wasn’t yet the provision of a HI BC being created for somebody if the parents could prove they were residents of HI for a year before the birth. And unless the timelines are all screwed up, neither parent had resided in HI for a year before the birth either. So if he got a BC 10 years after the alleged birth, he would have had to get a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.
But those are a totally different format with different numbering, and the only way for him to be able to get either a COLB or long-form is if he turned in his COHB and converted it to a LATE BC. A COHB would list the registrant’s identifying features and would have a photo of the registrant. It would not claim a hospital birth. It would have an evidence file associated with it, including affidavits.
I’ve wondered at why they had to fabricate the birth announcements. Could be that Grandma Dunham reported the birth in 1961 and the record was not complete, so Verna Lee didn’t put it on the public list that the newspapers got. Or it could be there was no claim even submitted in 1961, and they got a COHB for him sometime before 1972(?). Either way, the record they had couldn’t result in any COLB or long-form being printed for him so he had to amend the record in late 2006, as indicated by HDOH and OIP UIPA responses.
I lean towards Grandma Dunham submitting an incomplete claim in 1961, partly because the HDOH worked so hard to hide the “incomplete BC” section of the rules in effect for 1961 when they created a new PDF of the Administrative Rules right before making the rules accessible to the public again, as required by law, in early November of 2009. They wouldn’t let the public see the same PDF of the rules that the OIP was able to see; they created a new PDF that obscured 2 critical sections almost beyond the ability to figure out what those sections said. I suspect that is a “tell” pointing to what they don’t want us to know.