Posted on 08/07/2013 6:29:11 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
The following image is a composite created by scanning the WH LFBC using Xerox WorkCentre 7655 upside down using the automatic feeder. The resulting file was opened in Preview, the image rotated 180 degrees and printed to PDF. The resulting PDF was opened in preview, the layers unlocked and moved to the side. In addition, a close up of the signature was ‘blown up’ to show how the background layer, not surprisingly, has filled in some of the white that resulted from the separation of the background and foreground layers.
Note how for example the signature block is fully separated.
(Excerpt) Read more at nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
Interesting speculation. You might bring up those points in court some time.
But you didn’t bring them up in Mississippi, where the Letter of Verification is part of the case and is apparently uncontested.
Person A posts on internet a picture of their LFBC.
Person A refuses to present the underlying document to any election official.
Why? It’s certainly not “private” any longer.
Person A refuses to give permission to Dept of Health persons B.
Why?
Persons B delay for months requests for routine documents by Scty of State person C.
Persons B question C’s need.
Persons B question C’s manner of performing their job.
Persons B consult lawyers.
Persons B make Person C submit a request for verification of any purported fact Person C can provide.
Person C receives phone call from Persons B notifying C that a verification has been emailed.
Person B announces “he has what he needs” (or to that effect) without ever reading emailed verification.
What has happened is a carefully orchestrated sleight of hand where incomplete information has been presented, and cowardly officials desperate for a fig leaf grasp at any pretense for cover.
Person S - that’s you (collectively) - is a sucker to believe that the WH BC PDF is without problem.
That’s interesting what you say about Howie Carr going birther. Due to my commuting patterns, I have not consistently listened to his program for quite a while. However, previously, he was consistently anti-birther and he has a segment on his program with Ann Coulter, who is also anti-birther.
Jay Severin, who was Howie’s main competition, consistently called Obama “the Kenyan.” When did Howie switch his stripes?
You can’t say why the agency wdn’t have asked Obama where he was born. You can’t suggest a single method by which such a basic autobiographical fact wd have been derived apart from Obama. Yet you think I’m the one w the problem.
This is the drawback w mindlessly shilling for Obama. You lose touch w both reality & the outside world. You look & sound stupid to all but your fellow Obama-shills, but you don’t have a clue that’s how you’re coming off.
So how DID the agency figure out where Obama was born? & why was asking Obama not Option Number One?
Nowhere on the paper presented in court did Onaka say that any birth facts were true. “The information matches” is legally worthless language, because all that matters is if the information matches what is on a LEGALLY VALID BIRTH CERTIFICATE, and Onaka said absolutely nothing on that document about the legal validity of the record that the information “matched”.
However on the OTHER two letters of verification he did address whether the claims on the document can be verified as true and whether the White House image can be verified as a true and accurate representation of the original record on file - and he effectively confirmed that none of those things can be verified.
IOW, what has been presented in court is irrelevant AT BEST, and the insinuations made by the attorney (who knows this darn good and well, BTW, or he would have submitted the standard, REQUIRED verification application form) are contradicted by other documents certified in the same manner as the one presented in court.
The judges don’t need one word from either of the attorneys to know that the validity of the record that has the “matching” information is what matters, and Onaka was neither asked nor addressed whether that record is legally valid. That letter of verification is therefore totally irrelevant because it doesn’t address the relevant issue. EVEN IF it is considered “self-authenticating”.
What is interesting to me, though, is that both Fuddy and Onaka refused to legally certify those letters. Why do you think they did that? Why didn’t Onaka put his seal? Or why didn’t Fuddy put her signature? Hmm?
This is why Arpaio has demanded access to the original microfilms that were made back in the 1960’s. Arpaio and Zullo want forensic examiners to verify the authenticity of the microfilms to counter the possibility that forged documents were inserted into the bound LFBC books. Note that the brother of Virginia Sunahara couldn’t even get his sister’s BC COPIED supposedly because it might damage Barry’s supposedly genuine BC.
There are ~196 countries in the world.
The agency did not pick the US. They did not pick any other country but Kenya.
Purely a coincidence.
Richard Nixon never saw the inside of a court room during or after Watergate.
Cats are skinned in multiple manners.
I can remember exactly what you’re saying—that there was a time when Howie mocked the Kenyan birth scenario. He still has Coulter on weekly, btw. Never broaches birtherism w her to be sure, but he gives her free rein otherwise.
FT, I can’t cite the exact moment when Howie switched. He’s a very sharp guy & he’s a great investigative reporter/sleuth. He must just have kept enough of an open mind to continue to evaluate the evidence. At some point it tips for any/everyone who is able to weigh it w a modicum of objectivity.
All I can say for certain is that as of a couple of wks ago, at least, Howie went full bore birther. He’s absolutely fabulous in that role, too. Nothing he can tear down faster than a BSer, & no one alive is more of a BSer than an Obot.
Fantasywriter, I asked whether you had any evidence. Not only have you not shown any, you haven’t even claimed to have any. You have never denied that you have not offered a single piece of evidence. Therefore there is no factual dispute between us.
The rest of your dancing on this subject may be entertaining to you, and please don’t let me interfere, but I won’t be responding to you any more on this subject now that my question has been unequivocally answered.
Good point. Also, why did the Kenyan parliament twice declare that Obama was born in Kenya? They cd have mentioned that his father was born there & let it go at that. But they specified that the POTUS was born in Kenya. No one in the entire parliament objected or clarified. They accepted it as fact.
Odd, isn’t it?
And nowhere has Onaka said that what is claimed on either the White House image OR the record in his office is “correct” - i.e. legally valid, or worth a hill of beans from a legal evidentiary perspective. He was required to verify the truth of all the submitted facts that he is legally authorized to presume as “correct”, and wouldn’t verify the truth of any of it.
The inspector general for Health and Human Services, in a report regarding document fraud, noted that 50% of all state registrars had said that fraud was being committed BY WORKERS within their system, so that it would look as if everything was fine but it was all a lie. That same report said that if there is ANY sign of fraud on one identity, citizenship, or vital record, it called for an audit of the ENTIRE documentation on that person. A blurry seal on one document is reason enough to question all of it. And EVERY ONE of Obama’s documents has some glaring sign of tampering or fabrication.
You’re descending into idiocy. I don’t think you’re an idiot but your comments have become idiotic.
You tell me. Where did the agency get that info? Why was asking Obama this basic fact not Option Number One? If you have no explanation for the source of the info, then it can be safely assumed to have been gotten the way it is gotten for every other author. But if the agency made an exception in this one case, then YOU, not me, need to explain why.
Just another coincidence in a extraordinarily long string of coincidences. Every document, every process, is irregular.
My favorite ‘coincidence’ is how Obama screwed up the date of his own B-Day. Placed it in the third wk of July.
Oh sure, every president has claimed to be born in two different mos at least once. Every single one.
Then there’s Obama claiming HI is in Asia. Ppl tend to miss the significance of this, but think about it. How many POTUSes have had no idea what continent they were born on?
Purely a coincidence, though, that it only happened to Obama. Just, as you said, one of many.
“What has happened is a carefully orchestrated sleight of hand where incomplete information has been presented...”
__
Well, it’s certainly an entertaining set of hypotheticals, but I think you’re making it more complicated than it needs to be.
One of the letters, for example, says: “Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statues §338-14.3, I verify the following: // 1: A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
It’s got a stamp and a seal, and so it’s self-authenticating evidence that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. The only remaining question is whether you can somehow invalidate the document or the information by making a contrary showing in court. Until you do, the document is presumed to be authentic and the information is presumed to be correct.
Only real documents have stamps and seals.
Digital files - no so much.
They are just 1s and 0s.
Hypothetical? You jest!
Suggest you brush up before further comments.
“Only real documents have stamps and seals.”
__
Yes, we’ve been through this. I’m talking about the Letters of Verification.
Real documents. Stamps and seals. Submitted in court filings.
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.
