Xerox 7655 Overview Picture (Obot claims to replicate Obama LFBC pdf w/floating signature)

Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored ^ | August 6, 2013 | NBC

[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.

[BigGuy22]

“Suggest you brush up before further comments.”
__

I think my statements about the admissibility of the evidence and the presumption of its correctness are accurate, and if you disagree, I hope you’ll tell me why.

[Brown Deer]

It’s got a stamp and a seal, and so it’s self-authenticating evidence that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

This also has a stamp and a seal, and so it’s self-authenticating evidence that Barack Obama was also born in Kenya.

[Ray76]

To be brief:

Onaka verified that information "matches", which is worthless. To illustrate why it is worthless, observe:

• I have a paper with 5 data elements
• You have a paper with 3 data elements
• Your three data elements match 3 of my 5 data elements

What of my other two data elements?

What might those other 2 data elements be? Those elements would be amendments. An amended or late BC is required by HI law to be marked so.

So why wouldn't a certified BC be provided when it is reputedly posted on internet?

[BigGuy22]

"This also has a stamp and a seal, and so it’s self-authenticating evidence that Barack Obama was also born in Kenya."
__

Nice try, Brown Deer, but you are peddling nonsense.

I have been referring of course to Paragraph (1) of Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Remember that one?

(1) Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed. A document that bears:

(A) a seal purporting to be that of the United States; any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States; the former Panama Canal Zone; the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; a political subdivision of any of these entities; or a department, agency, or officer of any entity named above; and

(B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation.

Catch that? Domestic Public Documents.

So, for example, it applies to documents purported to originate from Hawaii, since Hawaii is part of the United States.

But Kenya, as you must know, is not, and it is therefore covered not by Paragraph (1) but rather by Paragraph (3), which says (in part):

Foreign Public Documents. A document that purports to be signed or attested by a person who is authorized by a foreign country’s law to do so. The document must be accompanied by a final certification that certifies the genuineness of the signature and official position of the signer or attester — or of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness relates to the signature or attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness relating to the signature or attestation.

But hey, if you would like to get a Kenyan official to authenticate the document, then we've got something to talk about.

[BigGuy22]

“To be brief:”
__

Do yourself a favor, Ray, and scroll back a bit. You are quoting verbatim an argument you made to me some time ago.

To be brief: The LoVs state specific facts. Those specific facts are presumed to be true.

The rest of the dance about “data elements” is irrelevant.

[Brown Deer]

So far, we’ve seen zer0 evidence from you, only nonsense!

[Seizethecarp]

“The CCP already has an affidavit from a Certified Document Examiner who has previously done work for Obama lawyer Bob Bauer (in all likelihood a Democrat himself), saying that he is certain that it is a forgery. That alone should trump any propaganda from them.”

Actually it was another lawyer in the Perkins Coie law firm that Hayes did work for, but Perkins Coie was on his client list.

You might be interested to know that a Fogblower (who might be posting in this thread) has seized on your misattribution of which Perkins Coie lawyer it was that hired Reed Hayes as the occasion for an attack on me personally and FReeper “birthers”! In a very long rant we are accused of spinning up wild tales to support our suspicions about Barry and his BC.

Fogblower Epectitus Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 11:14 pm:

“On June 3, a prolific and persistently agitated birther on the Free Republic forum who posts under the name seizethecarp discovered Hayes’ “association” with Perkins Coie in the online CV posted at expertwitness.com. From that single line of the resume, he immediately let his enthusiasm get away from him, and began to spin an imaginary story about the work supposedly performed by Hayes for Perkins Coie.”

“By the end of August the next significant mutation of the story was underway. The original lawyer who had the lonely listing in Hayes’ CV is now forgotten. He has instead been replaced with former Whitehouse Council Robert Bauer.”

[Ray76]

And they omit specific facts.

[BigGuy22]

“And they omit specific facts.”
__

Of course, they do not stand as evidence of any facts they omit.

On the other hand, they certainly do stand as evidence of the facts that they state.

[Seizethecarp]

“But as the story goes, Obama’s original birth certificate was reportedly moved to a vault so it could be safe.”

The excuse for not allowing Sunahara’s BC to be copied, IIRC, was that it was bound into the same volume as Barry’s along with 500 other BCs. Copying Sunahara’s would somehow (not credibly) possibly damage Barry’s.

[Seizethecarp]

“But you didn’t bring them up in Mississippi, where the Letter of Verification is part of the case and is apparently uncontested.”

States are required to give full faith an credit to each other’s official documents so any such contest would be doomed and moot.

Barry’s legal team gives the appearance (through numerous legal “tells” pointing to fraud) that they knew this was a legal defense perimeter behind which forged vital records could be hidden.

This state defense that protects forged state documents from being challenged by other states and in the federal courts can only be pierced by either the FBI 9under the corrupt crony Eric Holder) or by Congress. The FBI is out so that leaves Congress.

Obots taunt Zullo continuously for failing to file any criminal action based on his criminal evidence, but the lawyers in their ranks know that this is futile. Zullo and Arpaio are going to Congress for exactly the reason that they are NOT contesting the BC in any state court or in any state or federal criminal proceeding. No standing in state courts and corrupt federal officials in DOJ under Barry!

At this point only Congress can investigate a criminal conspiracy between the executive branch of a state, Hawaii, and the US executive branch! That is where Zullo and Arpaio are going. That is why Obots and Fogblowers are paying such close attention to a matter that they claim to view as being frivolous and delusional. Fogblowers know what a liar Barry is and are afraid of what a congressional investigation might turn up in Hawaii and in the evidence file of Zullo.

[butterdezillion]

Does full faith and credit extend to official documents which don’t adhere to the issuing state’s laws regarding the method of certification? IOW, if a document is not officially certified according to the requirements of that state, is it still considered an official certified document - either in that state or in any other state?

It seems to me that if those who “certify” a document cannot be held liable for perjury if it is fraudulent, it wouldn’t qualify as being certified, because the threat of a perjury charge is the only legal difference between an oath and any other free speech which is legally protected by the First Amendment. If a person is not under oath they can say whatever they darn well please and face no criminal charges. Without a legally-binding oath, anything in a “certification” is just free speech which could be true or false without committing a crime.

[butterdezillion]

A self-authenticating document that says nothing relevant. The only relevant issue is whether there is a LEGALLY VALID record which makes the claims on the White House image, and the MDEC attorney didn’t even ask that question. Why do you suppose he didn’t ask the only relevant question? Could it be because Ken Bennett already had, and the answer was NOT what the attorney wanted it to be?

[butterdezillion]

Ah, but then it was also copied from a bound volume, so that whole volume would have to be in a vault. Or was it a file cabinet? Fukino said it was in a file cabinet; they put a big bound volume in a file cabinet.

But all that is irrelevant to what Duncan originally wanted. They could easily have given him a copy from the working microfilm, which has no fear of being destroyed in the process because they’ve got master microfilms and can make all the copies they need if the working copies get battered.

And in fact, the only methods of reproduction for a standard copy of a vital record, according to the duly-enacted Administrative Rules which cannot be changed or violated without first going through the due process to change those rules, are microfilm copies, photocopies/scans, or typing. NOT computer abstracts. Computer abstracts are only allowed for ABBREVIATED copies.

[butterdezillion]

That document has not been presented in any court, and the recipient of that document only allowed Obama on the ballot because he ASSUMED that the document was incorrect, as he told a Freeper who asked him why the date of birth - a critical piece of information - was not verified.

The MDEC attorney could have asked the same stuff as Bennett asked and gotten the same response. Why do you suppose he wouldn’t do that? If what is on that LOV that you mentioned has any value to the discussion, then why didn’t the MDEC attorney get his own LOV saying the same thing, and present it in court? Instead, he’s got a document that says nothing even remotely relevant to the issue at hand in his case: whether the claims on the White House BC are made on a LEGALLY VALID record at the HDOH. He could have had it all and instead he chose to have nothing. Why is that? Is he stupid, or what?

[BigGuy22]

“Zullo and Arpaio are going to Congress...”
__

And I agree that this is the right approach. The Congress certainly has Constitutional powers in this regard that are lacking to other branches of government.

On the other hand, there’s still the issue of the strength of your evidence. You didn’t convince enough of the voting population to tip the balance in either Presidential election, you didn’t convince the Congress to call into question the vote of the Electoral College (not a single objection was filed either time), you haven’t gotten a single judge to rule in your favor, and Congress has to date shown no interest in investigating further.

But I agree. If you can persuade a significant number of members of Congress that the situation demands an investigation, an investigation there will be.

[bgill]

“But as the story goes, Obama’s original birth certificate was reportedly moved to a vault so it could be safe. This was well before Sunahara’s brother attempted to get his sisters BC.”

It would be interesting to see if another BC from that volume could be copied. I’d bet the Nordyke twins could get theirs. As for the oh so mystical “vault” that is protected by rainbows and purple unicorns, ALL (as in every county and state in the US) the BCs, marriages, deeds, etc. are kept in a vault, aka a fireproof room, so if there’s a fire or other disaster the records are safe. Up until about 10 years ago, coincidentally right before Soros stole the election, anyone and their dog could go into the records room and search through any volume they wished and no one cared. BTW, I was a clerk who entered BC into these volumes and you’re NOT going to damage the Boy Wonder’s BC copying someone else’s. If Fukino can’t be trusted to handle the book, then she shouldn’t be the Director.

What’s with Fukino being out of a job two years ago but she’s still the Director? IIRC, the guy who replaced her ran screaming/thrown under the bus/couldn’t keep a secret from the job within weeks.

http://www.wnd.com/2010/12/237733/ 2010 - “Director Chiyome Fukino, M.D., ended on Dec. 6 and that she no longer is serving at her previous position”

http://hawaii.gov/health/about/doh-info.html Today - lists her as Director.

[bgill]

So, where did the literary agent get the information? Lemme guess, the guy down at the coffee shop told the newspaper boy who told the bum in the alley who mumbled it to the lady walking her dog who told her cousin who told the dry cleaners who told the literary agent and the literary agent ran it back past the coffee shop guy who in turn approved and signed off on the write up and somehow after all these decades, the author never once saw it so couldn’t possibly have known to have it corrected.

[bgill]

The WH website and his FB also couldn’t decide on one date and stick to it.

[bgill]

Here's your, "It’s got a stamp and a seal, and so it’s self-authenticating evidence that Barack Obama Sun Yat Sen 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."