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 ...
You subscribe to the Star Advertiser?
I can’t afford to subscribe so you’ll have to get the info to us some other way.
“They have ways of keeping him silent, I guess...”
But that’s all it is “a guess”.
Dr. Palafax is not in hiding. He is still highly respected in Hawaii.
As to the snippet from the Star Advertiser. It mentions “entities associated with him”. So maybe he was on the board of several medical practices that overbill Medicare. All we can do is guess.
The likeliest scenario is that Obama told his agent the truth. That he was born in Kenya but the birth was registered in HI. That is the only explanation that explains all the anomalies—including the fact that the entire Kenyan Parliament acknowledged Obama’s Kenyan birth. Also explains Obama’s ‘birth documents’ as being ‘something written down’, ‘a notation’.
Though of course Obama’s most ardent Obots will never see that. They are blinded, literally, by their love of & service to Obama.
My apologies to all for the minor error there. But the implied point remains the same. Perkins Coie is such an extraordinarily politicized law firm that any private investigator doing work for any of the firm's lawyers - in this case, Mr. Hayes - would be vetted by the firm before a contract was agreed to in order that the firm be assured that he was pretty much on their side of the fence politically and ideologically. So the inference is that Mr. Hayes is far from a right-wing extremist. Yet in spite of the fact that he had no partisan axe to grind, he professionally examined the Obama LFBC PDF file and signed an affidavit swearing under oath that he had no doubt it was a forgery!
“Presumed to be authentic by you maybe, but the fact is...”
__
LOL, what you and I presume is immaterial.
I was speaking of federal law in general and the Federal Rules of Evidence in particular. They tell us that documents like birth certificates are legally presumed to be authentic unless proven to be forged in a court of competent authority.
And “proven to be forged” doesn’t mean proven to your satisfaction or to mine. It has a legal definition.
Under the law, the BCs are presumed to be authentic and under the law they have not been proven to be forgeries.
I expect that their status in your mind is different, but their legal status is indisputable.
“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?”
If all three branches of the Hawaii government are corruptly committed to upholding concealment of the true nature of Barry’s original 1961 vital records then there is not check and balance that the separation of powers is supposed to provide in Hawaii.
Unless the veil of corruption if pierced by a superior federal investigation force, then HI gets away with it and all states and the federal branches of government must honor whatever HI says is an official document, IMO. IANAL
“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.”
Concealed evidence that has been hidden by a literal vast left-wing criminal conspiracy COULD YET be legally discovered (Barry’s non-transparent records shaken out hiding) just as the White House tapes did in Nixon and the stain on the blue dress resulted in Clinton’s impeachment.
The Nixon and Clinton cover-ups were doing just great...until they weren’t.
“The WH website and his FB also couldn’t decide on one date [for his B-Day] and stick to it.”
Thanks, bgill. I had forgotten about that.
Less than one year before the publisher's brochure, articles appeared nationwide stating that Obama was born in Hawaii. The Los Angeles Times wrote a very long article on him in which they had extensive quotes. That article stated Obama was born in Hawaii.
For goodness sakes, the very book that the publisher was going to publish stated that Obama was born in Hawaii. Why on earth would a blurb publicizing Obama's book purposely state something contrary to what's in the book???
The State of Hawaii adamantly and consistently maintains that Obama was born in Hawaii.
And I'll take our Congress over Kenya's Parliament any day. Our Congress passed a resolution, in 2009, declaring Hawaii to be Obama's birthplace.
So your evidence is a brochure which was not fact-checked and a foreign legislative body. And I'm blinded?
You are not well informed. The book was never published. In fact, it was never written. So how cd it state Obama was born in HI, if it was never written or published?
You are wrong about the fact checking too. The agency assistant did NOT say she failed to fact check the FACT of Obama’s Kenyan birth. She said she fact checked it & it checked out. Reread the assistant’s statement. Someone kindly posted it upthread. Show me where she says she did NOT fact check the item. In point of fact, the statement says just the opposite.
As for the Kenyan Parliament, where on earth wd they get such an idea (i.e.: that Obama was born there)? Name one other POTUS claimed by an entire foreign parliament [subsequent to the grandfathering stage] to have been born there. Just one. It wd be on the order of the entire Canadian Parliament acknowledging that Cruz was born there.
Now why wd they do that???
The literary agency run by ConstantSkeptic:
Agent: Mr. Obama. your six figure advance is ready. All we need at this point is your birth location, for tax purposes.
Obama: I was born in HI, but I’ve been thinking we should lie for the trade publication, & claim I was born in Kenya.
Agent: Not sure that’s a good idea. We have our reputation to consider. Lying to our fellow literary agents & the publishers we do business w is not good policy.
Obama: No sweat. If anybody asks questions, you can call it a fact checking error.
Agent: You think we should advertise to the literary world that we’re too incompetent even to correctly note where one of our clients was born? That info is typically not hard to come by; we’ve never ‘confused’ even the country of birth of one of our clients before, much less the entire continent.
Obama: Kenya, HI—which is in Asia, btw—Timbuktu—I’m telling you it’s no big deal. But think of the marketing potential: Mixed race kid from HI becomes President of Harvard Law Review. Yawn. Mixed race kid from Kenya becomes President of Harvard Law Review—boom!
Agent: Think of the fallout. Lit agency lies about continent of author’s birth to boost sales, raising questions: what else have they lied about?
Obama: Oh you i-dotter t-crosser types—all you do is worry. Me, I’m planning to choom the entire six figure advance away without writing a single page of this BS ‘Journeys in Black and White’ twaddle. Get back to me two or three decades from now, & we’ll see who’s having more fun.
Agent: Oh what the hell; who needs a reputation anyway? Let’s flush ours down the toilet w a big fat lie, & claim you were born in Kenya. After all, nothing ventured, nothing gained...right?
Obama: Left, actually; hard left, but whatever.
“I agree that what you presume is immaterial, but I never mentioned anything about what I presumed.”
__
Nor is there any need to. The law is the law, and your presumptions are your presumptions.
It’s clear what the law says. I couldn’t care less what your presumptions are.
“Concealed evidence that has been hidden by a literal vast left-wing criminal conspiracy COULD YET be legally discovered”
__
Yes, of course. We don’t know what hasn’t been discovered.
But I’m encouraged by your recognition of the fact that the current crop of birther evidence, from “there were no laser printers in 1961!” to “there are layers on the PDF!”, is not going anywhere.
“I only deal with facts, you are the one making presumptions.”
__
And you define the term “fact” very loosely so that you can include “facts” like “the BC that was posted on the White House web site is a proven forgery.”
As long as you are the judge and jury evaluating your own facts, I guess you’re just infallible!
“The agency assistant did NOT say she failed to fact check the FACT of Obama’s Kenyan birth. She said she fact checked it & it checked out. Reread the assistant’s statement. Someone kindly posted it upthread. Show me where she says she did NOT fact check the item. In point of fact, the statement says just the opposite.”
__
In fact, she said neither — she did not say that she failed to check it and she did not say that it checked out.
What she said was,
“This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”
All she said was that it was “a fact checking error.” Any speculation about the nature of the error is simply that, speculation.
“Maybe you should stick to the facts.”
__
Maybe you should tell us the name of the independent, impartial judge — you know, the decision-maker in a position of authority — who examined the evidence and concluded that “the BC that was posted on the White House web site is a proven forgery.”
If you can’t, you’re use of the word “proven” is, at the very least, delightfully idiosyncratic.
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.