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 ...
I’ll take a crack at your questions. But understand that like you I am merely speculating.
Butterdezillion: “Why didn’t he [Scott Tepper] ask for it all in his verification request, but instead asked verification of something irrelevant?
Maybe because he realizes that the court is only going to be interested in the information on the birth certificate and not the PDF. In his verification, he got exactly what he needed no more, no less. The court is going to be smart enough to figure out that no one forges a document but uses the same information on it as the original.
Remember you’re legal theory was rejected by 50 Attorney generals and secretaries of state.
Butterdezillion: “And exactly how did the literary agent get the information that Obama was born in Kenya?”
Again pure speculation, but remembering that in 1991 Barack Hussein Obama was not exactly a household name, I would guess that the agency assistant who edited the bio confused the names of Barack Hussein Obama, who was born in Kenya with Barack Hussein Obama II who was born in Hawaii.
He asked for irrelevant information because it’s not irrelevant information? Is that what you’re saying? He’s such a good, solid attorney that he would consider it “evidence enough” to say, “Well NOBODY would forge a BC to hide the non-validity of the record on file”? The ONLY relevant information was whether the claims on the White House image are claimed on a legally-valid BC at the HDOH, and he never asked for the ONLY RELEVANT information, even though he is one of the few people that the HDOH would acknowledge as having an absolute right to verification of all the facts of birth and the legal status of the record on file.
I’ll ask it again. Is Scott Tepper stupid? He had a chance to absolutely nail this down with legal evidence and he chose instead to argue speculation that “this can’t be a forgery because nobody would forge”? He coulda had the smoking gun .22 in the hand of the killer and chose instead to prove that the suspect had possession of a watergun?
He could have had EVIDENCE (take note, BigGuy22) and instead chose to present mere speculation just like you and I are stuck doing. Why would he choose to argue speculation when he had the absolute right to legal evidence that was actually relevant?
This assistant didn’t say that Barack Hussein Obama, II worked in Kenya, was married to several women, was dead, or anything else that fit Barack Sr’s life. If she looked up information on Barack Sr then why didn’t she screw up anything else? If she looked up a birth place in any official source there would have been a birth date; did she report the wrong birth date?
“He asked for irrelevant information because it’s not irrelevant information?”
It is your theory that he asked for irrelevant information or legally non-valid information. I am sure to Mr. Tepper having Dr. Onaka issue a certified verification that the information on the PDF matches the information on the original on file record is both very relevant and legally valid. And I would guess he knows that the courts will agree with him. Just as the 50 attorney generals and secretaries of states did.
“If she looked up information on Barack Sr then why didn’t she screw up anything else?”
Why are you assuming she did a detailed examination of Sr.’s life? They would only need his name and where he was from to make a mistake.
BTW, here is a reprint of the 1990 Los Angeles Times article about his birth narrative. Apparently it was created before 1990.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/09/barack-obama-ha.html
And here is the 1990 New York Times article
What’s interesting about it is that they had to make a correction and posted an update:
“Correction: February 7, 1990, Wednesday, Late Edition - Final Because of an editing error, an article yesterday about the election of Barack Obama as president of the Harvard Law Review misidentified the United States court on which Patricia M. Wald is Chief Judge. It is the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, not for the Federal Circuit.”
But I thought that articles never have editing errors.
“Of course, it gets worse (it always does). A guy who runs a blog called Reality Check Radio found a video of Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse computer “expert,” Garrett Papit testing this Xerox thing for himself.”
Over on FogBlowing, Obot “Reality Check” admits to basically sending the Phoenix New Times reporter the script for this story along with links to his blog posts portraying NBC’s work as conclusive and his post mocking Papit.
Fogblowers betray extreme nervousness regarding Zullo’s so-far hidden additional claimed evidence beyond the pdf copy issue, even as they deploy extreme Alinski mockery against Zullo and Gallups.
“Maybe because he realizes that the court is only going to be interested in the information on the birth certificate and not the PDF. In his verification, he got exactly what he needed no more, no less. The court is going to be smart enough to figure out that no one forges a document but uses the same information on it as the original.”
Given the Onaka “verification” of the WH pdf LFBC “information” no court will touch any challenge to HI’s right to full faith and credit for state vital record document...UNLESS a congressional investigation proves a criminal conspiracy to protect forgery of HI vital records, IMO.
What difference does matching make, if the record it matches is not legally valid? Answer that.
KS SOS Kris Kobach used the same language as Tepper except that he asked for verification that the information on the White HOuse image was IDENTICAL, rather than “matches”. Onaka would not verify that. So what does “matches” even mean, legally? Is there a legal definition that Tepper can cite for the judge? Does either he or the judge even know what information Onaka was talking about, or what he meant by “matched”?
What Tepper got is totally useless. He could have had it all. Why wouldn’t he get a certified letter that required no guesswork whatsoever? You can try to argue that what he had is good enough - even though there aren’t legal definitions for “information” or “matches” and Onaka would not verify the technical term of “identical” so “matches” apparently doesn’t mean “identical”, in Onaka’s mind - but why even argue about whether it is good enough when he could have had something that left no room for questions at all?
The Arizona SOS let Obama on the ballot because he assumed that the letter of verification was WRONG when it failed to verify the birth date.
The Nebraska SOS let Obama on the ballot because NE statute says they have to put a name on the ballot if they receive an Official Certification of Nomination from the Dem Party - and since it doesn’t stipulate that it must be a LAWFUL (non-perjurious, non-fraudulent) OCON, he would have put Obama on the ballot even if Obama and Bauer were both sitting in jail for filing perjurious documents because they claimed eligibility.
The KS SOS let Obama on the ballot because the challenger withdrew the challenge out of fear for his and his loved ones’ lives, after all the threats he received.
So of the 3 SOS’s I have worked with, NONE of them rested their decision on what Onaka put in the letters of verification. The Alabama SOS is resting on the argument that they can’t require any kind of proof of eligibility - which is the same drivel I got back from maybe a half-dozen other SOS’s as well. They are ALL fudging their way out of this by saying eligibility is none of their business either.
I’d like you to acknowledge, though, that Ken Bennett allowed Obama on the ballot because he assumed that the letter of verification he received was wrong. That’s what he told a Freeper who asked him directly. So that is one very critical SOS who AGREED with what I’ve said, but assumed that the lack of verification was a mistake.
Practically speaking you may be right. Congress needs to get involved. But any judge worth his salt should know that Onaka did not verify that any of that information is claimed on a legally-valid record. The judge has no way of knowing whether the HI record is legally valid, or is a piece of toilet paper with a scratching on it.
And any judge who knows anything about the documented crimes by the HDOH should allow discovery so that the claims of the HDOH can be cross-examined.
“UNLESS a congressional investigation proves a criminal conspiracy to protect forgery of HI vital records, IMO.”
I agree. I also predict there will never be a Congressional investigation on the birth certificate.
“What difference does matching make, if the record it matches is not legally valid? Answer that”
I would guess that Tepper doesn’t consider the record to be not legally valid. And I would also guess that the courts are going to agree with him.
Judges aren’t supposed to guess. They are supposed to have incontrovertible evidence. In this case, evidence that the claims on the White House image are also made on a legally valid BC at the HDOH. Tepper doesn’t have that, even though he could have. Any attorney who would give up the chance for incontrovertible proof in favor of something speculative is either stupid or knows that he CAN’T get incontrovertible proof. So which is it for Tepper?
“So which is it for Tepper?”
He got what he believes is incontrovertible proof, a certified verification from Dr. Onaka. And the courts will in all likelihood agree with him.
Your claiming it isn’t doesn’t make it so.
If information matches what is on a non-valid BC, does either that information or the BC it’s claimed on have any evidentiary value in a court of law?
Only a judge can determine that. So far no one has brought it up in court.
Not that any of this has any likelihood of happening but IMO here’s how it would go.
The plaintiff contend BC is invalid.
The defense provides the certified verification.
The plaintiffs contest it with your theory
Judge decides if your theory is valid.
“But any judge worth his salt should know that Onaka did not verify that any of that information is claimed on a legally-valid record.”
You and I will have to agree to disagree on this, it seems. IMO, you are speculating based on inferences and your personal interpretation of HI statutes. I doubt that any judge in the US, state or federal, would fail to honor the Onaka “Verification.”
The seal and signature stamp make the verification prima facie “self-authenticating” meaning that a separate evidentiary hearing would need to be held to challenge it, IIRC.
No credible evidence (evidence, not speculation or inference) that Onaka’s verification was forged or that it was NOT a verification, as claimed on the face of the document, has been presented to any court by a competent attorney representing a plaintiff with standing.
Baloney. Orly brought it up in court; that’s what this suit is about - whether there is a legally valid BC in HI, of which the White House image is a true and accurate representation.
Tepper has produced a document which would say the same thing whether the HDOH record is valid or non-valid. It thus has no value to the question of whether there is a legally-valid BC at the HDOH.
IOW, Tepper is firing blanks in response to Orly’s evidence of forgery. What attorney would want to fire blanks in a court of law when he could have had a slam dunk just by asking for it?
Nothing Onaka said in Tepper’s verification is relevant to the issue of whether there is a legally valid BC at the HDOH. What Onaka said could apply equally well to a non-valid HDOH record as to a valid one.
In the Duncan Sunahara case the judge initially was hesitant to accept the Administrative Rules presented by Deputy AG Jill Nagamine because she did not have a certified statement from the custodian of the Administrative Rules, saying that the copy she gave the judge was a “true and correct copy of the original record”. Nagamine argued that her word should be trusted as an officer of the court; the judge wouldn’t accept that either. Ended up saying she would make an exception and accept it because it bore the certifying statement from when the rules were accepted. She was looking for very precise legal language and the absence of that legal language is a big problem. What do you think that judge would have done if either Nagamine or the certifying statement in the Administrative Rules had simply said, “The information contained in these rules matches the information contained in what is actually approved and enacted”?
HAs Orly even addressed the verification?
“What attorney would want to fire blanks in a court of law when he could have had a slam dunk just by asking for it?”
Tepper doesn’t believe he is firing blanks. You think he is but what you and I think is irrelevant.
BTW, isn’t Orly’s argument that the PDF is a forgery? What evidence has she produced to show that there is not a legally valid BC at the DOH?
“Nothing Onaka said in Tepper’s verification is relevant to the issue of whether there is a legally valid BC at the HDOH. What Onaka said could apply equally well to a non-valid HDOH record as to a valid one.”
That is your personal conjecture based on your own interpretation of HI statutes...which no judge inside or outside of HI will accept, IMO.
Yes, there are “tells” all over the place that the WH LFBC pdf is NOT a true and correct copy of an HI 1961 vital record, but that won’t prevail against the legal firewalls erected by Barry’s legal minions in HI.
I don’t think so.
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.