Posted on 08/02/2013 7:05:32 PM PDT by MeshugeMikey
This claim in the story doesn’t exactly hold up. There was no reason for Onaka to “hide” the alleged LFBC because it CAN be released to the public under Hawaii’s Uniform Infomation Practices Act. It doesn’t require a court order in that circumstance. Plus, the HI DOH has already ignored court orders anyway, so why bring that up when the law isn’t being followed?
Maybe. Or did he tell them something like "my family came from Kenya" and the low-level flunky they had writing these things made an assumption? That's pretty much what the agency said, anyway.
You can draw whatever conclusions you want. I've just seen how, on this subject, non-facts and near-facts can get spread and elaborated on. I'm just trying to block the "he said he was from Kenya on the cover of his own book" misconception.
I noticed in Zullo's most recent interview that he said some of the 200+ document examiners that turned him down told him exactly that--that they couldn't tell anything from a PDF. They're right, of course.
This thread is a monument to the stupidity of birthers.
Not necessarily. The algorithm would have to recognize it as text or something else appropriate for the b&w layer. Anything on the original that was faint enough to be read as background image wouldn't be converted. That's why some of the numbers are black and some gray. (You'd have to ask why, if someone was forging this, they'd use a combination of pure black and grayscale numbers. Why not use the same numeral '1' each time?)
also, we should be able to find the exact same thing happening to other birth certificates from the same scanning batch (year/book)
If someone else got a photocopy of their birth certificate (something they don't usually give out) and scanned it on the same type of scanner with the same settings, yes we should. I'm not sure how many of those there are, though.
Or that someone didn't fact-check their assumption. I've had that happen to me: I write something, an editor assumes it means something that I didn't say (sometimes, something I've been very careful not to imply), and goes ahead and changes it to what they think it means without telling me. If they don't run it by me, it's a "fact-checking error," but it's not based on any fact I provided.
Yep.
An analysis of the original (which Hawaii law permits) is always preferred to analysis of second, third or fourth generation copies. Most forensic document examiners will ONLY work with primary source documents.
Digital reproduction quite intentionally and deliberately manipulates (”forges,” if you will) the image to produce a digitized image that is the easiest to read on a computer screen.
That’s why the Adobe Acrobat PDF creation process involves “optimization” algorithms.
the entire book from that day would be scanned the same way, as it would have been in a batch.
as for the black pixels, why would you use such an algorithm as a normal scanned page is tiny. additionally, i’m unsure you legally could with such documents as the algorithm is lossy. projects i’ve worked on that had to provide data to courts required lossless compression. birth certificates would fall into this category.
for those reading, a standard A4 @ 200 dpi scanned with 8 bit grey scale would be about 3.6M... UNCOMPRESSED. standard TIFF group 3 compression would get you at least 10:1 and sometimes 20:1... lossless... leaving an 8-bit grey scale document of about 180KB - 360KB per page. this is tiny.
looking at the current birth rates in hawaii... there are less then 20,000 births per year. that would mean an entire year of birth certificates would require 20,000 x 360KB storage... or 7GB. for the entire year. this is very small, especially for a government organization.
assuming they scanned the birth records since the state was part of the US (1959), the entire set of birth records, assuming similar birth rates, would require 378GB of storage
which would fit on a single USB flash drive today
all without introducing lossy compression and suspicious ‘artifacts’
The Fox News story was about putting the original document in a more secure location than just sitting on the record shelves at HDOH. Keeping valuables secure is not the same as “hiding” them. Everyone who read the Fox report knows where it is, it’s just more difficult to gain access.
A judge’s court order or a congressional committee’s subpoena will do the trick.
Attempts made under the UPIA have failed in court. The plaintiffs seeking access could not demonstrate a tangible interest.
Taitz v Judge Rhonda A. Nishimura. Hawaii Supreme Court; petition for a Writ of Mandamus to force Circuit Court Judge Nishimura to issue a court order forcing the Hawaii Department of Health to grant access to birth vital records related to Obama’s eligibility. Petition Denied. 1/2012.
Thomas v Hosemann. US District Court, Hawaii; action seeking to compel Hawaii Dept. of Health to provide access to documents related to Obama’s eligibility; Dismissed. 12/2008.
Wolf v Health Director Fuddy. Hawaii state Circuit Court; seeking to compel disclosure of documents allegedly related to Obama’s eligibility; Dismissed. 9/2011. Appeal to Hawaii Court of Appeals, Summary Disposition Order Affirmed by Intermediate Court of Appeals, 5/31/13.
I’m betting that a plaintiff such as Sheriff Arpaio himself, on behalf of a crime investigation in Maricopa County, (election fraud) would qualify as having a tangible interest if accompanied by a court order.
I don't think this scan process would apply to any other certificates. Isn't this scan supposedly a one-time thing done at Obama's request? They have a book full of (microfilmed?) birth certificates, and they scanned this page to order. I don't think they have a book full of scans.
as for the black pixels, why would you use such an algorithm as a normal scanned page is tiny. additionally, i’m unsure you legally could with such documents as the algorithm is lossy.
The first is a good question, but the fact is that algorithms exist for doing scans that way. (One reason might be so that you can also OCR the text, to store searchable files.) As for the second, you might be right, but this wasn't done for any legal submission purpose.
supposedly a lawyer from perkins coie brought back a paper copy and one reporter saw it. of course, if the scan was a one-off... meaning it was done on request... then it’s even worse.
as someone that has designed and written large scale scanning systems, graphics algorithms, compression algorithms, and scanner drivers... i can tell you the seal would not ‘pull away’ from the page. especially if it was a one-off. you’d just scan and ship as one long tiff document. lossless.
but somehow it ended up in a layered pdf??
hilarious
btw, you should read this:
http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/05/16111-alabama-supreme-court-reviews-shocking-evidence-obamas-birth-certificate-likely-a-forgery/
in particular, the 2nd to last paragraph in the 4th blue block (re: external links). pretty damaging right there.
obvious forgery.
obvious felony.
obvious fraud.
That would make sense, if you knew what you were doing and wanted the result to withstand this kind of scrutiny. OR you'd just put the thing on your office scanner that was set up to scan to PDF with certain settings for archiving purposes, and push the button. Read up on (PDF) Xerox DocuMate scanners with Acuity software:
Acuity enables your scanner to instantly improve the visual clarity of every document that you scan. Using advanced algorithms and dynamic thresholding Acuity will intelligently correct documents containing imperfections, improve quality of scanned images for archiving, increase OCR accuracy, and save time.As I'm sure you know, "thresholding" is the kind of thing we're talking about: determining which grays should be pushed to black and which shouldn't.
but somehow it ended up in a layered pdf??
It's not really a layered PDF. No layers show up in Acrobat Reader or in Photoshop, the program you suggested a forger used. They only show up when the PDF is opened in Illustrator. That's always suggested to me that the "layers" (they're not really layers anyway) are an artifact of the PDF-to-Illustrator conversion. And no forger would use Illustrator to assemble a document like this.
in particular, the 2nd to last paragraph in the 4th blue block (re: external links). pretty damaging right there.
If you're going to hang your hat on things like the seal being on its own layer, you still have to explain why the forger used black numeral '1's from one source and gray numeral '1's from another.
Which itself is kind of hypocritical because the DOH has claimed they haven't treated Obama's alleged birth records any differently than anyone else's.
Keeping valuables secure is not the same as “hiding” them.
The "valuables" should already be secure. Taking an extraordinary measure beyond that IS a matter of hiding them. It appears that Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. was worried about an insider leak ... such as an employee wishing to take advantage of the Uniform Information Practices Act.
A judge’s court order or a congressional committee’s subpoena will do the trick.
I'm glad you call it a "trick" because that is what Onaka's efforts amount to: dirty tricks to avoid complying with the law.
Attempts made under the UPIA have failed in court.
You don't understand the law. The UIPA (not UPIA) can be exercised internally, not solely through a court release. If you don't understand the law, it's best you find a sujbect you DO understand. This isn't it. And I already explained that the HI DOH has ignored court orders, so thanks for proving that point for me.
I’m betting that a plaintiff such as Sheriff Arpaio himself, on behalf of a crime investigation in Maricopa County, (election fraud) would qualify as having a tangible interest if accompanied by a court order.
You just don't get it. Under the UIPA, "tangible interest" isn't required. The UIPA involves voluntary and unilateral disclosure such as here, when a PUBLIC interest OUTWEIGHS privacy and other disclosure restrictions. It's not mandatory, but that's aside from the point. There's no logical reason for Hawaii NOT to fully disclose the records to the public. s not mandatory, but that
What a stupid comment. Writing a bio isn't about making an assumption. The subject fills out a bio form or answers questions. There aren't any "assumptions." The publisher didn't just assume Obama was born in Kenya. They wouldn't know anything about him, so HE had to provide the publisher with background information about himself. Place of birth is a standard fact to include in such a bio. It's an error of assumption, because in that case it's NOT a fact-checking error. The publisher could say, "We made a mistake because we didn't know where Obama was born." What they are saying is that they were given the facts but didn't check those facts. And there wouldn't be any simple way to check that fact through a third party. There was no internet to research. No database available.
Not only do the background pattern lines not bend with the paper, how does that background persist into the thin air beyond the folds of the binding if there is no computer enhancement of this alleged document?
You’re talking about different administrations in Hawaii having different policies. The Director of Health (Chiyome Fukino) for the Republican administration of Governor Lingle left the Obama birth certificate like every other certificate, in its binder, on a shelf in the records division. It was moved under the Abercrombie adminstration and new Health Director Fuddy gave special treatment to the Obama vital record and moved it for safe keeping. They also changed the policy of the Lingle administration and released a copy of the long form rather than the standard computer print out COLB.
Hawaii courts did not grant access under UIPA. No judge at any level of the judiciary in Hawaii, from state court to the state Supreme Court to the US District Court has granted permission to release the document under the UIPA and both the previous Republican Hawaii Attorney General and the current Democrat Attorney General successfully fought release under UIPA.
Requester asked whether the Office of Health Statistics, Department of Health (DOH), properly denied Requester’s request for a certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama II (Obama Birth Certificate) under part II of the UIPA.
Requester asked for a copy of the Obama birth certificate citing the provision of Hawaii’s vital statistics law that makes vital records confidential, but permits copies to be provided where DOH is satisfied that the requester has a direct and tangible interest in the record, such as a “a person having a common ancestor with the registrant.” HRS § 338-18(b)(5). The Requester claimed a common ancestor of either Noah or Adam from Biblical reference or the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from scientific theory. DOH denied access, applying HRS § 338-18(b)(5) to limit common ancestors to those shown by verifiable vital records, and rejecting a construction that included all of humankind.
OIP found that DOH’s withholding was proper under HRS § 338-18(b)(5) and HRS § 92F-13(4). HRS § 1-15(3) (under Hawaii law, every construction of the law “which leads to an absurdity shall be rejected.”).
http://www.state.hi.us/oip/INFORMAL%20opinion%20summaries/U%20Memo%2011-7.htm
No, actually I'm not. You're attempt to spin is hilarious and desperate. The UIPA is not about an administrative policy, and I've already explained that it doesn't require mandatory disclosure: "It's not mandatory, but that's aside from the point." I also said, "The UIPA (not UPIA) can be exercised internally, not solely through a court release." And what did you cite?? A request for a disclosure from an external party. Third you've completely ignored the most important part of what I said before: "There's no logical reason for Hawaii NOT to fully disclose the records to the public." The request you cited wasn't based on a "logical" reason, nor was it based on the part of the UIPA that I've been talking about. Read this and let it sink in:
§92F-14 Significant privacy interest; examples. (a) Disclosure of a government record shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests of the individual.
Now, when I said there is not logical reason NOT to disclose the records, this is why:
[§92F-16] Immunity from liability. Anyone participating in good faith in the disclosure or nondisclosure of a government record shall be immune from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred, imposed or result from such acts or omissions. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1]
A good faith disclosure is IMMUNE from ANY liability. This means Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. has no good reason to hide Obama's birth records in a safe in his office or anywhere that prevents any DOH employee from wanting to make a good faith disclosure. Do you understand?? This isn't rocket science.
No, actually I'm not. You're attempt to spin is hilarious and desperate. The UIPA is not about an administrative policy, and I've already explained that it doesn't require mandatory disclosure: "It's not mandatory, but that's aside from the point." I also said, "The UIPA (not UPIA) can be exercised internally, not solely through a court release." And what did you cite?? A request for a disclosure from an external party. Third you've completely ignored the most important part of what I said before: "There's no logical reason for Hawaii NOT to fully disclose the records to the public." The request you cited wasn't based on a "logical" reason, nor was it based on the part of the UIPA that I've been talking about. Read this and let it sink in:
§92F-14 Significant privacy interest; examples. (a) Disclosure of a government record shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests of the individual.
Now, when I said there is not logical reason NOT to disclose the records, this is why:
[§92F-16] Immunity from liability. Anyone participating in good faith in the disclosure or nondisclosure of a government record shall be immune from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred, imposed or result from such acts or omissions. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1]
A good faith disclosure is IMMUNE from ANY liability. This means Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. has no good reason to hide Obama's birth records in a safe in his office or anywhere that prevents any DOH employee from wanting to make a good faith disclosure. Do you understand?? This isn't rocket science.
Wolf v. Fuddy, dismissed:
On November 8, 2011, the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii filed, in the First Circuit Court, State of Hawaii, a Motion to Dismiss a Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) Complaint, brought on September 30, 2011, by William Wolf of Eatontown, New Jersey, against Loretta Fuddy, Hawaii’s Director of Health.
Wolf had sought underlying documents related to the long form birth certificate President Obama made public on April, 27, 2011. This was provided to the President’s counsel by Director Fuddy, having been certified by Dr. Alvin Onaka, Registrar of the Hawaii Department of Health. Wolf was represented by John Carroll, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from Hawaii, and Richard C. King, an attorney in Moonachie, New Jersey.
Judge Gary W.B. Chang, from the official transcript:
THE COURT: “The complaint is dismissed with prejudice, yes.”
“With prejudice” means that the plaintiff can’t simply amend the complaint to circumvent the problem identified in the order granting the motion to dismiss. i.e., it’s not a “pleading” issue, it’s that the claim under any set of facts that the plaintiff might allege is legally without merit.
An appeal can be taken from such a dismissal.
A Motion for Summary Judgment, which had been docketed for a December 28 hearing, was now moot.
The complaint was predicated on HRE (Hawaii Rules of Evidence)511 (First Cause of Action), and HRE 502 (Second Cause of Action). Here are the operative allegations:
First Cause of Action:
By virtue of the disclosure or consent to disclosure described in ¶¶’s 9-12, above, and the operation of Hawai’i Rules of Evidence (“HRE”) Rule 511, [L 1980, c 164, pt of § 1; am L 1992, c 191, §2(4)], Obama has waived any privilege for the requested documents provided by HRS §338-18(b), the applicable statute cited by Defendants in their Denial.
The document disclosed contains “any significant part of the privileged matter” contained in the related documents sought, within the meaning of that term as used in HRE Rule 511, and Obama has waived any privilege for the original, whether in the paper or microfilm/microfiche form in Defendant’s records, and all other related documents.
Second Cause of Action:
A COLB is such a report as is contemplated by HRE Rule 502. [L 1980, c 164, pt of §1].
Such digital alteration or evidence thereof as is described in ¶¶ 19-23, above, or alteration by whatever means, or whatever unknown processes have been performed to produce the documents disclosed or consented to be disclosed by Obama, constitute such false statements, or fraud in the return or report, as are described in HRE Rule 502.
By virtue of the digital alteration described in ¶¶ 19-21, above, or alteration by whatever means, or whatever unknown processes, and the operation of HRE Rule 502, no privilege is provided to the COLB/report under Hawaiian law, and the privilege otherwise provided by HRS §338-18(b), the applicable statute cited by Defendants in their Denial, does not apply here.
These are the arguments that Judge Chang was testing: (1) The COLB is a “report” within the meaning of Rule 502. (2) Obama has, by disclosing a digital image of his certified paper copy, waived the privilege under Rule 502 that protects the original report. (3) Because I — the plaintiff — allege that the digital image of the certified copy of the COLB is an alteration (and you, Judge, have to swallow this lie), the digital alteration constitutes a waiver of the privilege applicable to the original report and this negates the express prohibition of HRS § 338-18 against providing me — a person possessing absolutely no direct and tangible interest within the meaning of the law — access to the original typewritten birth certificate and all documents related thereto, in whatever form.
In response Judge Chang made these findings:
(1) The original report of the birth by a physician, midwife or hospital is the “report” referred to in Rule 502; Obama’s disclosure of his copy of the COLB does not operate to waive the privilege under Rule 502 because Obama is not the “reporter” who holds the privilege; he cannot waive a privilege he does not have. If the President waived any privilege, he only waived the privilege to his copy. That does not get you, the plaintiff, to the relief you are asking for — access to the original.
(2) The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the original report was fraudulent or was altered by the DOH, and in fact, concedes that the only document that he believes was altered is the digital image of the COLB, which again does not constitute any waiver of privilege relating to the original that belongs to the DOH. That does not get you, the plaintiff, to the relief you are asking for — access to the original.
(3) In statutory construction, it is a well-established maxim that a specific provision governs over a general one. HRS § 338-18 specifically governs the disclosure/nondisclosure of the COLB, and that statute says that DOH may provide a COLB only to a person having a direct and tangible interest and, sorry, buddy, but that ain’t you. You candidly admit that you do not fall within the thirteen categories of section 338-18. There is no basis to create an exception or a fourteenth category.
The ruling:
[T]he court respectfully finds and concludes that Chapter 338-18(b) prohibits the plaintiff from continuing to prosecute this action, and under no circumstances or set of facts can the plaintiff prevail on the plaintiff’s prayer to obtain the original certificate of live birth, or to obtain access to the certificate of live birth under these circumstances. So for these and any other good cause shown in the record, the court will respectfully grant the motion to dismiss.
Intermediate Court of Appeals ICA) Rejects Birther’s “Compelling” Need for President’s Birth Certificate
Justice v. Fuddy (ICA April 7, 2011)
Background. Dr. Robert Justice requested from the director of the State Department of Health an inspection of the original birth certificate for “Barack Hussein Obama II” based on the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA). Dr. Justice explained that the inspection would allow him “to determine whether or not Mr. Obama is eligible to hold the Office of President.” The director denied the request. Dr. Justice filed a complaint seeking a judgment ordering the disclosure and inspection of the birth certificate. The DOH filed a motion to dismiss. Dr. Justice opposed on the grounds that HRS § 92F-12(b)(3) required all government agencies to disclose “records pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of any individual[.]” The circuit court granted the motion on the grounds that, inter alia, Dr. Justice failed to show circumstances affecting his health or safety. Dr. Justice appealed.
Not just Anyone can see a Birth Certificate. The department of health “shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records . . . unless it is satisfied that the applicant had a direct or tangible interest in the record.” HRS § 338-18(b). A birth certificate or record is a “public health statistic.” HRS § 338-1. There are thirteen various circumstances that are considered persons with a “direct or tangible interest.” HRS § 338-18(b). Dr. Justice does not dispute the circuit court’s finding that he had no such interest. Rather, he contends that Hawai’i’s UIPA compelled disclosure of the certificate.
But what about the Freedom of Information? Generally, “government records are open to public inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law.” HRS § 92F-11(a). Upon request, “the government records available for inspection and copying during regular business hours[.]” HRS § 92F-11(b). However, agencies are not required to disclose “[g]overnment records which, pursuant to state or federal law . . ., are protected from disclosure[.]” HRS § 92F-13(4). On the other hand, the “records pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of any individual” must be disclosed. HRS § 92F-12(b)(4).
ICA Assumes (Without Deciding) that UIPA Overrides Other Non-Disclosure Statutes. The State argued that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a record “protected from disclosure” pursuant to HRS § 338-18(b). Dr. Justice, however, argued that HRS § 92F-12(b)(4) compels disclosure upon a finding of certain circumstances. The ICA noted that Dr. Justice may be right—that upon a finding of circumstances affecting the health or safety of the individual, disclosure is required—but did not decide as a matter of law that HRS § 92F-12(b)(4) overrode HRS § 92F-13(4) because there was insufficient evidence for the compelling circumstances anyways.
Dr. Justice’s Argument for the Birth Certificate:
Foreign-born Presidents are “our Enemies.” Dr. Justice argued that inspection of Barack Obama’s birth certificate is necessary to verify his eligibility to serve as President of the United States. The president, according to Dr. Justice, is the commander in chief and is “entrusted with our nuclear and chemical arsenals[.]” Verifying that Obama is qualified to serve as president ensures “that our military and our nuclear and chemical arsenals are still under our control and not in the control of any one of our enemies.”
ICA Turns to Federal Statute to Interpret “Compelling” Need.
The ICA examined the word “compelling” in HRS § 92F-13(b)(4). Based on dictionary definitions, the ICA noted that “compelling” typically means something “overpowering” or “[u]rgently requiring attention.” The ICA also noted that HRS § 92F-13(b)(4) is identical to the federal Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(8), which permits disclosure upon “a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual.” In construing a state statute with language similar to federal statutes, courts “may look to the interpretations of analogous federal law[.]” French v. Hawaii Pizza Hut, Inc., 105 Hawai’i 462, 467, 99 P.3d 1046, 1051 (2004). At least one federal court concluded that the need is “compelling” only in “life and death situations.” DePlanche v. Califano, 549 F.Supp. 685, 704 (W.D. Mich 1982). Moreover, the legislative history of the federal statute shows that the compelling circumstances were intended for “valid emergency situations, such as an airline crash or epidemic, where consent cannot be obtained because of time and distance and instant action is required[.]” H.R. Rep. No. 93-1416, at 13, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1974).
Personal, non-Congressional Determination of Obama’s Qualifications are not “Compelling.” Here, the ICA held that Dr. Justice’s reasons were not “compelling.” The ICA pointed out that while Dr. Justice may have a strong personal reason for verifying the President’s qualifications, only Congress has the power to remove a sitting President. Dr. Justice has no authority to determine Mr. Obama’s qualifications, which diminishes any “overpowering” need for the document.
Natural Born Killers: The Problem with Dr. Justice’s Logic. Article II of the United States Constitution states that only those born in the United States may be president. This is the “natural born” requirement. What does proving that Mr. Obama is not qualified show other than he is not qualified? It does not prove that he is an enemy to the United States. Plenty of American citizens—like Arnold Schwartzenegger—were born elsewhere, and are not qualified to run for president, which is why John Dean thinks Art. II, Sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution is antiquated. American citizens born in other countries are not enemies of the people. Moreover, there are plenty of non-citizens who are not enemies of the United States. The faulty logic works both ways too. Does proving that a person is qualified to serve as president of the United States render that person a friend of the United States? Not at all. Timothy McVeigh was born in the United States and would be qualified to serve as president. He is considered by most an enemy of the people. So were Nazi propagandists, Robert Henry Best and Mildred Gillars (a.k.a. Axis Sally) as well as those who, with John Wilkes Booth, conspired to assassinate President Abraham Lincoln, all of whom were convicted for treason against the United States. So does proving that Mr. Obama is not qualified to serve as President mean that he is an enemy? Does a foreign-born president threaten national security? Hardly.
Judge Leonard’s Concurrence. Judge Leonard wrote separately to emphasize that Dr. Justice has no authority to determine Mr. Obama’s qualifications for the Office of President. Only Congress has the power to remove a sitting president. Because there was no life-threatening or overwhelming need for the documents, Dr. Justice failed to show “compelling circumstances” for them pursuant to HRS § 92F-12(b)(3).
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.