(Cpn Hook's mental state depicted below.) 
Posted on 09/23/2015 10:18:47 PM PDT by Ray76
Chris Matthews reported back on December 18th, 2007 that 2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama was born in Indonesia and has an Islamic background.
Video at link
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
My auto-correct has been at it again. DAD should have been SAD.
I'm not going to read your sh*t. I have no interest in your opinion or your attempts to pretend reason. You are a big mouth that has nothing to say, but has a desperate need to say it. I don't indulge transgenders who think they are the opposite sex, and i'm not going to indulge your pretense that you are intelligent enough to argue with.
(Cpn Hook's mental state depicted below.)
Obviously, you didn't read what I had originally posted where I explicitly quoted Onaka's words "the original Certificate of Live Birth." So then you stupidly launched into your schpiel about how you're not going to respond to a word "not in evidence."
Oh, so you're not going to explain how it is that Granny Dunham supposedly went into the Hawaii DOH and said "I'd like to register my grandson's birth; he was born at home," and then HDOH somehow issued a certificate bearing a Hospital name and doctor's signature? (Because certainly she didn't walk in and claim to register a birth occurring at Kapiolani, as no doubt the polite response would have been "Thank you, Ma'am, but we get that information direct from the Hospital.")
But, obviously, my pointing out this problem in your theory is causing much cognitive dissonance, as you're exhibiting signs of detachment from reality with your "transgender" nonsense.
The original Certificate of LIve Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II, is on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health."
For those of us who speak English, that simply means they have his original document. It does *NOT* say that we have seen his original document.
Ignorant little crapweasel, the word "original" in the context of any useful meaning, must be in regards to the document which has been put forth.
We don't care that they *HAVE* an original document. That does not address the point. It's just more crap from Captain Noise.
We don't care that the information contained on what has been put forth "matches" the information on the "original." That is also not the point. It is just another bit of craptacular diversion from the only thing that really matters.
Is the "original" document created in the normal manner from a Hospital, or was it created by the "say so" of someone such as Grandma Dunham?
Refusing to say that what is being put forth *IS* the original document, is just more legalistic bullshit crap the sort of which we have come to expect from Obama and the dodgers and weavers in the Hawaii department of health.
As has been pointed out countless times, the certification they put on the document which has been released is utterly useless. It proves that the document simply reflects whatever it is they have subsequently put into the record. It is a very different certification from the one used in the 1960s and later, to certify the document is a copy of the original. With the 1960s and later certification, there is no wiggle room.
What Obama's purported birth certificate "certifies" is:
I certify this is a true copy orabstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health
For those of us who don't have infantile child minds, this means that it says whatever a court or bureaucrat has chosen to make it to say, and so therefore doesn't really confirm to the degree necessary a birth in the United States.
And once again, I will point out that the word "Original" does not appear anywhere in the certification of Obama's purported birth certificate.
You have been bitchslapped.... Again!
Again, you are just a noise machine.
That was me QUOTING Onaka's words. Notice in Post #235 where I state that "Onaka says" and then I put the words "the original Certificate of Live Birth" in quotation marks?
Here's another little tutorial for you, akin to the one I recently gave you on how to read statutory history (so you don't again make yourself out to be an idiot by citing to a statute not yet enacted at the time at issue). When a writer (in this case me) puts words in quotation marks, that's a sign that the enclosed words are the verbatim words of the speaker under discussion (in this case, Dr. Onaka ("Onaka says")). Simple enough for you? Or do I need to spoon feed this to you in even smaller portions?
You aren't Onaka.
But Onaka is Onaka, and I've even put under your nose a copy of the Verification Onaka caused to be issued which uses the term "the original Certificate of Live Birth" (which words just happen to match the words I quote in Post #235).
Here it is again:
Of all the stupid posturing and denials you've attempted, this is perhaps the most absurd and idiotic. The words "the original Certificate of Live Birth" are right there, you Dumb*ss.
That they have an "original record" or that the information "matches " an "original record" is immaterial to the point.
Until an official says "That is the ORIGINAL" document, everything else is a dodge.
Let me say it for you again. An Official has to certify:
that the above is a true and correct copy of the original record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health.
Here's an example, because I know you need one.
Anything less allows for a replacement birth certificate, (created by adoption, etc.) or a birth certificate created by an unattended birth affidavit.
If they won't certify it as *THE* original document, then it is meaningless.
And the "document," so to speak, put forth in this instance is the WHLFBC electronic image, and "original" is used in this context to make the verification requested as to the bona fides of Obama's birth information as reflected on that image.
We don't care that the information contained on what has been put forth "matches" the information on the "original."
But you should care. Or at least you should understand that to those of us in the rationale world who don't act like we're living in some bizarre Ludlum novel of 45-year, multi-person conspiracies, saying the information shown on "the original Certificate of Live Birth" "matches" the information shown on the WH image, settles the question. The WH image shows "Honolulu, HI" as the place of birth. THAT MEANS the original record doesn't state some place like Kenya or Canada as the place of birth; if it did, it wouldn't "match." Same with the identify of the Mother; if the Original record listed someone other than Stanley Ann as the mother, it wouldn't "match." Same with the identify of the father. Same with the Hospital name, the physician name, the registrar stamp date, etc., etc.
Is the "original" document created in the normal manner from a Hospital, or was it created by the "say so" of someone such as Grandma Dunham?
Since the "original" is stated to show a hospital name (Kapiolani) and an attending doctor's name (Sinclair) (and the original must showing these items, otherwise those bits of information would not "match" those shown on the WH image.
Refusing to say that what is being put forth *IS* the original document, is just more legalistic bullshit crap the sort of which we have come to expect from Obama and the dodgers and weavers in the Hawaii department of health.
Of course no one is going to attest that the document *IS* the original document as the original document is contained in a vault at HDOH.
And neither, technically, should the partial WH image be called a "complete" copy. The original would have contained information per CDC standards of things like the infant's birth weight, birth order, mother's pregnancy history, etc., i.e., information that is NOT ever copied or released apart from authorized statistical reporting channels.
"Matches" or "abstract" are actually the more precise terms, notwithstanding your whining.
It proves that the document simply reflects whatever it is they have subsequently put into the record.
No, it does not. The term "original certificate of live birth" precludes your notion of "whatever is added subsequently." Hence your cognitive dissonance causing you to block out the repeated use of "original" in the Hawaii verifications.
No, we've been looking for the word "Original" to appear in anything from Hawaii, and the word never seems to appear.
It is a very different certification from the one used in the 1960s and later, to certify the document is a copy of the original.
In 2001, Hawaii stated it was ceasing to issue copies of "long form" certificates. So the COLB (short-form) which was produced earlier IS the official certification in the standard form. Your quibble about the .pdf image is just that: a quibble.
I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health.
"Abstract" simply means that less than all of the information is reflected (which is true with near every state which issues a computer-generated "short form" -- which is the standard form used in most places for official purposes). (This is rubber-stamp form language used in "either/or" fashion to cover a variety of documents.) But we know from taking account of all of the statements on point that "record on file" means the "original Certificate of Live Birth." Not some amended version.
And once again, I will point out that the word "Original" does not appear anywhere in the certification of Obama's purported birth certificate.
ROFLMAO!! Nice "goal post move" technique there, DumbDumb. This was not your claim earlier, which was:
No, we've been looking for the word "Original" to appear in anything from Hawaii, and the word never seems to appear.
Now that I've shown what a total blunder that was ("anything from Hawaii" would include the formal Verifications done by Onaka -- and those contained frequent references to the "original certificate of live birth), you try to move the goalposts a bit further and try to force a material semantic distinction between "verification" and "certification." That won't work as both a "verification" and "certification," as Hawaii uses the terms, have the same legal effect:
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant."
So you're check-mated once again, DumbDumb.
There is no material distinction between "this is the original document" and "this is the information shown on the original document."
Let me say it for you again. An Official has to certify: . . . that the above is a true and correct copy of the original record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health.
Says who? NOT the State of Hawaii, which says that verification of a fact is the same as certification! And your attempt to nominate yourself as the Standards Czar is rendered all the sillier when one looks at the language used in other states. For example, my childrens' certificates say merely:
"I do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of the essential facts recorded on the birth record on file in this office for the individual named hereon."
"Essential facts on the birth record" is another way of saying "this is an abstract." And that language (and the form as a whole) has been sufficient proof of birth for passport and other purposes. It would be legally admissible in a court of law as a "self-proving" attestation of the birth fact.
There is no meaningful distinction between that formulation and:
"I certify this is a true copy or abstract thereof of the record on file in the Hawaii Department of Health."
Neither purports to state the document is a complete copy of the original, simply that such information as is reproduced is "true" ("matches") the information as reflected on the original.
Anything less allows for a replacement birth certificate (created by adoption, etc.)
I'd have to see an example of a replacement being explicitly referred to as the "original" for that argument to get an inch off the ground.
In any event, the adoption scenario as a theory to cast doubt on the information shown on the WH image makes absolutely no sense. You're suggesting what? That the African student and Stanley Ann weren't Obama's biological parents? That the WH image might reflect a later adoption and that the "original" would then show different parent information and possible different birth location? Seriously??????
a birth certificate created by an unattended birth affidavit.
A theory precluded by the WH image showing a hospital birth attended by Dr. Sinclair and Hawaii verifying that that information is contained on the original birth certificate.
And your hauling out some document as certified in 1979 is meaningless given that Hawaii in 2001 stated it was no longer issuing and certifying birth records in that form.
Which means what is being shown is not being certified as "Original."
Now go ahead and chase your tail.
Obviously there is, or there would be no need for Hawaii to keep dodging the demand for the "original."
How about you take you big ignorant mouth and explain to Hawaii that there is absolutely no reason why they should not release the original, because There is no material distinction between "this is the original document" and "this is the information shown on the original document."
Try your argument on them, because they are the ones insisting on making the distinction.
Putz.
Ok, I’m only getting half of this conversation, but I think I see what you’re saying. Namely, at no time does an HI official say, ‘This is a certified copy of the original BC,’ while putting forth a copy that has an absolute seal of certification—as opposed to a seal that allows for the document to be an abstract.
Actually, I must not have it after all. That is too simple, and would not admit of years and years of obot screaming and table pounding, nor could it justify innumerable, staggering walls of words.
It’s got to be more complicated than what I expressed above, no?
It’s got to be more complicated than what I expressed above, no?
No, you pretty much summed it up. Nothing they ever put forth attests to it being an "original" document. They say it has the same information as the original, they say that they have the original in their files, they say it is a copy or an abstract of a record that they have in their files, but they never acknowledge that what is being show is "original."
You see, they can get in legal trouble if they certify that document is a "true and correct copy of the original record" if it is in fact not an original.
They would give away the game if they refused to "certify" it at all.
So what they do is certify that it could be an original, or it could be an abstract of a record in their files, which means they won't tell us exactly what it *IS*
They imply that it is an original, but they simply won't come out and say so. Instead they just dodge the question. Call it "certification theater."
That is so clear and simple. A child could grasp it. Makes absolutely perfect sense also. No words walls required, just a bare minimum of intelligence.
Yet still you believe that not all obots are IQ challenged. You grade on a mighty generous curve.
It's being certified as true in substance. It is not being certified as to form, as an electronic image obviously isn't in the same form as a paper original.
Certification as to essential substance is what most states do. I've given you an example:
"I do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of the essential facts recorded on the birth record on file in this office for the individual named hereon."
This doesn't purport to say what is provided is in form exactly a copy of the original record on file. It affirms, though, that the "essential facts" as shown are "true" as compared to the facts shown on the birth record on file. And this is legally sufficient. And it's consistent with the practice of near all states to issue short-form certificates.
Your special-pleading fallacy is showing again. You assert that every other state's Secretary of State should have asked for Hawaii for a copy (even though no such secretary in history has demanded a candidate's birth certificate in a Presidential election, nor even the predecessor church/baptismal records, despite your claim the Constitution requires this). But even worse, you further assert that the form of certification used by Hawaii should be deemed insufficient, even though that very type of "short form" certification is used by most of the other states.
For being the supposed resident expert on logical fallacies, you fail to see in the mirror on this one.
One gets dizzy observing you spinning around your logical circles.
They gave a copy (a partial copy, as the portion of the "original" which contains medical information about the mother and infant is not released to requestors ever) to Obama in 2011. And that copy was scanned to the WH webpage.
I'm not seeing the dodge. I have, though, seen the exasperation expressed by State officials at the repeated requests, to the point they simply directed further inquirers via link to the White House page.
Try your argument on them, because they are the ones insisting on making the distinction.
"(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant."
Why would I argue with Hawaii when it's clear to me that, from Hawaii's perspective, they've affirmed Obama's birth there in multiple ways through multiple persons? And I can understand why -- given a long history of "goal post moving" by Birthers -- their doing anything further won't achieve anything. From Post 187:
“It’s crazy,” said Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health. “I don’t think anything is ever going to satisfy them.”
Okubo, who said that she gets weekly questions from Obama ‘Birthers’ that are “more like threats,” explained that the certificate of live birth reproduced by Obama’s campaign should have debunked the conspiracy theories.
If Hawaii were today to issue or post a copy with the attestation "this is a true copy of the original record on file" I have NO doubt the Birther response would be "but this looks suspicious coming now so late in the game, we need to have document examiners allowed in to see the vault original." And if those document examiners were to report back and say "it looks legitimate" the Birther response would be "Oh, but they've been bribed or threatened; they were probably shown a photo of Loretta Fuddy and 'got the message.'" Okubo is right.
You're just one very noisy, incompetent loon flocking with a host of other loons.
A majority of states and the federal government follow the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence with regard to vital records such as birth certificates.
Federal Rule of Evidence 902 specifies the requirements for a public record being “self-authenticating,” meaning HDOH or anyone introducing a birth certificate into evidence need not provide any additional authentification information other than the document itself.
Rule 902. “Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating”
The following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted:
(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...
(B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation...
(4) Certified Copies of Public Records. A copy of an official record — or a copy of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if the copy is certified as correct by:
(A) the custodian or another person authorized to make the certification; or
(B) a certificate that complies with Rule 902(1), (2), or (3), a federal statute, or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court.
And Federal Rule of Evidence 1005 covers the requirements for the use of copies of public records in order to prove their content:
Rule 1005. Copies of Public Records to Prove Content
The proponent may use a copy to prove the content of an official record — or of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if these conditions are met: the record or document is otherwise admissible; and the copy is certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902(4) or is testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If no such copy can be obtained by reasonable diligence, then the proponent may use other evidence to prove the content.
Best Evidence Rule
The best evidence rule applies when a party wants to admit as evidence the contents of a document at trial, but the original document is not available. In this case, the party must provide an acceptable excuse for its absence. If the document itself is not available, and the court finds the excuse provided acceptable, then the party is allowed to use secondary evidence to prove the contents of the document and have it as admissible evidence. The best evidence rule only applies when a party seeks to prove the contents of the document sought to be admitted as evidence.
The best evidence rule would be a perfectly acceptable reason for a judge to issue a court order for inspection of the vault edition Certificate of Live Birth.
Don't give a crap. This is an example where there has been an oversight. Apparently the people who think up this sort of lawyer crap didn't think of everything.
We have a situation where the "evidence" doesn't actually prove the thing needing to be proven. Ergo, the methodology for accepting unproven claims as "proven", are faulty.
Obama released this "document." If you contend that what Obama released is what Hawaii gave him, then they gave him an "abstract of the record on file", (meaning whatever has been put into the file for the last 50 years) not a certified copy of an "original" document.
We know this is so because they added that language "or abstract of the record on file" to the certification, which would not be necessary unless that was a real possibility.
In all cases in which someone certifies that something will be either a "bag of gold" *or* a "bag of sh*t", it's a safe bet that the bag will always contain sh*t.
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.