Affidavit Supporting Polarik's Evidence in Keyes vs. Lingle

1. I am Sandra Ramsey Lines, With an adddres at... I am a former federal examiner and law enforcement officer. I began training as a forensic document examiner in 1991. I am a Certified Diplomat of Forensic Sciences, a member of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, a member of the Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, and a member of the Questioned Document Subcommittee of the American Society of Testing and Materials. My background and credentials are set forth in Exhibit I attached hereto.

2. I have reviewed the attached affidavit posted on the internet from “Ron Polarik,” [PDF] who has declined to provide his name because of a number of death threats he has received. After my review and based on my years of experience, I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.

3. Upon a cursory inspection of the internet COLB, one aspect of the image that is clearly questionable is the obliteration of the Certificate No. That number is a tracking number that would allow anyone to ask the question, “Does this number refer to the Certification of Live Birth for the child Barack Hussein Obama II?” It would not reveal any further personal information; therefore, there would be no justifiable reason for oliterating it.

4. In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness. In this case, examination of the vault birth certificate for President-Elect Obama would lay this issue to rest once and for all.

SANDRA RAMSEY LINES Forensic Document Examiner ........ Paradise Valley, Arizona 85253

* Identification of handwriting, hand printing, signatures, typewriting, photocopying, and printing processes

* Examination of paper, inks, stamps, seals, and other documentary evidence to determine identity, source, authenticity, and possible date

* Forensic analysis of business and medical records to determine whether there are alterations, additions, deletions, erasures, substitutions, and/or if the records were manufactured in a normal course-of-business manner

Certified Diplomate, American Board of Forensic Document Examiners Fellow, American Academy of Forensic Sciences Member, American Society of Questioned Document Examiners Member, Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners Member, American Society of Testing and Materials, Forensic Sciences Committee, and Questioned Document Subcommittee

These crackpot conspiracy theories
***You’re completely full of Bovine Feces. There have been tons of conspiracy theories in the past, including ChemTrails, Vince Foster, Monica Lewinsky, etc. If you don’t like it, stay the heck off the threads. Instead, you’re actively trying to discourage constitutionalists on this constitutional website. You’re a FReeping Coward. This issue has 5 concurrent cases before SCOTUS, and our own resident constitutional scholar, Congressman Billybob, says the chances of one case being forwarded for conference is 1/200. So the chances of the issue being forwarded 3 times is 1/8M, but there’s more: Berg v Obama has been forwarded twice so we are in the 1/1.6Billion range. Name ONE other issue that this has happened with. You can’t. Are you going to be accusing the SCOTUS of engaging in a laughable conspiracy theory? YOU ARE A TROLL. GET LOST.

“I don’t necessarily buy the “bumper crop” argument as the total for August was 95% of July and 92% of September.”

I noticed that too. But the July figure is also 11.1% higher—164 births—than June. A Kennedy election bumper crop would show up in late-July/early August. I’m assuming there may well be a similar annual “holiday”-related bump attributable to Xmas/New Years that would likewise make September higher than the typical August (someone with more time than I have to spotcheck various years of the same report I identified can easily test this hypothesis).

My point was that the statistics lean in the direction of Obama’s birth being recorded EARLIER rather than LATER than we might expect, which is contrary to your claim.

In contrast, at some level, your claim that a dead person’s BC # was swapped isn’t testable with the gross numbers we have available. That is, even if Obama’s birth # had been registered on the exact day predicted by whatever method you and I might agree upon, it would be trivial using the SS Death Index to identify which of the ~48 births recorded that day represent already dead individuals.

I’m a little confused on your position. If an African birth was registered in “the system” (even a few days late), it would have a “legitimate” Hawaiian BC number. Hence, there’s no real reason to snatch someone else’s. All that needs to be done is to fabricate the location of birth on the COLB. So long as the BC number remained blacked out, theories that they were trying to hide something by doing so had face validity. But the instant they disclosed an actual number, such theories run into a problem. While Obama may well have the director of vital statistics “in his pocket” he surely cannot count on a more neutral curious staff member double-checking the hijacked number against the long form version that I presume is on microfilm or some similar medium—ESPECIALLY in light of the increasing attention that’s been given to this. What do you think National Enquirer would pay for rock-solid evidence that the number on the on-line COLB matches up with a completely different individual’s long form record?

Of course, this general objection relates to ANY discrepancy between the COLB’s substantive contents and what’s on the long form. One could say that Fukino’s life had been threatened, hence he has no motive to rock the boat. So if he’s otherwise honest, he has done everything short of blatant lying to let the not-too-inquisitive MSM draw the wrong inference. But that reasoning does not extend to an anonymous whistleblower who stands to make millions by tipping off a deep-pocketed tabloid or by tipping off prosecutors and reaping roughly equivalent rewards via book sales, talk show appearances etc.

None of the foregoing is a criticism of your excellent work documenting serious problems with the authenticity of the documents put on the Web. I don’t pretend to have some grand theory that explains Obama’s puzzling behavior of a) posting such documents in the first place; and b) spending >$1 million fighting efforts to disclose the long form BC rather than just produce the damn thing. As bizarre as it might seem, I think it’s more likely there’s something embarrassing on the long form. I just saw The Reader last week: [CAUTION: PLOT SPOILER for those interested in seeing this film] in that case, a woman had no compunction about admitting her role in the deaths of 300 Jews, but was willing to risk death or life in prison over a lighter sentence simply to avoid owning up to being illiterate.

And your sense is grounded in what? What facts support it? I know already -- your FEELINGS! Feelings, nothing more than feelings.

But that is what got Obama elected. Obama says he cares about how we feel. We wants us to judge him by our feelings. Not by facts. Facts can really get in the way of feelings.

bvw is not asking for your feelings, I am not interested in them. Neither is Obama, for that matter. He doesn't know you from Adam, but he does want your vote, and your support. So he says, he markets, that he cares about YOUR feelings. Obama wants YOU to express YOUR sense of the situation -- as long as it gets him votes, and popular support. But, me, bvw, I do not friggin care. I am friggin frigid to your feelings.

That's because I'm honest. I want you to enjoy your feelings, of course, and make them work for you -- but I do NOT want to know about them anymore than I want to see your wife's underwear. And I don't even want to think about seeing your underwear, for that matter.

But I do hope that all your underwear is comfortable and pleasant for you. It's Obama that doesn't friggin care about that. At least, maybe. Anyway -- keep him away from your wife and your underwear.

Feelings!

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.