Posted on 01/06/2009 11:52:38 AM PST by Kevmo
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
SRLines@cox.net
Former Federal Examiner Retired Law Enforcement Officer
* 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
* Distinguishing forgery from genuineness
* Restoration or decipherment of erased, obliterated or hidden writing
* Expert testimony in state and federal courts, and regulatory hearings
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
http:192.234,213,35/clerkarchive/DailyJournal/1981/Volumes/
Going to check it out now.
I mark us as being around January 1933 right now. 75 years!
http://192.234,213,35/clerkarchive/DailyJournal/1981/Volumes/
Unfortunately Lurking Libertarian says that there is no chance the SCOTUS will hear this because none of the lawyers arguing these cases are bigshot names. Sickening, if true.
If the SCOTUS refuses to hear any of these cases, and this is the reason why, then we’re over as a nation.
http://192.234.213.35/clerkarchive/DailyJournal/1981/Volumes/
http://192.234.213.35/clerkarchive/
http://192.234.213.35/clerkarchive/
The link works, but all I’m getting is a table of contents and a large download file.
Time to call it a night, I’ll try again tomorrow. Thanks.
Thanks for the ping!
http://192.234.213/clerk archive/Daily Journal/1981/volumes/812_shr.PDF
And I told him that's crazy. To only accept cases on who would argue the cases and not accept it based on their merits.
Stupid.
192.234.213 is not even a valid IP address.
The last three numbers of this IP address are missing.
Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage
Most likely causes:
You are not connected to the Internet.
The website is encountering problems.
There might be a typing error in the address.
http://192.234.213.35/clerk archive/Daily Journal/1981/volumes/812_shr.PDF
If it’s true, then our country is burnt toast.
I get good penetration going here:
http://192.234.213.35/clerkarchive/archive/FinalHistory/1981/
They really should turn off directory browsing.
I’ve heard before that certain law firms argue cases in front of the Supreme Court, but I did not know that SCOTUS justices exclusively accepts them only as their court jesters.
It’s surely not written in stone. It’s probably an informal and unwritten rule because of SCOTUS’s familiarity of local law firms. It’s certainly not a good practice. And I doubt SCOTUS would drop cases just for a particularly group of lawyers they are comfortable with because they are not presenting the arguments, especially the cases that could profoundly effect the nation.
I’ll ask him about it.
Pls PM it to me. Thx
I was able to find the 1981 table of contents for the sessions but cannot find a particular appropriation for foreign students or Aid to Indonesian/foreign students, and I cannot find the actual Journal scripts, just tables of contents and final bill names and numbers.
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.