Posted on 05/05/2011 5:22:36 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
It’s still like watching a slow-motion train wreck.
Perhaps you can answer my question:
Is presenting a photocopy or scan of a physical notarized paper legal document in a court of law a legally valid procedure or not?
But! Where do you think you are going with this?
The public releases of the COLB and the LFBC are intended to be informational, not a basis of legal proof in the strictest sense.
If you want to argue that the US needs a better legal foundation for verifying NBC status of Presidential candidates, I'm right there with you.
No President has ever (at least to my knowledge) sought for or receive any formal court approval of their NBC status, just to phrase it that way.
Only a small handful of our Presidents even have or had what we recognize as modern ‘Birth Certificates’.
That you don’t realize how silly your statement is on multiple technical and conceptual levels is sad.
Please at least try to compartmentalize. Don’t let this nonsense seep into your personal life.
Actually it’s more like watching a train wreck that already happened. The bodies have been removed, but derailed cars are still smoldering. And there are these people off to the side insisting this train might still make it to Milwaukee. It’s just a few hours late.
What makes you think Kapiolani has be silent? FYI, they're not:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/kapiolani-confirms/
As to them not allowing anyone examine records from 1961, what makes you think they records that long? The law only requires them to keep records for 7 years. What possible reason would they have to keep patient records for 50 years?
Do you have any idea how much storage space that would require? Do you have any idea of how much storage space costs?
Is presenting a photocopy or scan of a physical notarized paper legal document in a court of law a legally valid procedure or not?
Free Republic is a site dedicated to the promotion of conservatism not birtherism. Additionally, I am free to respond any way I see fit.
My opinion on the BC authenticity and/or it's legal validity is so irrelevant as to be completely pointless. I've said from the beginning, the people birthers have to convince have so far been totally unconvinced.
If the BC is a fraud...take it to Congress. How's that going so far?
If you think Obama's ineligible because his dad was Kenyan? ...convince the Heritage foundation...so far, they don't agree with birthers.
The States Attorneys General have shown a bold willingness to go after the Obama administration for, among other things, Obamacare, but are completely uninterested in the so-called "fraud" surrounding the President's birth status. Clearly they aren't afraid of the administration..so maybe...just maybe there is no merit to birtherism.
It might be if the original were destroyed and there was no recourse to an issuing agency. That's a big and
there. Looming over any attempt to pull a BC fraud of this magnitude is the continuing availability of the Hawaii Department of Health to vouch for the facts or not. That's why arguing about seals and pixel sizes and document layers is such a waste of time.
My question is in the general case, not the specific, and I don’t think it is that difficult a question:
Is presenting a photocopy or scan of a physical notarized paper legal document in a court of law a legally valid procedure or not?
How can the public releases of the COLB [twice, once in June 2008 and then in August 2008] and the LFBC [2011] be informational if they are not a basis of legal proof in the strictest sense? How do you know they are not DIS-informational?
Three times we have been presented with scans, digital photos and photocopies, but *never* the physical notarized paper document that would be valid evidence in a court of law.
Why, in 2008, if the LFBC existed, was it not presented then - along with its file number instead of a COLB scan with a redacted file number?
Explain the two pics at the top of this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2713569/posts
Explain the difference in the “D” and the rest of the Ms. Dunham’s signature in post #11 of the same thread.
Because they supply information. Thus they are informational.
“How do you know they are not DIS-informational?”
I have yet to see reliable information that indicates the BC’s that we have seen are incorrect of contain false information. And the information they present is corroborated by numerous other sources. You dont’ agree? Well, that's not my problem.
“Three times we have been presented with scans, digital photos and photocopies, but *never* the physical notarized paper document that would be valid evidence in a court of law.”
Because no case requiring it has gone to court. And if one ever does, the same COLB we saw in 2008 will be presented and that will be that.
“Why, in 2008, if the LFBC existed, was it not presented then - along with its file number instead of a COLB scan with a redacted file number?”
Why would they bother? To try and mitigate the concerns of a band of loonies who wouldn't vote for him? Yeah, I am sure BHO worries about that.
The State of Hawaii has gone on record as saying they've released the birth certificate, and that what Obama has shown is an accurate representation of it. I don't think Obama had gone on the record as claiming responsibility for any particular released picture of the Certification, nor to I recall the State of Hawaii officially acknowledging the existence or authenticity of such pictures. It is entirely plausible that they would stay mum if some anonymous person released pictures of documents falsely claiming to be Hawaii certifications. On the other hand, it is less plausible that they would stay mum if, after they publicly acknowledged giving a certificate to BHO, BHO published a certificate which differed from the one on file.
I think it is reasonable to believe that the scan Barack Obama presented is an accurate representation of the birth record on file, and I see no reason to doubt it. As to the circumstances under which the record came to be in the file, it will probably never be possible to say with absolute certainty, but at this point my belief is that BHO has something in his background he doesn't want investigated, and his refusal to supply his birth certificate was intended to be a distraction from his real disqualifications.
Janice Okubo has already said they HAVE to “stay mum”. When I asked her directly whether she would report a known forgery to law enforcement and refrain from speaking positively to the public about that forgery, she said they can’t reveal ANYTHING about a birth certificate.
The HDOH is as crooked as they come and has manipulated their records to cover for Obama, so at this point - after having observed them closely for the last 2 years - I would not trust a word from them at all. What I would trust are the unmanipulable computer transaction logs. Period.
But the HDOH has already stated publicly that they would NOT TELL US if somebody posted a forgery of one of their records. Given that fact, Obama would have no reason to NOT disclose a forgery - since no court will allow anybody but the HDOH to ever know whether his posting was genuine. We already know the system is set up to be totally safe for Obama to post whatever he darn well pleases. The courts and HDOH have publicly revealed that they “have his back”.
People really, really need to understand this. The supposed means of accountability have all already stated publicly that they will NOT hold Obama accountable if he posts a forgery. And INDIRECT (IOW, accidental) confirmations by the HDOH say that he’s done that twice now.
How do we know? Because Okubo has said (and is supported by the HDOH Administrative Rules and the 1961 CDC Report) that the state file number was given on the “date filed”. We have “dates filed” that are on every day of the business week except Wednesday, that I’ve seen.
Kapiolani sent theirs to the registrar’s office on Fridays, except in the very rare occasion when 2 Fridays in a row were national holidays (in which case the BC’s were sent to the registrar the day before the 2nd national holiday when it was realized they would have a 3-week accumulation if they waited until the next Friday the registrar’s office was open).
I don't know if you got an answer to this, but yes, there's a statute. Someone has probably quoted it to you by now.
If one had an uncompressed graphics file of a scanned document and it exhibited the anomalies present in the Obama PDF, those anomalies would be substantial evidence of forgery. In a compressed PDF, however, all they show is that the document was not formatted in such a way as to permit meaningful forensic analysis.
Brilliant post, and not just because you used large words. Do you have any specific sources of information you can cite that support your points?
The current HDOH Administrative Rules say the same (placing a state number on the file is used interchangeably with the HDOH “accepting” the BC).
The 1961 CDC Natality Report says the same - that the state file number was given by the state registrar’s office in sequential order. That fact was used to justify the accuracy of the 50% sampling method they used, since the local registrars would submit their BC’s all at once and the BC’s would be numbered sequentially, meaning that the BC#’s from that geographic area would be half-even and half-odd. The accuracy of the 50% sampling depends on those numbers being given sequentially rather than randomly. The numbers did NOT fall to chance and were NOT subject to manipulation by the HDOH because they were numbered sequentially according to when they were received at the HDOH office.
The Nordyke certificates illustrate the ascending sequential numbering at the state HDOH.
I can’t make any sense out of what you’re saying, but I can assure you that neither I nor any Freeper I’ve seen have “come up with a need” for anything. This is what the sources we have show. Period. If you want to argue it out with Janice Okubo, the DOH Administrative Rules, and the CDC from 1961, be my guest. Knock yourself out. But this is where this comes from and if the “debate” died down it was probably because the facts have been established to the best of our ability given the sources that are available.
Ping for later.
Apparently you haven't, or you'd notice that JUST TO THE LEFT of what you think is a BC number there's another number called FILE NUMBER.
When was that number put there? Why do each of the BCs we ever seen have one?
Do you have any idea what part that number plays in the grand scheme of things or are you merely advancing on the theory that the BIGGEST NUMBER must necessarily be a BC number?
Since we've never gotten an answer on that question on any of the threads I suggest that since it's so important to your line of reasoning that YOU GO FIND OUT WHAT IT'S FOR.
ping for later.
So when you access the file, pop the microfilm into the system, and then pull out your photostat you put on a seal.
Is that the sequence?
That would imply the "original document" has no seal, nor did the microfilm image, nor would a microfiche image, nor would a modern digital "image" stored on a DVD somewhere.
The "seal" would show up with a final end stage copy to be handed over to the customer paying for a copy.
Obama got a personal letter ~ does that suffice for a seal?
So many questions ~ so little time ~
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.