Posted on 07/31/2011 11:36:22 AM PDT by charlene4
However, there is always the chance that Taitz will be allowed to see the document. My concern is that because the document Obama released has a potential backdoor qualifier as being a potential "abstract", that the "original" document they may be allowed to see will simply be Round Two of the release of the forgery: different enough to start the process all over again and slick enough after learning their lessons and being taught how it's supposed to look by the analysis of the aforementioned experts that it will leave the issue "inconclusive". This time Obama's people are certain to have their typeset correct, stamps in place and all the rest (if Taitz is allowed to see anything).
While the experts Irey and Vogt are very good, as I understand the process they will only be able to make a visual analysis. In short, a visual inspection is almost certain to fail to conclusively prove anything unless Obama's resources are much tighter and more restricted than we might guess - in that case he must be having some sleepless nights.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamafake.blogspot.com ...
The evidence Obama’s long form BC was sealed is proven by the fact his short form BC has a “date filed.” The only vital records with a “date filed” are vital records created by Court Order.
Obama’s long form BC has a “date accepted” because it was created through witness attestation (signatures of mother, delivery doctor and hospital administrator). The registrar has a choice of indicating a “date received” or “date accepted” with witness attestation.
The only choice a registrar of vital records when there is a Court Order is “date filed.” A Court Order will only be issued to create a short form COLB if there is a corresponding Order to seal the original long form BC.
Check the internet. There are many people born in Hawaii who have long form BC’s with a “date accepted” and a short form BC with a “date accepted.”
Obama has a long form BC with a “date accepted” and a short form COLB with a “date filed” because his original long form BC was sealed by Court Order. The Court may have sealed the original long form BC because the Soetoro adoption was finalized or something else.
Obama’s long form BC has a “date accepted” because it was created through witness attestation (signatures of mother, delivery doctor and hospital administrator). The registrar has a choice of indicating a “date received” or “date accepted” with witness attestation.
The only choice a registrar of vital records when there is a Court Order is “date filed.” A Court Order will only be issued to create a short form COLB if there is a corresponding Order to seal the original long form BC.
Check the internet. There are many people born in Hawaii who have long form BC’s with a “date accepted” and a short form BC with a “date accepted.”
Obama has a long form BC with a “date accepted” and a short form COLB with a “date filed” because his original long form BC was sealed by Court Order. The Court may have sealed the original long form BC because the Soetoro adoption was finalized or something else.
This is an excellent point! I think I recall butterzillion making this point before as well. I just wasn't certain that this was indeed significant. I was speculating that a laid back state such as Hawaii, might not be very rigid in their methodologies and procedures. I noticed they changed their birth certificate stamp, so perhaps they changed their birth certificate nomenclature as well?
I will mark that down as further evidence of some sort of court proceeding such as an adoption or name change. I have long strongly suspected that there is some sort of court involvement with Barry's birth certificate. Nothing else makes any sense. Thanks for pointing that out, and explaining the significance of it.
For the purpose of executing the subpoena, Orly should remind Ms. Fuddy she is an Officer of the Court. Lying or misrepresenting material facts to Orly is the same lying to a Judge in US Federal Court.
Asking why Obama’s long form has a “date accepted” of August 8, 1961 and his short form COLB has a “date filed” of August 8, 1961 is relevant to authentication of the original BC.
Original BC of other native born Hawaiians have a “date accepted” on the long form BC and the short form COLB. Why is Obama’s different?
I just recieved an email saying bo signed Dream Act into effect by Exec Order. I can not find any verification and am praying it is not true. Anyone know?
For the purpose of executing the subpoena, Orly should remind Ms. Fuddy she is an Officer of the Court. Lying or misrepresenting material facts to Orly is the same lying to a Judge in US Federal Court.
Asking why Obama’s long form has a “date accepted” of August 8, 1961 and his short form COLB has a “date filed” of August 8, 1961 is relevant to authentication of the original BC.
Original BC of other native born Hawaiians have a “date accepted” on the long form BC and the short form COLB. Why is Obama’s different?
Loretta Fuddy was confirmed by the Hawaii state Senate as Director of Health on March 24, 2012. She does not have the answers to questions regarding the Obama birth certificate that occurred under previous administrations in Hawaii.
Orly Taitz will be getting the typical bureaucratic run around from a newly appointed official.
I doubt that Orly will get anything at all from a subpoena since Hawaii law requires a court order signed by a judge in order to inspect a confidential birth record and a subpoena is not a court order. A search warrant is a court order, signed by a judge.
The most important people to ask questions of are previous Health Director under Governor Linda Lingle, Dr. Chiyome Fukino and the Registrar of Vital Statistics for Hawaii under both the Lingle and the Abercrombie administrations, Dr. Alvin T. Onaka.
Loretta Fuddy only authorized the release of a copy of the long form and she supervised the photocopying of that document.
Orly needs a search warrant and a grand jury investigation or a congressional committee investigation where Fukino and Onaka can be called to testify under oath.
Oops, there’s a typo in my post above: Loretta Fuddy was confirmed on March 24, 2011 not 2012.
I would beyond LOVE to hear Alvin’s own explanation of his stamp! I have asked here for an explanation several times and no one seems to have an explanation. Alvin’s own words would be priceless.
“I would beyond LOVE to hear Alvin’s own explanation of his stamp! I have asked here for an explanation several times and no one seems to have an explanation. Alvin’s own words would be priceless.”
Yeah, it’s too bad that no committee of the House of Representatives has called him as a witness.
I have no idea what he would say but I do know that artifacts from photocopying, creating a pdf file and scanning any document disappear when it is viewed at a higher resolution.
For example: http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/BirthCertificateHighResolution.jpg
This is why its not a good idea to attempt to establish the authenticity of a document without examining the original hard copy. Every generation of reproduction introduces its own set of artifacts to the original.
Dr. Onaka’s signature would not be on the original. He was a
child back in 1961.
Dr. Onaka’s signature would not be on the original. He was a
child back in 1961.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am guessing that his stamp is on this COPY so as to certify it as real. You are correct though, if this is suppossed to be a copy of the original......
Geez!
I do not buy the artifact thing. Not a bit. If it were to be caused because of artifacts would not someone with credibility on the line make sure it was clean as a whistle? To me this is just a big FU to us compliments of Barry.
I have asked KLEON for his opinion but he hasn’t answered.......
IF the original long form certificate really is sealed; the question is why? Well, the Hawaiian statute (effective in 1972) for a Delayed Birth Registration for a Legal Change Status for persons 7 years of age and older could be obtained for a variety of reasons such as adoption, legitimation, or paternity. Anyway, the existing certificate and the evidence upon which the new certificate was based was sealed and placed in a special file. Delayed Birth Certificates are issued in lieu of a Hawaiian Birth Certificate. Delayed Birth Registrations were for persons that were supposedly born in Hawaii, but not previously registered in the State.
Just throwing out some ideas here. Delayed Birth Registration was for persons adopted or legitimized with a name that differed from the original, right? IF he were named Steve Dunham or Joe Blow, they would have needed a DBR when he became Obama or Soebarkah or Soetoro or Sutoro or Suharto or whatever variation in spelling. Another DBR would be needed when changing a named from Soebarkah/Soetoro back to Obama. There are so many scenarios it boggles the mind.
This has been one of my points for a very long time. The Fact that Hawaii will not certify his document as a "True and Correct copy of the ORIGINAL record" leaves too much wiggle room to cover up a lot of possible scenarios. It has always been my contention that Article II eligibility requirements ought to trump any and every state's laws regarding privacy or any other attempts at obscuring or obfuscating the truth.
At this point we have no way of knowing if he had undergone a name change, was adopted, born at home, born elsewhere, or any number of ways in which his credentials could and should be called into question. Till we get some proof that Hawaii's documents are Original and legit, as far as i'm concerned his Presidency is of dubious legitimacy.
Any word on what happened today?
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.
