Posted on 03/29/2012 8:49:07 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Alabama Supreme Court Justice Notes Evidence Presented Raises Serious Questions to Authenticity of Both Obama's Birth Certificates.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio's and Mara Zebest's reports were included in the Petition submitted to the Alabama Supreme Court.
Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker noted in the Order to Strike Hugh McInnish's Petition for Writ of Mandamus:
"Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the "short form" and the "long form" birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public."
If the “forger” was an employee of the Department of Health in Hawaii, and if he was operating at the direction of a court order, then the “forgery” was legal and there is no criminal case.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I believe even Diogenes would scorn that logic.
The story is that Obama’s lawyer flew to Hawaii to pick up two paper copies.
The PDF file belies the fact that the “supposed paper document” that Obama’s people showed at the press conference was not hand-stamped by a person.That is a security feature.
It should have been that Hawaii printed a hard copy of the document, then a human being hand stamps the date and signature blocks. No way that hand-stamp text block came off a scan of the document Obama released. It was imported into the PDF file.
That means Hawaii (or the forger) gave him a PDF file not a hard copy. Why would Hawaii not just hand-stamp it when the lawyer came to pick them up.
So is Hawaii allowed to issue “alterable” PDF files in the place of paper documents that have been hand-stamped by a human being? That seems absurd on the face of it.
Ultimately, I will have to go with the Sheriff Joe’s Cold Case Posse with regards to the “probable cause for forgery.” They know the laws better than I do.
I believe even Diogenes would scorn that logic.
Look, I have a piece of evidence sitting right here on my desk that proves my statement true. I have a birth certificate created by my state which is a legal forgery. What is the fault in the logic?
I stand corrected. It has been awhile since I have read the details on Stanley Ann’s life. If she hadn’t returned to Hawaii within a year of his record being filed, that is a hole in the theory.
I have offered a suggestion to explain this.
*IF* the document were produced by court order, the DOH may have sent a PDF file to the Obama Attorney for approval prior to printing and stamping a paper document.
The attorney may have looked at it and concluded it was exactly what he wanted and so sent word back that the document was acceptable. He then went to Hawaii, obtained two official stamped paper copies, and brought them back to Washington. When Obama said he wanted to post the document on the White House Website, the attorney could have simply emailed the PDF to the White House staff without realizing that the details of how it was put together were contained in the file.
It was a blunder by someone trained primarily in law, not in the computer technology involved. (A Highly Plausible ignorance among most attorneys.) I dare say, MOST people are unaware that a PDF can contain information that people don't want known.
The fact is this. Somehow a PDF of his "official" long form birth certificate was created. It was either created by a scan which was "optimized" (the prevalent O-bot theory) or it was created by someone who copied and pasted the document together out of pieces.
Which one do you think is more probable?
If legal it’s not forgery!
My point exactly! Now YOU seem to "get it" too.
Your birth certificate is not a forgery. It was modified under legal direction. Now Obama’s birth certificate is another story altogether, it is an obvious forgery, altered illegally by non government agent or agents.
What makes you think it was altered by a non-government agent or agents? (Apart from the moron who added the green hash background, that is.)
Why is it so hard to believe that it was created by DOH in Hawaii?
It's not the matter of a "fake" birth certificate, as you call it. It's a matter of how Hawaii issues new birth certificates.
The word "fake" is mis-applied. If Hawaii legally entered new data into their computer systems and then printed a new document on approved security paper and had it certified and embossed, that would not be "fake."
If Hawaii took digital images from several independent documents and "copy and pasted" a new document outside of their legal system of record, then that document is a forgery.
The document would be a forgery because: 1) it contains information that is not reflected in legal systems of record, 2) it implies that the parties to the document legally participated in the transaction (i.e., if doctor signs document A and then that signature is pasted into an image of document B, the doctor did not sign document B and would have to testify to that fact).
No government would make this their legally binding practice of issuing certified documents.
-PJ
How did they do this before Photoshop? Before commercial databases?
I don't know when you were born, but I doubt it was after the advent of these technologies.
It's most likely that somebody took a photocopy of the original document (or the original itself), and used correction tape to blank out the original data and overtype with new data onto the new document. That's not the same and creating a Frankenstein document out of parts of completely independent original documents.
-PJ
To follow your theory, the "legal forgery" would have happened back when Obama was adopted in the 1960s. Copy/paste and Photoshop layers would not have been the tools that were used to create the new documents.
I do not believe that Hawaii would use modern desktop computer tools each time a document is requested by an adopted Hawaii citizen. They would create the new document at the time of the transaction, and the new document would be reentered into the system of record to produce any future documents in a standardized way.
The fact that Obama's documents are hand-crafted suggests that they were not produced by a certified agent of Hawaii.
If the documents were not produced by Hawaii, and then if Hawaii knows that they did not issue it and remain silent about it, then they are also complicit in the fraud. Hawaii cannot call the document genuine after the fact; they cannot give ex post facto certification in order to remain silent about the fraud.
-PJ
Why would Obama or his lawyer be allowed to DICTATE or even be allowed to give an OPINION about a supposed "legally-recreated" birth certificate?
The attorney may have looked at it and concluded it was exactly what he wanted and so sent word back that the document was acceptable. He then went to Hawaii, obtained two official stamped paper copies, and brought them back to Washington.
It was a she not a he. Obama’s personal attorney, Judith Corley.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/gop-lawmaker-stokes-birther-drama/
Among the documents distributed last year by the White House were the president’s “long form” birth certificate and correspondence between the White House counsel and the state of Hawaii. Obama’s personal attorney, Judith Corley, flew to Hawaii to pick up the original certified copies and carry them back to the White House. The certificate of live birth includes the original, handwritten signatures of Obama’s mother Ann Dunham Obama, the attending doctor, and the local registrar. The verified document also reveals the location of Obama’s birth to be Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu.
When Obama said he wanted to post the document on the White House Website, the attorney could have simply emailed the PDF to the White House staff without realizing that the details of how it was put together were contained in the file.
Again, the lawyer should ONLY have two hard copies. You are the one that is supposing Hawaii "legally" gave him a PDF file for his perusal and to offer critiques.
It was a blunder by someone trained primarily in law, not in the computer technology involved. (A Highly Plausible ignorance among most attorneys.) I dare say, MOST people are unaware that a PDF can contain information that people don't want known.
You sure are working overtime for your theory.
The fact is this. Somehow a PDF of his "official" long form birth certificate was created. It was either created by a scan which was "optimized" (the prevalent O-bot theory) or it was created by someone who copied and pasted the document together out of pieces.
Geez, have you even watched the Cold Case Posse press conference? It was NOT "optimized." That has been proven. It WAS created by someone who copied and pasted the document together out of pieces. It was never anything other than a CREATED DIGITAL IMAGE.
The hand-stamp text blocks would not have been included in the PDF file if it weren't an ILLEGAL FORGERY.
Which one do you think is more probable?
The latter. The imported hand-stamps in the PDF file proves it.
Sorry, at this point, you are so wedded to your "legal forgery" theory that you are myopic.
The word "fake" is mis-applied. If Hawaii legally entered new data into their computer systems and then printed a new document on approved security paper and had it certified and embossed, that would not be "fake."
If it is not a "true and correct copy of the original record" then yes, it's a "fake." But it's not worth arguing about. I use the term "fake" to indicate "non original." We can use any term you like, as long as one is distinguishable from the other.
If Hawaii took digital images from several independent documents and "copy and pasted" a new document outside of their legal system of record, then that document is a forgery.
"Forgery", "Fake", Potato Potahto. It's NOT an original, it's a legal fake. Obviously when a birth certificate is created for an adopted child, the information of who the New Parents are is not *IN* their legal system of record until it has been PUT into their legal system of record.
The document would be a forgery because: 1) it contains information that is not reflected in legal systems of record, 2) it implies that the parties to the document legally participated in the transaction (i.e., if doctor signs document A and then that signature is pasted into an image of document B, the doctor did not sign document B and would have to testify to that fact).
My current legal birth certificate was created six years after I was born. It has the signature of my birth doctor upon it. Do you think they went to him and asked him to sign the new document, or just copied and pasted his signature onto it without his knowledge?
No government would make this their legally binding practice of issuing certified documents.
I am telling you that not only WOULD they do so, they DO SO ROUTINELY.
This only serves to show you are not grasping what I am telling you. My theory doesn't require the current document to have been produced in the 1960s. My theory works just fine with this document having been produced as early as last year, or even in the last decade.
I do not believe that Hawaii would use modern desktop computer tools each time a document is requested by an adopted Hawaii citizen. They would create the new document at the time of the transaction, and the new document would be reentered into the system of record to produce any future documents in a standardized way.
This part you have correct. Where you are getting off track is thinking this document must have been forged a long time ago. I am confident that it was recently created. I believe Obama's attorney had Obama's previous adoption annulled, and they created this recent document based on information contained in his file. (Not necessarily an actual original long form birth certificate either, an "Home birth certificate" would work just fine for creating this new document. )
The fact that Obama's documents are hand-crafted suggests that they were not produced by a certified agent of Hawaii.
How does it suggest that? How do you think they CREATE new birth certificates for Adopted Children? Of COURSE they hand create it! That is EXACTLY how it is done. Way back when, it was done with photographic arts, nowadays it is done with photoshop or some other editing program.
If the documents were not produced by Hawaii, and then if Hawaii knows that they did not issue it and remain silent about it, then they are also complicit in the fraud. Hawaii cannot call the document genuine after the fact; they cannot give ex post facto certification in order to remain silent about the fraud.
And it astonishes me how people can dance all around the salient point without stepping in it. Hawaii can call the document genuine BEFORE the fact, because THEY created it. They aren't calling it a fraud because it's THEIR FRAUD!
Again, It's Sherlock Holmes all over again.
“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.
- “Silver Blaze”
Not necessarily dictate, but check for mistakes or objectionable information. Apart from that, he *IS* the President, and I have little doubt they will grant him every consideration that is possible under Hawaiian law. If he is having one of his adoptions annulled, he can chose which one he wants to have annulled. (Either the Dunham or Soetoro adoptions.) He could have asked for a birth certificate under either name, but he chose to get a document which says "Barack Obama" is his legal father. How much and what kind of fiction the court will allow is anybody's guess, but if you believe they are completely constrained in their actions, I think you are mistaken.
It was a she not a he. Obama’s personal attorney, Judith Corley.
The Rules of English require that when the sex is unknown the pronoun "he" is acceptable. If he had his adoption annulled in Hawaii, there is no guarantee that he used this specific attorney and may well have used one of several. I would suggest whomever may have done such a thing would have to be a member of the Hawaiian bar. She may have been the courier, but that doesn't mean she did the legal work in Hawaii itself.
Again, the lawyer should ONLY have two hard copies. You are the one that is supposing Hawaii "legally" gave him a PDF file for his perusal and to offer critiques.
Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg? (PDF or Paper Document?) We are claiming the document is forged based on the Information in the PDF. Were the paper document created first, and the PDF created by scanning it, all basis for claiming it is a forgery is pretty much eliminated.
We must therefore conclude the PDF was created first, and the document was printed from it. That being the case, how came the PDF to be placed on the White House Web site? It must have come from the same source as the paper document, but arrived through a different route. I have offered what I consider a plausible scenario as to how the file could have ended up in the hands of the White House Web Staff. When you come up with a better explanation, we can throw mine out.
You sure are working overtime for your theory.
More like wasting my time in my attempts to get people to consider the idea. I don't mind my theory being wrong, I just wish people would quit putting out silly critiques of it (usually based on their lack of understanding about adoptions and birth certificates.) and point out a real flaw. (if one exists.)
Geez, have you even watched the Cold Case Posse press conference? It was NOT "optimized." That has been proven. It WAS created by someone who copied and pasted the document together out of pieces. It was never anything other than a CREATED DIGITAL IMAGE.
Thank you. That was EXACTLY what I was trying to get you to understand. The two paper copies from Hawaii were created from that PDF. The PDF demonstrates that it is a cut and paste. Are we clear so far?
The hand-stamp text blocks would not have been included in the PDF file if it weren't an ILLEGAL FORGERY.
Why do you say this? My printed birth certificate (Obtained back in 2000) is completely printed. It has no "hand stamps" upon it at all. It even says right on it:
Certified Copy must be Validated in Three Colors
This statement is just above a three color(bluegreen- magenta -brown) PRINTED SEAL and a PRINTED SIGNATURE.
You are too willing to believe that such and such MUST be a certain way because you THINK it is supposed to be that way. For all I know, Hawaii (like my state) PRINTS their "hand stamps" nowadays.
Sorry, at this point, you are so wedded to your "legal forgery" theory that you are myopic.
If I sound like I am "wedded" to my theory, it is because it is the only one of which I have heard that does not POSTULATE A MASSIVE AND RIDICULOUS CONSPIRACY AMONG NUMEROUS GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS AND ATTORNEYS ALL RISKING PRISON TO PULL IT OFF.
So yeah, since it seems to be the ONLY thing on the table that doesn't require a belief in the "protocols of the elders of zion", it's pretty much the only theory I currently see as even possible.
I can accept that Hawaiian officials will bend over backwards and perhaps even bend a few rules to help Barry, but to believe that all of them would risk their own freedom and careers by absolutely breaking the law is just too far of a stretch for me.
If a piece of evidence comes out which shows my theory to be wrong, you can be the first person in line to call me a fool.
Don’t let it bother you, no one can be sure WHEN she actually showed up in Hawaii, but the first photographs that appear showing SAD with zero are from when he’s about two years of age, so 1963 would fit.
Doesn’t prove she was his mother.
There are really a LOT of details to try to keep straight with this topic. I find myself constantly forgetting this or that aspect of something I once new about the subject.
I used to exchange messages with a guy who was convinced that Madelyn was his mother, and Frank Davis was his father.
I can see the Frank Davis argument, but Madelyn as the mother? I can't see it. His evidence was a Poem Frank Davis wrote.
Hopefully the full story will come out one day, and hopefully we will all live long enough to hear it. :)
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.