Posted on 04/10/2012 1:30:58 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome
But the problem with most of this research is that it's "geeky," requiring at least some computer knowledge ("layers," "fonts," "anti-aliased," "chromatic aberration," and the like) to understand that the technical arguments for the "birth certificate" being fake are valid. Thus, it's very difficult to prove to the general public, which typically doesn't know much about documents except how to read them, that the Obama "birth certificate" really is a forgery.
So last summer, I wondered if there would be some way to demonstrate that this "birth certificate" is indeed a fake, just by looking at the document itself and without resorting to computer software or to any knowledge about how computers produce documents. And, after studying it for a while, I realized that the forgery fails the "pitch test."
This is a check you can perform yourself, without fancy software of any kind -- or even a computer -- once you have printed out the forgery onto a piece of paper. Even a six-year-old with scissors and the paper image can perform, and understand, this test. (In other words, the test is simple enough that even a dumbass journalist can understand it.)
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
As for changing a BC so it doesn’t reveal things that somebody doesn’t want revealed there are 3 instances where the law allows that: adoption (changing the relationship of child to parents), sex change/determination, and legitimation (changing the marital status of the parents at the time of birth, if the birth parents married sometime after the birth). The law does not allow laundering of place of birth or quality of documentation simply because those things are embarrassing to somebody.
There are three kinds of BC’s that exist in Hawaii: a standard BC, a delayed BC, and a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. There is no such thing as a simple affidavit that passes as a birth certificate. If there is an at-home birth the birth still has to be registered on a regular birth certificate, the difference being that the parents and/or registrar complete the form and sign as the witness(es). As long as the birth was registered within 30 days of the 30-day deadline, nothing is marked as late or anything else. If the child and mother are examined by a doctor within the first month the doctor signs the BC as if he/she was present at the birth and there would be no way to know it was an at-home birth.
Only if there is no witness to the birth or the birth was registered a year or more after the birth would there have to be affidavits to support any initial claims on the BC - in which case the BC would be either a COHB (which is a totally different form and which can only be converted to a standard BC (maked as late) by surrendering the COHB. And in that event there would STILL be a BC filled out, with a note describing the evidence submitted in support of the claims.
And Hawaii law says that such BC’s MUST be marked on their face as being “late” - because late and altered BC’s are not prima facie evidence. When a late or altered BC is presented as evidence HAWAII LAW says that it is up to the judicial or administrative person or body to determine how credible the claims on that BC are. That’s because HI won’t vouch for the accuracy of claims under those suspicious circumstances. They only collect the evidence offered and relay it to those who have to decide whether the claims are supported well enough to be considered accurate.
IOW, Hawaii law does not allow the State of Hawaii to pass off a late or altered BC as if it was prima facie evidence.
If Barack Obama was born at home in Hawaii the standard procedure would be to have mom and baby examined by a doctor (within the first month) who would then fill out and sign a standard BC. There would be no reason for affidavits, C&P, or anything else. The only reason there would need to be affidavits is if mom and baby weren’t around to be examined - but in that case, there would be reason to seriously question why they weren’t there to be examined if the birth happened in Hawaii as claimed.
So if Obama’s “birth/vital record” (as Fukino keeps calling it, rather than a “birth certificate”) was half-handwritten and half-typed that would indicate a birth certificate supported by an affidavit(s) - which is what former OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama indirectly confirmed as existing. That would only be necessary if the BC was still incomplete after the 2-month window for a standard BC to be completed and thus had to be amended to add missing information. That would be a LATE BC and would show up as a standard BC with LATE stamped on it, a BC# with an L in front of it, and a note on the BC to say what amendment/addition was made, when, and on the basis of what documentation. Or it could be a DELAYED BC, which is actually a different form than the standard BC and is used for births registered a year or more after the birth. A delayed BC has to have additional documentation such as affidavits.
None of that would be necessary if mother and baby were examined by a Hawaii doctor within the first month - regardless of where the birth took place. The birth could have taken place in Canada, Kenya, or Jupiter and as long as mother and baby were examined by a Hawaii doctor within the first month of the claimed birth date, there would be a normal BC that qualifies as prima facie evidence (so that the burden of proof would fall on the person claiming the BC was NOT accurate).
Any adoption after that time would result in a supplemental BC being created that simply has the parents’ and child’s name altered to reflect the legal relationships. The rest of it would stay the same. That supplemental BC would take the place in the file. If an unadoption happened the original would be restored back to the file as the legally-binding document.
The only reason for Obama to have to ask a judge to launder his BC to make it appear that his wasn’t claimed as a home birth is if mom and baby were not examined by a Hawaii doctor within the first month after the claimed birth. What Obama would be asking a judge to do is turn a LATE (legally non-probative BC) into a non-late BC - supposedly because it would be “embarrassing” to him to have a LATE BC.
If judges can create “1961” documents in 2011 for people simply because they are “embarrassed” because they don’t have anything that actually dates back to 1961, we may as well forget about keeping birth records at all. If you could have that, what would keep a judge from creating a 1980 draft registration for those who are “embarrassed” because they never registered for the draft in 1980? Or a US passport for a POTUS candidate who is “embarrassed” that he only had an Indonesian and/or Kenyan passport before he got a diplomatic US passport as Senator? Or create INS records, school records, etc all for the same reasons?
Heck, what would stop judges from creating identities out of nowhere and giving those identities to people who are “embarrassed” by their real identity?
But let's set that aside for a moment. Let us ask instead why his document looks "normal". (to a casual inspection.) I think there is very good circumstantial evidence to indicate that Obama was adopted by both Lolo Soetoro, AND his grandparents. *IF* this is indeed true, then he ought not have a "normal" looking birth certificate. (As you yourself pointed out.)
It is a fact that he does. I see two possibilities. He was never adopted and his document is completely legit, or he WAS adopted and they have managed to create him a document that resembles an original after he had his adoption(s) annulled.
No, you’ve totally reversed what I was saying. I’m saying that he WOULD have a normal-looking BC if he was adopted or reported as a home birth by his Grandma.
The only instance where he wouldn’t is if mother and baby were not examined by a Hawaii doctor within the first month or two after the birth. And that is a whole ‘nother problem that has nothing to do with his adoption or parentage but with the credibility of the claim of a Hawaii birth. That credibility problem doesn’t go away just by him being adopted and having paperwork that claims different PARENTS for him.
Something people need to absorb: Obama is using a stolen BC# - almost certainly Virginia Sunahara’s, since her birth and death situation (including a misreported name on the death certificate) is a very, very rare combination in which there could be a legitimate discrepancy between the “date filed” and the out-of-sequence BC#. There would be no need for him to do that if he had a HI BC that originated in 1961 - regardless of how many adoptions he went through. An adoption would not require the HDOH to give Obama the BC# of Virginia Sunahara.
I have heard this repeatedly alleged. Do we now have proof that this is true? (That Obama's birth certificate number is the same as Virginia Sunahara.)
The only direct proof of that would be either the computer logs, security microfilm roll with the BC’s in question, or a genuine, original 1961 birth certificate for Virginia Sunahara.
Inspection of the latter by a close relative of the registrant is a required disclosure according to Hawaii’s UIPA, but Hawaii is refusing to obey those laws.
Which is strong circumstantial evidence that there is foul play and that the HDOH itself is willing to break laws to cover up the foul play.
The indirect evidence that the BC# and “date filed” combination on Obama’s forged BC would require the unusual circumstances that Virginia had includes the HDOH’s own disclosure that the BC#’s were routinely given by the HDOH on the “date filed” for Oahu births, and the long-form BC information (”date filed” and BC#’s) for the Nordyke twins.
So there's nothing conclusive, so the idea is still just in the "theory" category. It is just one more among many.
We just need more information.
The HDOh is going to break laws before they will allow “information” to be public. We’ll get “information” when we take it out of their cold dead hands (figuratively speaking).
Why do you think they’re refusing to obey UIPA and disclose Virginia’s original birth certificate to Duncan? What possible reason could they have?
It did puzzle me. My current guess is that someone at DOH back in 1961 didn't do their job, and they didn't actually create the document. They may have created a space for it, but they probably found out the child died and just didn't bother completing it.
Obviously Hawaii wouldn't want anyone to question the competence or integrity of their record keeping, so I can understand why they wouldn't want this malfeasance exposed. A court should not let them get away with it though.
The HDOH doesn’t create BC’s. The hospital creates the BC. All the HDOH had to do with the actual paper document was make sure it was complete, put the number on it, and file it.
So that explanation doesn’t wash.
Also they didn’t have the current electronic database back in 1961. For them to have the birth info for Virginia Sunahara that is on her COLB they had to transcribe that info directly from the original paper documents into an electronic file. If they’ve got anything in their system for events that happened before they began electronic filing for BC’s, it came from a paper document.
So they’ve got a paper document for Virginia’s birth, and the information has been entered into their database. Just like anybody else.
They just refuse to let her brother see it.
Why?
So that explanation doesn’t wash.
If this is so, I got nuthin. It is a weird situation. I would suggest that a Federal Judge could get to the bottom of it. (If he wanted to.)
That seems reasonable.
So they’ve got a paper document for Virginia’s birth, and the information has been entered into their database. Just like anybody else.
They just refuse to let her brother see it.
Why?
I don't know. It doesn't make any sense. Perhaps they didn't think anyone would ever want a birth certificate for a child which died so soon, and either lost it or threw it out.
Anyway, He apparently lost in court, despite what the law says about showing it to a person with a vested interest. This just goes to show that the courts can ignore the law whenever they want to; A fact which makes it all the more plausible that a court will also do so if they want a birth certificate created.
Federal judges won’t touch it. Congress won’t touch it. And Hawaii won’t honor anybody else’s subpoenas.
They didn’t throw it out, because they still had it when the records were added to the electronic database. That means it had been microfilmed on multiple security copies and the paper original was stored in a bound volume.
They have the document, they just refuse to allow Virginia’s brother to see it.
Courts can’t LAWFULLY ignore the laws whenever they want to. They can when they themselves are lawless thugs who have no fear of law enforcement or political consequences, and that’s clearly what we’ve got in Hawaii. It’s also what we’ve got in Georgia and New Jersey... And Washington DC...
It’s that pattern of total lawlessness by government entities that makes this so menacing. When the government is lawless, the people have no protection from ANYTHING.
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.